Loading...
2020-10-28 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/93282361794?pwd=WlkvbzU3b2RLVipsNzRsYSswRGpXQT09 Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794. Password: 868680. 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 # 4993) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve October 14th meeting minutes ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: Draft minutes 10-14-2020 (PDF) Planning Board Page 1 Printed 1012312020 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda October 28, 2020 3. Announcement of Agenda 4. Public Comments 5. Administrative Reports A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4992) Director Report Background/History The Director report is typically reviewed at each meeting Staff Recommendation Review Director Report ATTACHMENTS: • Director. Report. 10.28.2020.finaI (PDF) 6. Public Hearings A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5005) Public Hearing on the Proposed 2021 - 2026 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plan Background/History See Narrative below. This item was introduced to the Planning Board on October 14, 2020. Staff Recommendation Recommend approval to City Council. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: DRAFT CFP 2021-2026 10-22-2020 (PDF) • Attachment 2: DRAFT CIP 2021-2026 10-22-2020 (PDF) • Attachment 3: CIP-CFP Comparison (2021-2026) DRAFT (PDF) • Attachment 4: SOM Comment Letter (PDF) 7. Unfinished Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 4999) Tree Code Regulations Upate Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation Continue discussions on tree code. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (PDF) • Attachment 2: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix (PDF) Planning Board Page 2 Printed 1012312020 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda October 28, 2020 • Attachment 3: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations (PDF) 8. New Business 9. Planning Board Extended Agenda A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5008) Review of Extended Agenda Background/History The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda (PDF) 10. Planning Board Chair Comments 11. Planning Board Member Comments 12. Adjournment Planning Board Page 3 Printed 1012312020 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/28/2020 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve October 14th meeting minutes Narrative October 14th, 2020 Draft Minutes attached Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft minutes 10-14-2020 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom October 14, 2020 Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. c LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 0 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 o sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Q- c. Q BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER MONROE ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bill Phipps, Edmonds, asked if the Planning Board Members received the email he sent just prior to the meeting regarding the Tree Code Update. The Board confirmed that the letter was received. Mr. Phipps asked that the Board consider the ideas he presented in his email as they discuss the Tree Code Update. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Mr. Chave advised that the Development Services Director Report would be sent to the Board Members shortly. Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP) Mr. Williams explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long- term capital needs to address the City's growth and ensure the infrastructure that is necessary to support the increased density when the time comes so that service levels can be met. It covers a planning horizon of 20 years with projects to address level of service (LOS), safety and transportation. The CIP is organized by the City's financial funds and includes projects in the next 6-year planning horizon. The CIP includes projects that are necessary because of growth, as well as projects that are maintenance related. The two plans intersect when identifying the projects related to growth that are intended for implementation within the next six years. Mr. Williams explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans. The in CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: c • Fund 112 is a Transportation (Street Construction) Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. C • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). o • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and a Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. Q • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department N and is used to execute park projects. c N • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. c • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Williams shared the following highlights from the Public Works portion of the plans: • Pavement Preservation Program. The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program accomplished 4 lane miles totaling about $1 million, and the program will continue in 2021. When he came on board in 2010, the City hadn't done any paving projects for quite some time. The results of the annual paving program are visible. However, he suggested the actual need is closer to $2 million per year to keep the streets in a sustainable condition. • Pedestrian Walkway Plan. Quite a number of sidewalk projects were done in 2020. In 2019, the City Council budgeted an extra $300,000 to hire additional people, equipment and supplies that enabled the City to ramp up its in- house capability of executing sidewalk projects. He shared pictures of two projects on Dayton Street and Walnut Street. • The Highway 99 Revitalization Project. This project continued in 2020 utilizing a $10 million state grant, with some money from the 126 Fund. The entire cost of the project is estimated to be $183 million. The first step in implementation will be installation of a center median to control the left -turning traffic on Highway 99, which should reduce the number of accidents that occur each year on this high-speed corridor. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move other elements of the project forward. • Bicycle Improvement Project. In 2021, the 112 Fund will fund the design of a citywide bicycle improvement project, with anticipated construction in 2022. There has been a lot of conversation at the City Council level about the impacts of adding bike lanes on 100'h Avenue from Main Street to Westgate, on Bowdoin Way from 9'h Avenue to Five corners, and from Westgate Village south to the City's southern boundary. In some of these locations, the bike lanes will come at the expense of street parking. • Congestion Relief Project. The congestion relief project at the 761h Avenue/2201h Street Intersection will also be in design in 2021. • Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project. This project is funded with federal dollars, with matching funds from the 126 Fund. Two Hawk Signal will be installed in 2021, one on 1961h and another on SR-104 at about 232°d Street. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a They will also install seven rapid -flashing beacons that are pedestrian activated. These devices are very effective at notifying vehicular traffic when a pedestrian wants to cross. • 76' Street Overlay. The City received a Federal grant to overlay 76' Avenue between Perrinville and 196' Street. This project will be a joint effort with the City of Lynnwood. • Other Transportation Projects. In addition to the Pavement Preservation Program, the REET funds will support a number of other transportation projects. A small amount ($35,000) is earmarked for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which could include a number of solutions such as radar feedback signs, rapid -flashing beacons, bulb outs, etc. The public can recommend where the City might want to take action to improve pedestrian safety. • Traffic Signal Upgrades. Several upgrades will be done in 2021 using REET funding. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to add more features that are necessary and good additions to the system to allow differently-abled people to find and access safe street crossings. • Traffic Calming. REET funding will be used for traffic calming, with the intent of slowing cars down. This also provides pedestrian safety benefits. • Sidewalk Project on Elm Street. Design work will be done for a project on Elm Way from 9' Avenue going west. d Children walk to school along this corridor, but there are several places of missing sidewalks. The project will be c more complicated because the topography is quite steep in places and retaining walls will likely be involved. One, the design work is done, the City can apply for grant funding. • Guardrail replacement and repair. Several guardrails in the City have questionable structural integrity. The City o has spent about $20,000 each year to replace them. 0 o • Dayton Street Utility Improvement. This project was substantially completed in 2020. All of the watermain, Q. storm infrastructure and sewer lines on Dayton Avenue from 91 Avenue to 31 Avenue have been replaced. The C < street was repaved, and a new sidewalk section (funded by a State grant) was installed. • Utility Infrastructure Replacement. In 2020, approximately 4,000 feet of watermain, 1,600 feet of storm pipe and N 2,400 feet of sewer main have been replaced. Another 3,500 feet of sewer main was rehabilitated with a fiberglass Q liner, which is a less costly option than total replacement. It strengthens the pipe without compromising its capacity. About 2,000 feet of sewer main replacement is planned for 2021, along with about 2,000 feet of sewer main c rehabilitation. rn • The Dayton Street Pump Station. This project at Beach Place is designed to reduce and virtually eliminate the °� flooding that occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104 during heavy storm events. It will also take c stormwater from Harbor Square, which currently flows into the Edmonds Marsh. The pumps have been installed, E and the project is in the startup and commission phase now. In 2021 the City will replace about 6,200 feet of new watermain, which will also require overlaying about .75 miles of street. About 2,400 feet of storm pipe will also be replaced. • Storm -Related Projects. The City will work on other storm -related projects, including the 2nd phase of the infiltration facility at Sea View Park. It will be the same size as the first one, and will take the load off of Perrinville Creek. Over the years, with climate change and development, any significant rain storm creates a very rapid z response in flows in Perrinville Creek, and erosion is a huge problem. The project will help reduce the peak flows. M • Regional Infiltration Facility. The City is looking into adding a regional infiltration facility at Lake Ballinger that Q would take a lot of the runoff from Highway 99, which currently flows to Lake Ballinger. The water would be treated, so Lake Ballinger would benefit from a quality and quantity standpoint. • Perrinville Flow Management Projects. These projects are yet to be identified, but they are looking for some E additional project sites. M • Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. This study is in progress, with the goal of figuring out the best way to Q rehabilitate the gravity sewer main on the west side of Lake Ballinger. He believes the actual cost of the rehabilitation will be less than the $10 million estimate. • Waste Water Treatment Facility. A new gasification system will be installed at the Wastewater Treatment Facility to replace the current incinerator. The total cost of this project will be over $26 million, and will be shared with all partners. A variety of options were considered, and it was determined that the gasification system will be more compatible with the City's aggressive carbon -emission goals. The system will be able to capture the energy that is inherently in the biosolid and use it as an energy source to keep the process going to the point that the rest of the biosolids end up in the form of biochar. The market for biochar is growing rapidly, as it increases soil tilth and provides key nutrients in agricultural applications. The City Council recently approved the sale of over $14 million in bonds to pay the City's share of the project. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a • Trial Project. Trials are underway currently to figure out how the City can remove nitrogen from the discharge that goes into Puget Sound. They are trying promising technology at this time. Board Member Rubenkonig observed the staff presentation provided a good overview, but the actual proposed 2021 — 2026 CFP and CIP includes a lot more information. She asked if all the improvement projects were mapped, would she see 1) the usage of the facility in relation to cost to maintain or 2) an equitable apportionment of funding for citywide facilities? She said she is interested in equity throughout the entire City rather than concentrating improvements in one area. Mr. Williams said staff views the plans from an equity standpoint, as well. While the plans do not calculate the distribution of dollars, they do provide maps showing the location of the past and planned improvements. He explained that it is difficult to completely spread out investments into every part of the City because the needs are different. For example, the downtown is older, so the need for utility infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement is greater in that location. In 2021, the majority of the utility dollars will be focused on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project, but the utility line replacement and rehabilitation projects are spread throughout the City. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how walkway improvement projects are prioritized. Mr. Williams explained that a S complete inventory of pedestrian facilities is included in the City's Transportation Plan. The inventory identifies the location of existing sidewalks, locations where sidewalks are needed, locations where ADA ramps need to be installed or replaced, C etc. The projects have all been ranked based on certain criteria. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City prioritizes > walkway projects that are identified by citizens for certain neighborhoods. Mr. Williams said they don't prioritize sidewalks o based on request. However, staff will explore a prioritization plan for ADA improvements to identify locations where they a are needed most. Q Student Representative Bryan asked the difference between a pedestrian -controlled, rapid -flashing -light crosswalk and a Hawk Signal. Mr. Williams answered that they are similar in concept. They are both pedestrian -activated, but the Hawk Signal is used for busier streets and the cost is significantly greater. The rapid -flashing lights aren't as tall and are far less costly, but they are not visible enough to be successful applications for busy streets. Board Member Cloutier asked how many miles the City should be doing every year to properly keep up with maintenance of the existing roads and utility lines. Does the proposed program represent an optimal rate, an average rate, or a below average rate? Mr. Williams answered that the proposed programs are not the optimum, but they may be close to average as far as utility line replacement. The targets that were set several years ago were based on utility lines lasting 100 years, which means the City's replacement rate would need to be 1% per year. Prior to that time, the lines were only replaced when they failed. He expressed his belief that a more aggressive program will eventually be needed, since the remaining older cast iron pipes are brittle and any seismic or freezing activity can cause them to break. On the other hand, the City's Pavement Preservation Program comes up short. Board Member Cloutier commented that it would be helpful if the report provided more detailed information on the amount of existing infrastructure and its condition. Providing these metrics would help people understand the need, and any additional funding that comes available could then be earmarked to address these infrastructure situations. Board Member Monroe requested clarification about how the Edmonds Marsh Project would be funded. Mr. Williams explained that it doesn't really matter whether funding for environmental projects comes from funds that are managed by the Public Works Department or the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, since the two departments work well together. The real problem is that, while the City qualifies for grant funding, it has been unable to secure the dollars because it doesn't own the property. They haven't been able to reach an arrangement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), who will eventually own the property, because they cannot assume the title until the Department of Ecology has certified that the cleanup is finished. Board Member Monroe suggested that allocating the expense to Fund 422 as opposed to a park fund might matter to the rate payers. The Edmonds Marsh Project seems like more of a park project. Mr. Williams answered that a significant amount of stormwater runoff comes down through Shellebarger Creek, which drains a very large portion of Edmonds via piped channels. To date, most of these projects have been funded via the stormwater fund and some grants. Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Williams to share his thoughts on why the funding source has been a concern for some citizens. Mr. Williams said he has had several conversations with key voices from Save Our Marsh, and he doesn't fully understand the Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a concern. The Public Works Department wants to get the project going as soon as possible, and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is also excited about the project. They will work together to get it done. Board Member Monroe commented that opening the creek has very little to do with stormwater management and more to do with the marsh. Mr. Williams commented that most of the stormwater from the City goes into the marsh, which serves a lot of function. While it needs to become a better wildlife management area, it also will continue to take in stormwater. They must get the stormwater through the marsh and out the other side. Including stormwater as part of the project opens up more opportunities for funding. He explained that the Engineering Division is part of the Public Works Department and is responsible for delivering capital projects. In the end, the Edmonds Marsh Project will be an approximately $17 million capital project, and he can almost guarantee that the project management and administration of the contracts will be done by the Engineering Division and Public Works Department. They will work closely with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. Board Member Monroe commented that working together does not require the two departments to share funding. Board Member Monroe summarized Mr. William's position that opening Willow Creek is a stormwater project that affects d stormwater issues. However, from his perspective, it is a park project. Mr. Williams pointed out that the existing tide gate 3 regulates the flow of water leaving the marsh, which isn't an ideal situation from a saltwater exchange standpoint. The pump station allows the City to solve the flooding problems so they don't need to be quite as concerned about the water level in the marsh. Once the pump station is turned on, they can not only open the tide gate during the winter, but also consider projects C to remove the tide gate and piping system completely. Because this is stormwater infrastructure, it will be funded by Fund 422. The Willow Creek channel could be constructed as part of that project, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if the o stormwater work would be just a portion of the total cost of the project. Mr. Williams explained that even if the property a issue is resolved and the City is very successful in securing state and federal grants, it is very likely the City will still need to Q fund a sizeable amount of the project, whether it comes from stormwater rates, the bond issue, or a levy. Board Member c Monroe agreed, but he wants to make sure that the right people are paying for it. c N Vice Chair Rosen agreed that it would be helpful for the report to identify the net unmet need and the gap. These metrics would could help advance a sense of urgency for funding. He asked Mr. Williams to explain how the CIP and CFP intersect with the City Council's budgeting process. Mr. Williams said the City Council, using their wisdom and goals and policies in m the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, will make the ultimate decision on priorities. The budget is the short-term planning document and expresses the City Council's current belief about what is most important. Given the pandemic, he anticipates the City Council will be very careful with investments in 2021 until they have a better idea of where revenues are E headed. Quite a few things have been cut from the 2021 budget, including some infrastructure projects. L Vice Chair Rosen asked if the CIP would be amended as needed after the City Council adopts the final 2021 Budget. Mr. Williams answered that the CIP represent staff s best guess of what will be included in the 2021 budget, but it is a 6-year d plan. If the City Council decides not to fund something that is identified in the CIP for 2021, next year's CIP would need to E be adjusted accordingly. They do not typically make modifications to the CIP throughout the year. It's difficult to keep it totally current, but it provides a good indication of the City Council's general direction. a Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Planning Board reviews the CIP and CFP every year and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. In years past, they have grappled with the issue of transparency and making sure the average citizen can understand the report. There needs to be some explanation for how the priority list is established, and she z agreed that metrics showing the current state of the infrastructure would also be helpful. In years past, she has asked that the M length of walkways be sited so the Board could compare costs for different projects throughout the City. She has also Q requested that the plans make note when projects are identified by a specific group (i.e. staff, citizens, or other community groups). She appreciates the additional language that was provided to call out not only the projects identified by staff, but those identified by citizens, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the 2021 plans are even better than the 2020 plans as far as transparency. She appreciates that a table of contents was provided in the CIP. She suggested the CIP/CFP Comparison that was provided on Page 49 of the report should be moved to the beginning of the report. The comparison provided her with a filter as she reviewed the remainder of the data. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a Ms. Feser explained that the park -related projects contained in the draft CIP and CFP are based on the seven goals in the adopted Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The goals talk about: • Assessing existing resources and capacity, identifying community needs and desires, and working to bridge the gap. • Embracing opportunities via grants, partnerships, donations, working with other jurisdictions and entities. • Connecting and expanding recreational opportunities for the community. • Enhancing the City's unique identify. • Advancing big ideas for the future of Edmonds. • Activating and working stewardships of key community assets. • Maximizing all of the park resources. Ms. Feser explained that projects for 2021 will focus on finishing large projects, maintaining and upgrading the current assets, and preparing for future projects and opportunities. She and Ms. Burley shared the following highlights: d • Waterfront Redevelopment. Ms. Burley shared pictures of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project that is slated for completion mid -November. She reported that while the Community Center is coming along well, so is the park portion of the project. The City is quite proud that a bulkhead and creosote pier have been removed from the o beachfront park. This allowed them to reintroduce more sand and beach habitat. However, the project ran into a E few snags. They had to remove nearly 50 creosote pilings that were buried under the site, and they had to address o some soil contamination as a result of the pilings. Several pockets of sawdust were discovered under the stairs, as Q. well. The project has only been paused twice for historical findings in the ground, many of which were deemed C nonsignificant. Most were large piles of bricks from old kilns and shingle mills. The project is currently running on budget. N • Yost Pool. Ms. Burley reported that the City was able to conduct the repairs that were slated for Yost Pool despite it N being closed for the pandemic. The slats were replaced and the CO2 injector has been ordered and will be installed soon. The pool cover has also been replaced. o • Marina Beach Park. Ms. Feser announced that the City's grant application to the Washington Recreation and Conservation (RCO) Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Program ranked 1 st, and the request was for $500,000. The City's grant application for the Local Park Category scored 19t' out of 80 projects, and the request is c also for $500,000. They are hopeful, but not relying on the funding for the Local Park Category. Due to the E pandemic, some projects may withdraw and there may still be an opportunity for the City to receive the funds. The total current cost estimate for the project is about $5 million and it is a critical piece to supporting the marsh restoration and daylighting Willow Creek. The tide gate and pipe that currently run underground through the park would be removed, and the water would be brought to the surface. This will allow the fluctuation and mixture of salt and fresh waters back into the marsh. They anticipate continued design and development in 2022 and 2023, with potential construction in 2024 and 2025. z • City Park Walkway. Ms. Feser advised that a 5 to 6-foot walkway is planned for the righthand side of the drive aisle. A crosswalk from the street is located at the very top of drive aisle, and the natural progression is for people Q heading to the spray pad is to go right from the crosswalk to the drive aisle. This results in one-way car traffic with not a lot of room for pedestrians. The project will be done in house over the winter, with the goal of having it ready d next spring. E • Gateway Sign. Ms. Burley announced that the Gateway Sign on SR-104 is in production and is scheduled for installation before the end of the year. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval, Q which was required to move the sign slightly, has been completed and authorization was received. • Civic Park. Ms. Feser said $12.1 million will be split over 2021 and 2022. The design is complete, the construction documents are finished, and the permits are nearly ready. The goal is to rebid the project in early 2021 and break ground soon after. The project would be completed in the fall of 2022. Ms. Burley said funding for the project has been secured, and it will roll over into 2021. Grant funding is still available in its complete amount, and the $3.7 million in bonds that were issued to the City in late 2019 remain available, as well. They will draw from the Park Impact Fees, as well as Funds 125 and 126. Some general fund allocation will be carried over to 2021, too. Lastly, they received $400,000 in donations, and the community continues to raise dollars to provide the inclusive playground improvements that were beyond the original scope and design of the project. The Rotary Club is leading this fundraising effort. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Greenhouse Replacement. Ms. Feser said the CIP identifies replacement of the City's primary greenhouse at the shop at an estimated cost of $100,000. The funding for the project is proposed to come from two areas: $50,000 from the flower program portion of the Parks Trust Fund (Fund 136) and $50,000 from the REET Account (Fund 125). The foundation of the current greenhouse is rotting away and settling, causing the plastic covering to tear. It is the only climate -controlled greenhouse and is where the City staff starts and grows the thousands of plants for the flower baskets and corner parks. If the greenhouse fails in the middle of winter, they could lose all of the resources of those plants. The current greenhouse is at least 10 years past its lifecycle. General Park Fund. Ms. Feser explained that the CIP was cleaned up to create an overall fund ($155,000) that addresses general park improvements and basic capital improvements (lifecycle projects that are continuous and help prolong the use or increase capacity). Examples include resurfacing sport courts and parking lots, replacing bridges on trails, upgrading irrigation systems, etc. She pointed out that the previous budget identified $50,000 professional services, $105,000 for capital replacement, and then a number of smaller amounts earmarked for certain parks. They decided it would be more effective to collapse all of the smaller amounts together into a single account. This will give the department more flexibility to address improvements throughout the coming year. d Park Acquisition. Ms. Burley advised that $700,000 would be allocated within Fund 126 and held available in the 3 event that an appropriate open space or park land becomes available. She spoke last year about the potential of purchasing a one -acre lot near Yost Park for a community garden. Unfortunately, that land is no longer available for purchase. It remains a part of the owners will, but is not something she is interested in doing now. The City C retained this funding, as well as the funding from 2019 that was allocated for open space. An additional $200,000 > would be allocated in 2021 and each year beyond. The goal is to continue to grow the funding needed for 0 acquisition should the appropriate parcel of land become available. C Fishing Pier. Ms. Burley reported that the Fishing Pier was repaired, but it failed some of its final testing. There are a few cracks running along the underside of the pier. While they do not provide a structure challenge at the N moment, they could reduce the life of the pier if they continue to allow salt water intrusion. A solution to repair the N underside of the pier was identified, but it presented a challenge in getting staff under the pier to do the work. The 4 department went out to bid in the spring to look for a scaffolding contractor that specializes in overwater work, but c the bids were not within the City's budget and there were some challenges with being fully responsive. They are currently in conversations with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it looks as if they may have identified a new method for reaching under the pier called a bridge walker. They are eager to explore this solution further in the spring. All of the funding allocated to repair the pier comes from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and will remain in Fund 332 until the proper solution is found to finalize the repairs. ,W- Ms. Burley reviewed the list of future projects that extend beyond the 2021 budget as follows: • Phase 2 of Civic Park Implementation. • Design and construction of Marina Beach Park. • Completion of design and construction of 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor. • Acquiring land and open space as approved by the City Council. • Edmonds Marsh restoration and Willow Creek daylighting. These two projects will require coordination between the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and Public Works Department. It will be a significant project with many pieces, including both stormwater and park components. The intent is to start with Marina Beach Park, which is the land the City already owns. • Completion of the waterfront walkway (the one section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium). • Trail development. Ms. Feser has a lot of experience in trail development, and her lens on the park system has highlighted some opportunities for trail development. • Sport fields and playground partnerships. Ms. Burley reviewed that the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments begin conversations and start to develop the capital budgets in July, and proposals are submitted to the Finance Department in August. The draft CFP and CIP updates are then prepared for City Council consideration. The draft CFP and CIP are typically presented to the Planning Board in October for review and a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. A public hearing is scheduled for October 28'. The two documents will be presented to the City Council for the first time on Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a November 101. The City Council will hold a public hearing, as well, and the goal is for them to be adopted along with the budget. Board Member Cheung asked if the City has considered providing power outlets on the fishing pier. Ms. Feser answered that there are power outlets and lighting on the pier. However, the system can be tripped by large number of squidders on the pier with powerful lights and heaters. There is limited capacity and access to the outlets, so people do bring small generators. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Planning Board spent a lot of time contributing to the Civic Park Master Plan. She expressed her belief that the plan is good. However, she asked why the "rain garden" was changed to a "stormwater garden." Ms. Burley answered that it was simply a designer's interpretation of how the area would function to filter stormwater. There was no change to the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig said she loves that the view terraces are still part of the plan for the hillside. This area will provide a nice, long perspective of being able to look out on Edmonds. However, she asked when the scramble wall was added. Ms. Burley said the scramble wall was part of the originally -approved master plan. Given that it is one of the more 3 costly elements of the plan, it is being bid as an alternate to ensure the park can be developed with or without it. Board Member Pence asked if the City has done a survey of which areas are short of parkland. A survey would allow the C City to target future land acquisitions to address these shortfalls. Ms. Feser said they would use the current PROS Plan as a guide. There is information in this plan that reflects the community's priorities for land acquisition. She has also proposed o that the City adopt a Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan to further identify the community's priorities a for land acquisition. The plan would provide criteria and outline an evaluation process for consideration of potential land Q acquisitions. Geographic distribution of resources should be a key piece of the plan. Edmonds is primarily built out, so there c is a lot less opportunity to purchase additional parkland and/or open space. Board Member Pence asked how long it would c take to get the Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan in place. Ms. Feser said a chunk of the project could be done in house, but statistically -valid community engagement will be a key piece of the project. The community engagement piece for the Land Acquisition Strategy could be done concurrently with the PROS Plan update. She estimated it could take up to a year to complete the community engagement work. m Board Member Cheung voiced concern that a budget of $200,000 per year for land acquisition isn't a lot given the high cost of land. Ms. Feser agreed. She explained that funding is needed for site surveys, appraisals, and other projects that are part of the City's due diligence process. The funding could also be used as leverage for grants. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on a Tree Code update in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the downtown. Mr. Lien said the goals for the Tree Code Update are to focus on private property, improve tree retention with new development, implement low -impact development principles, and establish a Tree Fund. Other updates included in the process include reviewing the definitions, existing permitting process and penalties. Currently, there is a disparity between the cost associated with tree -cutting permits required for single-family development versus multi -family and commercial development. Mr. Lien referred to UFMP Goal 1, which calls for maintaining or enhancing citywide canopy coverage. Actions related to this goal include: • Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 12 • Adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS Plan. • Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. • Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs. Mr. Lien referred to the draft Tree Code (Attachment 3). He explained that, currently, the tree regulations are in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45 (Public Works), and staff is proposing to move the bulk of these regulations to a new chapter ECDC 23.10 (Natural Resources). This new chapter would address exemptions, permit processes, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement and violations. A new section would also be added to ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions) titled, "Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility." The new section would use the low -impact development principles as a way to retain more trees with development. Lastly, a new chapter would be added in Edmonds City Code (ECC) 3.95 (Funding) that would establish the Tree Fund. Mr. Lien said the Tree Code is scheduled for review at every Planning Board meeting through the end of 2021. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. His goal is for the Board to focus on two or three sections of the code at each of the meetings. Board Member Monroe asked if the intent of the code is to effect only new development or to address how people manage trees on their own property. He suggested there should be a distinction between a developer who wants to clear cut a parcel versus a private property owner wanting to cut down a tree he/she doesn't like. Mr. Lien said one of the main purposes of the Tree Code is to address tree retention associated with development activity. The code would apply to new subdivisions, multi -family development, new single-family development on large lots, and tree removal on developed sites that are not specifically exempted. The intent of the code is to retain more trees when development occurs. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled an issue that came up years ago with the Architectural Design Board. A property owner on Olympic View Drive wished to harvest a forested property that she owned, and there was nothing in the code to prevent that from occurring. Eventually, the entire property was developed, but no plans were in place when the property was clear cut. She asked if the draft Tree Code would address situations of this type. Mr. Lien said forest practices are allowed by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. However, you do not typically see forest management in the City of Edmonds. Provisions in both the current code and proposed code would prohibit clearing of a site for the sake of sale or future development. Board Member Cheung asked how the public would be informed about the potential changes prior to the public hearing. Mr. Lien said staff would work with the City's new Public Information Officer to get the news out. The issue could also be raised at Mayor Nelson's upcoming neighborhood meetings. Board Member Cheung suggested that the City Council should be advised that the Planning Board will be working on the Tree Code in coming weeks. Mr. Lien said he made a presentation to the City Council on the broad update and mentioned that the issue would be on the Planning Board's agendas through the end of the year. Mr. Chave noted the extensive amount of material that was provided to the Board. He suggested the Board Members could forward comments and questions they want addressed at the next meeting to staff via individual emails to Ms. Martin and Mr. Lien. Chair Robles asked if the Board's discussions should follow the matrix of high-level issues that was provided by staff or the start by reviewing the highlights and changes to the code. Mr. Lien said the matrix he presented at the Board's September 9t' meeting identifies the broad topics that are included in the Tree Code. Moving forward, he would rather focus on the actual draft code language. Chair Robles suggested that the Board should review the draft code language and be prepared to start discussions at their next meeting. Mr. Lien commented that the Board's October 28' meeting will include a public hearing on the CFP and CIP, so their work on the Tree Code will be limited. However, their November meeting would focus solely on the Tree Code. He noted that November I I' is Veteran's Day, so it is likely that the Board would need to hold a special meeting on November 18'k'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 91h d c 0 0 Q. a Q Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a Mr. Lien said the City Council is anxious to start their review of the Tree Code. The December 9' public hearing could be an opportunity to solicit initial comments and ideas from the public, and the Board may want to have another hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council in early 2021. Chair Robles said he anticipates a great deal of public participation at the hearings, and he is concerned that there won't be enough time to disseminate the draft code to the public prior to the hearing. He asked if staff anticipates a lot of opposition from the public. Mr. Lien said he tried to draft a balanced Tree Code that implements the goals and policies in the UFMP. He was present at the public hearing for the previous draft Tree Code and heard the comments and concerns that were presented by the public. He suggested that the first public hearing in December could focus on the concepts in the Tree Code to make sure the Board is heading in the right direction. Board Member Cheung suggested that staff prepare a summary of the topics and potential changes that are discussed at each of the Board's study sessions. This would provide helpful information for the public to review prior to the public hearings. Given that the public hearings will be virtual, he suggested that publishing summaries of the proposed language and the Board's discussions and soliciting written comments from the public before the hearings would be appropriate. Alan Mearns, Edmonds, suggested that the City publish articles in the local newspapers to introduce the UFMP goals and polices and the long-term vision the Board will be working on. The next step could be to publish summaries of the Board's discussions as they study the issue and prepare for the public hearing. This approach would essentially warm the community up to the subject, with a big focus on the goals and objectives. Chair Robles commented that having an adopted UFMP with clear goals and policies in place will be a significant benefit as the process moves forward. All of the controversial issues that were raised regarding the previous draft Tree Code have been settled by the UFMP. The only argument that remains is the issue of view versus forest. He supports Mr. Lien's recommendation to break the discussion into sections. Mr. Lien agreed to meet with the Chair and Vice Chair to establish a schedule for the upcoming discussions. