The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-02-16 City Council - Full Agenda-27921. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o Agenda Edmonds City Council V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 16, 2021, 7:00 PM DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "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. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL PRESENTATIONS 1. Resolution Celebrating Black History Month (10 min) 2. Resolution Honoring the Life of Dick Van Hollebeke (10 min) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda February 16, 2021 Page 1 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2021 2. Approval of claim checks. 3. Youth Commission Ordinance Amendment 4. Public Hospital District No. 2 Grant ILA - LEAP 5. Preliminary December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report 6. ILA with City of Lynnwood for the 76th Ave Overlay Project 7. Authorization of a Pedestrian/Utility Easement along 80th Ave W adjacent to 18227 80th Ave W 8. Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Repealing Resolution 1306 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment (90 min) 2. WWTP Staffing Change - WWTP Supervisor (15 min) 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. Update on the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project (Stage 2) (45 min) 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council Committee Minutes (0 min) 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda February 16, 2021 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Resolution Celebrating Black History Month Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Black History Month has been formally recognized in the United States since 1976. The Mayor and City Council commemorate the achievements of black Americans as history makers and legacy trailblazers and their role in the development of the region and the nation since its inception. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to approve resolution 1469 recognizing February as Black History Month. Attachments: Resolution Celebrating Black History Month Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a RESOLUTION NO. 1469 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH. WHEREAS, in 1925, Carter G. Woodson conceived a celebration during the week encompassing the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas in February, 1926; and WHEREAS, since 1976, every U.S. president has officially designated the month of February as Black History Month. Other countries around the world, including Canada and the United Kingdom, also devote a month to celebrating Black history; and WHEREAS, Black History Month acknowledges and honors numerous past and present educators, scientists, activists, pioneers, leaders, artists, inventors, entrepreneurs, and elders with special ceremonies and activities; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council do hereby celebrate the diversity in Edmonds by commemorating the achievements of black Americans as history makers and legacy trailblazers and their role in the development of the region and the nation since its inception; and WHEREAS, the theme for 2021 is "The Black Family: Representation, Identity, and Diversity;" and WHEREAS, Doctor Martin Luther King proclaimed "Without love, there is no reason to know anyone, for love will, in the end, connect us to our neighbors, our children and our hearts;" and WHEREAS, the contributions and cultural innovations created by citizens of Edmonds who are black have been meaningful and beneficial to the development of our community; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. . Proclaims the month of February 2021 as Black History Month; Section 2. . Recognizes diversity as an abiding strength to the Edmonds community. RESOLVED this_16th day of February, 2021_. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 1469 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a Q Packet Pg. 6 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Resolution Honoring the Life of Dick Van Hollebeke Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Edmonds resident, volunteer and community leader, Dick Van Hollebeke passed away on January 2, 2021. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The City Council wishes to honor Dick Van Hollebeke's life and legacy with a resolution of appreciation to his wife, Monda, and his six children recognizing his decades -long service to the City of Edmonds. Attachments: Resolution 1468 Honoring Dick VanHollebeke Packet Pg. 7 4.2.a RESOLUTION NO. _1468— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO HONOR THE LIFE AND WORK OF DICK VAN HOLLEBEKE. WHEREAS, Dick Van Hollebeke served the public and his community for decades in various capacities including the Edmonds City Council from 1995-1999; and WHEREAS, Dick served on the Edmonds Community College Foundation Board and the college's Board of Trustees for 10 years from 2005-2015, was recognized by The Washington State Association of College Trustees 2016 Trustee of the Year Award and the 2017 Cornerstone Award; and WHEREAS, Dick hosted a popular Edmonds Community College locally televised program of interviews with local and national personalities called, "Inside Edmonds Community College;" between the years of 2012-2018 producing over 75 programs for the Civic Engagement and Inside Community College series; and WHEREAS, he dedicated himself to building community through his business —Van Hollebeke Insurance and Financial Services --serving on the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development committee, and valuing civic volunteerism, he was dedicated to the boards of the Edmonds Food Bank-- where he drove his own pickup truck to the store to collect donated groceries and deliver it to the food bank staff --and the Edmonds Petanque Club, teaching many how to play the game; and WHEREAS, Dick was an avid supporter of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department serving on the Civic Park Advisory Committee, advocating for Yost Pool where he helped raise money for the pool to remain open during a summer of economic hardship for the city; and WHEREAS, Dick also co-founded the Creative Age Festival of Edmonds (CAFE), which ran for two years — in 2016 and 2017 — offering interactive classes and activities for retirement -aged adults; and Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a WHEREAS, Dick was a devoted member of the Holy Rosary Choir as well as Choir of the Sound, the Sno-King Chorale, and performed with the Civic Light Opera, as well as being an avid traveler of the world, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Dick Van Hollebeke was a distinguished Edmonds Citizen and his contributions will be missed, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be immediately transmitted by the City Council to his wife of 57 years, Monda, in celebration of his service to the City of Edmonds. RESOLVED this 16th day of February 2021. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 1468 Packet Pg. 9 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2021 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 02-09-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 10 7.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES February 9, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "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." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 11 7.1.a 5. PRESENTATION 1. SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT UPDATE Katie Curtis, Prevention Services Director, Snohomish Health District, reviewed 2020: Non-COVID o Rebuilding the Agency ■ Online service delivery ■ IT infrastructure ■ Rucker Building Improvements ■ Transparency and accountability o Public Health Activities Continue ■ 4,500+ Inspections on restaurants, grocery stores, espresso stands, caterers and mobile food vehicles ■ 1,000+ Complaints addressed (food, pools, septic and solid waste) ■ —500 Permits for pools and spas that we routinely inspect ■ 200+ Public and private schools with kitchen permits and required safety inspections o hi Your Community ■ Partnered with City on suicide prevention policy and events ■ 237 annual food establishment permits, 6 field consultation, 26 pre -opening inspection and 14 change of ownership reviews ■ 56 childcare providers received consultations through Child Care Health Outreach program, and 114 continuing education courses completed by providers ■ 16 children served through Children with Special Health Care Needs program ■ 24 COVID case investigations in school and/or childcare settings COVID-19 Response o Web Resources (www.snohd.or /cam) o COVID-19 Heat Map —Cumulative o COVID-19 Rate by zip code (Jan 10-23) o Cases are trending down COVID-19 Looking Ahead o Healthcare System ■ Continue work with hospitals, LTCFs, DSHS, and other resources to improve flow through the discharge system o Disease Prevention & Containment ■ Continue testing, case, contact and outbreak investigations ■ Support schools in implementing statewide guidance o Vaccine ■ Work with Vaccine Taskforce to increase supply to meet capacity ■ Develop reporting information on demographics, etc. ■ Collaborate with partners to increase access for underserved ■ Continue to follow prioritization in vaccination phases Moving Forward o Implementing Our Strategic Plan ■ Reduce the rate of communicable disease and other notifiable conditions ■ Prevent or reduce chronic diseases and injuries ■ Provide high -quality environmental health services ■ Improve maternal, child, and family health outcomes ■ Provide legally required vital records ■ Address ongoing, critical public health issues Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 12 7.1.a ■ Support increased access to medical, oral, and mental health care ■ Build a more sustainable organization Projected Revenues 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Actual Amended Proposed Budget Budget Licenses & Permits 3,860,426 4,008,199 3,787,452 3,5577,892 4,314,297 Inter ov. Revenue 10,147,984 11,046,367 9,913,452 22,383,413 9,260,321 Charges for Goods 2,140,985 1,838,729 2,578,610 2,449,479 2,239,463 & Services