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the public hearing on the previous draft Tree Code was very productive. The outpouring of concern was made very clear to the Planning Board. The community was listened to, and the Planning Board learned a lot. The UFMP, which was eventually adopted by the City Council, took form from that engagement. Chair Robles agreed that the UFMP was the correct outcome of the previous public process. Mr. Lien noted that the UFMP was included in the Board's October 141h meeting packet and he doesn't plan to attach it to future packets. The actual code language will be the focus of discussions going forward. Chair Robles encouraged the Board Members to download the UFMP to their files for future reference as the process continues. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the extended agenda for the remainder of the year will focus on the Tree Code. However, a public hearing on the draft CIP/CFP is scheduled for October 28th. The Board agreed to reschedule their November 11`h meeting to November 18'. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Pence voiced concern with what happened with the Planning Board recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan amendments related to properties on 9th Avenue North and in Perrinville. The Planning Board went through a thorough process and made recommendations that were different from the staff recommendations, and he assumed that staff would present the Planning Board's recommendations to the City Council. Subsequent to the staff's presentation to the City Council, a letter to the editor was published in My Edmonds News on October 31 pertaining to the proposed amendments. There were numerous comments, several of which took the City to task for only presenting the staff s recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Board recommendations were downplayed or not discussed at all. He reviewed the agenda rn d 0 0 L a Q Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a packet that was provided to the City Council, which included the same Staff Report that Mr. Shipley presented to the Planning Board. Attached to the Staff Report was a copy of the Planning Board's minutes, and that was the sum total of the information the City Council received concerning the Board's recommendations. He watched the video of the City Council presentation and was shocked to see that Mr. Shipley provided the same presentation that was made to the Planning Board, with the staff recommendations but no mention of the Planning Board's differing recommendations. He said he assumed that staff would make sure that the Planning Board's recommendations were clearly presented to the City Council. Board Member Pence suggested the Board take up this topic at a future meeting and provide direction to staff about how differences between the staff and Planning Board recommendations should be presented to the City Council. He doesn't ever want to see another presentation where the staff recommendations get the full floor of the presentation and City Council discussion, with the Board's recommendations presented as a mere footnote. The Planning Board's work needs to be fully presented to the City Council. Chair Robles agreed with Board Member Pence's concern. He said he has presented the Board as a knowledge endowment d and encouraged the City Council to use them as such. In many ways, the Board is fighting for relevancy among many new 3 forces beyond their control. The Board needs to stand up and voice their concerns. Mr. Chave said he wasn't present at that particular City Council meeting. However, based on communications from the City C Council, they were clearly aware of the Planning Board's recommendations. Board Member Pence commented that, if the City Council was aware of the Planning Board's recommendations, it was only because they individually reviewed the o minutes. Mr. Chave said the Board's recommendations were also included in the titles of the agenda items. Board Member a. Pence commented that Mr. Shipley provided the staff presentation only, and there was no discussion about why the Board Q made its recommendations. He respects Mr. Shipley and understands that he was following policy. However, that policy c needs to change. When there are differences of opinion between the staff and Planning Board, the City Council needs to hear c both positions. Mr. Chave said that, from his experience, when he has presented Planning Board recommendations to the City Council, he has always presented the Planning Board recommendation. If there is anything to be said about the staff recommendation, it usually comes up in questions but it isn't the focus of his presentation. He agreed to clarify the process with Mr. Shipley and 3 other staff members. Board Member Pence suggested it is important to develop a written policy to address the issue. Chair c Robles suggested there is a middle road. The Board wants the City Council to listen to everything they have to say, and part E of their job is to distill the issues into an actual set of conditions. While the City Council doesn't need to listen to everything L the Board has to say on an issue, a simple "approve or deny" may be to simplistic. Again, Mr. Chave summarized that the City Council was well aware of the Planning Board's recommendations and thought processes. c Board Member Cheung said that, at the end of the day, the burden is on the City Council Members to research and read the Planning Board minutes. If they are doing their job, they should have a clear understanding of the Board's position without having staff present what is clearly outlined in the minutes. Mr. Chave agreed that is true to a degree. However, it is important that staff represent the Planning Board at City Council meetings. He said the City Council absolutely does read the Q Planning Board minutes, even if they don't always agree with the Board's position. d ADJOURNMENT t 0 M The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Q Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 15 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/28/2020 Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History The Director report is typically reviewed at each meeting Staff Recommendation Review Director Report Narrative Report attached Attachments: Director. Report. 10.28.2020.finaI Packet Pg. 16 5.A.a O� Ebb O U J: MEMORANDUM Date: October 281", 2020 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report r L O Q d "All you need is a plan, the road map, and the courage to press on to your destination." -Earl Nightingale a� L MI Next Planning Board Meeting 0 N O The Planning Board's next meeting is October 28t". The November 11t" meeting has been N w rescheduled out to November 181" to accommodate the Veteran's Day Holiday. C! 0 r L STATE & REGIONAL NEWS o: C Puget Sound Regional Council PSRC (PSRC's Regional Staff Committee) met virtually on o October. The agenda included: L 0 o School Siting Implementation a� o Regional Housing Needs Assessment Earth Findings, with data expected to address: r a ■ Population and employment growth ■ Cost of housing ■ Household income ■ Housing type ■ Tenure ■ Household characteristics/changing demographics ■ Jobs -Housing balance/Commute flow 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 17 5.A.a ■ Cost burden ■ Housing availability ■ Displacement ■ Special needs. o Stormwater and Watershed Planning Resources for Jurisdictions Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) ❑ The SCT Annual Assembly, is scheduled for October 28. The event will be via online and include these topics: o Broadband and how teleworking has changed things o Housing o Social equity a o State of the economy and regional recovery plan o Trends in traffic, aviation, and population. `o ❑ A subcommittee of the Planning Advisory Committee will meet again this week to review L potential updates to countywide planning policies to reflect VISION 2050. o CITY NEWS "Streateries" The "streateries" (a word to describe dining places located in the street —generally in the parking lane) will temporarily continue downtown under a special event permit. The opportunity was provided, recognizing the impacts of COVID 19, to keep dining options open for people, help local businesses, and promote a vibrant street scene for community enjoyment. Regulations to govern streateries for longer term use will be developed for consideration in the near future. Housing Survey • A third housing survey closed a few days ago. The survey, along with an accompanying online open house, encouraged the community to learn about a second round of policy ideas being considered by the Housing Commission and to weigh in on them. Results of the survey will be ready on October 29 and posted online at:.https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/. A third housing survey closed a few days ago. The survey and accompanying online open house encouraged people to learn about policy ideas that the Housing Commission is exploring and to weigh in on those ideas. Results of the survey will be ready around October 29 and will be posted on the Housing Commission website (https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/). City Bulletin 21 Packet Pg. 18 5.A.a To view the current City bulletin or sign up for future editions by email, go to: htto://www.edmondswa.Rov/edmonds-citv-bulletin.html. A new bulletin will be issued on October 27. City Council The next council meeting for October 271" including materials for the next scheduled City Council meetings are posted online on the Friday before each meeting. ❑ The Council's October 201" , 2020 meeting included: o Presentations ■ Proclamation for National Arts ■ Student Saving Salmon Yearly Council Report o Flood damage Prevention Ordinance Public Hearing o Study Items ■ Presentation of Operating Decision Packages for 2021 Proposed Budget ■ Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance o Approval of Consent Agenda CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Student Applications for Boards & Commissions The City is looking for energetic and committed student volunteers to participate as student representatives for the 2020-21 academic year. In particular, students are being sought for positions with the Edmonds City Council, Youth Commission, and Arts Commission. Applications for the City Council Student Representative are due September 18. Interested students should complete an application form. More information is on the following forms: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Youth Commission Application 2020.pdf http://www.edmondswa.gov/opportunities-contests-applications.htmI http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Press Release/PDF/2020/Student Rep Application Form 202 O.pdf Architectural Design Board The next meeting scheduled will be available on line. The previously scheduled meeting for November 4, 2020 was cancelled. There are no new items to present at this time. The Architectural Design Board last met virtually on August 5, 2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included: Li Westgate Station General ❑ Design Review Staff report Arts Commission The next meeting is scheduled for November 2, 2020 @ 4:30 p.m. The Edmonds Arts Commission met October 5, 2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included: 31. Qy- Packet Pg. 19 5.A.a ❑ Creative Programs WOTS Update ❑ Grants Program Discussion ❑ Report on Capital Projects ❑ New Business ❑ Staff report — Chaplain Cemetery Board The next meeting will be available on-line. The Board last met October 15, 2020 (via Zoom) its agenda included: ❑ Chair's report ❑ Staff report on sales, burials, finances ❑ New Board members update Use of Cemetery funds ❑ Comp Plan discussions for 2020 Climate Protection Committee The next scheduled meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2020 @ 8:30 a.m. The Mayor's Climate Protection Committee met last on October 1, 2020, the agenda included: ❑ CAP/Outreach ❑ Diversity & Inclusion Follow-up ❑ City Council report ❑ Outreach Partnerships ❑ Public comment Conservation Advisory Committee The next virtual meeting is scheduled for November 12, 2020. The Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee last met via Zoom on October 8, 2020 @ 3:00 p.m. Agenda highlights were ❑ Message from the Mayor ❑ Community Development Presentation ❑ Director's Report comments ❑ Subcommittee Reports o MCAC Green website ❑ Wrap up o Mayor's memo Diversity Commission The next scheduled meeting will be available online. The Commission last met on October 7, 2020. Agenda highlights were: Li Update from the City: Patrick Doherty, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas ❑ Diversity Commission 2021 grants, applications ❑ Subgroups — Policy Report ❑ Beacon Guest view discussions ❑ Commissioner's Corner ❑ Indigenous Peoples' Day recognition Economic Development Commission (EDC) 41F'Qy�_ Packet Pg. 20 5.A.a The Commission has openings for two new members. Mayor Nelson particularly encourages women, people of color, and other minorities to apply for service on this Commission. Interested Edmonds residents must fill out and submit the official city application form, which may be found at this webpage: http://edmondswa.gov/boards-commissions-committees-openings.html. Applications are due by 4:30, Wednesday, September 11. The EDC's agenda for its next scheduled meeting will be available online. The Commission met October 21, 2020, online, with the following agenda highlights: ❑ Presentation BIPOC — Discussion Segment ❑ Review of Retreat notes ❑ Roundtable discussions: Council, Commissions, Liaisons Housing Commission The next meeting is scheduled for October 29, 2020 @ 6:30 p.m. to review results of a third survey. The Commission met last on October 8, 2020. Agenda items included: ❑ Scope of Policy recommendations ❑ Status round policy ideas ❑ Project timeline ❑ Housing Commission Quarterly Report Update Additional Housing Commission information is on the website. Planning Board The next meeting is scheduled on October 28, 2020 @ 7:00 p.m. on-line. The Planning Board last met, on-line October 14, 2020. Agenda items included: ❑ Presentation of the Proposed 2021-2026 Capital Facilities/Improvement Plans ❑ The City's Urban Forest Management Plan ❑ Tree Regulations Update ❑ Extended Agenda items Historic Preservation Commission The next meeting is scheduled on November 12, 2020 @ 5:30 p.m. on-line. The Commission last met on October 8, 2020 via zoom. Agenda items included: ❑ Discussion 2021 Historic Edmonds Calendar ❑ Commission Chair Comments ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Action items Tree Board The Tree Board held a planting event at Edmonds Elementary School. This resulted in the planting of various native trees and plants. The newly planted area provides a focus for education about habitat and native vegetation. The Board's next scheduled meeting is November 5, 2020 @ 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers. The Commission last met on October 1, 2020. Agenda items included: 5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 21 5.A.a ❑ Status of tree root problem at 5` and Walnut Street ❑ Tree tags ❑ Tree Board Members ideas Senior Center planting plan Visit from Suzanne Forterra The Tree Board may have an opening in 2021. Anyone interested in applying is welcome to contact City staff at: jana.spellman@edmondswa.gov. Youth Commission ❑ The next meeting for the Youth Commission is scheduled on November 4, 2020 @ 6:00 p.m., Frances Anderson Center. The Commission last met on October 7, 2020. Agenda items included: ❑ Mayor's Climate Protection Committee ❑ Recruitment updates & member intros ❑ OPMA/Officer Selection Process ❑ Possibilities of virtual forum ❑ Other Youth issues in Edmonds Other Boards and Commissions Due primarily to state restrictions on open public meetings during the coronavirus crisis, meetings for the following boards and commissions were canceled for September and October These include meetings of the following groups: ❑ Sister City Commission COMMUNITY CALENDAR The Community Calendar has some updates. 6 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 22 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/28/2020 Public Hearing on the Proposed 2021 - 2026 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plan Staff Lead: Robert English Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History See Narrative below. This item was introduced to the Planning Board on October 14, 2020. Staff Recommendation Recommend approval to City Council. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects that encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City level of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc.) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2021-2026 CFP is attached as Attachment 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2021-2026 CIP is attached as Attachment 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Following the Planning Board's public hearing and recommendation the City Council will also hold a public hearing prior to final approval. Attachments Attachment 1 - 2021-2026 CFP Attachment 2 - 2021-2026 CIP Packet Pg. 23 6.A Attachment 3 - CIP & CFP Comparison Attachment 4 - Comment letter Attachments: Attachment 1: DRAFT CFP 2021-2026 10-22-2020 Attachment 2: DRAFT CIP 2021-2026 10-22-2020 Attachment 3: CIP-CFP Comparison (2021-2026) DRAFT Attachment 4: SOM Comment Letter Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2021-2041 EDP DRAFT z Packet Pg. 25 6.A.a r .Q U c tv d a� :r tv LL r .Q cv U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L r �L 2 u CL 0 N O N N N O r N O N r N O N IL LL U H LL a 0 r a+ C N E t V R a+ a+ Q C N L V fC a+ a+ Q Packet Pg. 26 6.A.a CFP GENERAL r N O N d N O 0. O L r a+ Q Packet Pg. 27 6.A.a r .Q U c tv d a� :r tv LL r .Q cv U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L r �L 2 u CL 0 N O N N N O r N O N r N O N IL LL U H LL a 0 r a+ C N E t V R a+ a+ Q C N L V fC a+ a+ Q Packet Pg. 28 ( �\ � ;k - § }�\)2 ° �2 > d0 \�\2°` IL " " " " " k\ \/) )\ �\ 0 !§ �o<$a 2oe_, } Co 30 r 0 \k /\,/} \ k -:!k] §/ � CL \/\() \} k\ _ -�f§( �k° 000 -: !§k§7 =�0 ±§ \_ ! 2 ) { )\ D \k �� )) a ! () a. _ « 5 Packet Pg. 29 6.A.a .Q U c R a m r LL �a r .Q co U co N Co N T N O N d N O Q O L a m r c •L aD x a 0 N O N N N O T CD N O N T N O N a LL U H LL Q c aD E t v Q r c m E t v Q Packet Pg. 30 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield 310 6ch Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional $67,620 Service Engineering $45,833 $45,832 Construction $5,872,862 $5,937,381 1 % Art $44,000 $44,000 TOTAL $6,030,315 $6,027,213 7 Packet Pg. 31 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED COST: $6-8 M Complex at the Former Woodway High School PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10M - $12M project for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2021-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027- 2039 Planning/Study Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $6-8M all or a portion of ttiis project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 8 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & ESTIMATED COST: $3 - $4M Operations Building Existing Building Outline Yard Fu .��� M111 ILI Lading r New One St Building 1, Da sf 6,600 Sf o i�nveay — 15,80Q� Yard Functlons � 11,101f I I I j Perimeler zone — 4,200 sf PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40+ year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and needs major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. 2021 - 2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2039 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 9 1 Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements — sub ESTIMATED COST: $5M component of Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Davliahtina) South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. Fund 332 includes park impact fees, donations and grants. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $250,000 $250,000 Engineering Construction $1,750,000 $2,750,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $1,750,000 $2,750,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 10 1 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a CFP TRANSPORTATION r N O N d N O 0. O L r a+ Q 11 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.a r .Q U c tv d a� :r tv LL r .Q cv U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L r �L 2 u CL 0 N O N N N O r N O N r N O N IL LL U H LL a 0 r a+ C N E t V R a+ a+ Q C N L V fC a+ a+ Q 12 Packet Pg. 36 6.A.a a � U u oao." y LL N C O a L O LL v U A c y m � U 2U EU « « n « n 14 3 J 3 3 e> «n $ It14 vi N K 2 « U Q �y 5 K 2 « U Q 5 K 2 Y U Q 14 Le -16 y� I UN o 8yy� 0 8yy� a 8yy� a 8yy� a a 8y� a 8yy� 6 8yy� yy y8 N�-op N U LL o i2 2 0 U U U U U U U U U w L a a a a a a N ° E E m F 5 a a W m Zo u m'vc E2Bi9 wy.n °�3 aU m E 2 N> m > m _`m ' °¢° 3° o S c v w' cza E ppry o m E U E ¢ y E m U n@ E .h E '`' '`' 3 Q in .4 N o E . ID m 9 5 E E N m« 3 U E m o E to E .1 SS 23 E 2 E 2 ELa w 13 1 Packet Pg. 37 6.A.a a a� �$y ��gg anyy anyy 9�y yy�y9y�yyyyyN YYm N 3= N 3.o LL O N m LL 0 N_ O �/�j LL y LL O NS 'O O NS LL b NS = 0 NS LL b NS a O r/�j = O LL� LL8 ��g LL� LL� LL� LL�d LL& S w N en w . . So - - a> » So - S en » en » en en » en » o U o U U U U U c U c U S U S U lo U 12 o o a a a mQ, �2 c dad Etm It 10�t - c v b9m as c,e S Sp rnT E 2" E- N= coo curio am� E � E.4 3h Do Z D� Do - cl� uWo m'2m a �� T.r2 Ni 3mW NLc B?s IF ym W4 omc cc� 3N m� x� o. oO o.m nN nW r.a23 E y �.o r. m '.� 3'w ,F v` o� 2 c 2,9 2c "t m 'g € n_ '¢r`n _ i ain Ey Ey E3 E3 a oa O 3 V N m y 3 3 3 3 E 4 Y3 3 N E'2 c C 5 5 Yi C N m E Q m Q N N N N 3 3 N m• ` 3 n` �. v m w E E E E $ - E o 0 UE > 3 UE UE > o Ea12 iu1 N 3 3 N �t a3 a3 N3 N E OS mN N E N E O- yU min N nQ 14 Packet Pg. 38 6.A.a a a& 08� a8� o8�i v8� a8� 0'8 6& 6& a8� a8 v8i N F N F N g F N F N 8 2 F T T LL a& y a& LL& LL LL LL LL LL& LL wl& Z2 Z U U U U U U U U U U U U 12 o i a a a a a a a o a N~ 3 3 o mm �xo °y w Qo 8 m °i uo °5 c a N 5�`Sn 0 3 w m Q L w Q Q a 3 u 4 ry o x c a m xNm c °� pew p t v 9 E �❑� o'Z0 caw 3 c`�. oyw 3 m t 3 E= dt 40 o YN= = a'4 E t a vm' N m o a m i. 'api Ea B ES M. Em 3�o W 'SEcwn m 'gEo �� `@ v E d d p a d cod Q p m W Q w W .. Q 0 £ d N d t x i o H 30 n w .cat a0 �_o 3 E o @ w� �� .� x d p �• c � d?i Lo 1w Eta mN K NF O N N .F E wQ �MN 15 Packet Pg. 39 j y# ;;a \ \ \ \ \ 0 \\ S.E {®} 2\ }\ 2\ 2\ E ( a a ! / as { { | \ \ {2 / !! !: f! Po 16 Packet Pg. 40 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 2281h St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,800,000 to 95th PI. W a J r-5PERRNCE ,•' Y �y PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit would also look into creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW if this project moves forward (connecting Edmonds Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 (pending funding). More than half the project is within Esperance / Snohomish County. A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is evaluating funding impacts and the delivery timelines of their projects. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 Admin., & ROW Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 1 Packet Pg. 41 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $184,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization r .Q U a r U- r Q U N O N N O N d fA O Q O L IL O �L M 4] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted a utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape N treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. N PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access N management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. N SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018. , N project to install raised medians along the entire corridor from 244t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW (to address o safety issues along the corridor) is underway. The addition of a HAWK signal between 228t" St. and 238tr a St. SW (specific location TBD) and gateway sign on the north and south ends are also included in this project. The design phase began in August 2020 and scheduled to be competed in November 2021. Thi: project is being funded through a $10M state allocation from the Connecting Washington transportation . program. o r a� COST BREAKDOWN a PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 E COST Planning/Study a Engineering & $583,048 $927,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $41,000,OC Administration E & ROW Construction $5,755,000 $129,000,0C a 1 % for Art TOTAL $538,048 $5,755,000 $927,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $170,000,000 18 Packet Pg. 42 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,885,000 intersection improvements i J 21 gT sw I i w W Paalung s yn shop / 7 ? M1° 7313 P.u.6 3 Edmonds Edmonds / W Family Clinic ei Publm%Torks ADD KENNEL 21 1 27114 / Arbor 27�Aa mlla OI'n _ k �� Rams 27109 llie Box / 212n I sT sw Z2 st M.- 73,'er cuPlc a 7303"3' ^ n n Pool 7W4 "1" 7302 "2" PARK & RIDE 215TH W ST SW U o: W 0 a PLANT AEGIS yy SWEDISH m MDNnSCAM- ' ALLIED / ROOFING / / / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / / NCnONAL�' / 01 1ALUE / PILLAGE / 16 TH ST/S W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $178,000 $1,121,000 ROW, & Administration Construction $1,586,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $178,00 $1,121,000 $1,586,000 r .Q U a V M U- !Z U N O N N 0 N d N 0 Q 0 d d t J.d C 0 C �L 2 V d 19 1 Packet Pg. 43 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,442,000 intersection improvements 21410 w 13�21d12 21402�14C08 {� 21405 N I U > 1420 < DUHAL6'21431 un nz 150 � r 215AEGIS 21558 VALUE VILLAGE ST SVU -me • 216TH 21600 {� 21619 KRUGER CLINIC f 01 r 21632 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $210,000 $340,000 Construction $1,892,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $210,000 $340,000 $1,892,000 r .Q U a aj R U_ R U W N O N N O N a� U) 0 a 0 L IL t c 0 c x a 20 1 Packet Pg. 44 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS v �, 99TH sr SW / 21919 STARBU S / / 220TH ST SW I I I I 1221 I I I I I 13 _I � � l4 n III •0. 7301 •H• U O e S C m .M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220t" St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325' storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275' storage length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and safety. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $175,000 $1,085,000 Construction $1,955,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 21 1 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 intersection improvements ESPEMNCE y :it'i ,i�1Y FS - - 11202 S7ND PL W �• �I� 2f731 F 1 �WAD PLj," 7731 -oi ra:xn Ik I I 1 � 17tl1 i]4oa■�i DIM 1717 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW 1 provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non -motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy.99 Sub Area Plan). A new signal can be installed if MUTCD signal warrants arE met. The warrants under existing and future conditions aren't met at this intersection. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding for all phases) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $1,500,OC Construction $1,800,OC 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,300,OC 22 1 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 19611 St. SW (SR-524) @ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $930,000 88t" Ave. W Intersection Improvements �r 3 _ w a_ .~a I m :VEN DAY WENTIST :HURCH 4 1eeTM sr sw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196t" St. SW @ 88t" Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding). In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196t" St. SW is a State Route / SR-524). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $200,000 $180,000 Administration Construction $550,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $180,000 $550,000 23 1 Packet Pg. 47 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9'" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $925,000 N Q x J __J1 MH__JI __�, BELL ST UJ a I - � P MAIN ST WADE DAMES � TH EATE R L � W� a r H oavraN n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 and construction in 2025. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $125,000 Administration & ROW Construction $800,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $125,000 $800,000 24 1 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 761h Ave. W @ 2201h St. SW ESTIMTED PROJECT COST: $8,326,000 Intersection Improvements TOP FOODS 219ni sr sw __�J _�, STARBU KS 21919 J J , -- ---. / 220Tr1 sr sw ' I I � I 14LU I a a 221 Sr PL SW I LYNWOOD I HONDA I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: A CMAQ Federal grant was secured for the Design Phase (funds not available until 2021) and an STP Federal grant for the ROW phase (funds not available until 2023). The construction phase is currently unfunded. The design phase and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in 2023 and construction in 2024 (pending additional grant funds). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW $300,000 $634,000 $775,000 Administration Construction $6,617,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $300,000 $634,000 $775,000 $6,617,000 'All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts a U c R d r v M LL rL M U N O N N 0 N d N O Q O Ii O aD x U a 25 1 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 ITS Adaptive ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,174,000 System from 226th St. SW to 236th St. SW -i 226TH ST 5W r shy, � w■.,..a, � i r ", ■ �a rr ill. I �II � a 1,� . k •�� �.■+III C A ■ � a tl ��?�� li � ..... +III �. d -�■ III i �} lw� 1, I +1■ � ■ I F � i ! - 967H ST. SW ,iJirw i 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install ITS Adaptive System along SR-104 from 226th St. SW to 236th St. SW in order to improve traffic flows and intersection delay at all times of day. This system will provide the necessary amount of green time during every signal cycles. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flows along this corridor and improve intersection delay. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 when funding becomes available (secured Federal grant) and the construction phase is scheduled for 2025 (unsecured funding). PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $205,000 $205,000 Construction $1,764,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $205,000 $205,000 $1,764,000 26 1 Packet Pg. 50 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95th PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $509,000 Intersection Improvements W H r ST S a CC rn cl WESTGATE CHAPEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $77,000 Construction $432,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $77,000 $432,000 27 1 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,378,000 Intersection Improvements ■ To Hwy 99 i 10 239TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,172,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,172,000 28 1 Packet Pg. 52 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 7611 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,219,000 F N SEAVIEW PARK 3 PLSW 186TH ST SW m m 'yLP POST OFFICE ' EFSON'S --- cCYA4 MARKET 7519 I I PERRI VILLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,013,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,219,000 29 1 Packet Pg. 53 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $16,000,000 to 238th St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is located within Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering, $2,060,000 Administration, & ROW Construction $13,940,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $16,000,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 30 1 Packet Pg. 54 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 10011 Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 Intersection Improvements / Access Management QFC PL SW r 0 PCC ¢ 711' Q DMONDS WAY SR-104 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding) PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $895,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $155,000 $895,000 31 1 Packet Pg. 55 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements n PLw " Jill* 10� .. ( !I N 11 S i .44 II �i.i+jAl�j 4� — IHnuF. slr— T I�, ietluvnLsw •''� n38v PC SW wi 1f 3517'AY V78 LN)111 LAKE 8AL C INGER WAY_ - _ - _ - _ . EF) K40NDS WAY _ . _ - ._ - _ . • p N - - - -LILCE gACL.RVGE9-1fVRl' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and non -motorized transportation safety. -improve SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is located within Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $467,000 Construction $2,640,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,107,000 32 1 Packet Pg. 56 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174t" St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 SW Intersection Improvements Meadowdale Middle School — — — J-/, Parking b ssoi St. Thomas Moore —� arrre I Catholic School Ballfieltl � san��ary r PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $105,000 Construction $525,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $630,000 a U c R d U M LL R Q U N O N N O N 0 a 0 L a) 0 �L V d 33 1 Packet Pg. 57 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. s UHDVIEwavrs ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I ��' IIIIIII :M1■�■1 ■ ♦ ON �♦ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (— 1/2 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase is scheduled to be completed in 2024. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2025 when utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $295,000 Administration Construction $2,595,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $295,000 $2,595,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 34 1 Packet Pg. 58 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 232"d St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,344,000 from 100t" Ave. W to SR-104 EDMONDS WAY W SANK iwnRs LLI L ! Ell 2 . ■ ■ Qy - 1 �i IF Al. 10 UUT H ' CHURCH, (jr ■ ■ ■ , Uj 7 , ■ AW �I o �0 c� 2 ODW' ' I ESTATES AY OLy I _ PR RK \29 9 Dorn 98 7 6 5 ' 30 2 15 3 14 7• J \32 45 32 ■ r �jr 7 1 i nm (0) 1 � ■ � e PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100t" Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATINALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $206,000 OConstruction $1,138,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,138,000 35 1 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,438,000 from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $1,218,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $220,000 $1,218,000 36 1 Packet Pg. 60 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 84t" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $590,000 From 238t" St. SW to 234t" ST. SW PARK LL EonnoNos SALGALL APTS m w LL w LL CH RIST LU TH E RAN CH LARCH PARK & RIDE OFFICE 236:1 4 23603 SAFEWAY $ 23605 WH L KJIHG R 23607 SUNSET 23619 O P Q �1� R AURORA S NLkRKETPLACE T N FAMILY PANCAKE U '7-77" 239TH ST SW W SEOUL 23821 PLAZA 2 23827 TRAVEL Zff 0" NORTH ry HAVEN z n MANOR w a � R p r~ } n•1L LO'N 13ROCK PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84t" Ave. W from 238t" St .SW to 234t" St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2026 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $95,000 Construction $495,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $95,000 $495,000 37 1 Packet Pg. 61 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 801" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,786,000 from 206t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t" Ave. W from 206t" St. SW to 212t" St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several schools). SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (funding unsecured). A Safe Routes to School grant was submitted in Spring 2020 to fund the design and construction phases of the transportation elements (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $405,000 Administration & ROW Construction $2,381,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $405,000 $2,381,000 38 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 21811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,346,000 from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W MENNEN YEMEN ■� ' N ■����4 11 •l■ �' ''� ' ■■E N PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,140,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,140,000 39 1 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000 to 7th Ave. S ALDER 5T map Fm I 120 SON@ 04 6 a F. �p.��� 1 ' Emmn i m A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7th Ave. S. Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch. SCHEDULE: Design and construction funding secured). phases are scheduled to be completed in 2024 (no COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $24,000 Construction $192,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $216,000 40 1 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 21611 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $162,000 Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W � � 21400 � J J 7200 B&M PARK & RIDE CONS Ea39 r w 21410 21408 0. MAN � o � 21401 21412 � v M1 2140 U v 214G7 C 21 507 W W / 20 21511 j Cc M DONAL6' { � y ` o 21431 Y N 0 21521 N Ilk { M STEVEN 21500 � � 1 '2A COURT AEGIS 21558 ` 21�7 VALUE VILLAGE 2167H ST SW —� 120 216 TIl :VEN5 21600 { 2l619 tILION KRUGER �,q1 CLINIC , �'+ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216t" St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2024 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $33,000 Construction $129,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $162,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts r .Q U c R d N a� R e_ CL 0 U N O N N 0 N d fA O Q 0 d t r c 0 a� c m U d 41 1 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,118,800 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S 4 �^ I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022; a Decision Package has been submitted as part of 2021 Budget to fund the design of the transportation elements (pending approval / scheduled for December 2020). No funding is secured for construction phase. The stormwater elements would be funded by Fund 422. A Safe Routes to School grant was submitted in Spring 2020 to fund the design and construction phases of the transportation elements (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $150,800 Administration Construction $968,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $150,800 $968,000 42 1 Packet Pg. 66 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,601,000 from Main St. to 200th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (-- 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2024 and construction in 2025 (funding unsecured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant was submitted in Spring 2020 to fund the design and construction phases of the transportation elements (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $390,000 Administration Construction $2,211,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $390,000 $2,211,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 43 1 Packet Pg. 67 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 9511 PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $603,000 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224' St. SW to 220th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled for 2024 and construction in 2025 (funding unsecured) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $103,000 Construction $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $103,000 $500,000 44 1 Packet Pg. 68 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $890,000 Dayton St. to SR-104 W DAYTON ST 4 0 Fa ? a`� �\ P 0 `y � MarrysT'' At�,/ rT J a� � a Q4 P ^' 1AME5 S1 ------------- DAYTON ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination points such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds... . SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $165,000 Construction $725,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $165,000 $725,000 45 1 Packet Pg. 69 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W non- ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: motorized transportation safety improvements $1,246,000 24., 711 ST S.": L �4,# I f J V LIw I �4B ka,,r,�N OS WAY aFFR LAKE 8 ALLI NGEH WAY- - - - - - - - - Tlo pAoNa S wAV IN 71 Sim LAKL UAL1.INGER WAY - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). This intersection is shared with Shoreline and they own the traffic signal. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $231,000 Construction $1,015,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $231,000 $1,015,000 r .Q U c R d N a� U R U_ R U N O N N 0 N 0 0 0 Q 0 d t r.+ C 0 0•l C fC d a 46 1 Packet Pg. 70 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Downtown Lighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,638,000 Improvements e 'iHT 7 7 C PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve lighting along various stretches within Downtown where street light poles / PUD poles don't currently exist. Night-time safety for all transportation system will be improved. More users will be encouraged to use active transportation to reach their destination during those hours (Sound Transit Station and many other destinations within Downtown). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 (pending funding). A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is currently re-evaluating all their projects and funding situation. No date has yet been provided by Sound Transit in regards to when this step will be completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $109,000 $109,000 Administration & ROW Construction $1,420,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $109,000 $109,000 $1,420,000 47 1 Packet Pg. 71 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,169,000 HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. Walkway from SR-104 to 9th Ave. S . rc LU -. r-1�� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from the HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. from SR-104 to 9th Ave. S PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown Edmonds and City Park. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 (pending funding). A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is currently re-evaluating all their projects and funding situation. No date has yet been provided by Sound Transit in regards to when this step will be completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $317,000 $317,000 Administration & ROW Construction $2,535,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $317,000 $317,000 $2,535,000 48 1 Packet Pg. 72 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Citywide Bicycle ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,850,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of bike lanes or sharrows along various stretches as identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities map of 2015 Transportation Plan. As part of the installation scheduled for 2022, bike lanes or sharrows will be added along 100th St. SW / 9th Ave. from 244th St. SW to Walnut St, Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. to 84th Av., 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 78th Ave., and 80th Ave. from 228th St. SW to 220th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools, parks, Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). The intent of this project is to get more people riding their bikes and feel safer riding their bikes on the roadway. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (secured funding from Sound Transit grant for $1.85 Million) & 2027- 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & $256,000 $750,000 Administration Construction $1,500,000 $4,250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $256,000 $1,500,000 $5,000,000 49 1 Packet Pg. 73 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $648,000 from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W 1� 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $93,000 Construction $555,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $648,000 50 1 Packet Pg. 74 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,019,000 from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $864,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,019,000 51 1 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 801" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $324,000 from 218t" St. SW to 220t" St. SW -------�--77T---------------220THSTSW— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t" Ave. W from 218t" ST. SW to 220t" ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $57,000 Construction $267,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $324,000 52 1 Packet Pg. 76 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $323,000 from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW ME T Jr r �b F uJb L ri 186TH ST W �„ i -d6 NP' ` ` , 7 W L i M—m mm m d r■ ■ 18 TH 5 5W L a F 1'r g - 011 0 �= 7 Elmi 188TH 5T 5W ; 1 W , 1 III• ■� �' ' , ' ■ r. SFAMF W 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $62,000 Construction $261,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $323,000 53 1 Packet Pg. 77 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,763,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W I -1a _I� a PARK r EDNIONDS APTS w LL CH RIST LU TH E RAN CH U RCH � PARK & RIDE � L R 236TH T W OFFICE J 23609F23 4 , 603 SAFEWAY 23605 L KJIHG 236n7 WH A•HIRL BALL � rn4.�n1, rn �s ■ � ■ 'E FFICE o nvi F • ' a M a 3229 h �r r.ry - . NORTH N HAVEN l m MANOR w W I _ , a ,M1 � s , ■ 7 Ims MO-71 FAM "Irm, ■I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Design phase scheduled for 2024 and construction scheduled for 2025 (no funding secured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant was submitted in Spring 2021 to fund the design of the transportation elements for the design and construction phases (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2035 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $256,000 Construction $1,507,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $256,000 $1,507,000 54 1 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,236,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W PARK NA LN ' , ■ in' EOMOHos APTS AN IRL BALL ' • • 1 �Mr� W w NORTH � m CH RIST LU TH E RAN CHURCH S 01v N PARK � R ; a &RIDE � � R � n � - 2 TH T OFFICE ■ 23667 ,4 , W r 23663 SAFEWAY � 23606 N4N L KJIHG R I ' L • . 23667 23679 O SUNSET Lo•n: p•nn Q , BROOK ■ R AURORA rotas - ` S MARKETPLACE T FA MILV PA NCAKE 1 L p r H V �7-' � 1 ■ 23$TH ST SW "' ■ ■ ■ 23827 seouL PLAZAMEN ' ■ ► 1 Will 23827, TRAVEL LODGE 2391 ■ -M IS ISON TA Ca TIM ■ A ST. FRANCIS MOTEL WHSE ■ . . . - ■ ■ ■ _+ E MOTEL ' 1 ■ ■ I, 1:11 ARIII F 1 ■ ■ ■ , ■ ■ 1 yA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $181,000 Construction $1,055,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,236,000 : 55 1 Packet Pg. 79 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W / 180th St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,829,000 SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $580,000 Construction $2,249,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $580,000 $2,249,000 56 1 Packet Pg. 80 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: 189th PI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $606,000 from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $118,000 Construction $488,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $606,000 57 1 Packet Pg. 81 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000 Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St. 5� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways. SCHEDULE: 2024 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $50,000 Construction $307,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $357,000 58 1 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.a CFP STORMWATER 59 Packet Pg. 83 6.A.a r .Q U c tv d a� :r tv LL r .Q cv U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L r �L 2 u CL 0 N O N N N O r N O N r N O N IL LL U H LL a 0 r a+ C N E t V R a+ a+ Q C N L V fC a+ a+ Q 60 1 Packet Pg. 84 E, LL U N N G O d ° N N d N w « N � w = M N O V 3 N LL (j m O Qcl� m U a N 0 0 0 ' N N O O O O O O N N O Iq W N � EA ry y N O O O O O O N N c N N O o 0 0 0 o ON1 M N � � N p N O O O O o CO, O O ER ER N O O O V N � d U N N N N E m 3 0 > n m ° o N `p N o ILL N E m N p o o e N N p u p O N ry a a` m � L U c c d 00 m c7 a c d O m a _ p � f0 10 O a d m .L.. N r > C O C E y j N C O N N N 3 o.2 m c od°mom r Eaa E`oa 4E y l�1 d c N n� y S'm a d 6 O 0 O F L Y -oE2 o E E? o E m W L O N C y y p a ° m o N U 00 O N C V O >'p 6> ry d a N C U r L aL S i :E a E E m N O 0 .J E for m z z O W IL` E U m N O IL � c y O E W� o 0 O A � O O N N o N � O LA 0 n � O L[j 6.A.a O O O CL/� m N � M IL o ci m N } T O O O LL O rn o o rn N ONl A ER O M N fA i4 N £ u c m n m > o r o M» rn n O N � i0 N y T 04 CDN ^ �^ N N N LL o O CL o ✓�NEF g N .CL m o o m ~ a o L d mo 00 N N lL N � v Q LL lU o 4) o O O 0 N �ornn m m � aS i N 2 C w O o a. a O 04 � � O m m N ~ m N o W CD r CO N CD m U N � N :R o O v o N `s d LL U �U F- LL �= a m EL Q c 0 m o C L o a CD p U E E U w V o C N _ W� Q N N m }1 i L a d T E U � V o E l6 3 d N Packet Pg. 85 61 6.A.a .Q U c �a a m u m LL r .Q U m N O N r N O N d N O Q O L �L V 3 a. O N O N N N O r CD N O N N O N d LL U H LL Q 0 r a+ C E t V fC Q �i C d L V f0 a+ a+ a 62 1 Packet Pg. 86 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION Aerial photo of Marsh from 2018 Marsh as it existed in 1941 General Project Location Updated project concept PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This CFP sheet covers a collection of projects proposed and planned around the Edmonds Marsh in an effort to restore the habitat provided by the marsh. The projects below do not include additional follow up vegetation -related improvements to be completed after the daylighting project re-establishes the historic saltwater conditions in the Marsh; additional invasive plant removal, native plantings, and other habitat management projects are anticipated beyond the efforts shown here in. Willow Creek Daylighting: The project will daylight Willow Creek and help begin restoration of historic conditions in the Marsh. The project has three sub -components including (1) daylighting Willow Creek through the existing Unocal property, (2) daylighting of the Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park (top of bank to top of bank), and (3) excavation/reestablishment of tidal channels within the existing Marsh. The project includes significant re -vegetation and mitigation within the Marsh to improve habitat conditions. The current cost estimate for the project includes all flood walls and berms associated with daylighting the creek but does not include Marina Beach park improvements beyond the top of bank. The project is a component of the PROS plan (comprehensive plan) for open space, habitat and fulfills goals #1, #3 and #4. Total project cost is estimated around $16.65 million and future funding sources are yet to be identified; however, grant funding of roughly 50% of the project cost is tentatively planned. Willow Creek Daylighting Channel — Additional Alternate Alignment: This project is a new proposal to conduct public outreach in order to develop an additional alignment for the daylighting project, which can be modelled and compared to existing alignments. The project is estimated $80,000 and would be entirely funded by City stormwater funding. This work can be completed without additional site access rights and the project is proposed to be completed in 2021. Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements Phase 1: This project is a new proposal to treat all runoff from the west side of SR-104 which discharges directly into the Edmonds Marsh. Project total cost is estimated at $418,000 and is proposed to be 75% grant funded and 25% funded by City stormwater funds. Project is proposed to begin design in 2021 pending grant award, with construction scheduled in 2023. 63 1 Packet Pg. 87 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION Marina Beach Park: Additional improvements to Marina Beach Park are planned, consistent with the approved Marina Beach Park master plan. These project costs are not shown below as they would be funded through the Parks Department; see Parks CFP/CIP sheets for project cost and funding information. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park (not included) will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including juvenile Chinook. The project, along with its companion CIP project "Dayton Street Pump Station", will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds PROS plan. SCHEDULE: The main Willow Creek Daylighting project is on hold until the Unocal/Chevron property is transferred to the State; City cannot secure property access rights until such time. Smaller projects now being proposed by staff, as noted, to try and keep progress moving. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study 0) Eng. & Admin. $450,000' $900,0002 $300,000 VD L y� Construction $7,500,000 $7,500,000 0 1%for Art SUBTOTAL $450,000 $900,000 $300,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Planning/Study Q Eng. & Admin. $80,000 oE Construction �Q 1%for Art Q SUBTOTAL $80,000 Planning/Study :=M Eng. & Admin. $40,000 $40,000 Construction $338,000 a 1%for Art SUBTOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $338,000 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $570,000 $40,000 $1,238,000 $300,000 o Construction $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ~ 1 % for Art GRAND TOTAL $570,000 $40,000 $1,238,000 $300,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ' This value is a carry -forward of the approved 2020 budget for this project. Previously, this funding was held as match for the NFWF grant which has since been rescinded, but staff propose to retain this funding for use in the daylighting project. Design is not anticipated to begin in 2021, but funding could be used to kick off design work quickly if the property transfer unexpectedly proceeds and can also be used for tasks, such as grant application or stake holder outreach efforts, and any remaining funds can be carried forward each year until design is able to begin. 2 This schedule assumes that property ownership may transfer in 2023 based on a 6-year clean-up plan being approved in 2017. 3 Project is dependent on securing grant funding and may not be pursued if a grant is not awarded. 64 1 Packet Pg. 88 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $742,700 Facility Phase 2 �� Talbot t . Frederick Seaview Park N fi ry r 7 -4 I L 1 4 00 W tt 185th W 87th L. 40 Proposed Phase 2 -� ap i72n II o �P iP o I r 173 d IP I ti n ip o - 175th -4 o 'P i p � + 1 = 2 M 77t 1 7 h I i. 4 78th s 79th r a 1 Oth orno 1815 Distribution Chamber _-_-__-_o— e 18 rid Diversion Structure \� IP Inspection Port I© Swirl Concentrator ss` ' M Weller Guahtp fnalure) Modify flow - h 0 r` Limits of Phase 1 exist. diversion structure s : r •p Catch Basin ` • t_ J E A sketch of the project provided in grant application materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of Ecology to design and construct an additional stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. The proposal will duplicate the system successfully installed during Phase 1. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream reaches of the creek. A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in 2015. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. Control of the sediment loads in Perrinville Creek must be achieved before proceeding with additional fish habitat improvement and removal of the sediment collection structure the City currently maintains on the creek near Talbot Road. SCHEDULE: Design is kicking off 2020 with construction planned for 2022 in order to allow ample time to acquire permits and meet grant obligations during the design phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $116,100 Construction $495,600 1 % for Art TOTAL $116,100 $495,600 65 1 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2021-2026 EDP z DRAFT Packet Pg. 90 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q Packet Pg. 91 6.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2021-2026) Table of Contents GENERAL Building Maintenance Public Works 7 112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14 332 Parks Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 15 421 Water Projects Public Works 17 422 Storm Projects Public Works 18 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 20 423.100 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 21 PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Capital Parks & Recreation/ 125 Projects Fund Public Works 25 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation/ 126 Parks Acquisition Public Works 35 Parks Construction 332 Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 41 3 1 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q Packet Pg. 93 6.A.b Cip GENERAL r N O N d N O Q O L CL r �L d V O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N U H U- Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q Packet Pg. 94 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q Packet Pg. 95 6.A.b (0 N O N N O N O w N ; N O a` C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 (p N O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O U3 61!3 U3 61!3 U3 61!3 63 61:3 63 61:3 63 61:3 U3 U30 U3 O 63 U3 63 U30 61:30 O 61:3 O U3 61:3 U3 61:3 U3 61:3 U3 61:3 U3 61:3 U3 61:300000 O O O O O OLO 100010 lOO1000 O O OD O (0 OD LO LO N NI�OOf�Nd)n l00 (O l0 V 63 U3 Uf N 6q�6q U3 V, N 6q�6 CL 6s U3 Cl) 63 U3 O d3 N O O C. O O O O O O O O O O C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O CDCDO O t 0 O O O (0 0 0 0 C. 0 C. C. N CDUJ OD � 0 N� T-� 0 0 N N U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 O LO O O O O O O O O O O N 6q 6 LO 6s V3 U LO W 6s 6q N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. C. O O O C.O O O C.O O O C. CD O O C.O O O CD O CD O (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. (DN N CD LO UJ 613 (O LO 63 613 (O LO U3 (O O 63 - O O a0 OR (O U3 N U) U) U3 U3 0 0 C. O O 0 0 O Q O O O N CD 0 C. 0 C. 0 LO Lo UJ 63 l00 63 C. C. yt l00 6 100 N L e4 U3 to U3 O O C:) O O O o 0 0 0 C. 0000000000 0 N 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 LO LO O O p N UJ� (O U3 6s � 0 � 00 6s U3 UJ U) 00 0000 0 00000 O O O O O O O O O O O O NO 0LOO^ 00OD N O LO U04 3 04 U) LO U3 U3 U) to�to N U3 6s a 0 rn rnrnrn rn 0 Y C. rn 0 0 0 0 C. m M 0 rn rn rn rn 0 C. 0 oR n a0 °'� aaa a �a>ma>amam OV 0004 o va �� �m EEE E vaa ma m L v3 N N U a Cl 0 U 0 0 U U 0 U a 0. a n Mn n w W O O O O O O O O O ¢ (D U U U U U U U U U IL LL U U (D N C f6 O Cl N U 0 N (D p C (D w m 7 U (6 a 0 3^y^� - m � O J f6 ((D O C ' U 3 O> C Cc > C O � C N 2 c _N E N O (7 0 N. E U U Cu C N@ O f0 LL 02 070 U 2 E di l6 0"O wU p E O 01 @ O d O Co Cl Cl03 N �a 0 'N-' O` N 07 C �• - U C N N i1 C O i1 O p .L (q C 0 (n ` 0 C l6 w N Co n 3 _7 X O Co U U O = y E (p C 0 N N N 7 N fi C N Co U Co =i x C C C a) N ¢ CO? W a U N O a N N❑ C; _ N 0. C N c¢ O U X (` W _ 'O d U N N N m N z N t= Y :7 C fN aD�m�m C C �c O1 rnU N 01 c N LL fC6 aj V x�mc32w O f6 a @ n C O > N fn 0 +' N O C U •C > l6 N N Q LL N N Y U LL Lu U f0 >` LLI E (1 C U .� d 0 .� N CI .>. O N CO 1 O (� U "O 0 C •� D W Z, f6 > O m .0.. i j .� f0 2 f�6 (L.i x O Z, f6 Z,'� w 'O Q N'O ¢0=ya�mo=�a>iv¢¢U0 ..L Cw"O 3 O W U2U L O UU a ` mU..2 n LLL� € wLL y� y� E 3Uin LU f`6 W Q x y¢ 'wu fiU 7 IL o 0 QdmW 0_ 0_. a c 7dmlgWUdUU 0 u�_x�xx Com m o m»¢ W22LL m LL mach a Ja}UULL oxxm @xin QUaiUUUZ 0._._ (o m—cna aJ U UJ ¢� 0 LLa 7 Packet Pg. 96 6.A.b 696q69 o C! g 0 EA O O O to 6q O O O O l0 da O O O O O O Lo O N OD V3 MY O O O O O O Lo OL I- to V3 H3 O O O I- V3 0) W O O N N N N 100 � Cl E E O O U U N tll C @ CoCo Cl (D d E C _ N C N N U U C Co N N E LT) d 0 0 7 N C C C O a O @ O0.2 $ a E �LL fpaLLLL E O `mU m O -0 N olU U N LLI °O O 6 C Co@ O L7 N 3 - E L-L 0- Y W w a U U N N U Co V5 0 d d I d O 69 O C LO N en O O C LO O O O O C V r 6n O C 00 e 00 w U N O IL @ 0 w N O N N N O N N O N M N O N N N O N N O N O N O N Z O N a1 O O N c N d O N N 0) N Ccc O L 07 N N LL U p N Co N_N_ 0d LLCl `p @ .@-. N ta p ik ik CLn U L N C N C l0 C Il Il C @-O � E a)7 m c W W N O N LL w ccc L m a)ww U K Ix c E EU O y @ c U E E C E `o O o C7 ° 0 7 LL -c o 0 0 W 0 r c LLU C @ C C C LL U d LL o c 3�°(D a;o N N� LLLL g U) Cl) N 0.'000D O O O C a N@- K�: @ a 63: O EA O N O N O 69 O tO 0 Packet Pg. 97 6.A.b E a1 0 L IL N c d E O Q E to Q U Sa O O 00 O O O 00C O O O 010 0 Co 010 a)m to 00)O 000N N M V36oC CoO I° O C') V)- V) V) V3 V3 V3 O O O O O O 00 0 (°O O O N IM V3 V3 Co O 00 O O O 000 O O O O O 00 OOp 00 W -�r l0 Cn0 N N N V3 Co V3 Co7� V) V3 V) V3 N 41 N V) V3 00 0 0 U U 0 U O O O O O O O O O U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo'0000)rin)ri)nnc° Op a a GN -tO N�60N C\ C c C V3 V3 'o V) V3 (AlV) z, O O N N N_ N_ O N N_ O a5 a7 O O a5 O 00 U-9. � ( ° d ° NNN (7 0 (7 o0)M0 o n c c c 0 �vvv a a U U C C a U C Op p O N N N O M Lo N N 0 0 U U N 0 U 0 en en U U U Cl) V3 )0a) O O O Co O Co M Vj xxxxxxxx x x x C E m N C m � > w N O C U U O. E E Q c C c > E E a E w E c E - a) 0 0 0, E a) U° > ` O > ` o° E o > E 0 aClanS a)° > E E ` 5 E E a c o o a n� c a - E o ° N ° w U U a) C V )nc�a)a)>c5 O) cc a) a) a) Q O moo° ` U E2 .0.. {{pp O IJ a) .O. C c -E Cz C O U N U N C 0 a) 12 c O) 1���.`0•� N� C� U) �; U) .: .U) c 0 T I W f. U 60 U) O N j�.: ul U) p >`L aS .L. CO .L..�QN O a)Qat > .L.. gyp i 00 3N �.O.NNNNO� NID0) �OQi°)N r W m O O N U 0 0 0 0 0 N � Of N===S 02 n o U)fn U) 000 0 0 000 0 000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O V1 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O V) O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 10 N V3 O7 V �M OMB 00 mmoo 0)MO� Vi IONM 0N 10(Om CO CO�n MO 0M"t to 000 N(ON� n M LO O) CO N V) V3 V) V3 N V) V3 N�On� V3 V) 1 V3 V) V3 V3 00 V) - V3 - V3 V) M V) O O 00 M 6p3 O O 00 N V) O O 10 6 O O O _ V3 O O O O n O O O O V V) N_ 10 LL N V) 0000 O O O O O to n O a 0 O O O O O lO N CO N n O O O O10 M O O O O O O to n N O O O O O 000000 C. O O1012 I O O C. O O m-n 0 0 O O N V3 V) V) V3 V3 V3 V) V3 V3 V) V3 N V) 6p3 Co V) O O O O V) O O O O V3 O O O M10 V3 O O O V) O Co O t2" V3 O O V) O O O m V3 O 000000 O M10 V3 O O O O �; Cq V) V3 O O O l0 d- Sm— V) O O n Co V) 0 Ci 0 LQ 00 Co O CoLo V3 O to N 60 O O N O O O m V Cl) 1- Lo V) Lo V3 0 V) V) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x U ul a) Q t � � a) E O V O Q U > 0 E I- 0). Co w . > O� c Q O O 5 w En 45 Ci > ?j � �_ln E``� E U)U)U)\ �0 2' C a) dQ > = ai � U) 0 a d cQNNO 00 >-p QQ 0 OQ >O N' C y a) C 0� m 0 0 E o O O O O y Y N U N L a) O C Co °)n����-nn d o� ° o� �•a °t as " U)UOU)< d u> " c Cl) Oa 2 �£� _ - -0) > a) > ? o c ai I >L c o.4 O 0 c c d c O a) 00 N N N 40 n "6 L= d N E Co Y m E= w O E E E E E M CO O m a) O E r n N 0 O E w o 0 o E E L°> E E E°> E Z° g Q x mmm>,>,>,m°wmw>3°O p-3i �:aEE mY33mnsm3>,>�3 >+ N Y Y Y Y y Y a) a7 Y M E a) ,maiE-o a) a) 3> O) cCc w Y>> m> m>>m---> Cc Cc 3 3N m m> c-2 U- 3 3�cQy m> O L c> L 3 > > > N '0 U> Co > N a Y � N (b U) > a) ._ a n J a) .L. m w dm o0 Co 3��= y L L Q Q Q L C C t fn NNN W OJ CON»NUU�ornwUio S(n 00 m Packet Pg. 98 6.A.b O rn A Of n N 7 Alk 0 O F rn N CO N N Ln N N N 00 to O O O 0 O LO N to NV3 V3 to O O 00 O 0(n M CO N nM N N N V) 0a07 � Vj O O O O O O Co O O N � 6n9 CO 000 Co000 O000 C 0 0 O Q (Do 0�0 W M (00N (V n (o ON N V) V3 V3 11 � V3 V) a c m W Or N �NC CO 00 O �M 04 0)00 �0V?- N f3 M 6Y 6Y a LL U �O 0 3 m Cl) � O c m o aE E m (q >, O o in N o o m E m m c m c NY E � m Q O 5 Co U� U (n(nLO) _ = N o �L cc m g .m.. (n > �a W E (n o(O� (N��E>(D o� CO£co E E o¢ � (pp(n Nm E Ec'n o 0 o m E O w L_ m >` in U m mmwo "cc a> 3°)c>, N NQ`�N �N m 00� `Ud cc a�M'a m>Ea N > ,q>>a >� O mmm� a >v o a� 'SOU m ._ OQa N.L.. Yn (nQN C.L.yTL 04 QO N CAN _ N N �c c��cymv�?dma� N N T N N m N N N m N 0 <:I�W �CL�LL�~�� O V3 O V3 O O O O O 0 00 O O O o C O O O N 0 CTO 01,0(f O 00 MN (O In O ;ECDC N o 0 N L 60A O V) V) V) V3 V) 00 O O O 0 0 O o 0 0 O 0 OOOOOOO 00000000 00000000 O O O O O O 000 C O O C 0 O o 0 C 0 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C C 0 C 0 C 0 L O OCO N CO M n0 n O O 0 a00 O 7( n CO0 N (V m O to I--O 0( n N CO O( O to � O O O N 000 007 N V3 V3 VjO0 .. 61 N V) V3 Co V) I,- Co V) V3 V) V3 ONN _ V3 V3 I-MnN V) 63 V3 V) V3 OIOn V) V3 V3 OO Co 00 1,-00 I-- Co 0 0 OOL7 000 oon omm ONN 000 O o00 (oI-- (On0 O O (o 0 O 0 o M 00 O 00 M(n NCO O OOOOO O O 0000� (o"(nCOeO COn O O O OM N CD Vjn eelV) N� n V3 �j V) V3N V) eelV) N7 V3 61 V3 V) V3 V) V3 N e Vj Cn N N Cm O N N N LLI0 Cm N N LL U ID ID E C a U Cu- L LO y j > (n 0) N N Q m > r E n N U O O m E r m C Y> (O > N> L L w m E E Y E ' > �(q E > O (n m mL E 0 O. NQS~O >.00 a C N. C N N m ' L C m p (p L E T L n n v ° E ° E° E m ai > w wn°. � Cn O O V E m N m o C y 'O N O= o .O L p O .O. co, O n 00 C_ � U7 (� 'O V U O m 0 E U C U Q)Nom O 'O L L> (o(qu>oa >>� L m m (n O �L oR��?im=EE0 N d N m N C� N m N m m E = N N n L= E N D C >> a O (n U7 O E E E E EO (O EO 2 N ? N C L C L m> Of N (n >C «> >_ C> w w w 'F w 0 w m O p _ 0� W (n 3 m m m m w m �' �r Y N N N m N >` OD C s a a (n m Y Y 2> Z 1r S' Y E Y 2 m m m 3 N a v_ 3>O N>N V .. >� > > > 9>>@>>.O > p U-mo 04 �o��"ornino m >vvvva > in > > > O n 3: a) Y L Q a a) Q L Co 5 L m an d O R ad m��2 �� �(n m(n m (nNN N�aOD 00 N> > m 10 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.b V> O 6 Ol n 0 O Co 11 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.b O L a E rn � 3 0 LL a N V N � E a > 1° 0 Q Q E U LO f0 = U Ui O fR O O V3 V3 O N V3 C O O V3 V3 O O V3 V3 O O c V3 O O V3 KJ O O Vi Vi O O V3 V3 O O V3 � O O V3 V3 O O O Vi Vi Vi � N O O 7 N O � � F N � O N N O N N N O N � O O N N M CD, N M N O O N N O O N O N N N a in V c o O c in 7 O N cV N O N a 0 O O O N c o coo o N E M N N � W IL LL X X X U rn c L rn .T Y C O � U a0i 3 o � � a O m N O U w N � O 2 N C Y - E> N m 0 O N y V N U O O. N m "O m .N- E C m U T 6 m o .m a E E 2`E m O >c o c Y m>Ec °> E o>`o-° E- 0 2.° m Y 2 C ll ESL mvY` E0> > iL vO. O N Z 2 m YoEOm m 0 m �w y U J d � °: �� L•v m m m m m� � m m 3� m Y o a rn U C N` "O C N a =LU O Co m N w0O 0Oa.E o?i W°> LW/LE 00 EC a a¢ >V> wEmaiN Nmm2aU)U)3: Mm rmU 0w=o ¢>. N M N O M O C 0 to rr O C 0 to f- O rr 12 Packet Pg. 101 6.A.b O N O M n N n rn v w w m N 0 � � � r N � ER � N O N EA 00 ER O O O w N r � � m M of O O M � EA � of N N N O N EA O O O ER O O O O m W UO O fA fA CN O to O OD n N � EA � OD O N N O N EA O O O O ER O O O O N � � O1 O 7 O � f� D O N O O EA ER ER � n M � N N� ER O ER O O O ER � O M O OD N ' � N O O N N M N M ER � M O N ER O O ER N N V O M 13 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.b O M w O c0 a r 0 O> r N O 60i 7 C4 O O O N m O O r O O Cl! 7 r f0 W N N M Cn N ev e» ei N� m 0Ok N M N rn N M_ O C N r r M Cn 1(� O N N M rn N »»»� O N M N r N 01 �n M O N (OOOr V N OD r N a N N N M 0 N to EA V3 N� W 0 N r rn O N O N rn Cl! N M M w r N N M N n N M O N 0 N c0 OD CO N a0 rn m r 0 o M o N N O N N M O N N w w N N N �rnrnr o� N m r m O mN N M VO O N it IL 0 R mm N N fMD N � W O N O N IL LL U U N a U E m m U N a y > v W Q O m dLLZJ 0. h Q Z m o 0 0 E (p F W U m U U d .�, 0 aZi u) u) a�i a�i (n u) w w a 0M n d U LL a Cl000 O O O O O O O O O O O O LL] O o O O O O 0 O O O r W ��N O O Ln O EAM O m O o m In ofA Ln o o V NN EA o o� O 0 O O O O O 00 O M en 0 M 00 o N es o O O M av O O M fA O O O N es O O cl O o O o 0 O 0 O O O o o O `O O o o N cl O o oo 0 00�m _ o Mcl V3 EA o R Lnr � am o ru�oo 1� Ln rn r O W M� CO OrD M M N fA EA � V H3 fA V> x xx U N N T u) > > L � j U 3 m a L N pL-' N E O rn rn (� 'o ENU — No a E o 0 2L> O .c o a `m o U) E t0 OO a C C i CN N U)— c7 UO m mo15> u'au)i �mmU222 ya�i mom c a oo '> 019 go °5 m �: N d m — m m Y c E'E ma c m'm 2�g0 �U d(7 > :Y >>"UU mmin— l6u)O�L L> L U U�'O EL, oao E-c a awD 04 W NHHUi�HamH w r M M w m C tc 75 14 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.b IIL0 N O N _ v0 0 O fA O 0 O N O fl 0 0 fA ER 0 0 O fA O 0 0 fA O O 0 M O N ER 7 O ER O O ER ER O O ER fA N _ N aR. C M M fA N fA O F N N O N O O O N A O O O h w O O m r N A N N O c Efl O O 0 fA O O N EA N N N cl o O O � N 04 M V �'j CoN 7 to to N M N O � co) � N V d 6 E W W O N O N O Co O O o o _ _ M 61) IL V X X X X C C a m L to Ca O d Cu � O 'V O T N N rn y o U U m v Htm 3 o `o> wm o c o LL N o _ LL O d r d O �° a d n a m LL:o a o o' a`o .` (7 E E a>> o '� m O a a O O T Q C C N = J Lu &� 15 a>> a>>oaoaLo N c d cL z Y LL d K D U o m a> o o m m m F 3 a`> O X w? ? w d a`_> 5 N z C7 a m m d, U >° N d U U O O `c t O C E m m c LL c o oo Y a m LL o p Q� o o m m Cl? E> .- u L a -o d t E d 'T U U U> > U> LL LL O U> J> W O n N It 7 C N V O o N 7 O N N N N m � O O 0 N N N O N a0 0 O N � 0 O N aD Cl) O N O � O � O O O IT V� CtM> M V O fA N O N m W � O V o m , N N � � � M O C N � L'i fA � V Vi R £ coo 0o aoo uQ 'e» w O N O N i» IL U 3 F rn m 2 0 J Oto F- O N r c=N O n C4, 1 c N E C to v LL 2 U o W m U d d C d J C LL o ^ L C a as E as as E M (dj m m m m a o a m a d m m C 0 a> d U LL a> U a> E U c c 0- y d o m N 7 c c m£ c c= o U£ m N K N N m m a1 N LL CO E N N CO x ,� o fa C U LL N N N N O N N N N N O O 0 M fp O O 0 V O O O O 0 00 n r fp O N 0 O 0 � d K E u O N O m o w c, O N a u. U d U ID ID u) Y EL a1 O .6 Z N N C U C d E d E o 1L O N a O N Z W o O O 0 LL LL LL LL U O U 3 o J y o i-q LL d C d u> J H J p1 d d+ N O o .o O c m a`> a C o f O c C c a1 u y6 'o m U 2 2' c o fn m> a`> d U `� o m a) 16 d d N -o :2 � a a U'� o c N d c-�o TIF c:2T c:2 IF- L O N N LL O N Y a> a> a a a> a> a a a> a> a a U c o 3 U m y rn m N U H> U U U U U U >>� C> o w C o c 0 L>>>>>> 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U L C C og N j LL Q U' a 5 5 5 5 5 5 ii H O 15 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.b O M fA O O O O O Q _ a w r w o 3 D (D y � w a O 06 U A r d � i d d w U C ob O awi y Y a m w u) E m y m 0 p U w C ° c� Z Z w a 16 1 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.b CO N O N O N O N co N O N N O N N O N O m N O N N N O N N O N IL LL U R O a. N rn i N d O E a` > `m w 0 Q a Z C C , � R v w r O R U Ui a O O O O O O O O C O m r N N l 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O EA EA EA EA EA M l o O LO O C M't -It O L O LO CO r V N EA C M O O O O EA Vi O_ M O O N C O � N O m O V3 C2N� W O�M Co V) N CM CM V V .1 61 En VT V3 VT V> V> V> M O N M M m W LO CM fA m N CM 7 G O CO r Lo Co V) Ch VT r CM r CM G O LO CO LO L U) 69 M V9l W rN� m CO Co LOO CM V� N_ V COO V CO CWO Co N VT 00 CD CDLo M O O m O O_ O M O O r �V> V) Co NCO FR N 6", 60), V� CM9Co r N NOCCoo 0 7 m C M r°� M N m N M O O M 7 7 W m v rIt V3 7 N V) rEA CM fA fA fA ffi V� X X 0 0 Cri c r W O N M 7 l o C O r E O O O O O O O N NOOO to O C °1 mcorn E E EEEE E E a E E N m m m m m m m m m _ aEi U CU Co Co Ca CaO m m O mCh O m O O mmm O O O 4 c C Ca O> pad d d d d d d d d m d c m c .i E E m m ro ro ro ro) ro o � O O U Cn U A Cn U A U U U U U w U N a0j ��LLLL CO m N m N m N N m m N N m m N m O T`—° a�U Cn O 'c t "O CD CD CD 3 C O 3 C C O 3 C C 3 3 C C Fa Fa 3 3 C C Fa 3 C m O C N N a1 CO r fU6 fU6 E o ¢�¢�¢¢¢¢¢¢m> a xs>aaiaai m����`°� E¢- m a� n c m m m m m m m m m o mU LL 72 7 7 Cn O Cn CNJ Ca Cn Ca Cn Cn Ca Ca Co Co Ca Ca Co Ca Co Co c Ca O CNJ 2 cl, r C n¢¢ a- c,d N d d d a- a- a-LL f n a-N U 00 6-1M loll C, M N I�I N Im LO toM I I 1 0 M N N M M fA VT r o r o w o W W W Co 00 Co r r to VJ N W O N VT N r r a 7 fA VT CO O W T VT 01 LO LA W am0 M E9 M VT � Cl M w r O O r r M M fA 4'l LO O Co LO r a O O fA r � N N N T T N N I�fi M M W 'n N r r N v a o J � UL.+ N Ca O °0 N a) .6 w c m E d C U E C 0) 6 a. y ¢ cn E o d Cu m m F CL F H 17 1 1 6 Packet Pg. - § k\ LLJ E u xlxlxlxl x zE <)) � # �§ a) Z )7 t }{ §° )occ ■.2 E -§ --- �)t) 2 kf 2 W7// { gg�, IL 2 )\\} ;a 2) )/! E -. 21 (® } �� c f ° / Z �f 2cD -a5-. / G . LU §222\2] Eto£=£E / = w w3\3«3'u x 18 Packet Pg. 107 oo $ I a J / / } \ co Lo In LO \ \ 69 to Q LO a � 0 2 LO ea ]f _ ®L { x x k x x x ) ) ) cc _ ) ) -CL o k �) \ ^ co \ - — / 06 $§ a $ a k ) - - Co [ f / } §/ _ ;) p k �( )} / \ to §] Co !) < 2 | $ f 2 ({ #- Co E - E ) w)! 3/ A J �3) 3 ] / ]ww 19 Packet Pg. 108 6.A.b (D N O N N CD (D N O N N O N N O N O M N O N N N O N N O N a 0 a7 O EN O .- N N W a LL U E R � a 0 a a O +y+ C U N m N O � E a` E > N W L) 0 3 m a N Z K E c M r y V W 7 U a Li in O OOOMO w CO f--O LC>OOOf-- Es3000aoornaornr�vCOEs3 (o C O 0 O O CO N N W f- O O MOOOM Lo V CO MM MN OEA O M w N OOO O N EAO V3O- NM V LnM V CO H3 - N NNN6,�, 6,�,N V3 EA V3 EA V3 E9, 03 Ln N CM M V O N V7 V7 LO V7 O O r- r- Co M O V OCo Co O M CN Lo N V3 V7 V7 O C)W CD 00 7 _ O O Lo C� w CoLO N � V3 V3 V7 N Lo L O CA Co 7 Co M O LO - 6,3 V7 V7 O V 00 LLo O Lo N (O (O N ((o M Co V7 V7 VJ 0 O M O 00 O O Co O �O (O OM M { CO 613, 613, V3 M 6,3 V 613 �: M M M � M N V7 V7 V7 O N N (V N M V N N Lo O N N r- N O O O O O O O O N <n v N N N C C N N C C N C C C c m m E E m a) E E m E E E E > > > > > N Co a) a) >> a) > O O O O O O O O O O O a a a a a a s a E E E E E E E E —��aaaaa` — — — — L L a s a Co Co m m mCo r r m m r a) W W 0 �0 a) a)� � m m - = c c c a a m m a a m m M m M y y of � 3 3 3 a3i a3i a3i a3i a3i d 3 N�inin m m mCoCoCoCoCo Tin— 3 a) 3— a)U m m m m m m (n (n W 0 C C C C Q Q C C Q Q C a Q a >oC Q a p a U C) Q M�aD C T C J m Co Co L L O Co Co L L=-C C !9 O O IlY N N W Ci N N Iq V3 Vi N N 00 C C O O 4& 4& O O Lo 00 V3 00 W OD M M M M V3 V3 00 V3 00 Co 00 01 Cn Co T T W OD n � V3 V3 I w r N Cl O e n � M M V3 V3 00 � Co OO OD V 00 a0 O N N V3 V3 O a VJ 7 O O N N V3 V3 0 ON1 � T n � � N N a7 m w a 3 E W C m o a 3 .012 otS 023 LL N °� N (n a C N w in 3 U d .6 m o r CAU) (n r 5 o, o N r N 06 o = u E m o Co m o o ` -(n m m IL a a :9 J J J a � r Z F F F 20 Packet Pg. 109 6.A.b 6'�O� _ N O N W H N O N EA O O O O O o O O O C O ^ CDO 0 0 0 LO N N V N O O O O N O to fA O 613 6f1 N � � N O O O O O O ^ O O O CDO C O O D O O O O O 11 LO CD Lf) CD CD LO O LO CD 0 O O O 0 LO 1A fR LO ITEA V3 V3 N � �� N � O O O O o O O O O O o^ O O O O O old D NCD O le O OO LO N LOO LO N 0 O O O 0 LO EA IO fR LO o v V3 V3 N Ef3 N N O N O O O O O CD O O O O O CD^ CD O 0 y o O N O O O N N N O V .O O O LO EA di V3 V3 N t!) N a n� 0 CD 0 o CD 0^n lc Lo to C O o o to to (O tD N Ln N Cr CD r N a)O _ _ 0 N EA 61i N d'T N O OD V3 V3 N � �� N � LO LO O O O O Un O O o ^ N O C O O C N n V N O O O CD CDIh CD N N N Ui N LO V3 d'T LO N V3 ER fA fA V � to a a 0 0 rn N NN y 0 O oNN r0+ N W W W N E C-4 N 0 N O N N _ O is N y di If) �? W �66� W a LL U a y U °1 n1 y n a C a7 R N O W > a N U O) L R N y a O NO a) a C W O L F O w N Co O O O d a7 7 U O N 7 C a1 c 3 = c o O cc C S o w N U 2 m a 7 m s L) -you o c m u > W 0 0` d R o Co _ o y as > a � U m as y '- s> as Q c Q d d a N c a� y ' m m 3 O CO O U d N a7 U C E 0 (Oj N d R N U U U O y ayi I. N W C C y 0 U w 22� au �'co'm5-°u O = C 0 N N C C a) a0+ p N > C al cn m N N N N N f6 f6 U LL a UUD F a am C C�(7 y FF W `m N U y 21 Packet Pg. 110 6.A.b �a .Q U c d N m v m LL .Q c� U m N O N N O N d N O O_ O L- a. 4) �L v 3 a. O N O N N N O CD N O N IL N O N d U H LL a o: c N r+ C O E t u r Q C CU E L C) R Q 22 1 Packet Pg. 111 6.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 23 1 Packet Pg. 112 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q 24 1 Packet Pg. 113 6.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS (,-,-:EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 25 1 Packet Pg. 114 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q 26 1 Packet Pg. 115 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $652,546 $652,546 1 % Art TOTAL $652,546 $652,546 27 1 Packet Pg. 116 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration ESTIMATED COST: TBD (Willow Creek Daylighting) A portion of this project is not currently owned by the City of Edmonds (labeled Chevron Services Co.) Ownership discussions are ongoing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park, renovation of that park, and daylighting of Willow Creek within the park is included as a secondary capital improvement project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project will fulfill the PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's $363MM capital budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects that will expand and improve salmon habitat. The natural tidal exchange will allow juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine life to utilize the estuary. Similarly, the restoration will allow Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek for spawning (the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery is located adjacent to the Marsh). Conditions that support migratory birds and waterfowl will also be improved. The increased volume and rate of saltwater exchange will also allow a natural redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna. Likewise, the increased tidal exchange will reduce the accumulation of contaminants and increase oxygenation within the Marsh. The estuarine functions including its role in the aquatic food web and the delivery of nutrients to coastal waters will also be enhanced. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise impacts and enhance natural carbon sequestration (blue carbon offset). Lastly, the project will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. The stormwater project will require cleaning out culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 28 1 Packet Pg. 117 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements I ESTIMATED COST: $5M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $250,000 $250,000 Engineering Construction $250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 29 1 Packet Pg. 118 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor ESTIMATED COST: $3,350,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design of 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor to include site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 41h Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 41h Avenue. Two funds are utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $94,500 $250,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $94,500 $250,000 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 30 1 Packet Pg. 119 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in multiple areas throughout town for example: outdoor plaza's, corner parks, the library, Frances Anderson Center, streetscapes, gateways and flower baskets. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. This program is highly supported by volunteers in the community. Baskets and corner parks are sponsored generating revenue to support the program SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 31 1 Packet Pg. 120 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Greenhouse Replacement I ESTIMATED COST: $100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: One of the four greenhouses need to maintain our city-wide beautification and flower program needs to be replaced. The funding for the greenhouse replacement is proposed to come from two areas. 1. $50,000 from the flower program portion of the Parks Trust Fund (136-100); 2. $50,000 from REET 2 (fund 125). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: One of the four greenhouses that enables the growing of the thousands of plants for the flower program (100) needs to be replaced. The wooden foundation is rotting, deteriorating and collapsing which is causing the plastic to rip and allowing climate -controlled air to escape. The continued failing of the foundation will only progress and cause ripping beyond repair. The greenhouse is 20 years old and significantly past its expected life cycle. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional Services $50,000 TOTAL $50,000 32 1 Packet Pg. 121 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Capital ESTIMATED COST: $930,000 Replacement Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds owns, operates, and maintains 47 parks and open spaces consisting of more than 230 acres and including a mile of Puget Sound beach and shoreline. Funding allocation for major maintenance, replacements and small capital projects for the city-wide parks and recreation amenities including paved and soft -surface trails, bridges, playgrounds, sports courts, athletic fields, skate park, Yost pool, restrooms, pavilion, picnic shelters, fishing pier, lawn areas, parking lots, fencing, lighting, flower poles, monument and interpretative signage and related infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Insufficiently maintained parks and related assets lead to higher deferred maintenance costs, increased city liability and decreased level of service and community satisfaction. The 2016 PROS Plan Goal #7 is to provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all parks and related public assets in Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional Service $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Construction $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 TOTAL $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 33 1 Packet Pg. 122 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / Playground ESTIMATED COST: $25,000 Partnerships PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade youth ballfields, play facilities and playgrounds improving neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Funding to enter into partnerships in which matching funds could support neighborhood park facility improvement. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Construction $25,000 TOTAL $25,000 34 Packet Pg. 123 6.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION EDMONDS PAR!(S, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 35 1 Packet Pg. 124 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q 36 1 Packet Pg. 125 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital ESTIMATED COST: $2,400,768 Projects R10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on the following projects: Marina Beach- ends 2031; Edmonds Center for the Arts (PSCC) — ends 2026; the Frances Anderson Center (FAC) Seismic Retrofit — ends 2026 and Civic Park — ends 2039 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN • "7 PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Principal & Interest— $82,128 $80,178 $83,878 $82,653 $81,393 $80,063 Marina Beach Principal & Interest— $56,598 $60,098 $58,998 $58,035 $57,045 $51,000 PSCC Principal&Interest— $27,092 $26,968 $27,205 $27,007 $27,129 $27,205 FAC Principal & Interest — $234,247 $233,475 $232,225 $235,725 $233,725 $236,475 Civic Park TOTAL $400,292 400,718 $402,305 $403,419 $399,291 $394,743 37 Packet Pg. 126 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield I ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $71,816 1 % Art TOTAL $71,816 38 1 Packet Pg. 127 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Park and Open Space Acquisition Program ESTIMATED COST: $1,700,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of land when feasible that will benefit citizens and fit the definitions and needs identified in the PROS plan. $700,000 is currently reserved for park land and open space acquisition. These funds were accumulated 2019, 2020 and 2021. There is no request to purchase land in 2021. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: There are large areas of Edmonds where the Parks level of service is below current standards; particularly on the Hwy 99 corridor. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 39 1 Packet Pg. 128 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration ESTIMATED COST: TBD (Willow Creek Daylighting) A portion of this project is not currently owned by the City of Edmonds (labeled Chevron Services Co.) Ownership discussions are ongoing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park, renovation of that park and daylighting of Willow Creek within the park is included as a secondary capital improvement project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project will fulfill the PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's $363MM capital budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects that will expand and improve salmon habitat. The natural tidal exchange will allow juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine life to utilize the estuary. Similarly, the restoration will allow Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek for spawning (the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery is located adjacent to the Marsh). Conditions that support migratory birds and waterfowl will also be improved. The increased volume and rate of saltwater exchange will also allow a natural redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna. Likewise, the increased tidal exchange will reduce the accumulation of contaminants and increase oxygenation within the Marsh. The estuarine functions including its role in the aquatic food web and the delivery of nutrients to coastal waters will also be enhanced. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise impacts and enhance natural carbon sequestration (blue carbon offset). Lastly, the project will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. The stormwater project will require cleaning out culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 40 1 Packet Pg. 129 6.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 41 1 Packet Pg. 130 6.A.b r N O N d N O Q O L a r �L d V a O N O N N N O r O N O N r N O N a_ U H LL Q N C N E t V R r r Q C N t V Q 42 1 Packet Pg. 131 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor ESTIMATED COST: $3,350,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design of 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor to include site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 41h Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 41h Avenue. Two funds are utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $2,500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 43 1 Packet Pg. 132 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 wr{ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. Fund 332 includes grant, bond, donation, park impact fee and general funding. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $67,620 Engineering $45,833 $45,832 Construction $5,148,500 $5,284,835 1 % Art $44,000 $44,000 TOTAL $5,305,953 $5,374,667 44 1 Packet Pg. 133 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Walkway Completion — Ebb ESTIMATED COST: $1,250,000 Tide Section ■.� � fir_ �i . Located in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, the City of Edmonds has an easement intended to complete the pathway. The easement and walkway design are currently under legal review. This land is located within the Edmonds City Limits in Snohomish County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to Marina Beach Park ensuring all individuals, including those with mobility challenges and those pushing strollers can safely enjoy the entire waterfront. The final missing piece would be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide public access along the waterfront for all individuals. Completion of the walkway would meet ADA requirements and would support efforts to keep dogs off of the beaches. A top priority in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering Construction $500,000 $750,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 $750,000 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 45 1 Packet Pg. 134 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements I ESTIMATED COST: $5M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. Fund 332 includes park impact fees, donations and grants. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $1,500,000 $2,750,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,500,000 $2,750,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 46 1 Packet Pg. 135 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation I ESTIMATED COST: $57,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project located at Olympic Beach, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City Limits. Owned by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Maintained by the City of Edmonds. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Completion of the fishing pier rehabilitation project. There are several cracks under the pier that should be sealed to prevent further cracking and potential corrosion. A repair technique has been identified and the funding is provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Repair is essential to extend the life of the fishing pier which supports both recreational fishing and provides a food source for residents. Maintaining park assets is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional Service Construction $54,425 TOTAL $54,425 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 47 1 Packet Pg. 136 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration ESTIMATED COST: TBD (Willow Creek Daylighting) A portion of this project is not currently owned by the City of Edmonds (labeled Chevron Services Co.) Ownership discussions are ongoing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park, renovation of that park and daylighting of Willow Creek within the park is included as a secondary capital improvement project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project will fulfill the PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's $363MM capital budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects that will expand and improve salmon habitat. The natural tidal exchange will allow juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine life to utilize the estuary. Similarly, the restoration will allow Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek for spawning (the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery is located adjacent to the Marsh). Conditions that support migratory birds and waterfowl will also be improved. The increased volume and rate of saltwater exchange will also allow a natural redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna. Likewise, the increased tidal exchange will reduce the accumulation of contaminants and increase oxygenation within the Marsh. The estuarine functions including its role in the aquatic food web and the delivery of nutrients to coastal waters will also be enhanced. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise impacts and enhance natural carbon sequestration (blue carbon offset). Lastly, the project will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. The stormwater project will require cleaning out culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 48 1 Packet Pg. 137 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) 6.A.c ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION 112 SR-104 Adaptive System Installation of adaptive system along SR-104 from 226th St. SW to 236th St,. SW X in order to improve traffic flows along this corridor. 112 Main St Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave. Overlay Main St. from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave., along with curb ramp upgrades. 112 Citywide Bicycle Improvements project Addition of bike lanes or sharrows along 100th Ave. from 244th to Walnut, X Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. to 84th, 80th from 220th to 228th, and 228th from 78th to 80th. 112 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W Addition of sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W / project X ranked #11 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan) 125 1 Greenhouse Replacement I I Replacement of aging greenhouse 421 Phase 17 Annual Replacement Program (2027) Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2021 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 Phase 8 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026) Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 175th Slope Repair Repair Slope North of 175th, west of 76th) and roadway repair 422 Willow Creek Daylighting Channel Additional Alternative Alignment X Study of additional daylighting channel alignment 422 Edmonds Marsh WQ Improvements X WQ Improvements near SR 104 & W Dayton 422 Lake Ballinger Regional Facility Design and construct regional stormwater facility at Mathay Ballinger Park 423 Phase 14 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2026) Estimated future costs for sewer line replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2021 SS Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewer line replacements. 423 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 3 Estimated future costs for sewer project. UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) DELETED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 Walnut St. Sidewalk from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S X lCompleted in 2020 112 Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S X I lCompleted in 2020 112 80th Ave. W Walkway from 216th St. SW to 212th St. SW 10ther higher priority projects were added. 125 Waterfront Re -development X Completed in 2020 125 Community Garden Site no longer available for development 125 Marina Beach Design (30%) Completed 30%design and applied for RCO grants 125 City Park Pedestrian Safety Project Anticipate completion in 2020 125 Gateway Sign Project near completion Page 1 of 2 1 Packet Pg. 138 I 6.A.c I 126 1 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 332 1 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 None I Downtown Waterfront Public Market Land Acquisition I X lRestricted funds for future land acquisition, removed placeholder in CFP 421 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating lCompleted in 2020 421 2020 Waterline Overlays lCompleted in 2020 421 Phase 10 Annual Replacement Program (2020) lCompleted in 2020 422 Northstream Culvert Abandonment Completed 422 Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 1 Completed 422 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects Project completed at 71st & 174th; funding for out years revised into individual phased annual replacement projects 422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Converted to an operating budget; no longer a CIP project 422 2018 Lorian Woods Study IStudy complete 423 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 2 1 lCompleted in 2020 423 LS#1 Metering and Flow Study I lCompleted in 2020 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) CHANGED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I CHANGE 112 Walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. from X Walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Ave .S SR-104 to 9th Ave. 5 125 Waterfront Walkway Completion Moved to fund 332 125 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Postponed design completion from 2020-21 to 2022-23 125 Civic Park X Project split into two years 2021 and 2022 125 Multiple Small Park Improvements, Flower Poles & Yost Pool Consolidated into Citywide Park Improvement and Capital Replacement Program 126 Waterfront Walkway Completion Moved to fund 332 126 Civic Park X Project split into two years 2021 and 2022 126 Community Garden Land Acquisition Property no longer available for purchase, funds restricted for future acquisition 332 Civic Park X Project split into two years 2021 and 2022 332 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor 1 I Postponed design completion from 2020-21 to 2022-23 332 Outdoor Fitness Zones lConsoliclated into Civic Park Project 422 Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 2 ISlow start; shifted portion of funding from 2020 to 2021 422 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Deferred for 2022 completion; all funding shifted to 2021 and 2022 422 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 2020 & 2021 values reduced to provide funding for Seaview Phase 2 Page 2 of 2 1 Packet Pg. 139 6.A.d Save.the.Edmonds.Marsh@gmail.com October 14, 2020 Planning Board Members, Save Our Marsh is a community group concerned about the well being of the wildlife and the environs of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. We track and provide input on City, WSDOT, Chevron (Unocal) and WA Dept. Ecology activities as they affect the conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. Thus, we are writing to the Planning Board to help inform you on aspects of your Agenda Item on the City's 2021-26 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The chief factor affecting the ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary is the "disconnect" with open tidal exchange with Puget Sound. When the Port of Edmonds Marina was built in the 1960's, the saltwater marsh's outlet to Puget Sound was placed in a long pipe with a tidegate that restricted/prevented daily tidal exchange and eliminated spawning salmon returns to the Marsh's tributary streams. The only "fix" available now to restore the estuary is to place an open tidal channel across the old Unocal property on the south edge of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. The proposed "fix" for this long standing problem is in both the Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Facilities Plan under the heading "Edmonds Marsh -Estuary Restoration." Unfortunately, the planning of the Marsh -Estuary Restoration project to install a tidal channel across the Unocal property cannot proceed until the final disposition of the old Unocal property is resolved. The City has been unsuccessful in obtaining grant funds for this project due to the property issue. The City should cease spending staff time and funding to design and/or attempt to obtain grant funding to design or construct the tidal channel until such time that WSDOT formally announces its plans for the Unocal property and notifies the City on what it will cost the City to use that property for Marsh restoration. There are other procedural aspects that need to be worked on - such as changing the land use priorities in the City's Comprehensive Plan for the old Unocal property, and either rezoning or commencing development of a Master Plan for the old Unocal property in combination with enhancing the Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. As you know, WSDOT purchased the old Unocal property with the intent to relocate the Edmonds ferry terminal (the old "Edmonds Crossing" project). However, WSDOT has Packet Pg. 140 6.A.d abandoned that plan and have not declared future use of the old Unocal property. In spite of abandoning the ferry terminal plan back in 2007-2009, WSDOT was still telling the City that they preferred the tidal channel effectively be a ditch against the RR tracks (which is the worst possible design) resulting in the City wasting grant funds attempting to appease WSDOT for land use approval. Further, title for the property has not been transferred to WSDOT pending WA Dept. Of Ecology certifying that Chevron's cleanup of the property has been completed. Although we expected the cleanup to be completed over a year ago, additional contaminants have been found on the site and it is now uncertain when cleanup may be completed (maybe as long as 6 years out). Nonetheless, WSDOT has refused to commit to allowing a tidal channel across the property when they take ownership and have indicated they want "fair market value" payment for non -ferry use of that property which was purchased for about $8M in 2005. In conclusion, we ask that the Planning Board join us in recommending to the Council that the CIP and CFP be revised to stop staff from wasting time and funding to contractors for further design until the Unocal property disposition is known. Further, the CIP and CFP need to be revised to recast Marsh -Estuary Restoration as a PROS Plan project (since the Marsh, deeded as a wildlife reserve, is under Parks) rather than as a stormwater project (Fund 422) that would inappropriately use utility tax funds on non-stormwater activities. The City should now focus its effort on revising the Comprehensive Plan (which still refers to the defunct "Edmonds Crossing" project) and developing a Master Plan in conjunction with a WSDOT public process to resolve future use of the old Unocal property for an open tidal connection to Puget Sound and enhancement of the Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. cc: Mayor Mike Nelson Edmonds City Council Packet Pg. 141 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/28/2020 Tree Code Regulations Upate Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation Continue discussions on tree code. Introduction 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 (Attachment 1). Goal 1 of the UFMP is to maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage which included the following actions to achieve this goal: A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs Goal 3 of the UFMP is to incentivize protection trees on private property which included the following action: A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds A code update process has started to begin implementing these portions of the UFMP. In September, staff presented an outline of topics and possible concepts that will be explored with the Planning Board in review and updating of the City's tree related regulations (Attachment 2). These broad topics include: Tree retention during development - Including: exploring low impact development principles that may provide more flexibility in development in order to retain trees, specific tree retentions standards during development, and providing incentives for tree retention Establishing a tree fund into which development contributions or tree penalties can be tracked Packet Pg. 142 7.A and the proceeds spent on tree planting and preservation Reviewing penalties for illegal tree cutting Moving the main tree regulations for private property into the Natural Resources title of the City's development code Reviewing the existing permitting structure and exemptions for tree removal on currently developed property A first draft of the updated tree regulations addressing the above referenced UFMP Goals and Actions and the identified concepts is provided in Attachment 3. Schedule for Review The tree code will be discussed at each of the Planning Boards through the end of the year which the goal of having recommendation on the draft code from the Planning Board by the end of 2020. A tentative schedule for the review of the tree code follows: General Definitions - Definitions are a continual review. The code should clearly define all terms subject to regulation in the tree code. As the Planning Board works through review, we will identify terms which need definitions. October 28, 2020 Planning Board Meeting 1. 23.10.000 - Intent and Purpose 2. 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity a. Subsection A - Intro. What type of development this applies to. 3. 23.10.040 - Exemption a. What this code does not apply to. 4. 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited 5. 23.10.030 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity a. Subsection C - Tree Retention Requirements b. Subsection D - Priority for Tree Retention Requirements 6. 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility November 18, 2020 Planning Board Meeting 1. 23.20.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity a. Subsection B -Tree Retention Plan 2. 23.10.070 - Tree Protection Measures During Development 3. 23.10.080 - Tree Replacement 4. 23.10.090 - Bonding 5. 23.10.030 - Permits 6. 23.10.110 - Liability 7. 23.10.100 - Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 8. Chapter 3.95 ECC - Tree Fund December 9, 2020 Planning Board Public Hearing Staff will present a broad overview of the code (as amended from the October and November meetings) touching on the key pieces and then open up the public hearing for comments on the draft tree regulations. Packet Pg. 143 7.A Attachments: Attachment 1: City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan Attachment 2: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix Attachment 3: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations Packet Pg. 144 � _ L Y y • _ L r�7 it T } 3 IL • t • Ir I Y L� %too W-i {. ' - y • VW - Lf. i .. � R- �IMia AU 67 �rT ti is Mir Wrl `-N MI0100101010 � Urban Forest Management Plan July, 2019 4&r.r 01.k 7.A.a a Packet Pg. 146 7.A.a City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan July, 2019 DAVEYI-. Resource Group Prepared for: City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group, Inc. 6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A Atascadero, California 93422 Phone: 805-461-7500 Toll Free: 800-966-2021 Fax: 805-461-8501 www.davey.com/drg Packet Pg. 147 7.A.a Acknowledgments CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS Shane Hope, Director, Development Services Carrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant Terri Arnold, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Debra Dill, Parks Senior Laborer, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Jennifer Leach, Environmental Education & Sustainability Coordinator, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager, Development Services Department Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, Public Works Department CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair Gail Lovell, Position 2 William Phipps, Position 4 Barbara Chase, Position 5 Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6 Vivian Olson, Position 7 Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt. CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - Chair Matt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1 Daniel Robles, Position 2 Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5 Alicia Crank, Position 6 Todd Cloutier, Position 7 Mike Rosen, Alt. CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Mike Nelson, Position 2 — Council President Diane Buckshnis, Position 4 — Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Position 1 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3 Dave Teitzel, Position 5 Thomas Mesaros, Position 6 Neil Tibbott, Position 7 Cli E D 41 0 DAVEYI-O,. ResourGroup a Packet Pg. 148 7.A.a Table of Contents Executive Summary Scope & Purpose Plan Foundation Introduction Community Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest What Do We Have? r Edmonds' Urban Forestry History Regulatory Framework Regional Plans and Legislation Regional Urban Forestry Resources Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies Existing Urban Forest Practices What Do We Want? Stakeholder and Community Input How Do We Get There? Goals and Actions of the Plan How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Table of Figures Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Appendix D: Open House Summary Report Q Packet Pg. 149 7.A.a Executive Summary Background & Purpose Urban forest simply means the trees in an urban area. An urban forest management plan is a long- term plan for managing trees in a city. The purpose of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan is to provide guidance for managing, enhancing, and growing trees in the City of Edmonds over the next 20 years. Special emphasis is placed on managing trees on public property and along the public rights -of -way. Public Involvement ;n Process Public involvement has been part of developing and finalizing the Urban Forest Management Plan. The involvement has included open houses, website postings, informal survey, press releases, and submitted public comments, as well as formal public meetings by the Tree Board, Planning Board, and City Council. Plan Overview and Conclusion Edmonds, like many cities in the Pacific Northwest, once had large stands of old -growth trees that included Douglas fir and Western red cedar. Most of these were logged off years ago and development of streets, homes, businesses, schools, churches, and additional settlement followed. In some places, new trees have grown up or been planted. For Edmonds today, tree canopy coverage is estimated to be about 30.3% of the total city area. Trees have many benefits, but also some challenges. Selecting the right tree for a particular location makes a difference in how the tree will perform and thrive. Appropriate planting methods and tree care are important too. The Cty has a program of planting and caring for trees in public places —such as City parks and along various streets. In addition, the City has regulations about certain aspects of trees on private property. Notably, Edmonds is certified as a "Tree City USA" city and supports an active Citizens Tree Board. The Tree Board, as well as City staff, helps provide public education and participation in volunteer events to plant trees. Throughout the community, many residents also value and take care of trees on their property. To promote future sustainability and urban forest health, thoughtful planning and actions are needed. The Plan identifies five long-range goals to help the City move forward. The goals are: 1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage 2. Manage public trees proactively 3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property 4. Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care 5. Promote "right tree, right place". Specific action strategies are identified to address each of the Plan's long-range goals. These would be implemented over time, as resources are available, to address priority needs. Furthermore, the Urban Forest Management Plan should be reviewed every five to ten years and updated as needed. a 1 Scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 150 7.A.a Overview The plan includes long-range goals and action strategies to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover. Publicly -managed trees along streets, in parks, and at City facilities are collectively referred to as the community urban forest. Privately owned trees are also considered part of the urban forest in this plan because of their function and contribution to the sustainability of the overall urban forest in Edmonds; however, the City recognizes that it has a limited role in the care of private trees. Recognizing the significance of environmental and socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP aims to: • Illustrate the value and benefits of trees. • Promote shared vision and collaboration between community residents. • Establish benchmarks and metrics to monitor the long-term success of management strategies. • Enhance the health and sustainability of the community urban forest. • Increase the vital benefits that the trees provide to Edmonds and the region. • Ensure that resources are in place to support the care and management of the community's trees. This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for the long-term and short-term in support of this purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to adequately manage community trees. It is intended to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the exploration and implementation of the actions as funding and resources permit. The development of the UFMP included a comprehensive review of existing policies and regulations, currentfunding and maintenance levels, analysis of the extent, condition, and composition of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns, and community input. Plan Foundation Spending any amount of time outdoors in Edmonds will reveal the abundant and diverse natural resources found within City parks and surrounding residences and businesses. Besides the obvious amenities available to a city on the coastline of the Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help people achieve the unique experience referred to as; "an Edmonds kind of day." All of the trees in Edmonds make up the City's urban forest tree resource. Without active management, this urban forest is at risk. What What Do We Do We Have? Want? How How Do I Are We -ql% We Get Doing? There? as a a N c 0 3 as a� 0 U m L c 0 a c as E a� a� c 0 as L0 LL c 0 L c 0 E W 0 U r c as E a c as M U 0 a Scope & Purpose 2 Packet Pg. 151 7.A.a In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive Plan that formally recognized that the community places a high value on the conservation of the urban forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is intended to be an element that aligns in support of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP aligns with the intentions of, "providing a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Comp Plan, 2016). Thefollowing principlesfor urban forest management set the framework for the UFMP: • Optimize the ecosystem services provided by trees. • Control tree maintenance costs to the community. • Create pathways to stable and predictable funding. • Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with trees. The structure and organization of the UFMP are based on the understanding of what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This structure, referred to as adaptive management, is commonly used for resource planning and management (Miller, R.W.,1988) and provides a good conceptual framework for managing community forest resources. The plan development process involved a comprehensive review and assessment of the existing community tree resource, including composition, value, and environmental benefits. The process explored community values, existing regulations, and policies related to community trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders, internal and external, who played a role in the planning, design, care, and advocacy around the community forest. These stakeholders include the general public, City departments, the Citizens' Tree Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD). Each of these stakeholders contributed to the development of this Plan. What Do We Have? Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region, Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown in population, the forest has been urbanized and divided for parks, homes, and businesses. Recognizing the role of trees in the community and the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape Plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals for the community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015, elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy that has since been the source for many of the City's tree management decisions. In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest is generally understood to be required by the Growth Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017) The City Acres 6,095 Population 41,841) Land lower Tree Ca nopw 30% brass & Vegetation 27% 1 m pervio us Su rfaces 34% Bare Soils 2% Open Water 7% Tree Canopy Corer Maximum Potential Canopy 57% Investment Tree Care Per Capita $7,74 r Q .3 Scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 152 7.A.a Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by the City's Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents define the reach of existing regulations and policies within which care for the urban forest is mandated: • Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental Quality Goal A - "...Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community -based environmental regulations." • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016) - Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation Goal 4 — "Preserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education." • Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest and increase tree canopy in Edmonds. • Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners. • Streestcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate Sustainable Practices. In redesigning the corridor, it is critical that the new interventions improve the street's performance. This includes enhancing the street environment and gateways for pedestrian benefits through an Urban Forestry program in the Downtown/Waterfront area. The urban forest is a combination of both public and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct control of and responsibility for are defined as the community tree resource. This includes public trees in parks, along rights -of -way, and around City facilities. Managing any resource begins with defining what is being managed and establishing benchmarks along with clearly defined goals and expectations. While public trees along major arterials and high - profile areas are well-known and routinely cared for by City staff, other public street trees are expected to be maintained by the adjacent property owner. Aside from individual development applications, the City does not have a method to take an inventory or track the history, status, or location of public trees. In addition, providing adequate care for trees requires a level of knowledge and a skill set that many property owners do not have. The planning process for this UFMP included an assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of historical change estimates that the City has lost 114 acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%. The primary challenges and opportunities for urban forest management are: • Private owners control the majority of tree canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit tree removal, except when the trees are associated with development or are within an environmentally critical area. • There is limited knowledge about the condition of trees in the urban forest. • There is an estimated 1,651 acres is theoretically available for planting to expand the urban forest canopy'. The views of scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds' identity as a community and require balanced consideration with the care of the urban forest. Scenic views are highly valued in long- established development. At the same time, appreciation of trees —especially "the right trees in the right place" —is a value shared by most residents. r Q 1 This estimate is partly based on an analysis of low-lying vegetation areas. Executive Summary 4 Packet Pg. 153 Land Cover 7.A.a V Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetatic 27% Figure 1: Land Cover -anopy npervious 34% 2 1,: N RT City ijmits r Tree canopy R �zani Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation sr ISTHsr Impervious Surfaces # Bare Soil open Water Y N r � $T 0 025 0.5 1 y Miles Figure 1: Land Cover Jr Executive Summary Q Packet Pg. 154 7.A.a 17 What Do We Want? The plan development process included substantial outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds' urban forest. Through open house forums and public meetings, the City has found an engaged set of residents with varying opinions on matters pertaining to the care of the urban forest. City Staff were also consulted during plan development, with City code and public safety being the main considerations when making tree care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive approach to tree management by performing work on trees as problems are discovered, but they also look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic public places. Open house forums and public meetings provided perspective on community interests and concerns about the urban forest. In general, stakeholders from both the community and City Staff share the following desired outcomes for the UFMP: • Preservation and Enhancement of Tree Canopy • Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the Community Tree Resource • Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and Habitat • Increased Outreach and Education • Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and Non-profit Groups • Strategies and Policies to Minimize Potential Tree Conflicts Executive summary 6 Packet Pg. 155 7.A.a How Do We Get There? The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan are proposed to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program through specific actions: Urban Forest Asset Actions - which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next 20 years by developing detailed How Are We Doing? The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching framework for urban forestry operations, policies, and programs. It presents a high-level review of urban forest management in the City, including historical context and an exploration of the benefits of Edmonds' trees. Building upon that information, the Plan connects the community's vision for the urban forest with appropriate goals and actions. expectations for the urban forest. This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a 20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short • Municipal Resource Actions - which are and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting intended to drive improvements in City policy the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of and practices by developing efficiency and operational objectives. The success of the UFMP alignment of efforts within City departments. will be measured through the realization of goals • Community Resource Actions - which are and will be demonstrated through the health of intended to build stronger community the urban forest and increased environmental engagement and public participation in urban benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement forest stewardship. of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore, the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP will be how successful it is in meeting community expectations for the care and preservation of the community tree resource. Goal 1- Maintain citywide canopy coverage Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro -actively Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care Goal 5 - Promote "Rieht tree. rieht glace" Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management. E a E U a Q 7 Executive Summary Packet Pg. 156 7.A.a Introduction Trees play an essential role in the community of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve the local environment and lessen the impact resulting from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees can improve air quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature. In addition to these direct improvements, healthy urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were found to add an average of $8,870 to homes' sales price as well as reduce time on the market for home sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies on the business benefits of trees have shown how retail districts promote longer and more frequent shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban trees support a more livable community, fostering psychological health and providing residents with a greatersense of place (Kuo, 2003). Communitytrees, both public and private, soften the urban hardscape by providing a green sanctuary and making the City of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work, and play. The City has emphasized the importance of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so much so that public trees are defined as a valued community resource, a critical component of the urban infrastructure, and a part of the City's identity. Edmonds' trees are a valued community resource Community Early settlements were built in the City to access natural resources, where shingle mills became the primary industry. Although construction of the Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was expected to be the main source of growth in the City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the town grow and prosper. Edmonds' population, from 2017 State estimates, is 41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square miles. It is the third largest city in the county after Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is expected to be 45,550. The urban forest in this community is defined by its public and privately managed trees. Through parks and public rights -of -way, the City maintains a diverse population of trees intended for city streetscapes (typically nursery grown hardwoods), as well as native trees (naturally regenerating conifers and deciduous trees). Privately managed trees may be remnant forest trees connected with early logging history, naturally growing native trees and even invasive hardwoods. Community Vision for the UFMP Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of the City as an attractive, sustainable community for all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees as contributing to that vision and directs that an urban forest management plan be used as a guide for decisions on managing the forest resource, especially focusing on public land and rights -of -way. For private lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives to encourage good tree management practices. r Q Introduction 8 Packet Pg. 157 7.A.a Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate the effects of urbanization and development, which protects and enhances lives within the community. In general, there are five (5) important ways in which trees provide benefits: Water Quality, Carbon Sequestration, Energy Savings, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic benefits. Water Quality Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human health and wildlife, including salmon populations. Requirements for surface water management are becoming more stringent and costly for both developers and the City. By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into stormwater management planning, runoff volumes, peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need for constructing stormwater management facilities and the cost of treatment to remove sediment and other pollutants. Typical overview of waterfront homes in Edmonds. 