Misc. Revenues 298,909 580,829 401,213 257,818 114,557 Total 1 16,448,304 14,474,124 16,680,727 28,668,602 15,928,387 o 2021 Budget Revenue by source ■ Intergovernmental (58.1%) ■ State grants 26.1 % ■ County grant 0.3% ■ County per capita 4.6% ■ County Tree Board and communicable disease funding 9.4% ■ City per capita 1.9% ■ Federal grants 15.8% ■ Licenses & Permits 27.1% ■ Charges for Goods and Services 14.1% ■ Miscellaneous Revenues 0.7% Updated Six -Year Forecast Budget Projection 2022 — 2027 Looking Ahead o COVID Funding - continue engaging with federal delegation and local partners to ensure extended & expanded o Sustainable Funding - while 2021-2025 are fairly stable, current trends would leave the District with an inadequate total fund balance to cover reserves starting in 2026. o Increased Revenue — finalizing renovations to lease out space in Rucker Building, as well as Sound Foundation for Public Health getting up and running. Sound Foundation for Public Health o New Foundation board members selected o Anticipate filing paperwork Q1 o Finalizing MOU between Foundation and Health District o Purpose: To provide support for priorities identified in community health assessments, community health improvement plans, and/or emerging public health issues in Snohomish County Stay in touch o Blog & Newsletters ■ Sign up for blog, newsletters, alerts and more at www.snohd.org/notifyme o Social media ■ Follow health district on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Ms. Curtis, commenting she was the new superstar in the public health arena and she appreciated everything she did. Serving on numerous boards and commissions within the Health District, she believed the District would be very successful into the future attracting funding for public health, noting the biggest challenge is the lack of revenue. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 13 7.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Curtis for all the work the Health District is doing, recognizing the District may bear the brunt of the frustration regarding the vaccine rollout. It has been amazing to see the team at the Health District staying focused on doing good work for public health and safety. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Edmonds Senior Center has been calling members to check on them. She asked if that was what Ms. Curtis referenced in her presentation or was the Health District doing that throughout Snohomish County. Ms. Curtis said early on the City of Edmonds reached out to the Health District asking how they could help reach out to care facilities in the community; Todd Cort has been doing that work. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser explained Parks & Rec has been calling 65 long term care facilities in the community weekly and asking a series of questions regarding COVID responses, PPE, and the vaccination and sharing that information with the Health District, providing a conduit between the Health District and the residents of long term care facilities in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for all the work the Health District does in addition to their work related to COVID-19. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Ms. Curtis for all she and the Health District have been doing to keep the community safe during this challenging time. As family members are able to get vaccinated and begin to resume more normal activities, she asked about the risk that presents to family members who have not been vaccinated or are under 16 and will not be eligible for a vaccination for a while. Ms. Curtis said she did not have an answer off the top of her head but would reach out to Dr. Spitters and request he send a response. The CDC is still encouraging those who have been vaccinated to continue wearing marks and to continue to be vigilant. This is a relatively new vaccine and while they think the efficacity is there, long term studies have not been done. She cautioned against throwing masks away and going about life as usual. As more time passes and scientists are able to do more research, mask restrictions may be lessened but that is not the case yet. Council President Paine thanked the Health District for their hard work. As it was likely COVID-19 would last more than 1-2 years, she asked if anything had been heard about additional federal or state funding. Ms. Curtis said the Health District thinks there may be ongoing funding; no quick answers are expected at the federal level as they are dealing with other issues now. There is some chatter at the state level with Governor Inslee's plans to do different things with public health so how that shakes out remains to be seen. Council President Paine expressed best wishes for funding. Councilmember Olson thanked Ms. Curtis on behalf of the community. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. TC Richmond, Edmonds, Co -Chair, Mayor's Climate Protection Committee, advised the committee's annual report to Council on February 23' will address 2020 accomplishments and priorities for 2021. Prior to that presentation, the committee will be holding an open house on February 18t1i via Zoom and phone from 6 — 7:45 p.m. to launch the public outreach related to the Edmonds' Climate Action Plan Update. That event is the start of an approximately yearlong opportunity for residents to influence the development of actions and policies to address climate change. Additional workshops throughout the year will lead to an updated Climate Action Plan that will be presented to Council by yearend. Further information and the Zoom link and call in number are available at Edmondsclimate.com. The committee looks forward to a good launch to this effort as well as subsequent opportunities for input. Nicole Hughes, Edmonds, Chair, Economic Development Commission (EDC), said after hearing public comments and Council deliberation regarding permitted uses in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone last week, she wanted to reiterate support for the ordinance amending the ECDC to add hotel to the list of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 14 7.1.a permitted uses in the CW zone. The issue was previously studied by the EDC and recommended for action due to the potential economic benefits to the Edmonds business community. The EDC exists to help explore and recommend ideas and actions to the Mayor and Council that will hopefully support and expand the economic vitality of the City. This action aligns with the EDC's mission of recommending items that will positively impact the City's economic stability. The EDC's work to evaluate this idea included a hotel study and resulted in strong support from the EDC. Although the recommendation was made pre-COVID, it was seen as way to open up the options for adaptive reuse of existing buildings which could offset economic leakage associated with hotels. When visitors to Edmonds find lodging in nearby towns, the City's economy misses out on the associated spending that occurs with overnight stays. As the City prepares for the emergence of a post-COVID economy, this could have a significant impact on the City's recovery by allowing the broadest possible options for buildings that could be repurposed for lodging. She emphasized this would be a boutique small hotel, low occupancy that honors Edmonds' design and the waterfront experience. This is a creative option to support the path back to economic vitality. She thanked the Council for their thoughtful deliberation. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 8. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty summarized this proposal is an amendment to the ECDC to allow hotels as a permitted use in the CW zone. Hotels are allowed in most commercial zones in the City but have not been allowed in the CW zone. As mentioned last week and as was referenced by Ms. Hughes, people who stay overnight spend a lot more than day-trippers; people who stay overnight spend up to $180/night according to the Dean Runyon Associates' May 2019 report. Edmonds does not have a lot of lodging although there has been some growth in private lodging such as Airbnb and VRBO. There is a lot of competition for lodging in other cities. The EDC's proposal was intended to capture some of that and support the arts and culture sector and the post-COVID activities at the soon to open Waterfront Center with nearby lodging. Mr. Doherty pointed out the proposal to add hotel as an allowed use is more important than ever. How long the pandemic recession will last or how long it will take the economy to recover is unknown. A lot of people are working from home and may not return to offices. It is unknown whether the vacancy rate of the office buildings on the waterfront will be high or if tenants will renew their leases. It is important for the City to provide as broad a platform as possible for property owners and business owners to pivot and face the new post-COVID economic realities which could include providing for the possibility of lodging on the waterfront via adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 15 7.1.a Mr. Doherty recalled the definition of hotel came up last week. Staff does not have a problem with the current definition because nothing else matches it and other uses such as apartment, boarding house, etc., have their own definition. The packet contains an alternative ordinance with an alternative definition for hotel. He displayed the alternative hotel definition: 1 1.1 Hotel iedie ' attenti n or ^^re a facility offering transient lodging accommodations on a daily or weekly basis to the general public and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, and recreation facilities. (See also, Motel.) Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City had any liability if a building was not up to the same standards as a new building such as the Waterfront Center. She asked if a building would need to be retrofitted to current standards or would the City be liability if the building was retrofitted and something happened. Mr. Doherty answered there are code provisions that apply to all uses and occupancies and any proposal has to meet them all. Once a project has been approved at whatever level of compliance that requires, the City has done its civic duty and dispatched any liability. Development Services Director Shane Hope said liability is not so much an issue because remodels must meet the code. For example, in some cases critical area regulations will apply and in some cases what needs to happen will depend on the soil conditions. With building renovations, there are thresholds for when a building or the improvements have to meet the code, depending on the level of the rehabilitation in the building. It can range from ensuring the portion that is being remodeled meets the current code or possibly even the entire building would need to meet the new code depending on the proposal and where it is located. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the environment with retrofitting. She recalled the Frances Anderson Center had to be retrofitted for earthquake safety. She asked if there were standards in place to ensure the environment was protected when a building on the waterfront was modified or improved. Ms. Hope answered yes, explaining existing buildings are not required to make improvements; however, once redevelopment or rehabilitation is proposed, depending on the level of rehabilitation, the building would need to meet the new standards. Depending on which building and where it is located, it definitely must meet the standards applicable to the project including critical area standards. Work internal to a building would not require that, but external work would. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council President Paine asked if the motion was to approve the alternative ordinance that included the revised definition or to approve the original version of the ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered it was the ordinance on packet page 100. Council President Paine said the alternative ordinance on packet page 163 includes the new definition of hotel. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED DEFINITION OF HOTEL IN CHAPTER 21.4 AS EXHIBITED UNDER 8.1.I IN THE AGENDA PACKET, DEFINITION ON THE BOTTOM OF PACKET PAGE 167. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 16 7.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said she was opposed to adding hotels to the waterfront area for a variety of environmental reasons: this area is located in a floodplain so parked cars will be subject to flooding, the area is subject to sea level rise in the future and those impacts are unknow, and finally and most importantly, there are potential impacts to this area from earthquakes particularly since the area has already been identified as sensitive to that issue. While there may be a loophole by doing an adaptive reuse, these fundamental objections should override any consideration of the addition of hotels. She recalled when she served on the EDC over a dozen years ago, there was discussion about a boutique hotel but in the main part of town. She was not opposed to that concept but felt it was inappropriate to put a hotel on the fragile waterfront however lovely it may seem to be. Councilmember Olson commented all the same impacts or downsides would apply to all proposed or potential uses in the CW zone and hotel was just another use. She did not see that as a reason to say no. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. OVERVIEW OF WCIA ANNUAL AUDIT HR Neill Hoyson said the presentation includes some additional information about WCIA because she recognized that some Councilmembers may not be familiar with the risk pool and its background. She explained "audit" is somewhat of a misnomer; it is more a best practices review. WCIA contacts each member to ask what type of review they are interested in for the calendar year, whether it was risk management practices, review of a specific area such as contracting or fleet management, review of claims history to look for patterns the member needs to address, etc. Unlike traditional audits such as the state audit that looks at specific areas, the WCIA audit is more collaborative and a review of best practices and not an audit with findings. She referenced a couple emails she received from Councilmembers that she had not had time to respond to and was hopeful some of the questions would be answered during the presentation. She reviewed: • WCIA Overview o The Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) is a municipal organization of Washington public entities that join together for the purpose of providing liability and property financial protection to its members. o Formed in 1981, as the first liability risk pool in Washington State. WCIA has evolved from the original nine members to a financially strong liability and property pool of over 150 members, with one common goal; to aggressively manage members' financial risk. o WCIA is fully funded by its members, who make annual assessments on a prospectively rated basis, as determined by an outside, independent actuary. The assessment covers loss, loss adjustment, reinsurance and other administrative expenses. o An investment committee, using investment brokers, produces additional revenue by investment of WCIA's assets in financial instruments which comply with all State guidelines. o A Board of Directors governs WCIA, which is comprised of one designated representative from each member. The Board elects an Executive Committee and appoints a Treasurer to provide general policy direction for the organization. The WCIA Executive Director reports to the Executive Committee and is responsible for conducting the day to day operations of WCIA • Stewardship Report 2015-2019 (Edmonds use of discretionary services Summary of Benefits Consultation $3,014.60 Pre -Defense $80,765.11 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 17 7.1.a Reimbursement $27,936.20 Total $111,715.91 • Comparison of Other Group Members Edmonds Usage of WCIA Member Services Edmonds Group 4 Average Costs Consultation $3,015 $1,401 Grants 0 8,420 Pre -Defense 80,765 2,584 Reimbursement 27,936 541 Coverage and Coverage Levels LIABILITY PROGRAM o Liability Joint Protection Program (no deductible) Auto Liability, General Liability, Police Liability, Errors or Omissions Liability, Employment Practices Liability, Employee Benefit Liability and Stop -Gap Liability. 100% occurrence form. Layer Limits Self -Insured Layer Limit $4M per occurrence Reinsured Layer — Governmental $3M per occurrence Entities Mutual, Inc. Reinsured Layer — Argonaut Insurance $8M per occurrence and aggregate per member Company Reinsured Layer — Allied World $5M per occurrence and aggregate per member Assurance Company, Inc. Reinsured Layer — Markel Global $5M per occurrence and aggregate per member Reinsurance Company Total Limit $25M per occurrence, subject to aggregate and sub -limits AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE PROGRAM o Auto Physical Damage Joint Protection Program Limits: Actual Cash Value (ACV) for schedule vehicles except optional replacement cost coverage for vehicles over $25,000. Deductible waived for glass repair and damage caused by fire or lightning. Deductible: $1,000 (deductible shown only if program member) o It should be noted that WCIA has changed the replacement cost base for vehicles to $50,000 starting in 2021. Edmonds has reviewed and updated coverage for the fleet based on this. PROPERTY PROGRAM o Property Joint Protection Program WCIA self -insured (pools) the first $750,000 of covered perils other than flood and earthquake. We purchase and follow a Lloyd's of London policy with the limits provided below: Limits: $400,000 per occurrence Sub -limits: $150,000 Earthquake per occurrence and annual pool aggregate $100,000 Flood per occurrence and Annual Pool Aggregate, except $50,000 Flood sub -limit within Flood Zones A and V Other sub -limits may apply Deductible: Earthquake: 2% of Values Involved Subject to $250,000 minimum per occurrence Flood: $250,000 per occurrence, except within Flood Zones A and V 3% of the total building/facility values involved in the loss subject to a $500,000 minimum occurrence All other Perils: $25,000 (deductible shown only if program member) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 18 7.1.a IIX11U 19051 OWN 8.] 9 DE 4171110AL1i 1,11110 04 ll7l el 005 Kxej is I IN D119 a lz"MNI-1 Insured by the Hardford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company Sub -Limits: $10,000,000 Business Income, Service Interruption $5,000,000 Demolition, Ordinance of Law $1,000,000 Extra Expense $500,000 Perishable Goods, Expediting Expenses, Hazardous Substances $100,000 Off Premises Equipment Breakdown, Contingent Business Income, Data Restoration Deductible: $10,000 Combined All Coverage Except $25 per KW Turbine Generator Units with a $50,000 minimum *$25 per HP motors, pumps, and deep well pump units *$2.50 per KVA transformers *$25 per HP A/C and refrigeration systems *$25 per HP internal combustion engines and generators >=500 HP Limits: $100,000,000 Maximum Limit (Equipment Breakdown) *Subject to a $10,000 minimum deductible x❑ Checked only if program member POLLUTION LIABILITY Insured by Chubb Insurance Company Limits: $2,000,000 Per Condition Pollution Condition or Indoor Environmental Condition Limit of Liability $10,000,000 Total Policy and Program Aggregate Limit of Liability for all Pollution Conditions ad Indoor Environmental Conditions Sub -Limits: $250,000 Maximum for "Catastrophe Management Costs" Arising out of all Pollution Conditions and Indoor Environmental Conditions Deductibles: a) $100,000 Per Pollution Condition or Indoor Environmental Conditions b) 5 Days Days per Pollution Condition or Indoor Environmental Condition for Business Interruption Loss CRIME/FIDELITY PROGRAM Insured by AIG — National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA Limits: $250,000: Employee Theft — Per Loss Coverage, Forgery or Alteration, Inside Premises — Theft of Money and Securities, Inside Premises — Robbery of Safe Burglar of Other Property, Outside the Premises, Computer Fraud. Funds Transfer Fraud, Money Orders and Counterfeit Money Credit/Debit Card Forgery, and Faithful Performance of Duty w prescribed by law. Blanket coverage for all employees unless exclud& under the insurance policy Deductibles: $10,000 ❑x Checked only if program member $50,000 Impersonation Fraud Coverage Deductible with a $250,000 sub -limit INFORMATION SECURITY INSURANCE/CYBER INSURANCE Limits: $10,000 Aggregate Pool Policy Limit and per Member $1,000,000 Limit Sub -Limits: $1,000,000 Security and Privacy Liability Insurance per Member $1,000,000 Regulatory Action per Member $1,000,000 PCI-DSS Assessment or Fine per Member 75,000 Affected Individuals Privacy Event Services per Member/5M Aggregate Affected Persons $1,000,000 Event Management Electronic Data per Member $1,000,000 Event Management Event Response per Member $1,000,000 Bricking $1,000,000 Cyber Extortion Including Bitcoin Ransom Coverage Deductibles: $25,000 Security and Privacy Liability Insurance Including Regulatory Action Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 19 7.1.a $25,000 PCI-DSS Assessment 100 Affected Individual Privacy Event Services $25,000 Event Management, E-Discovery None 5-year risk profile 2015-2019 o Member Claims by Coverage Member Sub Expected Actual Expected Actual Total Group Member Coverage Claim Claim Total Incurred Count Count Incurred 4 Edmonds Auto Liab. 30 20 $428,010.46 $38,882.26 4 Edmonds Employment 3 2 278,696.84 18,401.23 Pracces 4 Edmonds Errors & 9 4 243,428.62 115,780.13 Omissions 4 Edmonds General Liab. 146 102 921,685.88 347,635.82 4 Edmonds Public Safety 33 12 1,042,409.63 65,576.32 TOTAL 1 221 140 $2,914,229.43 $586,255.76 o Group Claims by Coverage Member Sub Group Group Avg Group Total Group Avg Group Coverage Claim Count Claim Count Incurred Total Incurred 4 Auto Liab. 448 21.33 $6,485,549.35 $308,835.68 4 Employment 53 2.52 4,223,032.57 201,096.79 Practices 4 Errors & 135 6.43 3,688,590.63 175,647.17 Omissions 4 General Liab. 2,213 105.38 13,966,105.65 665,052.65 4 Public Safety 506 24.10 15,795,406.32 752,162.21 TOTAL 1 3,355 159.76 $44,158,684.52 $2,102,79.50 • 2021 Coverage Year Assessments o Total Assessment: $920,264 Coverage/Program Assessment Auto Physical Damage $34,166 Boiler & Machinery 9,457 Crime/Fidelity 2,537 Liability 665,738 Property 28,366 Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the only area that WCIA recommended the City focus on was Auto Liability. Although the numbers are low, the City did have fairly high frequency as compared with the expected claim count. The City does not have an established policy for training employees before they drive City vehicles. She plans to request a WCIA grant to implement an online defensive driving program for employees who drive City vehicles. Council President Paine commented this information was fascinating. She asked whether there had been any change in the level of liability during 2020 during COVID. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the claims included in the comparison are only through September 2020. She can look to see if there was any differences in the claims that occurred in 2020 compared to previous years and whether there was a COVID connection to it. Council President Paine answered there was no need, she thought the data was only through 2019. She was glad the only area for improvement was defensive driving. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 20 7.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis said she sent several questions to Ms. Neill Hoyson. She requested Ms. Neill Hoyson send her the actual reports which would address her first couple of questions. She thanked Ms. Neill Hoyson for providing this information, recalling the Finance Committee had discussed this for many years but had never had a presentation. Noting the City's numbers look great, she asked if this information should be presented to the Council periodically. Ms. Neill Hoyson said when she was with the County, part of the role of the director of risk management was an annual report on the risk pool, how the County was performing, etc. During the audit, she asked the WCIA representative if they provide the Council an annual report. The representative said that could be done, but it was typically left up to the organization. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she plans to provide an annual presentation. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Council should look at large claims or wait until the yearend review. Ms. Neill Hoyson responded as a public entity, the Council gets a lot of attention for litigation which can take up a lot of space and time and some claims are not supported by anything. When WCIA considers it a valid claim, that may be an appropriate time to bring it to the attention of the Finance Committee rather than reviewing all large claims. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council has reviewed claims in executive session in the past. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed over the years there have been occasions when the Council has been briefed in executive session regarding pending litigation that WCIA may be defending. He could not recall a situation where a claim was discussed in executive session unless there was a very strong belief that it would result in litigation and it was just a matter of time. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussing employee -related claims in executive session. Councilmember Buckshnis observed a lot of the general liability claims were stormwater and asked if there was a breakdown between stormwater and flooding. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there are subcategories that are broken down by department and by category. She had an opportunity to look that up prior to the meeting; in the general liability line, sewer claims were $174,509 and stormwater claims were $9,500. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was impressed by the actual compared to the expected, commenting it was phenomenal how much money had been saved. Councilmember Buckshnis commented liability in the 2021 assessment looks very high compared to actual experience and asked if that was because liability was a catchall for everything. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed numerous claim types fall under liability coverage. Many factors are taken into account that impacts the City's premium, not just how the City is performing, but also how the cohort group is performing as well as the pool's performance. Another issue is insurers are leaving the Washington State market which results in reinsurance costing more. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a large payout a while ago that caused rates to go up and asked if rates then go down later. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the assessment is based on a 5-year period, as the period moves forward, claims drop off. One of the protections of being in a risk pool is it caps the City's actuarial liability for what impacts premiums at $150,000. Therefore, regardless of how much is paid out, the amount used in the analysis of the premium is only $150,000. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated she was glad to get this information and she looked forward to future presentations. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) At 8:11 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes. Action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Nelson, and Councilmembers K. Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Olson, Paine, Distelhorst, and L. Johnson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Beth Ford, and Public Works Director Phil Williams. At 8:41 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 21 7.1.a that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 8:51 p.m. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 8:51 p.m. No action was taken. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported the numbers released by Snohomish Health District today indicate case counts are decreasing although not as rapidly as in the past. Everyone needs to continue wearing masks, practicing physical distancing and avoiding large groups. The Health District announced a new appointment system where people can schedule their first and second doses online as well as limited waitlisting. It is hoped that the system will be operational this week and will provide capabilities that have not previously been available. Mayor Nelson reminded of the Climate Action Plan update open house on February 18t' at 6 p.m. On February 19t'', the United States will official rejoin the Paris Climate Accord via an executive order signed when President Biden first took office. That is helpful because the goals in the Action Plan are based on Paris Climate Accord. He encouraged the public to attend the open house. Further information is available at Edmondsclimate.com, a website specifically related to the Climate Action Plan. Mayor Nelson wished Melissa Beard, a longtime Edmonds resident and South County Firefighter, a Happy Birthday. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson thanked the members of EDC, a very dedicate group of citizens, anticipating they were feeling happy and a sense of accomplishment after the Council's vote tonight. She thanked her Council colleagues who supported that. Recognizing that Valentine's Day is coming up, she suggested eating and drinking out to show love to Edmonds' businesses. In spite of efforts by many and a great deal of policy, restaurants and bars are down 25% in 2020 compared to 2019 so they need the public's support to stay in business. If anyone needs a reminder that they are loved by Edmonds, she displayed a Love Edmonds charm. Councilmember K. Johnson wished a Happy Birthday to Mr. Phillips who is turning 99, a former Edmonds High School Vice Principal and a longtime member of the Edmonds Planning Board. Councilmember Distelhorst urged residents to prepare for very cold and potentially snowy weather coming this weekend. The South County Cold Weather Shelter in Lynnwood is open; they do not accept walk-ins, only those picked up by their shuttle. The Lynnwood Hygiene Center is accepting donations of blankets, handwarmers and other necessities to keep unsheltered community members warm during this cold weather. He encouraged the community to continue to stay safe and take care of each other. Council President Paine hoped everyone enjoyed Valentine's Day and avoid the treacherous mountain passes in the snow. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized Feed Me Hospitality who provided a blueprint for streateries that was approved by the City's building department and the fire department. She recalled seeing building materials downtown to construct the streateries. She thanked Shubert Ho and his brother-in-law for that effort, noting it not only saves time, but also provided a valuable design that would have cost thousands Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 22 that all the restaurants received for free. As Councilmember Olson said, restaurants are down 25% in 2020 compared to 2019 and she encouraged the public to bundle up and go out like she did last weekend. She commended people for supporting local businesses. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed sorrow at the passing of George Murray and said her thoughts go out to Linda. She also acknowledged the passing of Alison Hardwell who was involved with the Edmonds Arts Festival. She commented Valentine's Day is coming and some people are sad and others have Valentines to hang out with. For anyone feeling sad or depressed, she assured there is always someone to talk to. She recognized suicides are up and stressed the importance of reaching out to others. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said because she left last week's meeting early due to not feeling well, she missed the opportunity to send her regards to Bill Anderson's family, Pauline and Daren. Daren has been a friend of her son's in Special Olympics for the last 10-12 years and she and Bill spent a lot of time on bleachers watching games and activities over the years. He will be greatly missed not only by the Edmonds community, but his family and particularly his son Daren. She extended her condolences to Daren and Pauline Anderson. Councilmember L. Johnson echoed earlier comments about the South County Cold Weather Shelter and the Climate Action Plan update open house. She reminded the community to keep warm, be well, be safe and have a good night. Student Representative Roberts urged the public to wear masks, make safe choices and for those who are eligible, to take advantage of the opportunity to get vaccinated. Businesses and the community depend on each person's individual actions. He wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day and to stay safe and well. 11111U -9\I With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 23 7.1.a Public Comment for 2/9/21 Council Meeting: From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 6:15 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Neill Hoyson, Jessica <Jessica. Neil IHoyson@edmondswa.gov>; reed h@wciapool.org; Ann Bennett <annb@wciapool.org> Subject: Public Comments for the February 9, 2021 City Council Meeting Packet Page 183 indicates Councilmembers will be allowed to ask "Questions?" at the end of the Overview of WCIA Annual Audit on Tuesday night. Packet Page 171 declares: "WCIA has evolved from the original nine members to a financially strong liability and property pool of over 150 members, with one common goal; to aggressively manage members' financial risk." Please take this opportunity to represent your constituents and ask how far WCIA is willing to go to "aggressively manage members' financial risk". History shows WCIA is willing to: 1. Go "well beyond" the Court and Hearing Examiner's Orders. (See Stephanie Croll's June 15, 2007 email to Duana Kolouskova, cc'd to Duane Bowman and W. Scott Snyder.) 2. Ignore knowledge of an incomplete subdivision application and simply exclaim "As you know, the neighbor's right-of-way issue is goofing things up. Hopefully, the permit(s?) will issue before Tuesday, and the Settlement can be approved." (See attached Stephanie Croll email to Duana Koluskova). Is WCIA really an organization the City of Edmonds wants to be affiliated with? Please also remember Scott Snyder's famous September 16, 2010 email to former City Councilmember Steve Bernheim that included the following: "You are also aware of the liability issues -relative to Thuesen that forced the city (administration) to push the issue." As I have long said, a City with integrity, does not "push the issue" due to so called 'liability issues". The following is found in the December 1, 2009 Edmonds City Council Minutes (highlighting added): Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 24 7.1.a Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the independent counsel who reviewed the matter. Mr. Snyder explained he asked WCIA to do pre - litigation review of Mr. Reidy's claims. Councilmember Bernheim asked if that was the same person who participated in the Thuesen lawsuit settlement. Mr. Snyder answered Ms. Kroll was the co- counsel appointed by WCIA. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was not aware that the independent counsel had previous involvement and advocacy in this case. He was surprised to learn that the attorney selected to conduct the independent review had been an active participant in the Thuesen settlement agreement. Mr. Snyder explained he applied to WCIA for pre - litigation review and WCIA assigned the attorney. He did not feel it appropriate to designate an attorney or challenge the person they appointed. Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that her previous role had not been disclosed and with the appearance of non- objectivity. In conclusion, is WCIA really an organization the City of Edmonds wants to be affiliated with? Thank you for reading this and giving it your full consideration. Ken Reidy P.S. Packet Page 183 indicates Edmonds used $80,765.11 of Pre -Defense WCIA Member Services. The Group 4 Average was $2,584. Why the dramatic difference? Attachment: (425) 451-2818 (fax) -----Original Message ----- From: Stephanie E. Croll fmailto:SCroll @kbmlawvers.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:15 PM To: Duana Kolouskova Subject: Theusen permit As you know, the neighbor's right-of-way issue is goofing things up. Hopefully, the permit(s?) will issue before Tuesday, and the Settlement can be approved. If not, then we may have to wait 2 weeks for Council to meet again. Should we think about entering an agreed Stay in the Court of Appeals if we have to wait 2 weeks? I don't want us to get sanctioned for failure to meet deadlines, etc. Stephanie E. Croll Keating. Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 4141 Sea ttle, WA 98104-3175 phone(206)623-8861 fax (206) 223-9423 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 25 7.1.a From: cdfarmen Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 12:06 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree code Dear Council Members, I was very glad to hear that UFMP and the term ecological were mentioned in your last meeting. I am hopeful such a conversation will lead to a good tree code that provides tree retention and protection over "cut and pay". I understood that when the moratorium on subdivisions was approved, the primary motivation was to protect as many trees as possible with respect to the proposed development of the wooded property between Seaview Park and Perrinville. The new Conservation Subdivision plan seems to have been added to the tree code to address that situation. However, the new subdivision plan does not account for the unique nature of that property. Based on Mr. Lien's case examples, it's application seems more appropriate for the usual relatively level building site with a small cluster of trees. I do not see how that plan would deal with a 5-acre wooded site consisting of two deep ravines, several steep slopes ranging from 83% to 134%, and a high plateau? ( The slope data is from the Geotechnical report found in the 2005 Angler's Crossing PRD files.) This is a "one of a kind" like no other, privately owned property in the city. In addition, this is a major part of the headwaters and drainage of Perinnville Creek that needs to be protected. A separate flexible development plan needs to be created to preserve as much as the natural features, ecology, and tree canopy as possible. Possibly the Conservation Subdivision plan can be built upon allowing for the clustering of homes where the topography and tree groves dictate where the building sites are located. Without significant modifications to that plan, the direction of the new plan will do very little for Seaview/Perinnville woods. There are specific aspects of the city's Comprehensive Plan that apply to such unique terrain properties and needs the council's serious consideration. Residential Goal A.6 Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, drainage, vegetation and habitat. Open Space Goal. A.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces: A.2.d. Areas that have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways, particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents as watersheds or natural drainage ways. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 26 7.1.a Similar statements are found in the UFMP under the section titled "Private Land Clearing". It references Chapter 18.45.00 "Purposes" section of the Land and Clearing and Tree Cutting code. There are also other alternatives being employed by different townships, such as the "cluster developments" designed to maintain the unique character of a site, maintain and conserve larger open space areas, and protects and/or enhances sensitive environmental and wildlife areas. Some require as much as 50% open space. I understand it's not an easy task to decide how areas with special topography, hydrology, ecology, and an established tree canopy are allowed to be developed. But, it's not an impossible task either as seen with other communities that have been faced with similar challenges. The following article discusses the concept of conservation subdivisions. Terrain.org: "Cultivating Natural and Cultural Landscapes through Conservation Subdivision Design" February 10, 2008, NorthAssocAdmin "Terrain.org is an online journal devoted to smart growth that's integrated with the natural environment. It won a 1999 Media Award for Sustainable Development and has an entire category devoted to UnSprawl. Randall Arendt's article, "Cultivating Natural and Cultural Landscapes through Conservation Subdivision Design", is a good example of increasing sensitivity among Smart Growth advocates for development that respects existing natural features and key elements of neighborhood character. Some excerpts: If you have ever driven by a development site both before and after construction, you will probably have noticed how drastically the pre-existing landscape, both natural and cultural, has been altered, sometimes almost beyond recognition. Very typically, woodlands have been felled, hedgerows have been pulled up and cleared away, the natural contours of the terrain have been ironed out into dead -flat building platforms, drainages have been relocated, old houses and barns have been razed. Usually, not as obvious is the lack of necessity for many of those changes, which forever impoverish the community by permanently erasing special features that are often impossible to replace or replicate. The loss of habitat, familiar landscapes, and character -defining buildings are often the result of indifference by developers and their engineering consultants, and ignorance of practical alternatives by local planning staffs and officials who approve such proposals, based on outdated zoning and subdivision codes which legitimize this kind of corporate and municipal misbehavior... At the heart of ["conservation planning"] is the idea that the residential subdivision design process can be reformed so that such developments become a major tool for achieving a community's conservation objectives, at no additional cost to developers. In fact, studies have Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 27 7.1.a shown they save money on expensive site grading and street construction, and that the lots tend to sell more quickly and at premium prices... The critically -important first step consists of inventorying resources worth designing around and preserving, either because they represent daunting obstacles to development (such as wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes), or because they encompass special value -adding natural or cultural features that are extremely vulnerable because they are NOT located in [ designated] unbuildable areas... " My hope is that a good tree code in conjunction with a flexible subdivision plan can be developed to preserve any ecologically sensitive site within the city of Edmonds. A code that limits accommodations to the developer and boldly stands tall for the trees that make up the city's canopy. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview resident Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 28 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #246087 through #246210 dated February 11, 2021 for $443,897.81 (re -issued check #246087 $660.00). Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 02-11-21 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 02-11-21 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 246087 2/11/2021 075085 1 LINGUA LLC 343 1 LINGUA YEARLY FEE 1 LINGUA YEARLY FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Tota I : 246088 2/11/2021 075085 1 LINGUA LLC 360 1 LINGUA 2020 MEMBERSHIP 1 LINGUA 2020 MEMBERSHIP 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Tota I : 246089 2/11/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC INV-2-8232 INV-2-8232 - EDMONDS PD - GOVAI BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 CONCEALABLE CARRIER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 TRAUMA PLATE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Tota I : 246090 2/11/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-86537 INTERPRETER - XZ0776586 INTERPRETER - XZ0776586 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 15-86791 INTERPRETER - XZ0635360 INTERPRETER - XZ0635360 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 15-86903 INTERPRETER - XZ0509765 INTERPRETER - XZ0509765 7.2.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246090 2/11/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC (Continued) 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 150.0( 15-87044 INTERPRETER - 8Z1184352 INTERPRETER - 8Z1184352 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 170.0( Tota I : 620.0( 246091 2/11/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 138336096 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 122 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.0E 138336097 FIRE INSPECTION - CITY HALL fire alarm - CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 84.8E 2010551 ALARM MONITORING MEADOWDAI ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUSE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 165.6E Total : 379.6( 246092 2/11/2021 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC 21808 WWTP: 1/4, 1/11, 1/14 & 1/25/21 CO 1 /4 (2 pick ups), 1 /11, 1 /14 & 1 /25/21 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 253.2( Total: 253.2( 246093 2/11/2021 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-199457 PM: POSTS, BASE, SIGN BRACKET PM SUPPLIES: HI -LIFT JACK, POLY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 206.9, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.5, Tota I : 228.45 246094 2/11/2021 001528 AM TEST INC 119128 WWTP: SAMPLES #20-A0017380-1 i SAMPLES #20-A0017380-17384- 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 470.0( 119522 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0019989-19f SAMPLES 20-A0019989-19990 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 80.0( Page: 2 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 3 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246094 2/11/2021 001528 AM TEST INC (Continued) 119752 WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A000370-371 SAMPLES 21-A000370-371 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 80.0( .. 119753 WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A000001-20 & SAMPLES 21-A000001-20 & 21-A00( 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 160.0( 119754 WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A000269-274 E SAMPLES 21-A000269-274 M 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 455.0( 119782 WWTP: SAMPLE 21-A000748 0 SAMPLE 21-A000748 R 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 25.0( o 119783 WWTP: SAMPLE 21-A001155 L a SAMPLE 21-A001155 Q 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 25.0( 119784 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0020346-201� N SAMPLES 20-A0020346-20348 r 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 275.0( c 119789 WWTP: SAMPLE 21-A000275 y SAMPLE 21-A000275 E 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 110.0( T Total: 1,680.0( a ; c 246095 2/11/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1992102048 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE E E PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.4'° 10.4% Sales Tax r Q 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.3� 1992107201 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' Page: 3 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246095 2/11/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 246096 2/11/2021 078097 ARMSTEAD CONSULTING INC 246097 2/11/2021 078292 AUGUSTAVO, EDWARD J Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' ui PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ u 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6z O 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6z LO- 10.4% Sales Tax a 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6z Q 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6" N 10.4% Sales Tax r 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6z o 1992107202 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS E 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� FLEET DIVISION MATS a 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 c 19.1( 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.91 @ 10.4% Sales Tax Q 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.9£ Total: 134.6: 6 CONSULTING FOR EQUITY/SOCIAL CONSULTING FEES 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 4,125.0( Total : 4,125.0( EAC: AUGUSTAVO CONTRACT FOR ARTS & CULTURA Page: 4 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246097 2/11/2021 078292 AUGUSTAVO, EDWARD J 246098 2/11/2021 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 246099 2/11/2021 073834 BATTERIES PLUS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) CONTRACT FOR ARTS & CULTURA 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Tota I : 55369 INTERPRETER - XZ0363564 INTERPRETER XZ0363564 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 55375 INTERPRETER - 8Z0526889 INTERPRETER - 8Z0526889 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 55447 INTERPRETER - XZ0732896 INTERPRETER - XZ0732896 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 55545 INTERPRETER - XZ0127001 INTERPRETER - XZ0127001 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 55793 INTERPRETER - 9Z0915144 INTERPRETER - 9Z0915144 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 56412 LATE CANCELLED INTERPRETER - CANCELLED INTERPRETER XZ074; 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 56468 INTERPRETER - XZ0213347 INTERPRETER - XZ0213347 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 56910 INTERPRETER - XZ0635360 INTERPRETER - XZ0635360 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 57064 INTERPRETER - lA0072209 INTERPRETER -lA0072209 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total P36169417 WWTP: PO 461 LITHIUM BATTRIEE PO 461 LITHIUM BATTRIES - pickec 7.2.a Page: 5 Page: 5 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 246099 2/11/2021 073834 BATTERIES PLUS (Continued) 246100 2/11/2021 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0013382 246101 2/11/2021 076930 BLACKFIN TECHNOLOGIES NW INC 210102 246102 2/11/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 246103 2/11/2021 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 0016705-IN 1225381 1226701 20489 20490 20512 PO # Description/Account 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total : WWTP: 1/1-1/22/21 SERVICES 1/1-1/22/21 SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total