9 Introduction Trees improve and protect water quality by: • Intercepting Rainfall —Trees intercept rainfall in their canopy, which act as a mini -reservoir. Some water evaporates from the canopy and some slowly soaks into the ground, reducing the total amount of runoff (Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy interception also lessens soil compaction, which in turn further reduces runoff. • Increasing soil capacity and infiltration — Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall and snowmelt resulting in slower percolation rates and increasing the filtration of contaminants (Xiao, et al., 2007). • Reducing soil erosion — Tree roots reduce the flow and volume of stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and other pollutants from entering streams, rivers, Lake Washington, and the Puget Sound (WA Department of Ecology, 2011). • Providing salmon habitat — Shade from trees helps to cool warm urban runoff, which poses a threat to anadromous fish, like salmon. Shade from trees provides lakeside and riparian habitat for salmon and cools water temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen, which is essential to salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012). r c as E a c as E M U a r r Q Packet Pg. 158 7.A.a Carbon Sequestration As environmental awareness continues to increase, governments are paying particular attention to global warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes the Earth's surface it is reflected back into space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the Earth's surface. Many chemical compounds in the Earth's atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO), water vapor, and human -made gases/aerosols. As GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back into space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature of the earth is resulting in changes in weather, sea levels, and land -use patterns, commonly referred to as "climate change." In the last 150 years, since large-scale industrialization began, the levels of some GHGs, including CO2, have increased by 25% (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces greenhouse gases. The carbon -related function of trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways: • Directly —Through growth and the sequestration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass. • Indirectly — By lowering the demand for air conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions associated with electric power generation and natural gas consumption. Stormwater runoff from streets needs to be controlled. Trees will slow and intercept stormwater, reducing the burden on stormwater infrastructure. Energy Savings Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation solutions to keep rates low for their customers, reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately, to be good environmental stewards. Energy services delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD). This organization recognizes how trees can reduce energy consumption and encourages Edmonds residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017). Urban trees and forests modify the environment and conserve energy in three principal ways: • Shade dwellings and impervious surfaces — Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed as 34% of the total land base (Edmonds, 2017). Shade from trees reduces the amount of radiant energy absorbed and stored by these impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the urban heat island effect, a term that describes the increase in urban temperatures in relation to surrounding locations (Simpson & McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also reduces the amount of energy used to cool a structure (Simpson, 2002). • Transpiration —Transpiration releases water vapor from tree canopies, which cools the surrounding area. Through shade and transpiration, trees and vegetation within an urban setting modify the environment and reduce heat island effects. Temperature differences of more than 97 (5°C) have been observed between city centers without canopy cover and more forested suburban areas (Akbari, et al., 1997). • Wind reduction — Trees can reduce wind speeds by up to 50% and influence the movement of air and pollutants along streets and out of urban canyons. By reducing air movement into buildings and against conductive surfaces (e.g., glass, metal siding), trees can reduce conductive heat loss. Q Introduction 10 Packet Pg. 159 7.A.a Air Quality Urban trees improve air quality in five fundamental ways: • Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and smoke) • Absorbing gaseous pollutants • Shade and transpiration • Reducing power plant emissions • Increasing oxygen levels They protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate matter (PM10), including dust, ash, pollen, and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in the tree canopy where they are eventually washed harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (0), nitrogen dioxide (NO), and sulfur dioxide (SO). Shade and transpiration reduces the formation of 03, which is created during higher temperatures. Scientists are now finding that some trees may absorb more volatile organic compounds (VOC's) than previously thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010). VOC's are a class of carbon -based particles emitted from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other human activities. By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce emissions from the generation of power. And, through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase oxygen levels. The needles of these douglas fir trees help improve air quality. Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic, and Health Benefits While perhaps the most difficult to quantify, the aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from trees may be among their greatest contributions, including: • Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics • Shade and privacy • Wildlife habitat • Opportunities for recreation • Reduction in violent crime • Creation of a sense of place and history • Reduced illness and reliance on medication and quicker recovery from injury or illness Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage of property values, through higher sales prices where individual trees and forests are located. In addition, trees and forests have positive economic benefits for retailers. There is evidence that trees promote better business by stimulating more frequent and extended shopping and a willingness to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf, 2007). Trees and forestlands provide important habitat (foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals, birds, and fish and other aquatic species, along with limitless opportunities for recreation, offering a healthful respite from the pressures of work and everyday stress. 11 Introduction Packet Pg. 160 7.A.a Tree Selection related to Location and Other Factors Selecting tree species that are appropriate for the expected functions, maintenance requirements, and locations in which they are planted is important. Generally, native trees should be considered for planting or replacement whenever practical. Along City streets, relatively compact trees that add color and interest, without tending to upheave pavement, are typically desirable. An example is the Bowhall maple, which has been used in numerous street -side locations in Edmonds. When street trees are planted on the same side of the street as SnoPUD overhead power lines, additional caution is needed in selecting appropriate species. These poles also usually carry major communication lines. Such facilities are often located at the very edge of the City's rights -of -way or in planter strips between the sidewalk and the curb. Trees should be selected that do not result in the need for frequent topping or heavy pruning to keep them underneath the communication space on PUD poles, which can be as low as 15 feet above ground level. In large spaces, native coniferous trees may be very appropriate. Some of these species (such as Douglas fir) can grow very tall (up to 200 feet) and wide (30 feet). They are well -suited to the Pacific Northwest climate and have needles year-round. Also, various types of deciduous trees, including maple and oak, may be appropriate in large spaces. In view areas and in many relatively small spaces, lower -growing or less -spreading trees may be a good choice. For example, vine maples have colorful leaves in autumn and at mature height are generally no more than 15 feet tall. However, the branches of this species can spread wide, up to 20 feet. Other species, even fruit trees and small specimen trees, may fit well in settings where tree height or width needs to be limited. In critical areas where wildlife habitat exists, native trees should generally be chosen for planting. Depending on the type of habitat and space availability, such trees could include Western red cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and dogwood. A mix of large and small trees in a park. a Introduction 12 Packet Pg. 161 Right tree, right place 7.A.a Factors to consider when selecting a tree to plant. Planting a tree is something that provide a sense of accomplishment and something to admire for decades. However, it is not a decision that should be made without careful consideration. When considering what tree to plant and where to plant it, one should remember the widely used phrase "Right Tree, Right Place." Choosing the right tree depends on many factors including soil type, climate, and the amount of space the tree will have both underground and overhead. It is important to choose a tree that does not require more space in the future than a site can provide. To avoid any conflicts with overhead obstructions (e.g., power lines, utility poles, buildings) or underground obstructions (e.g., pipes, building foundations), consider the tree's height, root growth, and shape at maturity. While above -ground growth is a little easier to envision, a tree needs plenty of room to grow underground too; tree roots can extend up to two to three times the width of the crown (the leaves and branches of the tree). Apart from the physical space available for a tree to grow, one may consider whether the property is in a view shed and how the tree at maturity will impact the views. Trees in streetscapes can grow into conflict with sidewalks. 1. The tree's purpose will impact the suitability of different tree species, whether used for shade, aesthetic beauty, wind protection, screening, or other purposes. 2. Size and location of the tree, including available space for roots and branches, affects the decision on which species to plant. 3. Crown form or shape varies among species, including round, oval, columnar, V-shaped, or pyramidal shapes. Consider how the shape of the tree works in the space available. Note on Native Trees: Edmonds was once covered in forests of old growth Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. While these trees were once the right tree in the right place, they often may not be appropriate for urban environments. In natural conditions, a Douglas fir can grow to more than 200 feet in height with a diameter of five to eight feet. While the City's parks and the larger zoned properties (12,000 — 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) primarily located in north Edmonds may provide sufficient growing space for these large native species, they may not be appropriate landscape trees within the Edmonds "bowl area" with its more dense development and view concerns. � 0. Tree roots lifting a sidewalk. Q 13 Introduction Packet Pg. 162 7.A.a Trees and Views To some people, trees are the view and to others, trees block the view. The City of Edmonds is blessed with magnificent views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountain range. These views add to the quality of life here, as well as to property values. When views become obstructed, enjoyment of one's property as well as property values may be impacted. The City's Comprehensive Plan has many policies recognizing the protection of public views (views from parks or view corridors down streets and at street ends), but does not specifically address private view protection. Not all areas of Edmonds have views of Puget Sound and the Olympics. While a view shed study of the City of Edmonds has not been completed, the primary view areas are located in the Bowl and the properties on the west facing slopes of north Edmonds. When considering planting trees in these view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. Topping of trees for views is often the first consideration of landowners. However, topping is not generally recognized as good arboricultural practice. A topped tree requires periodic maintenance to maintain its reduced size. That can become expensive in the long-term. Also, conifers will often form a An example of skirting -up; the lower limbs on this tree have been removed to provide drivers with a clearer view. weakened top as the side branches all try to grow up. In addition, the cut top often becomes an entry site for decay organisms that weaken the tree and increase the danger of a top breaking in high winds. For broad-leaved trees such as maple, madrone or oaks, severe topping is even more damaging. It can seriously harm the tree's health and cause various safety hazards. While views are important, otherfactors such as critical areas must also betaken into consideration. The north Edmonds view shed is associated with significant slopes (potential landslide hazards are slopes 40% and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that has specific regulations that apply to development in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical area regulations. The mechanical and hydrogeological benefits which trees and other vegetation provide to maintain slope stability and reduce erosion are well documented. Tree maintenance activities that maintain the health of existing trees will also help maintain slope stability. A landowner should explore alternative options to tree removal or topping. Below is a list of several trimming practices derived from Vegetation Management: A Guidefor PugetSound Bluff Property Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in combination to create views without compromising tree health or slope stability. View -enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers 1. Windowing 2. Interlimbing 3. Skirting -up • Note: In any pruning practice or combination, 60% or more of the original crown should be retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The removal of too much live foliage can reduce the tree's ability to supply food to the roots, thereby weakening them. Windowing. This pruning practice allows a view "window" through the existing foliage of the tree's canopy. In pruning major limbs and as �a a N a 0 as a� 0 U d L c 0 a c as E a� a� c 0 as `0 U_ c 0 c 0 E w 4- 0 U r c as E a c as E U 0 r r Q Introduction 14 Packet Pg. 163 7.A.a branch whorls, sections that obscure a view are removed. Many people find that this technique creates an aesthetically pleasing effect. • Interlimbing. The removal of entire branch whorls or individual branches throughout the canopy allows more light to pass through, as well as reducing wind resistance of the tree. This practice can be used in conjunction with windowing to improve views. • Skirting -up. Limbing the tree up from the bottom allows a clear line of sight. Instead of an obscuring mass of foliage, the tree trunk is the only object between you and the view. This technique is useful when the tree in question is located high on the bluff face or upon the tableland. Relatively more branches can be removed with this technique because the lower branches contribute less nutrients to the tree than higher branches. Pruning Broad-leaved Trees Pruning and trimming of broad-leaved trees is usually more complicated, especially for trees grown in the wild. Generally, short-lived species such as alder, willow and Bitter cherry are not worth pruning, while trees like madrona, white oak, bigleaf maple, and vine maple will warrant the expense. Crown reduction is one of the most common methods that arborists use to control the size of the tree and keep its shape perfect. This method involves reducing the foliage of the tree while still preserving the general structure of the crown; doing this successfully trims the overall shape of the tree and controls its size. In a general sense, limbs that are located on the uppermost portion of the tree canopy are cut shorter in order to decrease the tree's height. However, they are only removed to the next lateral growth to be able to ensure that they heal faster and grow again properly. It is highly recommended that only 20% or less of the tree's canopy should be cut at once in order to avoid the tree from suffering. Properties owners should consult a certified arborist prior to undertaking any tree maintenance activity. Challenges Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest requires the coordination of many different stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with many other elements of the city. This can result in conflict or challenges including: • Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure - Roots and branches of trees can damage nearby sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings. • Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to the community. Storm events, accidents, improper maintenance, and the natural death of trees can all create structural weaknesses for trees and the surrounding area. • View Issues - Edmonds is known for the majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is possible for trees to block these views if they grow too large or were planted in improper locations. • Maintenance - Trees are living infrastructure. As such, they require active and regular maintenance. Structural pruning, irrigation, and the management of pests and diseases are some critical maintenance practices that must occur to ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest. • Choice of Tree Species - Different tree species have different needs, growth patterns, and resistances to pests and diseases. A diverse palette of species improves the resilience of the urban forest. A tree with multiple stems may become a hazard without Q 15 Introduction proper care. Packet Pg. 164 7.A.a What Do We Have?. To effectively manage the urban forest, it's essential to have knowledge and understanding of what exists today. This section lays the groundwork for the UFMP with historical context, current policies and practices and understanding about the existing state of the urban forest. History of Urban Forestry in Edmonds Trees have been an important part of the City's character and economy since its founding. However, to understand and manage the urban forest has depended upon which trees are being considered and where the trees were located. This is evident from the various locations where trees are referenced in the City code as well as the variety of departments whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds had been designated by the National Arbor Day Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has had city staff in different departments managing tree issues within the City for decades. Recognizing the role of trees in the community and the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015, elements of this plan introduced tree care policy which has been the source for much of the City's tree management decisions ever since. In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board to assist in the development of tree ordinances and to encourage the planting and maintaining of trees. This is an early example of the City taking steps towards management of tree resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this board was a proposal to the City for updated tree - related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree codes, through a public comment period, were rejected in part due to public concerns about private property rights, but also because the City felt that it had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the recommended codes. From these related events, it's clear that the community has assumed an increasing level of care for the urban forest that would benefit from long- term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from the State and Federal Government for environmental stewardship requirements have also played a significant role in defining the level of care for the urban forest that exist in Edmonds today. Of special note are three policy sources that directly influence the management of urban forestry and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on the development and operation of Edmonds urban forest are discussed below. a Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement. Introduction 16 Packet Pg. 165 7.A.a Growth Management Act (1990) In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique among states, the Act requires that municipalities prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide for growth and development in a manner that is locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines critical areas as: "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: a. Wetlands; b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d. Frequently flooded areas; and e. Geologically hazardous areas. I�+* The state of Washington +' , requires the City of Edmonds to manage and protect it's critical areas. ` 1889 Common ground vegetation in wetland areas Cities are required to include the best available science in developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Further to that end, jurisdictions must review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances per an update schedule. Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps with the protection of the urban forest. The trees in the urban forest increase soil security to protect wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the branches and canopy provide ample real estate for wildlife to call home. It is important that the City plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole, not just critical areas. This notion is reinforced in Washington Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which specifies when classifying forest land resources that "Cities are encouraged to coordinate their forest resource lands designations with their county and any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities should not review forest resource lands designations solely on a parcel -by -parcel basis." Edmonds has established environmental qualitygoals in support of the legislation and in order to protect critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying policies for the jurisdiction's critical areas program. wa Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas. r Q 17 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 166 7.A.a The Comprehensive Plan (2016) As an overarching guiding document, the Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions and plans into one cohesive document. The Comprehensive Plan is structured by element, then goals, then policies. The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These elements include goals and policies that can be directly supported through this UFMP. These are the community sustainability elements of the plan and include goals and policies associated with: • Sustainability • Climate Change Goals and Policies, including support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US Mayor's Climate Change Agreement • Community Health • Environmental Quality The urban forest is a key component of the community sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks to protect environmental quality and sets the first policy (A.1) as to: Ensure that the city's natural vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced..." A.2 sets to protect and retain the urban forest, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. This includes techniques such as tree retention, which should be integrated into land use and development codes. As the urban forest grows, so too does the habitat and environmental quality. The community culture and urban design element's implementation involves tree policy as well. In this element, the streetscape section defines the many ways that trees enhance the community: "Trees are an asset to the community. They help absorb stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife, clean pollution from the air, and give both summer shade and aesthetic pleasure." In this way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the policy commitment to Community Health, through the preservation and expansion of the urban forest. Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006. The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a "Complete Streets" program which accommodates the needs of all users along streets, including a safe space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree management component. This section concludes with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. The community sustainability element also includes two other sections that are interconnected with the urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas. Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate change, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No. 1130. A crucial component of these climate change policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with several benchmarks: 1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green -house gases in the state to 1990 levels; 2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; 3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon through many ways including; reducing energy demand forshaded buildings, acquiringcarbon dioxide for the photosynthesis, and sequestering carbon. The potential for carbon sequestration is determined by maximum tree sizes, lifespans, growth rates, and tolerances to urban stress. Therefore, growing long- lasting and healthy trees directly contributes to the success of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan climate change goals. Q What Do We Have? 18 Packet Pg. 167 7.A.a The PROS Plan (2016) The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the management and development of Edmonds' parks, recreation and open spaces, and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. The PROS plan has been regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves. Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan on a six-yearcycle, in alignmentwith the requirements of the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility for federal and state grant programs. To this end, the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is also an important tool in meeting Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and achieving the important citywide goals outlined in the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically addresses urban forestry. Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access to natural resources for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education. The eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting areas with critical habitats and natural resources. Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective 4.5, which states "Expand the urban forest and increase tree canopy in Edmonds". Under each goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal 4 is: "Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners." This demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the people of Edmonds as manifested through existing official documents addressing the urban forest and urban tree canopy. 19 what Do we Have? Purchasing of Forested Properties The City's policies with regard to the acquisition of open space (including the potential purchase of forested properties) are contained with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land acquisition is included in the capital project budget and the PROS plan notes that "expansions of the parks system will target the gaps identified in this plan and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds, this approach will require vigilance and proactive pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities for both parks and open spaces. The City's inclusion of this item in the capital projects list recognizes the importance of swift action when rare property acquisition opportunities become available." A specific policy addressing the purchase of forested properties could be considered for adding to the PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining the City's tree cover through the selective purchase of forest properties as opportunities arise. Forested properties can be valuable acquisitions to maintain City's tree cover. a Packet Pg. 168 7.A.a Summary Considerations for Planning These documents demonstrate the existing regulations and policies within which care for the urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope defined within these documents that the values of the Edmonds community, and Washington State at large, require that urban forest management include strategies to improve the care and conservation of all trees. This includes updating the Street Tree Plan, consideration for improving and preserving trees near waterways, critical areas, habitats, and on private parcels. Equipped with this policy background and mandate to manage the urban forest, it's essential to plan with as much knowledge about the community tree resource as possible. The PROS plan (2016) has specific goals for the City to steward the urban forest. Community Tree Resource Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights -of - way and around City facilities are the community tree resource. These trees can be the most actively managed population by the City and provide the best indicators to showcase its vision of a well -managed and sustainable urban forest condition. A well -managed urban forest is healthier and more resilient to pests, disease, and climate fluctuations. As a result, a well -managed urban forest is also more cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve over time, managers revise their strategies for individual tree species based on past performance and emerging prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds, are often a combination of well -adapted, high-performance species mixed with some species that may be less desirable and require more attention. There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree resource management that no single species should represent greater than 10% of the total population, and no single genus more than 20% (Clark et al, 1997). Achieving a diverse population of trees can help to minimize detrimental consequences in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or other stressors that can severely affect an urban forest and the flow of benefits and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) are both examples of unexpected, devastating, and costly pests and pathogens that highlight the importance of diversity and the balanced distribution of species and genera. Current operations in the City that care for the community trees do not keep suitable records of their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP. Publictrees along major arterials or high -profile areas of the City are well-known and routinely cared for by City Staff, but as an overall management tool, the City does not maintain data about these trees as a collective inventory of their green infrastructure assets. Managing for appropriate tree species can help control maintenance costs, reduce damage to infrastructure, and manage the need for pest and disease control measures. Q What Do We Have? 20 Packet Pg. 169 7.A.a Tree Canopy Cover The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is the driving force behind the urban forest's ability to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al, 1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits. Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from above. Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy is critical to developing and implementing sound management strategies that will promote the smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds' urban forest and the invaluable benefits it provides. In addition to understanding the tree canopy as a whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is often categorized by the amount of fragmentation. Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy will vastly improve when there is less fragmented canopy, and there are more linkages between multiple patches of forest. These categories of canopy include: • Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists within and relatively far from the forest/non-forest boundary (i.e., forested areas surrounded by more forested areas). • Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests and relatively small clearings (perforations) within the forest landscape. • Patch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small -forested area that is surrounded by non -forested land cover. • Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests, and large core forests and large non -forested land cover features, approximately 328 feet. When large enough, edge canopy may appear to be unassociated with core forests. The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment in June 2017 using a heads -up digitizing approach and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf -on aerial imagery captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall assessment does not distinguish between publicly -owned and privately -owned trees because trees provide benefits to the community beyond property lines. The results of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy within Edmonds. The data developed during the assessment becomes an important part of the City's GIS database. It also provides a foundation for developing community goals and urban forest policies. With these data, managers can determine: • The location and extent of canopy over time (tracking changes) • The location of available planting space (potential planting area) • The best strategies to increase canopy in underserved areas • The data, combined with existing and emerging urban forestry research and applications, can provide additional guidance in two ways: • Finding a balance between growth and preservation • Identifying and assessing urban forestry opportunities. An example of perforated canopy in a park setting. c as E a c as E M U 0 r r Q 21 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 170 7.A.a Canopy Cover Summary ♦ 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of ♦ From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 32.3% to 30.3% square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. ♦ Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of CU cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: 3,495 acres ♦ 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and ♦ Private residential properties have most of the o woody shrubs (525 acres) canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and ♦ 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground commercial (4.1%) properties. ♦ 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy ♦ Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County W is unfeasible Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) 0 followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and ♦ 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) vegetation a 12, - _ INS } ti•$ •may �-'a PF _9W R pr 71 I !} '~ OP* . #' is i P. W do `# i_ " r ,may Lam' -.•r. F a V Ar f �'� I4-r } *ry �l �rl t� *. f#'i�'a � max' }.}�t I'*F •F, � � •4 GD Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds "bowl" area. What Do We Have? 22 Packet Pg. 171 Land Cover 7.A.a Water 7% Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover C4 Limits Tree Canopy GraWLow-Lying Vegetation impervious Surfaces 1 Bare Soil M Open Water 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Figure 1: Land Cover r Q 2.3 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 172 7.A.a Canopy Fragmentation As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds' existing UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the distribution of canopy (Figure 3). The overall health 4 _ of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and humans to interact collectively as a whole. Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy CU will vastly improve by creating linkages between o multiple patches of forest. Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable managementtool duetothe importanceof Edmonds' critical areas and environmental stewardship. The o analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes the following: • 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy a Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison a • 8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to E • 55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top) c * 26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy leads to isolation and declining habitat quality. ` 4i YEA :'^ I .`* — Y� �' •�* `i. +� ti ' l U- } '• ; ' • x 4 { ' Y 5'' f Ir r y O W i'* a _ + '. mot• r.F F. G Ir Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest. What Do We Have? 24 Packet Pg. 173 7.A.a Forest Fragmentation Patch Forest 56% Core Forest 10% Perforated Ta',.�+ 7D Fo rest 8% Edge Forest 26% 191j!I }I Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation !�fti�l ti" ' � y r'Ut:E-r i_iON t �! C 75 14 k�- Ity I- I I I a ..: : ® M1 a 1 H r r Core Forest Ec4 a Forest 27ATRsr Patch Forest } :D k r — Perforated Forest i t .. 0 0.25 0.5 1Poo r. IYIRes Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation 25 What Do We Have? 7F5fW57 Q Packet Pg. 174 7.A.a Park Canopy Cover The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Figure 4). Edmonds' parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%. Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site and size. Edmonds' largest park, Southwest County Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and an average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second-largest, Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres of canopy cover, which represents 93.5% of the land area. The high canopy cover of Yost Memorial Park reflects that it is one of the few areas of native vegetation that remain in Edmonds. The park contains mixed stands of douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja Canopy cover in Yost Park. plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy (9.9 % canopy cover). Of the four largest parks (Southwest County, Yost Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%). However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not currently near maximum potential canopy. An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the parks where there is a much larger gap between current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. The 5 biggest parks are listed in Table 7 of this section . Q What Do We Have? 26 Packet Pg. 175 7.A.a Tree Canopy By Park Meadowdale---- Beach Park Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Name Total CanopyPark Potential CanopyAcres Acres .. Southwest County Park 118.55 117.05 Yost Memorial a 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45 -'' . � Park N Meadowdale o Beach Parma � 54 25.16 98. 99.77 Southwest ' Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66 County Park IWO''_ 0 U Hutt Park (D Seaview Park .. Sierra Park c 0 d Hummingbird Hill Park a� E aD M Yost Park Maplewood Park R ' a� L Edmonds ii City Park Pine Ridge Park M L Edmonds — -- Marsh = c 0 .. E w �i 0 r U Under 15% 15% - 09`a `` * x Jz. E E Inv 45% - 60% 04_ = 3 Over 60% M Ile Wes Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park 27 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 176 Critical Areas The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations. The GMA states that critical areas include the following categories and ecosystems: • Wetlands • Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas; and • Geologically hazardous areas Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree canopy can reveal the important relationship that trees provide in the conservation and protection of these environments. Two critical area designations are especially important to urban forest management in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep slopes (Tables 8 & 9). Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority habitats and species that have been identified for conservation and management. DRG analyzed the relationship between forest fragmentation and the following priority habitat and species list categories: 7.A.a • Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding and Refuge) • Nesting Habitat (great blue heron) • Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon) • Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle) • Wetlands Area Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of nativefish and wildlife. In Edmonds, most of the biodiversity areas and corridors are in core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest. This is congruent with what theory would suggest, because corridors are continuous areas of habitat. Nesting habitat for the great blue heron is comprised of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre - nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area, habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests. In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to reduce human noise pollution during the breeding months (February - September). Nesting habitat in Edmonds is located primarily in non -forest areas (58%). This value warrants further investigation to determine optimal canopy levels. Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 1.35 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78 Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 10.52 35.32 4.61 16.53 51.36 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21 Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 IlIM 0.51 1.76 59.36 r Q What Do We Have? 28 Packet Pg. 177 7.A.a Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in -stream physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.). However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly influenced by watershed processes beyond the waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road location and maintenance, watershed hydrology, and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non -forest areas. The second largest forest fragmentation category for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%). Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined by areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies of water and generally buffered from human activity (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area located in edge type forests of Edmonds. However, nest trees are often among the largest trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in 18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest. Around wetlands, the Washington Department of Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from adjacent land uses (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland - dependent species that require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers could be described by their canopy fragmentation, where 73.6% of wetlands were classified in non -forest areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge forest, with only 2.2% in the core forest. The protection of steep slopes against landslides and erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the prevention of soil erosion: Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing absorptive and evaporative losses that reduce rainfall available for infiltration. Roots extract moisture from the soil which is lost to the atmosphere via transpiration, leading to a lower pore -water pressure. Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear strength. It is important to understand the significance of steep slopes because of their influences on local wildlife and habitat quality. For example, increased erosion can negatively impact spawning salmon by increasing sediment and particulates in streams and other water bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation that prevents erosion protects critical habitat for wildlife. Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees, 66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious, 19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil. Table 4: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Biodiversity Areas And Corridor Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97 am Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80 Wetlands Area 80.65 6.79 16.81 0.63 2.18 73.60 Q 29 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 178 7.A.a Considerations for Planting Opportunities Edmonds' existing tree canopy covers 30.3% of the City, and decision -makers can set a target canopy cover goal to pursue. Regardless of the canopy coverage goals established by the City, the following are planting opportunities that may be pursued in order to maintain and potentially increase the existing canopy coverage: • Incentivize tree planting on private property. • Increase canopy with tree planting in areas of patch and fragmented canopy to reduce forest fragmentation and improve wildlife habitat and corridors. Conducting outreach to the community as an important tool for engaging public interest and support. Define goals and identify actions that will support these goal(s). • Develop clear policies and standards to meet the 30% native vegetation requirement codified by ECDC 23.90.040.0 (Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels) in undeveloped (or redeveloped) Subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream or stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland buffer. Park trees in Edmonds. Currently, forestry operations in the City do not document the community tree resource according to industry best management practices. A public tree inventory is important because it provides information on species diversity, forest age, and relative performance of different tree species. An inventory that is maintained with continued updates also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban forest managers have the following opportunities: Establish and continually update a public tree inventory. Integrate maintenance cycles with the public tree inventory database. • Study genus/species compositions to ensure best -management diversity recommendations are being followed. a c 0 aM as as 0 as L c IL c m E a� a� �a c N L0 U_ c L N c 0 E w 4- 0 r t� T E (i yr a d E t V What Do We Have? 30 Packet Pg. 179 7.A.a Existing Urban Forest Practices There are three departments within the City of Edmonds that have influence over the management of the urban forest; Development Services (DS), Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRC). Although they share and communicate any issues related to tree care and urban forest management, decision -making authority is determined based on the location of the trees. There is no specific staff person or leadership team with overarching responsibilities forguiding the management of the entire urban forest in Edmonds. Tree Maintenance Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree life, but is especially critical for young trees as they benefit from early structural pruning and training. Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground Table 5: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest Management in Edmonds Locations Department!Tree City Permits for Tree Removal Trees on Private Development Permits for Tree Property Services Pruning Permits for Tree Planting Hazardous Tree Parks, Inspections Trees in Parks Recreation and Tree Pruning g Cultural Tree Removal Services Tree Planting Public Works Hazardous Tree Trees within and Utilities Inspections City Rights -of- (with Parks' Tree Pruning Way assistance in Tree Removal downtown) Tree Planting nmnil= AL 31 What Do We Have? level with minimal cost when a tree is young. However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into very expensive structural issues and increase the risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may be impossible to correct the issue without causing greater harm. Over -mature trees require more frequent inspection and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage when it is most beneficial and cost-effective. At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related to trees are identified by City Staff, work is prioritized based on existing and available budgets. Planning associated with tree management on public properties is minimal with priority attention given to ensuring the successful establishment of new tree plantings and responding to hazardous tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department performs certain routine tree inspections and provides limited proactive maintenance activities (typically associated with the care of trees after planting to encourage successful establishment). Within City rights -of -way, tree issues are uncovered as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks and streets, where trees are only identified when infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly, in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance when safety concerns are observed through routine park maintenance activities. Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for public safety. a Packet Pg. 180 7.A.a Tree Maintenance Budgets The majority of tree maintenance costs are accounted for as general line items through the parks department budget. As part of the annual Tree City USA application, departments will summarize their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds' urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita, which is more than the minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA designation and more than the $7.50 national average reported by the National Arbor Day Foundation. Documented Edmonds' expenditures have been in the range of $3 per capita in prior years. Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds' urban forest produces about $1,567,000 in environmental benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of approximately $319,542. Service Levels To assess current urban forest workload and staffing levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were identified as persons who work with tree issues on at least an intermittent basis every week. From those who are involved with forestry issues or operations on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were identified with a quantifiable amount of time each week working with trees or tree -related issues. Table 6: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures tone"M11MERTIM Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848 Tree Maintenance $79,779 Tree Removals $37,565 Management $62,771 Volunteer Activities $134,579 TOTAL $319,542 Budget Per Capita $7.74 UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000 Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental cooperation. These general conclusions about the shared responsibilities among staff resources at the City are very important when the City evaluates future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently, no one single position is designated as a Full -Time Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry. Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels City Services UrbanCommon Related Activities Hours per Development plan review for Permit Intake compliance with tree and Review protection codes 2 Public inquiries (online, phone, and counter) Code Investigating and resolving Enforcement & tree complaints Complaint Investigating and resolving 2 infrastructure damage Investigation complaints Tree planting and Parks & Public establishment Tree Structural pruning on smaller 40-60 Maintenance trees Inspection and identification of hazardous trees Contract Managing contract tree crews 1 Management Emergency Community Service Requests 0 Response Response Management Urban Forest Management Comprehensive Plan stewardship (Long-range) Federal, state grant <1 Planning procurement Tree City USA applications Volunteer events Community Coordinated tree planting Education Action Neighborhood association 1 and Outreach support Website content and public education Tree Board Addressing public issues 1 Meetings related to trees Q What Do We Have? .32 Packet Pg. 181 7.A.a Staff Training The science of arboriculture, and the management of urban forests are domains that are increasingly recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials are increasingly requested by many municipalities as evidence of competency. Bachelor's degrees in Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences, and Horticulture are often the base requirements for leadership roles in urban forest management. Professional credentials can also demonstrate competency, with the most widely accepted credentials in Washington State coming from the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Image of a tree with a co -dominant branch defect (middle stem). The city has access to trained staff qualified to provide expertise for identification of these tree safety risks. The City provides on -going training to any staff handling tree maintenance equipment, including chainsaw, chipper, and lift -truck safety. Stakeholder interviews revealed that landscape maintenance workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on structural pruning or tree care. The following is a summary description of staff resources and training within individual City departments: • In Development Services, staff are trained to interpret ordinances related to trees, but rely on reports by ISA certified arborists when necessary to render decisions. Staff within development services have backgrounds in Urban Planning and one (1) person with has an advanced degree in Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists within development services staff. • The Department of Public Works and Utilities has a director with advanced degrees in Biology and Aquatic Biology. In addition, the department has engineers on staff who can successfully consider relevant tree issues in terms of asset and infrastructure management, but tree care expertise is not required for any staff in this department. Tree related issues are resolved based on previous experiences and through hired consultations with ISA certified arborists when necessary. • The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has two staff members who provide expertise on urban forestry topics. The first is an ISA certified arborist who is referenced by all City departments and citizen groups for opinions on the best practices associated with tree care. There is also a staff member who has an advanced degree in Forest Ecology who works with citizen groups on tree planting and stewardship projects. Tree Acquisition and Quality Control The City's approach to acquiring trees is not guided by any formal standard practices that ensure the quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties managed with new trees. a 33 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 182 7.A.a Tree City USA The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit conservation and education organization founded in 1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow. It is the largest nonprofit membership organization dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards of quality urban forestry management: maintaining a tree board or department, having a community tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day. Currently, the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542.20 towards total community forestry expenditure, and with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has recognized this per capita investment, as well as recognizing the City of Edmonds' community tree ordinance and observance of Arbor Day. Native Trees Trees native to the Pacific Northwest are well -suited to our climate. They also tend to provide good habit for local wildlife. Many native trees, both coniferous and broadleaved, are part of the City's urban forest. They are currently encouraged in public and private plantings but not necessarily required, except in designated critical areas for wildlife habitat and/or wetlands. More information about native trees and their value is likely to be part of an upcoming round of community education in Edmonds. Cone from a douglas fir. (Photo by Peter Stevens CC BY) An example of some native trees for the Pacific Northwest include the following,: Broadleaved Trees • Big -Leaf Maple • Black Cottonwood • Oregon Ash • Pacific Willow • Red Alder • Vine Maple Conifers • Douglas Fir • Grand Fir • Noble Fir • Shore Pine • Sitka Spruce • Western Hemlock • Western Larch • Western Red Cedar • Western White Pine 1 A more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F a Leaves of a big leaf maple. What Do We Have? 34 Packet Pg. 183 7.A.a Major and Emerging Diseases and Pests Another important aspect to tree maintenance is staying alert to managing emerging diseases and pests that can be costly to control with individual trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest, addressing both potential and actual problems is critical. Further information on the pests and diseases that threaten the forest ecosystems in Washington can be found at: • USDA's Forest Service website • Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook • Collier Arbor Care website —Top 20 Tree and Shrub Problems in the PNW • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Health Among the many diseases and pests that affect trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to the following: Diseases • Laminated Root Rot (LRR) is the most important disease affecting Douglas -fir caused by the fungal pathogen Coniferiporia sulphurascens. In young stands regenerated following harvesting, dead or missing trees will be associated with large stumps. These decayed trees will serve as an inoculum source for neighboring trees to become infected, as their roots grow in contact with infected stumps/roots. Fungal growth invades the heartwood and sapwood, resulting in reduced uptake of water and nutrients, with weakened support of the upper portion of the tree. Infected trees are susceptible to windthrow, and there may be trees in a group in various stages of decay and dying. Live trees with LRR display symptoms of shortened terminal growth, sparse foliage, smaller needles, chlorosis (yellowing) and stress cone crops. Trees can fall over before developing obvious symptoms, or die standing. The disease is very difficult to manage in an urban setting (USFS, 2017). • Armillaria Root Rot (ARR) affects the roots of numerous tree species, notably Douglas -fir and other Firs and Pines, as well as many hardwood species. Armillaria ostoyae is the primary fungal pathogen in the Pacific Northwest, although A. mellea can also be involved in tree decline and mortality. ARR disease is usually associated with stress conditions, particularly drought. The fungus survives for many years in infected stumps, roots and organic matter in the soil. Honey -colored mushrooms are typically produced at the base of infected trees in the fall. Typical symptoms include chlorotic foliage, distress cone crops, significant resin flow, decline and death. The fungus typically produces black shoestring -like structures called rhizomorphs on the bark at the base of the tree or in the soil (OSU, 2018). • Verticillium Wilt (VW) is a serious disease of many tree hosts, but is especially problematic on Maple species. Verticillium dahliae is a soil -borne fungus that persists in the soil for decades. The fungus infects roots and grows into the xylem where it colonizes the vascular elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores) plus defense compounds produced by the host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting results, and is exacerbated during periods of drought. Leaves on one side of the tree affected by VW or on one branch suddenly wilt and die. Subsequently, other branches will wilt as the disease progresses. Excised branches will have vascular discoloration which is diagnostic of the disease. Infected trees may survive for years or die within weeks. Once infected, a tree will not likely recover and will require removal. Tree injections of fungicides are not usually effective (OSU, 2018). • Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. SNC is known as a "cast" disease because it causes the premature shedding of needles (or casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree crowns and reduced growth. Although it is r Q 35 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 184 7.A.a called "Swiss" needle cast, the fungus is native to the Western United States throughout the range of Douglas -fir. SNC disease symptoms include chlorotic needles and decreased needle retention, resulting in sparse crowns and reduced diameter and height growth (OSU, 2017). Mortality from the disease is considered rare, but tree care and maintenance of this disease can be expensive and necessary in an urban setting. • Leaf Blight (LB) is a serious disease affecting Pacific Madrone caused by the fungal pathogen Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis. At least a dozen fungi can cause leaf spots and dead areas on leaves; this is probably the most significant cause of damage to the host. Older, lower leaves are infected by spores disseminated by wind or rain during wet weather in the fall. Trees located in creek bottoms, valleys and the forest understory are most susceptible to LB. If wet weather persists, infection may be severe and result in significant defoliation. Under these conditions, the fungus can also infect green shoots. Pruning dead branches to provide better air circulation and raking and destroying fallen leaves will help to reduce fungal inoculum and subsequent infection (OSU, 2008). • Anthracnose (A) affects a wide variety of shade trees, especially Maple, Oak and Sycamore. The closely related fungi Discula (Maple, Sycamore) and Apiognomonia (Oak) are the causal agents of the disease. The disease is favored by warm, wet springs and several rounds of infection can occur, each defoliating the tree, resulting in a tree much more prone to subsequent drought stress. Lesions on the leaves are typically associated and limited by the veins, resulting in discrete necrotic areas. In particularly susceptible trees under ideal environmental conditions, twig cankers can also develop. It is important to rake up and destroy fallen leaves, prune out twig cankers and water trees during dry periods (OSU, 2018). • Sudden Oak Death was discovered in California in the mid 1990's, has spread into southern Oregon (2001) and was found (and has subsequently been contained or eliminated) in a small area in Kitsap County two years ago. The causal fungus Phytophthora ramorum primarily infects species of Oaks, but can also infect a wide range of other hosts, including Camellia, Rhododendron, Blueberry and other landscape plants. The fungus is waterborne and can be spread in streams or other forms of moving water. Symptoms on Oaks include bleeding cankers on the trunk, dieback of the foliage and mortality. Symptoms on other plants can vary from leafspots to leaf blight to twig dieback, but do not usually result in death of the host. Quarantines are in place to prevent further spread of SOD, largely from nurseries (COMTF, 2019). Insects • Asian Long -Horned Beetle (ALB), is an invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety of trees in the United States, eventually killing them. The beetle is native to China and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start to show about three to four (3-4) years after infestation, with tree death occurring in ten to fifteen (10-15) years depending on the tree's overall health and site conditions. Infested trees do not recover, nor do they regenerate. There are a broad number of tree species this insect will feed in and most common deciduous trees in Edmonds are at risk. • Tent Caterpillar (TC) is a serious defoliator of broadleaf trees and shrubs in most areas of the western U.S. Tree hosts include Red Alder, Cottonwood, Willow, Ash, Pacific Madrone, and many fruit trees. White silky tents appear soon after bud break. As the larvae grow in size, the tents also increase in size. Individual branches near these tents are totally defoliated. Entire trees may be defoliated by TC. After feeding has been concluded, the larvae will turn into moths within a cocoon. Eggs are laid on the twigs and branches where they overwinter in protected masses. Individual tents can be physically removed, preferably in the early morning hours when the larvae are contained in the tent (USFS, 2008). r Q What Do we Have? 36 Packet Pg. 185 7.A.a • Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid (CSGA) is a serious pest of Spruce and Douglas -fir trees. It swarms in the spring when the new needles emerge. Crawler nymphs form galls at the branch tips. These galls are initially green, becoming red and eventually dry out. These affected branches cease their growth, and if enough branches are affected, the tree may be killed. White cottony specks will also cover the entire branch. Trees with fewer galls may be unsightly and foliage can be discolored and distorted. Most outbreaks of CSGA do not warrant control measures (NRC, 2015). • Pine Bark Adelgid (PBA) feeds on the bark of pines and spruce. They form cottony or wooly masses on the twigs, branches or trunk. Heavy infestations will turn the entire area white. Small trees will be severely affected, resulting in chlorotic needles and stunting or premature death. Small egg clusters are laid in the early spring by the adults. Crawlers move to other areas of the tree or to other trees nearby. PBA can be removed by hand, preferably done when the infestation has just begun (OSU, 2018). • Bronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging pest in western Washington that has migrated from eastern Washington in recent years. Periods of extended summer drought have weakened birch trees and made them more susceptible to this pest which can severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic leaves and sparse upper branches are the first symptoms that homeowners usually notice from BBB attack. Close examination will reveal lumpy bark and half -moon - shaped beetle exit holes (WSU, 2008). Symptoms of BBB Include Dying Top 37 what Do we Have? • Douglas -fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a moth found in Western North America. Its population periodically erupts in cyclical outbreaks (Wickman et al., 1998). Outbreaks of the Douglas -fir tussock moth appear to develop almost explosively, and then usually subside abruptly after a year or two. The caterpillars feed on the needles of Douglas fir, true fir, and spruce in summer. Forestry management to prevent tree damage from tussock moth outbreaks include four activities: early detection, evaluation, suppression, and prevention. These four activities must be well integrated to ensure adequate protection from the pest. • Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed hundreds of millions of ash trees in North America. The EAB is a destructive, non-native, wood -boring pest that exclusively kills both stressed and healthy ash trees 2-3 years after infestation (NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native to Northwestern Asia. EAB larvae feed on the vascular tissue of trees and populations grow exponentially. This pest has been identified as moving slowly into the Western U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest for ash tree populations. • Other Diseases and Pests. Information on specific diseases and insects that damage trees in our region have been identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Current online information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/ ForestHealth. A. Asian Long -Horned Beetle B. Bronze Birch Borer C. Douglas fir Tussock Moth D. Emerald Ash Borer Packet Pg. 186 7.A.a Regulatory Framework The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several components relevant to urban forestry in the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. These regulations are designed to: • Authorize the power of government to manage the urban forest • Define street trees and, as appropriate, municipal responsibilities for their care • Enumerate tree related fees and penalties • Create regulations associated with tree clearing on private land • Require tree protection during construction • Classify critical areas or buffers These different regulations cover tree related topics on a range of land types, and all influence the direction and management of urban forestry programs. The following summaries outline the chapters and sections of city code. Authorization of Power The legitimacy of Edmonds' city government to manage forestry domains and the definition of those domains fall under the authorization of power: • Chapter 18.45 provides for the City's Planning Division Manager to direct and enforce City codes related to land clearing and tree cutting on public land and private property. It exempts Public Works, Parks and Fire Departments in specific situations where safety is an issue. • Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director of Public Works to enforce and inspect work done to maintain City street trees in healthy condition, or remove trees from the public right-of-way as necessary. • Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree Board, made up of Edmonds City residents in order to encourage civic engagement for active stewardship of the urban forest. The powers and duties of the Tree Board are to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council as appropriate on tree related matters. Street and Public Trees The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible as a for the planting and maintenance of public trees. These trees are on public property parcels or select o locations in the rights -of -way. Other planting strips are the responsibility of adjacent land owners: • Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction as and maintenance, declares that the c0 responsibility is with the abutting property owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent planting strips. This includes all tree care.a. c • Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the regulation of street trees and trees on public E property. All street trees are managed by the Public Works Department and require permits for all persons who wish to plant, remove, prune or otherwise change a tree on a street, L right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, or �° other public place. This code chapter also includes language defining abuse and damage to street trees. u, c Tree Related Fees and Penalties OE w To facilitate compliance and remediation for o disregarding public tree codes, the City provides r penalties as a punitive deterrent: U . • Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive discretion for trees that are damaged from disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for trees less than 3" and $3,000 for trees larger than 3". a Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use, E including public right-of-way. U r Q What Do We Have? 38 Packet Pg. 187 7.A.a Private Land Clearing Land clearing on private property is often a critical challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry canopy goals. Individual private property rights and objectives of private landowners can frequently be at odds with the community aspirations for the urban forest. • Chapter 18.45 contains regulations associated with trees on private properties for land clearing and tree cutting. This code provides for a variety of purposes that would preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the City and prevent indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees. This chapter also implements policies of the State Environmental Policy Act. It provides special exemptions in 18.45.030 for improved single-family lots, partially improved single-family lots or certain unimproved lots, allowing private property owners in these categories to maintain or remove trees at their discretion without permits. Additionally, these land clearing codes provide exemptions for utility vegetation maintenance or tree work by City departments when situations involving danger to life or property are found. Tree Protection During Construction As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees. Regulations to protect trees during construction are a mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are developed. • Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are being retained during a land development project are also protected. The codes describe the protected area on a site as being within the drip -line of the tree and attempts to limit damage to trees by controlling the impact to trees within this area. Critical Areas and Buffers Washington State has special laws to protect critical areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable and environmentally significant areas. Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections and management requirements for trees located near wetlands, streams, or steep slopes. Tree pruning or removal is restricted or prohibited without a report from an ISA certified arborist, ASCA registered consultant, or a registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for replacement trees. Challenges One of the more frequent complaints related to tree removal in the city is when properties are developed or subdivided. While a goal of the City's code is that "trees should be retained to the maximum extent feasible," other applicable development regulations help determine what is feasible. There are regulations that prescribe how wide driveways and roads must be, how far the development must be from the edges of a property, location of utilities (water, sewer, gas, and power) that must be installed underground, and stormwater requirements that require the installation of stormwater facilities. As a result, when one of the larger properties in the City that contains a grove of trees is developed to meet the many regulations and needs, sometimes only a few trees are located outside of the development footprint. Trees that were once stable in their grove, are susceptible to wind throw and become hazardous when isolated on their own. Where a tree was once the right tree in the right location (one tree protected in a larger grove), it may no longer be the right tree in the right location (an exposed tree on the perimeter of a lot) following development. As the City considers updates to the development code, updates should provide more ways to encourage greater tree retention when properties are developed. An example may be to provide options for reduced interior setbacks that would allow houses to be clustered and thus provide an opportunity to avoid trees where otherwise development would be placed under the regulations in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an update to consider may include evaluating the required width of access easements. r c as a c as E M U M r Q 39 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 188 Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 7.A.a 0 a U 7 a Developed single-family property, no critical areas present Developed single-family property, critical areas present Removal of hazard trees in critical area Prune or trim trees Multi -family property and Planned Residential Developments with approved landscape plan Commercial Property Tree removal with development Trees in right-of-way Street trees No review, no permit required Yes, review and permit required if tree in critical area or critical area buffer Review required, but no permit No review, no permit Yes, review and permit required Yes, review and permit required Yes, review included with land use or development permit. Yes, review and permit required Yes, review and permit required Prune or removal of park I No permit trees No notification required, but suggested to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement Response Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff decision with notice) Documentation of hazard tree by certified arborist, or clear documentation of dead tree. Replanting required at 2:1 ratio Topping considered same as tree cutting or removal unless retopping of a previously approved topping Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision, no notice) Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision no notice) Tree protection measures required for trees to remain A right-of-way construction permit is required for any party other than the City of Edmonds to perform any removal or trimming of trees located within the City rights -of -way Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision, no notice) The City's Parks Department maintains trees within the City's parks. While no permit is required, tree removal and replacement must be consistent with the Citv's critical area regulations r Q What Do We Have? 40 Packet Pg. 189 7.A.a Regional Urban Forestry Resources Regional urban forestry resources are organizations that provide services to aid in the protection, maintenance, and development of the urban forest. These range from active volunteer groups in the City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state and federal government agencies. Some of the organizations and programs described below have been used by the City. Others may be good choices for the future. Edmonds' community volunteers helping to remove ivy and improve forest health. WFOM WASHINGTON COMMUNITY �� Washington State Urban and Community Forestry Program Under the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to Washington's cities and towns, counties, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is: "To provide leadership to create self-sustaining urban and community forestry programs that preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for public benefits and quality of life." A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of financial assistance programs including; Community Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of financial assistance, their availability in a given year, and their associated dollar amounts are dependent on continued funding through annual grant allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF communicates events, educational opportunities, and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter. The Washington Community Forestry Council advises the DNR on policies and programs. The program does this by teaching citizens and decision - makers about the economic, environmental, psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees. The program also helps local governments, citizen groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy trees throughout Washington. The council was established under RCW 76.15. a 41 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 190 7.A.a i FORT&RRA FOR THE PEOPLE. FOR THE LEWD. FOREVER. FORTERRA Green City Partnerships The Green City program helps urban communities in the Puget Sound region effectively steward their natural open spaces through best practices. FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term plans, and community -based stewardship programs to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in our urban environments. Specific services include: • City-wide forested park and natural area assessment • Strategic and restoration planning • Volunteer program development and guidance • Education and training for volunteers • Restoration tracking systems • Green City outreach and community engagement • On- the -ground stewardship projects and event support The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core goals: • Improve the quality of life, connections to nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities by restoring our forested parks and natural areas • Galvanize an informed and active community • Ensure long-term sustainable funding and community support These unique public/private partnerships bring together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders to create a sustainable network of healthy forested parks and natural areas throughout the region. Municipal Research and Services Center The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local information from parks and recreation departments, land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations to promote and manage urban forestry resources. Example resources include local urban forestry programs in Washington State, legal references, and related articles. r Q A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars. What Do We Have? 42 Packet Pg. 191 7.A.a future wise � Futurewise Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent sprawl to protect the resources of communities in Washington State. Futurewise was founded to help support implementation of Washington State's Growth Management Act, and to focus on preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions and development. Futurewise provides data analysis and research, community and environmental planning and policy development, community engagement and outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy, legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services are all provided through strategic collaboration with businesses, governments, community organizations, and nonprofit partners. Wetland stream flowing through Edmonds. w COLLEGE of the ENVIRONMENT The University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional center to integrate student, faculty and community interests in ecological restoration and conservation. Students in the program are required to complete capstone projects, where students of different academic backgrounds work together to complete a local restoration project. Students learn how to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration project while working in teams. The Capstone spans three academic quarters beginning in the fall. Communities collaborate with the program to develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the community and excellent learning experiences for the students. a 43 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 192 7.A.a EarthCorps EarthCorps is a human capital development program where corps members learn leadership skills by working collaboratively, leading community volunteers, and executing technical restoration projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration events, monitor plant growth, adapt management plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and communities to offer volunteers who are passionate about conservation and restoration. The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on- Forested park canopy in Edmonds. Forested park canopy in Edmonds. going, locally -based, expert care for one of the City's key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown to include three more sites: Brackett's Landing, Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park. The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and how to perform actions that improve the ecological health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents. Actions include removing invasive weeds such as Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas in need of water retention and weed suppression, and replanting with native plants to foster greater biodiversity. r Q What Do We Have? 44 Packet Pg. 193 7.A.a Urban Forestry Practices: Case Studies In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that there are urban forestry practices emerging from other municipalities that could eventually add value if developed within the City. Through stakeholder interviews and discussions with City Staff, three urban forestry practices were selected as important for further consideration in implementation of this UFMP: Tree Banks (orfee in -Lieu programs), Heritage Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This section explores some examples around how other cities have adopted these programs. Tree Banks - Fee -based alternatives to tree replacement Often in the course of urban forest management, there can be logistical challenges associated with replacing trees at the same site where trees are removed. An increasingly common solution is to provide developers and residents with the opportunity to pay fees in -lieu of meeting their landscaping requirements. Providing a fee orfinancial guarantee option creates a system for funding tree planting projects or even more sophisticated landscape restoration projects that improve the overall health and condition of the urban forest. Precedence for this option can be found at the National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in - lieu fee program as: • "A program involving the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements... Similar to a mitigation bank, an in -lieu fee program sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in -lieu program sponsor." Snohomish County Here, the government provides options for permit applicants to engage the county, their own contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is not possible at the proposed project site: • 'Applicants may choose to perform the off - site mitigation work on private property either themselves or through their own contractor, subject to all other provisions of Section 30.62 SCC, or applicants may enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with the County pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 under which the County will perform the mitigation work on public property within the same sub -drainage basin or watershed resource inventory area (WRIA)." (POL-6210 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING OFF -SITE MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER SCC 30.62.330) The following cities are examples of fee in -lieu programs related to urban forestry. There is some variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as where the funds collected get administered. City of Redmond The City of Redmond calculates fee in -lieu to include the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee also includes all costs associated with establishment care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations: • RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement Fee A fee in- lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the Administrator after careful consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an offsite location. i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base fee times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements as a a N c 0 c� 3 a� W W W 0 U m W Q 45 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 194 7.A.a of this section. The tree base fee shall cover the cost of a tree, installation (labor and equipment), maintenance for two years, and fund administration. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal Permit. Fees collected under this subsection shall be expended only for the planting of new trees in City -owned parks, open spaces or rights - of -way. • http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond- wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid=005.009&fil e=doc-005.009-pid-80.pdf City of Renton The City of Renton has much more limited code language. Fee in -lieu options are still at the City's Community volunteers pulling weeds and improving forest health in Edmonds. discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and installation. No funding for establishment care is required in this code. However, the code does directly designate the funds to be allocated to the Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides more discretion to the City with how the funds get allocated: • RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When the Administrator determines that it is infeasible to replace trees on the site, payment into the City's Urban Forestry Program fund may be approved in an amount of money approximating the current market value of the replacement trees and the labor to install them. The City shall determine the value of replacement trees. http://www.codepublishing com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/RentonO4O4/ Renton0404130.html What Do We Have? 46 Packet Pg. 195 City of Port Angeles 7.A.a City of Seattle The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in -lieu option, but it only appears to relate to street tree replacement requirements. Another distinction in this code is the fee is determined by the Community Forester (a city staff position): • PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree requirements in previously developed area. In addition to the above requirements, the following also apply: Where new street trees cannot be planted due to portions of rights -of -way having been previously paved or otherwise rendered unsuitable to plant trees, a fee -in -lieu of planting is required. Such fee shall be determined by the Community Forester per City Policy and deposited into the Community Forestry Fund. https://library.municode.com/wa/port_angeles/ codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT11STSl_ CH 11.13STTR_11.13.050STTREN RE Heritage Tree Programs - Recognizing Historical Significance of Trees In many cities around the nation, trees are often recognized for their historical significance to the community. This recognition is commonly referred to as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These programs provide communities with a way of officially recognizing trees, and with the recognition, can offer a variety of benefits to the community, including: • Increasing public awareness of trees and the urban forest • Drawing attention to and protecting unique and significant trees • Reinforcing how trees are a key component of a city's character and sense of place • Engaging citizens with the purpose and activities of a city's urban forestry program • Encouraging public participation in the identification and perpetuation of heritage trees throughout the City In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program that eventually became co -sponsored by the City. Seattle's program provides the broadest set of categories for designating a tree as a heritage tree. Trees can be designated according to the following categories: • Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity. • Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age, its association with or contribution to a historic structure or district, or its association with a noted person or historic event. • Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community. • Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting. City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had a heritage tree program in place since 1998. Unlike Seattle, which already regulates the care of exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on private property, the City of Vancouver uses this designation to protect trees on private properties where tree removal permits would not ordinarily be required. This is a voluntary program for private property owners, thus protecting the rights of the property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/ publicworks/page/heritage-trees). City of Lynnwood Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined in municipal code. Although many aspects of this program are similarto other cities, their specific code language binds all successive owners of the tree to the protection obligations within this designation. This language has the added benefit of ensuring long-term protection and care for the tree unless it is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070). c as E a c as E M U 0 r r Q 47 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 196 7.A.a Arborist Business Licenses - Ensuring Best Practices in Tree Care Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require a general business license to work as an arborist. This is not uncommon, but many cities are now recognizing how the complexity of city codes associated with tree care and the expectations of the community necessitate special licensing for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care industry professionals and researchers in the science of arboriculture routinely convene as the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community has companies that are adequately trained and qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing that ties the business with these organizations is increasingly popular. The following cities were selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of different approaches for arborist business licensing: City of Herrington • Herrington, KY — Businesses that practice arboriculture must submit an application to the City for a Tree Contractor license. The application identifies the business as practicing arboriculture and requires proof of sufficient insurance (http://www.cityofherington.com/ pview.aspx?id=32514&catl D=547). Jim Community engagement on urban forestry is important to encourage tree retention on private properties. City of Lincoln • Lincoln, NE — In Lincoln, applications for tree services and arborists not only require proof of insurance, but also proof of ISA credentials or a tree worker test administered by the parks and recreation department. http://Iincoln.ne.gov/ city/parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm City of Denver • Denver, CO — Denver has two classes for their "Tree Service License." This is a distinct feature of their licensing process. Licenses can be issued to businesses working on "Large Trees," which require workers to leave the ground, or an "Ornamental" license, designed for companies doing landscaping work on small trees that do not require an aerial lift. https:H www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/ Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-license- info-packet.pdf City of Spokane • Spokane, WA — Spokane has a commercial tree license that businesses must secure if they are doing work on public property trees (e.g.,street trees and park trees). https://my.spokanecity. org/urbanforestry/permits/ What Do We Have? 48 Packet Pg. 197 7.A.a Incentives - Encouraging Tree Retention on Private Properties From the urban tree canopy assessment, it was determined that the majority of tree canopy in the city is privately owned and managed. For cities to manage their urban forests, collaboration and voluntary commitments on the part of private property owners can be a beneficial strategy that encourages desirable tree care and retention practices. (Note: In some "incentive programs," cities have first established by code minimum tree density requirements for private properties and then used incentives to allow property owners some flexibility in retaining the minimum tree density). The following are example methods that cities, counties, and states have used to incentivize desirable tree stewardship on private property: City of Portland Portland, OR — The City of Portland has a "Treebate" program which provides a one-time credit on individual utility bills for planting a tree in a residential yard. The amount of credit depends on the size of the tree. (Certain types of trees are excluded from the program.) https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/ article/314187 Brevard County • Brevard County, FL— In Brevard County, incentives were created to encourage tree preservation as they relate to landscaping requirements during development. This code language incentivizes by providing credits for exceeding tree canopy density, preserving native trees of significant size, or vegetation of special concern. These credits reduce the tree re -planting requirements otherwise associated with development projects. (Code Sec 62-4344). http://brevardcounty.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ appid32777_ch62_artxiii_div2_sec62-4344 City of Rocklin • Rocklin, CA — In an effort to preserve its native oak population, the City of Rocklin established incentives in their code. Projects that save 25% or more of the surveyed oak trees receive expedited processing by the Community Development department. In addition, development projects can have traffic mitigation and capital facility fees deferred from 3 months up to 12 months depending on the trees being saved. http://www.rocklin.ca.us/ sites/main/files/file-attachments/oak_tree_ preservation_guidelines.pdf State of Hawaii State of Hawaii — In an effort to encourage the care and maintenance of trees determined as "exceptional", residents can deduct up to $3000 per tax year for their costs associated with tree care. The code language has an additional limitation that this tax deduction can only be allowed once every three years. (HRS 235-19). http://files.hawaii.gov/tax/legal/hrs/hrs_235.pdf When the City of Edmonds updates its development regulations, incentives for tree retention and tree planting should be considered. These may include: Tree bank Tree bank funded by development. Developer pays X dollar for each significant tree removed during development into a tree bank. This "incentivizes" tree retention because the developer may find ways to maintain trees rather than pay into the tree bank. • Tree bank could be used to supply property owners with certificates to purchase trees to plant on their property. Tree bank funds could be used towards purchase of forested properties when they become available. r c as E a c m M U a r r Q 49 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 198 7.A.a Development flexibility to maintain trees • Allowing reduced interior setbacks may allow more flexibility in home placement and provide opportunities for tree retention. • Allow for deviations from access and road width requirements to allow more flexibility in design and home placements. • Encourage low impact development techniques which promote tree retention. Heritage Tree Program • Develop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program to recognize unique or special trees as a way to recognize stewardship of the urban forest by local property owners. Further consideration of the above —and any additional —ideas should be explored in more detail as part of the code update process in the near future. Summary Considerations for Urban Forest Practices Historical practices and regulatory requirements provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular, the City has special authority over property it owns or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to direct the City's urban forest management activities. Instead, the City has multiple departments that are guided by codes and policies for site -specific decisions without overarching strategic level guidance of the forest. An example encountered by public works staff is when a tree removal is being considered. One tree may need to be removed and replaced for safety reasons, but additional trees may get removed and replaced to maintain the aesthetic of the streetscape. Without overarching urban forest strategies, removals of trees for simple rights -of -way improvements can be seen as reactive solutions resolved through political discourse instead of planned practical decisions for city managers. This reactive approach to urban forest management also extends to the tree care budget. The City does not maintain sufficient tree related information (such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry benefits models show how trees in Edmonds provide environmental and economic benefits that are much greater than their reactive management costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage this disparity and direct forest management toward proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree maintenance pruning, and tree inspections. With approximately 13%ofthe City's entire tree canopy in public ownership, other methods to encourage or require tree planting/protection will be needed for the community to have influence over tree care in the remaining 87% of the forest. Some strategies that have been engaged in at other municipalities include the fee in -lieu programs to support variances in any tree replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs that protect special trees, and arborist business licensing to encourage best practices in tree care, and incentive programs. The City's policies with regard to the acquisition of open space (including the potential purchase of forested properties) are contained with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land acquisition is included in the capital project budget and the PROS plan notes that "expansions of the parks system will target the gaps identified in this plan and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds, this approach will require vigilance and proactive pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities for both parks and open spaces. The City's inclusion of this item in the capital projects list recognizes the importance of swift action when rare property acquisition opportunities become available." A specific policy addressing the purchase of forested properties could be considered for adding to the PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining the City's tree cover through the selective purchase of forest properties as opportunities arise. Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued and greater engagement, the City may realize more grant -funded opportunities, volunteer resources, and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve its urban forest management goals. as �a a N C 0 as a� 0 U m as c a c as a� c as `0 U_ c M L c 0 w 4- 0 U c as E a c as E M U a r Q What Do We Have? so Packet Pg. 199 7.A.a What Do We Want? Stakeholder and Community Input Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency stakeholders. Connections and relationships that develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes of the urban forest outreach process. This provided a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds' urban forest. As community awareness and actions associated with urban forestry move forward, it will be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the value of their contributions to their community in the trees that grow around them. Stakeholder Interviews In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting met with several municipal and regional urban forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews occurred over two days and included urban planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree board representatives, and City staff leadership. Their valuable contributions guided the framework of the UFMP. Virtual Open House Throughout the development process, the City hosted a website that provided community access to the planning process. In addition, the website provided access to videos of public presentations, surveys, and invitations for public comments. This approach provided further opportunities for public input outside of scheduled community meetings. Community Meetings The first public meeting was held with the City of Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board on May 4, 2017. During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values about the urban forest were explored with members and visitors in attendance. Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall to share information about the UFMP development process and gather input from community residents. The open house included a presentation and a brief discussion with the audience to answer clarifying questions. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster boards. Each poster board contained a broad topic followed by initial suggestions generated through the prior stakeholder interview process. Attendees were invited to express their opinions using dots (where green = a positive "vote"/ agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/ hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative "vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion). Attendees were invited to use as many dots of each color as necessary to express their opinion of each suggestion on each poster board. In addition, each poster board provided an area for Additional Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered to the poster board for other attendees to review and "vote" on. A third meeting which was with the Planning Board, occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity to solicit public participation early in the UFMP development process. The results of these public meetings helped the City to understand the needs and concerns of the community and guide the development of the online survey. a 51 what Do we want? Packet Pg. 200 7.A.a dp Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for community engagement. Q What Do We Want? 52 Packet Pg. 201 7.A.a Online Community Survey As part of the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey was developed with the intention of understanding and benchmarking Edmonds' community values and views on the urban forest. It was not conducted as a statistically valid study but as one to guage community values and get public feedback. Survey data was collected online. The survey platform only allowed one survey response per household to control for multiple entries from a single respondent. The survey closed in September of 2017 with 175 responses having been gathered through the summer (Appendix C). Responses increased following the public open house and a presentation to the planning board. Although the intent was to gather feedback from a broad representation of the community, 40.9% of the respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had less than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3% of the combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not affiliate within the survey -defined neighborhood groups. The results showed how seventy-five percent (74.9%) of respondents "strongly agree" that public trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents "agree" or "strongly agree" that Edmonds needs more public 40 % 35% 30% 25 % 20 % 15% 10% Edmonds' fountain and traffic circle trees. trees. The most popular location for more trees is in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf courses (11.2%). When asked to rank the environmental benefits most valued from the urban forest, respondents expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least important at 4.6% (Figure 4). Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit 0% 0/ Improved Air Quality Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Carbon Storage Energy Savings Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Environmental Benefits Other a� CU a N C 0 M Cn a� (D 0 U a) 0 L F_ Q 53 what Do We want? Packet Pg. 202 7.A.a View of street trees at 5th Avenue South and Main Street. On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees as the most important intangible benefit, followed by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then 40 35 30 25 20 15% 10% attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic benefit (Figure 5). Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit 50 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0/o Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded Attractive to Shaded Improve retail Increased Property Passive recreation Shaded Parkin Trails,sidewalks, Residents streets/Buffer areas and Values and bike trails from vehicles neighborhoods Intangible Benefits a� R a N C 0 R 7 a1 O W O 0 U O d LL r CL C 0 E C� C a� L 0 U- C v, C 0 w 4- 0 U r C 0 E t r a c m E t r Q What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 203 7.A.a In general, respondents are satisfied with the current level of maintenance, with 69.8% saying they "Agree" or "Strongly Agree." When asked to rank various options for the level of maintenance that public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to receive hazard maintenance (Figure 6). Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would like to seethe City help preserve trees on private property. Education and outreach were considered the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property, with 79.0% of respondents identifying these as their preferred methods. Respondents were asked to select the types of education and public outreach they would like to see offered by the urban forestry program. The most popular educational materials were website resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks (55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%). 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Take care of hazardous trees. Street tree along Main Street. Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the None -Keep them natural should look good) sidewalks and streets clear) Maintenance Expectations 55 What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 204 7.A.a Summary Considerations for Public Outreach Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further improve the urban forest through increased public outreach and community engagement. Public engagement on urban forestry issues has demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied with the City's activities on public property, but prefers to have the City only provide guidance and education as opposed to regulation when it comes to stewardship of trees on private property. There is general agreement from survey respondents that trees impact views for many residents, and the issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds' identity as a community. Scenic views are also considered a property right of long-established development. At the same time, appreciation of trees —especially "the right trees in the right place" —is a value shared by almost everyone. Private property trees have canopy that can shade public streets. Street trees along 5th Avenue. as a a N C O as as O U O L F_ c M a c as E aD aM c R as L O LL r_ M L O E LU 4- 0 U r c a� E t ca Q c m E t v cv r r Q What Do We want? 56 Packet Pg. 205 7.A.a How Do We Get There? Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of Edmonds will be able to enhance management of the urban forest through implementation of actions recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based on the precedence established by the City with other long-range planning documents. Additionally, growing and improving Edmonds' urban forest are slow processes. Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and anotherten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity. For this additional reason, it is essential that urban forest planning consider at least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired state of the urban forest. The five (5) long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan will guide actions and activities that address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: • Urban Forest Asset Actions, which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next twenty (20) years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. To accomplish this, most activities will increase the amount of information the City maintains about its urban forest resource. This includes activities like routine tree canopy assessments and a public tree inventory, both of which are fundamental to management and are substantial expenses to an urban forestry program requiring significant consideration. • Municipal Resource Actions, which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. The common activities for accomplishing these goals center around developing policies that promote routine tree inspection and formalized tree management strategies for City -owned trees. The results will encourage the City to improve its awareness and mitigation of tree hazards and eliminate barriers to effective urban forest management. • Community Resource Actions, which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The activities coordinate with the public and encourage the participation of citizens and businesses to align with the City's vision for the urban forest. The research into current and historical efforts in urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the understanding of the urban forest resource as well as improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations. The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al. (2011) were used as a standard to assess the current urban forestry practices in the City, and provide the management reference necessary to frame the following recommended goals for this plan. Each action contains time designations which estimate the anticipated timeframe for completion of the action/activity once it is started. r Q 57 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 206 7.A.a Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can obstruct the view, but can also be the view. How Do We Get There? 58 Packet Pg. 207 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goad 1 Time Goal 1- Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success with this objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees and a deeper understanding of the population of trees on private property. The following actions will support this objective: A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development On -going impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to 1 Year enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan. C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas On -going D. Develop a voluntary heritage tree program 3-5 Years E. Enforce city regulations on tree cutting On -going i. Reach out periodically to tree maintenance and landscaping firms to make sure they know Edmonds' requirements for pruning or removing trees F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree 3-5 Years planting and other tree programs i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees On -going H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist On -going I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage 10 Years, On -going J. Periodically review and, if needed, update Urban Forest Management Plan 5-10 Years, On -going (generally, every 5-10 years) r Q 59 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 208 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 2 Time Goal 2 - Manage public trees proactively The city has identified opportunities within this plan to improve its risk management associated with trees and create better pathways for community engagement. The following actions will support this objective: A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties On -going and ROW B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to On -going monitor the health of public trees and make decisions on their care C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example, On -going along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically 5-10 Years, On -going E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the On -going health of public trees F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff On -going person to guide approach and activities G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to 3-5 Years, On -going help ensure: i. Age and species diversity; ii. And suitability of species to location H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees, 3-5 Years, On -going consistent with best management practices I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property 1 Year, On -going and rights -of way J. As part of City -sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate On -going trees in rights -of -way and on City properties K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management On -going for City properties and right-of-way (ROW) r Q How Do We Get There? 60 Packet Pg. 209 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 3 Time Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective. A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds 3-5 Years, On -going B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore 3-5 Years, On -going establishment of: i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection. C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property 1 Year, On -going owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees r Q 61 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 210 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 4 Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care The city recognizes the importance of the privately managed tree population in the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The following actions will support this objective: A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to: i. Develop community education materials; ii. Participate in or initiate tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to citizen volunteers iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees and to provide guidance on tree selection and management Time 1 Year 1 Year, On -going 1 Year, On -going r c as E a c as E U a r r Q How Do We Get There? 62 Packet Pg. 211 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goad 5 Time Goal 5 - Promote "Right tree, right place" Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when o balanced combination of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees ore growing in suitable spaces to maintain views, support wildlife (pollinators, birds, mammals, etc) and provide optimum environmental services. The following actions will support this objective: A. Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds 1 Year of local settings i. Indentify: large native tree species that can spread out in large spaces; low -growing trees in view corridors, trees with appropriate root systems near sidewalks and underground pipes. ii. Provide lists of suitable trees to support pollinators and backyard wildlife habitat. B. Identify key areas to increase canopy and: 1-3 Years i. For any such private properties, encourage appropriate tree planting or other techniques; and ii. for any such public properties, consider and take action to appropriately plant trees or otherwise increase canopy. C. Identify and plan for the care of unsuitable trees and, as necessary, for On -going pruning or removal when they are potentially damaging to people, buildings or infrastructure D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation On -going to be planted in critical areas, especially near streams and other wildlife habitat areas E. In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should 1-2 Years be planted to be compatible with the street environment r Q 63 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 212 7.A.a How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring the success of planning strategies. It is intended that the Plan serves as a living document. As new information becomes available, this section of the UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine plan updates, annual reports, and community satisfaction surveys. 5-10 Year Plan Update (Plan 2023) The UFMP is an active tool that will guide management and planning decisions over the next twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress and integration into an internal work plan. The UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates are intended to be flexible in response to emerging opportunities, available resources, and changes in community expectations. Therefore, each year, specific areas of focus should be identified. This can inform budget and time requirements for Urban Forest Managers. Annual State of the Urban Forest Report This report, delivered annually, should include numbers of trees planted and removed by the City, and any changes to the overall community urban forest. It will serve as a performance report to stakeholders and an opportunity for engagement. The report is also an opportunity to highlight the successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling blocks. This information can be integrated into urban forest managers' Annual Reports and used to pursue additional project support and funding from state agencies and Tree City USA applications. Community Satisfaction The results of the UFMP will be measurable in improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals and actions will support better tree health, greater longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However, perhaps the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP will be its ability to meet community expectations for the care and preservation of the urban forest resource. Community satisfaction can be measured through surveys as well as by monitoring public support for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan. Community satisfaction can also be gauged by the level of engagement and support for urban forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest stakeholders will help managers ensure activities continue to be aligned with the community's vision for the urban forest. a How Are We Doing? 64 Packet Pg. 213 7.A.a Appendices Appendix A: References Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139-148. American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org Bennett, M. and Shaw, D. 2008. Diseases and Insect Pests of Pacific Madrone. Forest Health Fact Sheet EC 1619-E. California Oak Mortality Task Force, 2019. https://suddenoakdeath.org. Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017. http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/ CensusScope, 2012, "CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data." www.censusscope.org Ciesla, WW.M. and Ragenovich, I.R. 2008. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 119. Western Tent Caterpillar. USFS. City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens' Tree Board. City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington. City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Edmonds, Washington. City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/ Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997. Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/3/3d/Agri I us_a nxi us_1326203.j pg Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 2015. Natural Resources Canada. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313). Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and Urban Planning. Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/ Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington State Department of Commerce. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_ forestry_programming.pdf Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, "Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?" State of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using and Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. b: Appendices Packet Pg. 214 7.A.a Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflets, 2017 - Laminated Root Rot. USDA Forest Service https://apps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot' Heisler, G.M., 1986, "Energy savings with trees." Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25. �a 0 Hartel, D, 2003, "GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets", 2003 National Urban Forest N o Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information. Hollingsworth, C.S., editor. 2019. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect (accessed 31 March 2019). a� i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org 0 U Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of i Environmental Management. 45:109-133 Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: M Cambridge University Press. a. Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient E Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. http://www. sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816 Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117. Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? 0 r_ Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367. Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special Section. N Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155. o Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. -0 http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/ "' 0 Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. r The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org U . The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/ Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Emerald Ash Border. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. a http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. r http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded Q Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast. http://sncc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17 PNW Plant Disease Handbook PNW Insect Handbook Appendices 66 Packet Pg. 215 7.A.a Pscheidt, J.W., and Ocamb, C.M., senior editors. 2019. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease (accessed 31 March 2019). Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/ Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html Simpson, James, 2002. "Improved estimates of tree -shade effects on residential use," Energy and Buildings 34, 1067-1076. Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 2000. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting. In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference; Seattle. Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112. "Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1." Trees Near Power Lines I Residential I Snohomish County PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219. The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP). https://www.fs.fed. us/psw/topics/urba n—forestry/ U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. "Green Roofs," Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy Management Program. Washington Department of Ecology, 2011— Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.html Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst—externa I reviewd raftJu ne152009.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use Elementl). Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing, http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/ebl380e/ebl380e.pdf Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas -Fir Tussock Moth 86. https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban — forestry/ Wolf, K.L. 1998, "Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho -Social Dimensions of People and Plants".University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1. Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers Research Review. 14, 3:39-43. Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential scale. Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188. Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Usfin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188 67 Appendices Packet Pg. 216 7.A.a Appendix B: Table of Figures P-jures Figure 1: Land Cover Classes 5,23 Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison 24 Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation 25 Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park 27 Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit 53 Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit 54 Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations 55 Tabler Table 1: Benchmark Values 3 Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks 27 Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 28 Table 4: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 29 Table 5: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds 31 Table 6: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures 32 Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels 32 Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 40 r a Appendice, vo Packet Pg. 217 7.A.a Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Introduction: The survey questions provided a public feedback opportunity during the early stages of plan development. They were designed to solicit input from residents and businesses in the City of Edmonds and help guide the plan development by understanding about how respondents. The questions were arranged into 4 groups: • How do you value trees? • Your opinion about public trees. (City managed trees on streets and in parks) • Your opinion about private trees. (privately managed trees) • Who are you? (Simple Demographics) While providing valuable information, the results of this survey should not be interpreted to be a statistically significant survey representing all of Edmonds. 175 individuals responded to the survey (0.4 percent of the Edmonds population) and the geographic distribution of respondents was not a control factor, as a result the survey responses may include an over representation of view properties. However, these responses do represent views of many citizens who are particularly interested in the management of the City's urban forest. Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5) the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 = least valuable): Ilmprovec ' Quality Energy Savings FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Carbon Storage Wildlife Habitat Other E r a E r 69 Appendices Packet Pg. 218 7.A.a Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Responses Strongly Agree 74.86% 131 Agree 21.71% 38 lisagree 2.297. Strongly Disagree 0.57% 1 Not sur 0.00% 0 Not Sure 0.57% 1 Other (please specify) 0.00% 0 Question 2 (Extended) 36.57% 64 24.00% 4 7 14.29% jA 4.57% 8 5.14% 9 13.71% 24 26.86% 47 21.71% 38 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 10.29M 8 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 36.00% 63 28.57% 50 45 22.29% 39 12.57% 22 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 49.71% 87 P5.71%14FRO 29.71% 52 10.86% 19 0.00% 0 175 2.88 17 175 3.3 1175]64.49 0 0 Appendices 70 Packet Pg. 219 7.A.a Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8) the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1= most valuable and 8 = least valuable): Attractive to Residents 14.86% 26 21.71% 38 16.00% 28 13.14% 23 Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29% 60 21.14% 37 14.86% 26 14.29% 25 Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 21.71% 38 17.14% 30 24.00% 42 11.43% 20 Shaded Parking 2.86% 5 3.43% 6 8.57% 15 9.71% 17 rover wand neighborhoo 14% 9 10.29% 18 1W9/. 22 13.71% 24 Increased Property Values 4.00% 7 5.14% 9 5.14% 9 9.71% 17 Passive creatio 4% 9 6.86% 12 12.00% 21 4.00% 7 Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14% 23 16.00% 28 12.00% 21 16.00% 28 Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds' public trees. Answered 60 Skipped 115 Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City's urban forest program? Please check all that apply. I was not aware that t I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City Other (please specify) a 71 Appendices Packet Pg. 220 7.A.a Question 3 (Extended) 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86 % 12 2. 29% 4 7.43% 13 2.86% 5 2.29% 4 2.86% 5 9.71% 17 9.7�7 4.57% 8 1.71% 3 29.71% 52 8.57% 15 17.71% 31 19.43% 34 1.143% 34 18. 9% 32 1F29% 25 6.29% 11 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 40 29.14% 51 14.86% 26 20.00% 35 21. 15.43% 27 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.29% 11 Question 5 (Extended) 36.69% 62 23.67% 40 52.07% 88 14.79% 25 0 �5.39 175 6.29 175 3.03 175 4.25 175 3.05 175 4.89 Appendices 72 Packet Pg. 221 7.A.a Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue with trees in the public rights -of -way. Daily 13.02% 22 Weekly 11.83% 20 10.65 % 18 Several Times AYear 34.32% 58 Never J 30.18% 51 Answered .• Skipped 61 Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees? &J 9 Weekly 4.14% 7 - 2.96% 5 Several Times A Year 41.42% 70 Never 46.15% 78 T Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree c care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees? E i 5.33AMb 9 a c Weekly _ 2.96% 5 E /lonthly 5.92% 10 Several Times A Year 43.20% 73 a Never 42.60% 72 73 Appendices Packet Pg. 222 7.A.a Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds' public trees. Strongly agr� 10.65% 18 Agree 59.17% 100 Disagree 11.83% 20 Strongly Disagree 8.88% 15 Not Su 9.47% 16 Answered 169 Skipped 61 Appendice, Packet Pg. 223 7.A.a Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable) None -Keep them natural Best possible care (all trees should look good) Clearance only (keep th ewalks and streets clear) Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees. jWngly Agree A7.87% 64 Agree 28.99% 49 Fsagree 17.16% 29 Strongly disagree 5.33% 9 not sure 10.65% 1 Xnmswwered 169 Skipped Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply. 59.17% 100 Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36% 102 59.17% 100 Golf Courses 11.24% 19 Downtown 42.60% 72 Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77 dmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34 Other (please specify) 17.75% 30 Answered 11F .• Skipped 75 Appendices Packet Pg. 224 7.A.a Question 10 (Extended) 3.55% 6 8.88% 15 10.06% 17 25.44% 43 45.56% 77 6.51% 11 169 1.92 15.38% 26 9.47% 16 21.89% 37 26.04% 44 23.08% 39 4.14% 7 169 2.67 6.51% 11 24.26% 41 27.81% 47 26.04% 44 10.65% 18 4.73% 8 169 2.89 52.07% 88 26.04% 44 14.20% 24 5.33% 9 1.78% 3 0.59% 1 169 4.22 21.89% 37 30.18% 51 23.08% 39 12.43% 21 8.28% 14 4.14% 1 3.47 CU a N C 0 R 7 a1 O O 0 U a� O LL r CL 0 0 E O C� C L 0 U- L 0 0 E Lu 4- 0 U r c a� E t c,> to r a E r r a Appendices 76 Packet Pg. 225 7.A.a Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban forestry program? Please check all that apply. eminars and workshops 1 44.38% 75 Interpretive trails and displays 59.76% 101 Website resources MMMISM 62.72% 106 Online videos (e.g. YouTube) 24.26% 41 /tree walks 55� Informational brochures 43.20% 73 Other (please specify) 11.83% 20 Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public trees. Answered 40 Skipped 135 Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply) Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41 Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15 Tree debris in 12.65% 21 Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114 rnopy loss 57.83% 96 Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120 Other Concerns(please specify) %% Appendices Packet Pg. 226 7.A.a Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select any from this list any statements you agree with. ■ Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98% 20 Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37% 29 Trees near my property block views 29.34% 49 Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66% 113 Trees near nWpropqlF are healthy 59.28% 99 1 want more trees near my property 25.15% 42 have no trees near my property 0.637o I don't agree with any of these statements. 2.40% 4 Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction? Answer Choices .. Yes. The City should require property owners to preserve trees on private parcels where reasonably possible. 53.89% 90 No. This City of Edmonds should not concern itself with trees on private property. 17.96% 30 Not sure. This issue is more complicated. 28.14% 47 Appendices 78 Packet Pg. 227 7.A.a Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property? Please select as many as apply. I Education and outreach 79.04% 132 Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34% 49 Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74% 48 Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09% 92 Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33% 59 Other (please specify) 22.75% 38 Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private property. ditional Comments Answered ., Skipped 131 Question 20: Which gender do you identify with? Answer Choices Male 28.66% 47 Female 59.76% 98 Lender Diverse R3% 3 Prefer not to answer 9.76% 16 a 79 Appendices Packet Pg. 228 7.A.a Question 21: What age group are you representing? Under 18 0.00% 0 18 to 25 1.22% 2 26 to 35 4.27% 7 36 to 45 11.59% 19 46 to 55 21.34% 35 56+ 61.59% 101 Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below Downtown/The Bowl 40.85% 67 Westgate 7.32% 12 rive Corners 8.54% 14 Perrinville 4.88% 8 IMeadowdale M4.27% 7 Seaview 15.24% 25 Lake Ballinger 22% 2 HWY 99 3.05% 5 ther (please specify) 14.63% 24 Appendice, 80 Packet Pg. 229 Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply) 7.A.a I am a resident of Edmonds M 95.12% 156 1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98% 18 1 own a business in Ed on s 6.71% 11 I appreciate public trees 72.56% 119 1 have planted public trees as a volunteer 18.90% J1 I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98% 18 have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees 15.85% 31 None of the above 0.61% 1 81 Appendices Packet Pg. 230 7.A.a Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) Answered 33 Skipped 142 Appendice, 82 Packet Pg. 231 7.A.a Appendix D: Open House Summary Report On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input from citizens. The open house included a presentation by Ian Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and A from the audience to ask clarifying questions. The presentation provided attendees an overview of Edmonds' urban forest, an introduction to what will be included in the Urban Forest Management Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has completed to date. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion boards where a broad topic was introduced on each board followed by initial suggestions generated through the prior stakeholder interview process. Attendees were invited to express their opinions using dots (where green= a positive "vote"/ agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/ hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative "vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion). Attendees were invited to use as many dots of each color necessary to express their opinion of each suggestion on each board. In addition, each board provided an area for Additional Suggestions where attendees were invited to write down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note and adhere it to the board for other attendees to review and "vote" on, as well. Lastly, a confidential and anonymous option was provided for attendees to provide comments and feedback by writing their thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index cards that were placed inside a box and not shared at the public meeting. The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link for attendees to give additional feedback through an online survey. That survey can be accessed via the home page on the City of Edmonds website, under the "What's New..." section: • https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ EdmondsUFMP Local media provided public announcements of the open house leading up to the event: • http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/ rem inder-open-house-managing-citys-tree- cover-set-june-22/ • https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/ open-house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city- s-tree-cover/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines My Edmonds News covered the open house and provided a news story and video of the presentation to the public: • http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public- asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban- forest/ • http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now- video-open-house-plan-manage-edmonds- urban-forests/ r Q 83 Appendices Packet Pg. 232 7.A.a Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate? A. Improved Air Quality - B. Energy Savings elllbMReduced StormwateglMnoff ■ D. Carbon Storage ET Wildlife Habitat ■ F. Beauty/Aesthetics G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods I. Increased prope J. Shaded streets and parking lots K. Additional Ideas Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade- calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi -class (untreed neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- "the projects" don't get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams; coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland desertification City revenue increase with more views Air quality requires big, tall trees 4 0 0 AiL ■ 0 7 1 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 4 0 3 3 1 4 7 2 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Appendice, Packet Pg. 233 7.A.a Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are I - nrAfArrArl /vali iorl7 A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps) 2 0 0 i. Species selection 4 0 0 ii 1 0 0 iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0 Interactive tree selector 1 1 0 V. Irrigation 1 0 0 olunteer opportunities 1 0 0 B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter) 3 0 0 Species selectio� 3 1 0 ii. Tree planting 1 0 0 iii. Tree pruning 3 1 0 iv. Irrigation 0 0 0 C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars) 2 0 0 i. Tree planting 2 0 0 Tree pruning 5 0 0 iii. Irrigation 0 0 0 Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0 D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0 Neighborhoo Ings for education and outreach 0 0 Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0 Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe 0 0 0 story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online circulation] New name needed 0 0 0 85 Appendices Packet Pg. 234 7.A.a Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees in Edmonds? A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9 B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7 ft Tree debris in 1 5 D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3 [E. Canopy loss 3 F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3 Additional Co Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows developers to completely clear treed lots for development 1 0 0 (residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban IS omeone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate V between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps 1 Lto come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the 0 0 0 establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation 0 0 is removed for development This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we 2 0 0 have chosen to reside- as the "view". Trees are very connected to the idea of "the commons" in which we have not much I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated additional concern. 'Note: for this opinion board: Green dots = concerned Appendice, ov Packet Pg. 235 7.A.a Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer for aublic trees? A. None (keep them natural) 1 4 2 B. Best possible care (all trees should look good) 7 1 3 Mlearan� (keep sidewalks and streets clear) 7 1 1 D. Take care of hazardous trees 10 2 0 lolistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) 8 3 0 F. Additional Ideas In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need 0 0 0 process to effectively deal with dangerous trees. Utilize/ plant and replace trees that "heave" the sidewalks. ie- 2 0 0 avoid trees that interfere with built environment. Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash tree 0 0 Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property owner's views are protected. As a first step/tonight's meeting 0 1 0 working together to protect environment as well as property owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode. There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote "Agree" directly on the note itself. 87 Appendices Packet Pg. 236 7.A.a Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees planted? A. Parks 10 0 0 B. Open Spaces 10 0 1 Commercial properties 9 2 0 D. Streets and medians 7 3 2 _E. Parking lots 0 F. Private properties 8 1 1 G. Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all 1 0 0 arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool Appendices 88 Packet Pg. 237 7.A.a Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree I M planting and preservation on private property? A. Free (or low-cost) trees 10 0 0 B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care 3 0 0 company Education and Outreach 16i 0 0 D. Tree planting events 5 0 0 Additional Ideas Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot. 3 0 1 Education- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for "views" 0 0 0 we can cut out our lungs. Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order 3 0 0 to keep both trees and preserve view. City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should: 3 0 0 Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and streamside property management more important than public 0 0 0 meetings for general public) a N 0 a� a� 0 U a� a� L F_ a w c 0 L 0 a_ c L 0 E W 4- 0 U r c a� E t c,> to r a E r r a 89 Appendices Packet Pg. 238 1 1. W}Cot tree benefit do YOU M*5t appreciate? I a t'+ Oe a N. A vT y r ierriri#i i arrr twmr*a..iay{E�.3rva7.ceR.r.eYwRrrR.sN #ii�i##•i*#• • i '2GF" o"aanr#rr.r#• r, Ilrew r/aw.I Wri[. ii •ereiaiiir u srwr.a r.. . irgeeii i. N. I'•+^^•4 aroma Me.q,y _ i •aa# � ��s L �F4• i# *r� `� orA�Lw,Y ibr 7.A.a M M: ' r t 2. What types of vutreoth and 3. What is cre your Biggest ' L; �rr�` edumtion are preferred valued? : concern(s) for trees in Edrnorlds? A_ E40ronic (Websile, links, Youfube, Apps)111 A. kaos blocking my aicw 1N 4. Sperm fak.r:an 00 a* • 41. iil� 1—r,.riinq � * i,'. I.rrr&&F.+Tn.rsear is S. iroas shading my yard 040q&• • *. Nrrq.s 0 • • 10 �. 4�lard Cot}y {PPrfrph�otS, P#ewilelt4•es j�� xrex r-anrw,p :.o # • C. Tree dnhris in my yard # 0 s •• i D- Hapllhy srsaTura F.awsL.ing ramoYad •i •o• • • ••• C• l44adF-On JWorl&shnpsL, Seminar#}IDO F. Canopy loci i Tr..Phrewp �� I. Loss ofwBdlrt,alwbgal ������*• � W. Yelrna.rrOFpa•hn4ier� ��� ��* � �; J 0.1Ldditivnol Idwna ~ 0. A "liDwol Concerns T _ 1 6. Whot are the best ways to f encourage tree planting and f 5. Where would you like to e more preservation on Private Property? v What level of rna�r1.. 'Dote would trees planted? seq. Frap far low-ea31� rroes you prefer far pul�liI frees? A. Fora. A. Noe IKeepnceasaaroral) i *too iiir •!• �• open $peers •�• •rr {. Cvmmerciel Properries • ii #reel D. Streets and Medians i le r ii r E. Parking LOT& % •ee i # F'- Privaxv Prapsftias i iii* r r G. Addlfion011408s i i i $. B.e.rpOaible Sars {olpTraes ilsasrld lank goad] * i ii irerr C. ClIbumn&e only jkawp sidewalks & stroe+s rlrs •#ii irl # D, Tckv care of 6.... doo. r �. i ril •rare i E. Hdisric Planl firaF+i. Cwe jlmprova rh. ,., hen ioraSF, but ncl 4e4oFSPrily axery rree) iii e i e Is F. Addl;Onalld,­�-•t? B, Inforrnation obour how ra hire a professional tree care I tympany is C. EdtMo600 and OuTraach :r# • Il! 0, Troo Naming [venis •0so* [. Additionat Ideas N C 7 IM d d 0 V L F_ C IL c m E ai a� �a C ns ..r N L 0 IL C M L N C 0 lL 0 ci r C E t C� a C d t u r+ a Appendices 90 Packet Pg. 239 7.A.a Additional anonymous comments: Change name "Urban Forest"- bad impression, oxymoron. Suggestion- Best plant/tree for Best location • Wondering what is/can be done to encourage people to maintain views for neighbors around them? • Let's separate view areas from non -view areas. Right tree for right location. I am concerned about safety regarding older trees in both private and public spaces. We have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood that lose branches with most wind storms. Who watches out for the health of those trees and probability of danger? Most people would have no idea where to begin, let alone be able to afford to do something like hire an arborist. (signed J Thompson) Questions from the public asked during the presentation: Question regarding how the 30% canopy cover was determined- comment that that number seemed really high. Wondering if there is a uniform process used by all cities. Made comment that grants were judged by how much canopy a City had. Asked for clarification on what the process that was used to determine 30% canopy cover. • Question asking for clarification of the intention of the UFMP- to handle City trees (as stated in an early slide) or is it actually expanded to handle private trees too. Commenter asked for clarification on defining "what is a tree"- a 30ft lilac ... is that a tree? A big rhododendron- is that a tree? • Commenter referring to tree planting suggestions (provided an sign in table on yellow paper)- had a question about why is there not any evergreen on that suggestion guide? Commenter asked question regarding tree topping being preferable to cutting a tree to the ground. Expressed concern over making a "blanket rule" that tree topping is bad or not preferable. • Question regarding information on what kinds of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a fir versus an oak- and where is that kind of data available at? Question referring to the chart shown in the presentation comparing Edmonds with other cities- does that chart take into consideration view property- does it differentiate where there are view properties and where there are not? Commenter suggested that a significant portion of the City [of Edmonds] has views. r Q 91 Appendices Packet Pg. 240 7.A.a Attendance City of Edmonds: • Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council • Shane Hope, Development Services Director • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities Director • Kernen Lien, Senior Planner • Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager • Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager • Brad Shipley, Planner • Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff Project Team Members: • Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group • Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group • Keeley O'Connell, Nature InSight Consulting Members of the public: • Approximately SO Appendice- 92 Packet Pg. 241 7.A.b 2020 Edmonds Tree Regulations Update —Topic Matrix Topic Existing Code Possible Amendment Concepts Tree Retention ECDC 18.45.050 notes that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible." One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. The City could explore regulations The critical area code has a 30% retention of native vegetation requirement for that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed properties in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones being subdivided if associated with landslide beyond an established threshold, developers may be required to pay into the Tree Fund. hazard areas, streams, or wetlands (ECDC 23.90.040.C). Apart from the 30% native vegetation requirement in the critical area code, there is no specific tree retention requirement for properties within the City of Edmonds. Low Impact Development Low impact development (LID) in the City development code is primarily related to One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are stormwater management. ECDC 18.30.010 (definitions related to stormwater code) cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. One way to maintain more trees on defines low impact development as "a stormwater and land use strategy that strives to the site is to employ LID planning principles in the subdivision process. Current subdivision and zoning standards do mimic predisturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, not allow much flexibility and by the time the required access, setbacks/developable area, and utilities are applied evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site to a site, often must of the trees end up being removed. Some flexibility during subdivision design that may be planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a explored include flexible setbacks (e.g. modify interior setbacks while maintaining standard exterior setbacks), project design." However, low impact develop principles may be applied much broader, cluster developments, flexible lot design (altering lot width and/size requirements while maintaining the underlying for instance ECDC 24.90.030 (shoreline master program definitions) defines LID zoning density). principles as "land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on - site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff." Tree Fund The City of Edmonds currently does not have a dedicated Tree Fund Establishing a Tree Fund will be part of the update. Tree Fund management will likely be established in a new chapter located in Title 3 ECC. How money makes it into the tree fund and what the funds may be spent on will have to be explored. Potential funding options include tree cutting violation penalties, dollar amount per tree removed during subdivisions (see Tree Retention), or deposit for replacement trees not planted to meet retention requirement (see Tree Retention topic). Tree fund could be used to issue tree vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in the City, funding tree education activities, or other tree related activity. Incentives There are currently not incentives to retain trees or plant trees within the City code. The Urban Forest Management Plan included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property which included: A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of: i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection. C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees Allowing more flexibility during development of site, such as discussed in the LID topic, also provides an incentive to retain more trees during development. Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 242 7.A.b Topic Existing Code Possible Amendment Concepts Tree Definitions ECDC 18.45.040 currently defines tree as "any living woody plant characterized by one Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a "significant tree", "protected tree", "landmark tree", "heritage tree", or "street tree". Additionally, some multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown." jurisdiction except certain species of trees from their tree regulation requirements (such as red alder). Tree definitions will be explored. Permits/Tree Cutting Review for Currently exemptions from permitting requirements are located in ECDC 18.45.030. The disparity in application fees and process between existing single-family and multi-family/commercial properties Existing Developed Properties Generally speaking, developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt should be addressed. from tree cutting permits. If there are critical areas present and the tree is not determined to be a hazard tree (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b) then a permit is required to cut The current exemption list contains some dated language and inconsistencies with the critical area code. As such a tree (which includes topping). When a permit is required on single family properties, the exempt activities should be reviewed. Another exemption consideration should be given to nuisance tree it is a Type II staff decision with notice. Type II permits cost $1,010 ($970 application removal. For example, a tree that is not considered a hazard tree but continually damages sewer lines or is buckling fee plus $40 technology fee). In addition to the application fee additional costs may a driveway with its roots may be removed without a permit similar to a hazard tree. include arborist reports and/or critical area reports such a geotechnical report. For existing multi -family and commercial properties tree cutting is reviewed a Type I design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Type I permits cost $315 ($275 application fee plus $40 technology fee). If critical areas are present, additional reports may be required. Hazard tree removal does not require a permit, but does require review by staff. There are no City fees associated with a hazard tree removal review, however there is cost to an applicant to hire an arborist to document the tree as a hazard tree. Penalties/Fines Violations and penalties for tree cutting violations are currently contained in ECDC The code currently defines a tree as any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many 18.45.070. Base penalties may be assessed accord to the size of the tree; civil penalty branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed in an amount not to exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 crown. The critical area code also permits the removal of trees less the 4 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) as for a tree three inches or more. These fines are trebled if the tree is located in a critical an allowed activity. Given the current code includes penalties for trees that are smaller than the definition of tree area or the right-of-way for a maximum fine of $9,000 per tree. and trees which may elsewhere in the code be removed from critical areas as an allowed activity, the penalty section should be review and evaluated to establish an appropriate penalty for violation of the City's tree cutting regulations. Any penalties assessed could be deposited in the Tree Fund account. Code Location Tree and vegetation management is spread throughout Edmonds Community Title 18 ECDC is primarily related to Public Works requirement. Since Chapter 18.45 ECDC is related to tree Development Code (ECDC). Primary tree code is located in Chapter 18.45 ECDC — Land regulations on private property and administered by the planning manager, a new chapter (Chapter 23.10 ECDC) Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. Other tree and vegetation regulations are contained will be created in Title 23 ECDC Natural Resources to house the main tree related code chapter. Other potential within Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC critical area code, the Title 24 ECDC — Shoreline tree related code amendments may be applied to Chapter 20.75 ECDC — Subdivisions that would allow flexibility in Master Program, and Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements. subdivision design to encourage more tree retention as noted in the LID and Tree Retention topics. Page 2 of 2 a� r Q. 0 c 0 a� m m 0 U W 0 t= x r .Q 0 W r M a N c 0 a� a� a� t= c 0 E w N r c m E t a E 2 a Packet Pg. 243 7.A.c 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 23.10.090 Bonding 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.110 Liability 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose The purpose of purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance, and use of significant trees. The intent of this chapter is to: A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; B. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; C. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; D. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; E. 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. F. To 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; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 1 of 13 cam; c a� E z U Q r c m E U 2 a Packet Pg. 244 7.A.c G. 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; H. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; 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 (Definitions currently incomplete. Will review definitions to make sure all terms are defined.) 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. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every inch of trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet from grade or otherwise determined by a qualified professional (example: one (1) foot radius per one (1) inch DBH). C. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. D. 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). E. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. F. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. G. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. H. Non -significant Tree (i.e. alder) 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. J. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; Tree Risk Assessor Certification (TRACE) as established by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of ISA (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 245 7.A.c 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. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree [protection and replacement] plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. L. 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. M. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city tree protection professional (City Arborist, qualified professional, someone?). N. Tree Fund - XXX O. 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 protected, non -protected or 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. 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 non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. Removal of trees in association with right-of-way and easements. Tree removal by a public agency or a franchised utility within a public right-of-way or upon an easement, for the purpose of installing and/or maintaining water, storm, sewer, power, gas or communication lines, or motorized or non - motorized streets or paths. Notification to the City by the public agency or franchised utility is required prior to tree maintenance or removal within City -owned rights -of -way. C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain the health of cultivated plants, to contain noxious weeds, or to remedy a potential fire or health hazard, or threat to public safety. D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable of being divided into not more one additional lot, except for: 1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer, excepting erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 246 7.A.c E. Trees that do not meet the above exemptions maybe removed with supporting documentation for the removal of: 1. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been done 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. 2. 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. 3. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited 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 as provided for ECDC 23.10.040.E, hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolitions: 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 may be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all natural 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 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, 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 plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention 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 Plan Retention Plan Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 247 7.A.c 1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense. Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); the inventory must also include significant trees on adjacent property with driplines extending over the subject property line; Size (DBH); iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.) V. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short plat or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements cannot be established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; Accurate location of significant trees on 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 supplemental trees and any required trees replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080. c. An arborist report containing the following: A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 248 7.A.c (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Describe the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Plats and Subdivisions a. Phase Review i. If during the short plat or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, was not able to be established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses trees only affected by the known improvements at the time of application. Tree removal shall be limited to those affected areas. A new Tree Retention 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 General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for project development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows: ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Project Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short plat, or subdivision 30% of all significant trees in the developable site Multi -family development, unit lot short plat, 25% of all significant trees in the developable or unit lot subdivision site 2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area hazard tree. 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. If the required retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant shall pay $XX into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: In identifying significant trees to be retained trees should be retained in the following priority order of priority: 1. Priority One: a. Specimen trees; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 249 7.A.c b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches in 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. 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 may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity. F. 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 with clearing limit fencing of any critical areas and critical area buffers; 3. Trees to be removed and retained; and 4. Property lines 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 shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. 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. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 250 7.A.c B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Fences shall be constructed of chain link and be at least six (6) feet high, unless other type of fencing is authorized by the Director. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence. Said sign must be approved by the d 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 professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the Director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 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 equipment. c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. C. Grade. 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. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 13 Packet Pg. 251 7.A.c 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. 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. D. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. E. 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 by one new tree in accordance with subsection ECDC 23.10.080.0 of this section. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation complies with the standards in this section. B. 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. C. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. Two -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. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 252 7.A.c D. Tree Replacement Fee-in-leu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site location. The amount of the fee shall be $XX times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section will 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. 23.10.090 Bonding A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration covering trees, irrigation and labor. C. A maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% 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 clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties A. Noncompliance with any other 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. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 253 7.A.c 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. 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. 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 with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s). 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 monetary fines and required tree replacement. 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the City. The notice shall describe the violation, 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 Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 254 7.A.c owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility 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. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following development standards: 1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced up to 20 percent in all residential zones provided that: a. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; b. The required front setback shall not be reduced by more than five (5) feet. There may be an additional five (5) feet of reduction beyond the allowance provided for covered entry porches. 2. Lot size. Lot sizes may be reduced ("clustering") to allow dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations so long as the overall density of the project complies with zoning ordinance. 3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allow by the zone. 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 policies and codes. 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: Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 255 7.A.c 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; D. Sale of seedlings by the City; and E. Other monies allocated by the City Council 3.95.040 Funding Purposes A. Monies in the tree fund maybe 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. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 4. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day; S. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. B. Monies from the tree fund may be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, but may not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 256 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/28/2020 Review of Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Review the Extended Agenda. Attachments: Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 257 �yOV Epyf0 � � a 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change pLAKIMFW� BOARD "pExtended Agenda ! l po October 28, 2020 Meeting Item SEPTEMBER, 2020 OCTOBER, 2020 October 1. Public Hearing on the 2020 update to the City of Edmonds CIP/CFP 28 (Capital Improvements Program and Capital Facilities Plan) 2. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes hirtwow,hcr 7n7n November (No meeting —Veterans Day) 11 November 1. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes 18 November (No meeting —Thanksgiving Holiday week) 25 December, 2020 December 1. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to City of Edmonds Tree 9 Codes (Tentative) December (No meeting — Christmas Holiday week) 23 idnudry, cuci January 1. Discussion/Deliberation on Draft Amendments to City of Edmonds 13 Tree Codes (Tentative) 2. Climate Goals Planning —Status Update and Discussion January 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Update 27 2. Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging Q Packet Pg. 258 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Implementation / code updates implementing the UFMP 2020-21 2. Implementation / code updates implementing climate goals 3. Implementation / code updates addressing WA state roadmap 4. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners) 5. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates 6. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates 7. Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs) 8. Nonconforming buildings and redevelopment issues 9. Subdivision code updates 10. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 3. Joint meeting with City Council — March? 4. Development Activity Update 5. Joint meeting with EDC? Q Packet Pg. 259