WATER/ SEWER - NEW SCADA DIA WATER/ SEWER - NEW SCADA DIA 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 WATER/ SEWER - NEW SCADA DIA 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Total FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 674.8 GAL FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 674.8 GAL 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 553.8 GAL FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 553.8 GAL 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 633.20 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 633.20 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total EOJA.SERVICES THRU 1/30/21 EOJA.Services thru 1/30/21 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 EBGA.SERVICES THRU 1/30/21 EBGA.Services thru 1/30/21 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 EODC.SERVICES THRU 1/30/21 7.2.a Page: 6 Page: 6 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246103 2/11/2021 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) EODC.Services thru 1/30/21 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 30,250.9( Total: 42,528.4( 246104 2/11/2021 075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT 01-2021 JANUARY PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVI JANUARY SERVICES 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 1,904.1 Total : 1,904.1 , 246105 2/11/2021 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 9610 9614 YOGA 9610 9614 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUC 9610 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 135.0( 9614 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 517.5( 9630 YOGA 9630 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION 9630 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 180.0( Total : 832.5( 246106 2/11/2021 077166 CADENA, MICHAEL 01252021 INTERPRETER - 1C1165968 AND 84 INTERPRETER - 1 C1165968 AND 8. 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.0( Total : 100.0( 246107 2/11/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5739045 ROADWAY - ASPHALT ROADWAY - ASPHALT 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 246.4� 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 24.6E 5739346 ROADWAY - ASPHALT ROADWAY - ASPHALT 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 238.6z 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 23.8E Total: 533.6' Page: 7 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 246108 2/11/2021 078291 CAIN, MARISSA Jan 2021 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 01/2021 CPA License renewal 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 Tota I : 246109 2/11/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 94897327 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 94905198 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 Tota I : 246110 2/11/2021 076378 CAMFIL USA INC 30209208 WWTP: PO 477 30/30 2" 300-399 PO 477 30/30 2" 300-399 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota I : 246111 2/11/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 7320418 BARRACUDA MESSAGE ARCHIVEF Barracuda Message Archiver - 450 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Tota I : 246112 2/11/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN01210964 YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 7.2.a Page: 8 Page: 8 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 9 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246112 2/11/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) RN01210965 WWTP: 1/2021 CYLINDER RENTAL- 1/2021 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 142.7E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 14.8E Tota I : 223.81 246113 2/11/2021 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 16919 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS JOINT MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS JOINT 001.000.64.576.80.41.50 33,895.4, 17019 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS JOINT MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS JOINT 001.000.64.576.80.41.50 853.8, Total: 34,749.2E 246114 2/11/2021 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 8498310301175175 CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S� CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S� 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 140.2, 8498310301175191 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 140.2, Total: 280.51 246115 2/11/2021 004867 COOPER, JACK F 10 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 617.000.51.589.40.23.00 2,033.7E Total: 2,033.7E 246116 2/11/2021 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 01-99421 SEWER- PARTS AND MAINTON S� SEWER - PARTS AND MAINT ON S� 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 2,959.8: 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 307.8: 15-77680 UNIT 14 - PARTS/ GASKET UNIT 14 - PARTS/ GASKET Page: 9 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246116 2/11/2021 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 246117 2/11/2021 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3364311 246118 2/11/2021 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 100*0I3 13976 246119 2/11/2021 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 272788 246120 2/11/2021 047450 DEPTOF INFORMATION SERVICES 2021010032 246121 2/11/2021 075160 DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS 41231 PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : E8CA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT E8CA.RFQ Advertisement 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E20CB.INVITATION TO BID E20CB.Invitation to Bid 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E20CB.Invitation to Bid 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 Total BACKGROUND CHECKS - JANUAR' BACKGROUND CHECKS 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 OVERAGE FOR PARKS BACKGROI 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Total CITY HALL ELEVATOR CERT RENE) CITY HALL ELEVATOR CERT RENE) 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098 Scan Services for January 2021 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Total INV 41231 - CUST 5920 - EDMONDE TRAINING RM PODIUM - LOGO CHi 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 7.2.a Page: 10 Page: 10 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246121 2/11/2021 075160 DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) LOGO INSTALLATION 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 220.0( 10.4% Sales Tax -71 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 51.4E u) Total: 546.4f 246122 2/11/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 21-4068 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES t U city council meeting minutes 2/2 E M 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 356.4( Z Total: 356.4( o 246123 2/11/2021 076172 DK SYSTEMS 27225 YOST POOL- BOILER REPAIRS 'R o YOST POOL - BOILER REPAIRS Q. 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5,102.2E Q PREVAILING WAGE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 20.0( N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 T 530.6z N 27578 CITY HALL - LABOR y CITY HALL - LABOR E 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 375.0( .2 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 39.0" Total: 6,066.91 E t 246124 2/11/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER 7746652 STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES M STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES Q 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 6.7( 10.5% Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 0.7- 7746666 STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 234.1', 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 22.9E Page: 11 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246124 2/11/2021 007253 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) Total : 264.5, 246125 2/11/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2060 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES CITY HALL - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.4, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.6' 2075 PM SUPPLIES: HEARING PROTECT PM SUPPLIES: HEARING PROTECT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.5 , 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.8( 2076 PM SUPPLIES: BOLT EYE, DISH SO PM SUPPLIES: BOLT EYE, DISH SO 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.7£ 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.7' 2077 PM SUPPLIES: CROSSBAR, BOLTS PM SUPPLIES: CROSSBAR, BOLTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.4E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.6E Tota I : 93.0 246126 2/11/2021 063448 EDMONDS LIONS CLUB 2224 2021 EDMONDS LION CLUB FLAG F 2021 Flag program 001.000.39.513.10.49.00 500.0( Total : 500.0( 246127 2/11/2021 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 8055/2021 INTERPRETER - lA0273261 INTERPRETER - lA0273261 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 150.0( Total : 150.0( 246128 2/11/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR179969 DEV SVCS MONTHLY COPIER CON Dev Svcs Copier (SN3AP01472)- Page: 12 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 246128 2/11/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 246129 2/11/2021 065789 ESTES, KEN 246130 2/11/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD AR184722 AR184723 13 EDH908471 EDH916925 EDH917372 EDH918262 EDH918590 PO # Description/Account 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 ENG COPY CHARGES JANUARY 2C Eng Copy Charges January 2021 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 DEV SVCS MONTHLY COPIER CON Dev Svcs Copier (SN 3AP01472)- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 Total REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Total : CORRECTED PUBLIC HEARING AM corrected public hearing amd2019-00 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 EBCA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT EBCA.RFQ Advertisement 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E20CB.INVITATION TO BID E20CB.Invitation to Bid 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 E20CB.Invitation to Bid 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 PLANNING -ADVERTISING Legal Advertising- 001.000.62.524.20.41.40 ORDINANCE 4212 7.2.a Page: 13 Page: 13 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246130 2/11/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) EDH918738 EDH986228 246131 2/11/2021 073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA 1220-222 246132 2/11/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC PO # Description/Account ordinance 4212 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 PLANNING -LEGAL AD Legal Ad (PLN2020-0056 Waters/Anc 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 ORDINANCE 4180 & 4181 ordinance 4180 and 4181 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 Total 2021 ANNUAL DUES FOR SYSTEM 2021 ANNUAL DUES FOR SYSTEM 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2021 ANNUAL DUES FOR SYSTEM 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total 0947776 WATER - SUPPLIES WATER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0952477 WATER - INVENTORY PARTS WATER - INVENTORY PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 0952944 WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.2.a Page: 14 Amoun 23.8( N 49.0( t U E 555.4; 0 �a 0 350.0( 0. a a 350.0( 700.0( N T N O N 437.9< E 25.3" c 48.1, E t U �a r 7,778.7� Q .Zi>1011 929.4( 96.6E Page: 14 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246132 2/11/2021 009815 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) Total : 10,125.2E 246133 2/11/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 161389 REMOTE MAINTENANCE PHONE S Remote maintenance phone support 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 86.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 8.9 , Total : 95.2: 246134 2/11/2021 071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL WA70014-1-0041 INV WA70014-I-0041 - EDMONDS PI DISPOSAL OF 2 ANIMAL REMAINS 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 26.3( Total: 26.3E 246135 2/11/2021 078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC 210129-004C WWTP: GCARREON COURSES 60E GCARREON COURSES 605,606 & 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 47.9 210203-004C WWTP: GCARREON COURSES 16C GCARREON COURSES 160, 600, 6( 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 65.5 Total : 113.41 246136 2/11/2021 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 44973 EBGA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/20 EBGA.Services thru 12/31/20 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 2,544.7( Total: 2,544.7( 246137 2/11/2021 012198 GFOA 2997692 BUDGETING BEST PRACTICES WE Budgeting Best Practices - 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 210.0( Total : 210.0( 246138 2/11/2021 012199 GRAINGER 9792376577 WWTP: PO 488 EYE WASH PO 488 EYE WASH 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 54.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5.6, Page: 15 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 16 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246138 2/11/2021 012199 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) Total: 59.61 246139 2/11/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY 12295434 WWTP: 1/26/21-1/25/22-HACH1218": 1/26/21-1/25/22-HACH121836 SERA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 3,516.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 365.7( Total : 3,881.7( 246140 2/11/2021 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS524829 UNIT 284 - SERVICE ENGINE UNIT 284 - SERVICE ENGINE 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2,171.8E 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 228.0E Total : 2,399.9: 246141 2/11/2021 077496 HEADLIGHT TECHNOLOGIES INC 2769 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FOR HEAT Annual Subscription for Headlight 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4,336.0( Annual Subscription for Headlight 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4,336.0( Annual Subscription for Headlight 422.000.72.531.40.49.00 4,336.0( Total : 13,008.0( 246142 2/11/2021 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 15 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,735.2( Total: 1,735.2( 246143 2/11/2021 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 18 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 2,850.0( REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,730.8� Total: 4,580.81 Page: 16 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246144 2/11/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 17 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 2012077 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES UNIT! FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES UNIT 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 92.9z 10.2% Sales Tax -71 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.4E u) 25034 STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES m 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 165.1 z E 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 _M 17.0' 25079 F.A.C. - PARTS FOR BOILER O 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.6( 0- F.A.C. - PARTS FOR BOILER Q- a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.3" Q 2516640 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.9" r 10.3% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.6 , 2523573 STREET - GRASS SEED FOR TALB( E STREET - GRASS SEED FOR TALB( 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 46.9E 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.8z E 3070851 WATER - SUPPLIES @ WATER - SUPPLIES r 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 85.2z Q 10.2% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.6� 3513739 SEWER - #23 SUPPLIES SEWER - #23 SUPPLIES 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 28.4z 10.2% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.9( Page: 17 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246144 2/11/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 18 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 3513792 CEMETERY - SUPPLIES/ FLOOD LI( 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.3E CEMETERY - SUPPLIES/ FLOOD LI( 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.9, 3625098 SEWER - #35 SUPPLIES SEWER - #35 SUPPLIES E 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.6' O 4011774 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES FOR WINDC CITY HALL - SUPPLIES FOR WINDC o L 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.6" a 10.2% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.9, 4514995 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES N FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES r 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 97.3' c 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0, .E 5012776 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES T 10.3% Sales Tax a ; 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 45.8" FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 444.8E u 5023457 F.A.C.- BOILER LEAK PARTS r F.A.C.- BOILER LEAK PARTS Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 299.3( 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.5' 5026794 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 225.2' 10.3% Sales Tax Page: 18 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246144 2/11/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.2( 5521480 PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.8 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.3" 5624305 WATER - SUPPLIES E WATER - SUPPLIES M 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 191.8, 10.3% Sales Tax o 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.7E R 6024418 FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES o FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 142.8z Q .. 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.7- N 6051526 STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES r STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES c 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 26.9 10.3% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 2.7f 6521452 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES a ; FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES m 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 62.6E 10.3% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 M 6.4E r 8013679 F.A.C. - BOILER SUPPLIES Q F.A.C. - BOILER SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.2� 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.3 8515756 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 74.0, Page: 19 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 20 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246144 2/11/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.6, 9025157 PUBLIC WORKS - FENCE POST PUBLIC WORKS - FENCE POST 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.9� 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.1 9025183 SEWER - SUPPLIES/ STRAPS SEWER - SUPPLIES/ STRAPS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.9, 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.8E Tota I : 2,487.3 246145 2/11/2021 074331 HOVICK, JAMES 17 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,358.8' Total : 2,358.8' 246146 2/11/2021 072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC 7013171 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 200.0( Tota I : 200.0( 246147 2/11/2021 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300530852 300530852 - CUST 100828 - EDMOI\ 10 CASES - COPY PAPER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 283.2( HANDELING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 76.8( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 29.4E Total : 389.4E 246148 2/11/2021 078290 KEEN, CARLA 2005711.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: Page: 20 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246148 2/11/2021 078290 KEEN, CARLA (Continued) 001.000.239.200 46.0( Tota I : 46.0( 246149 2/11/2021 077874 LACY & PAR INC 78526 DEV SVCS - PROF SVCS Housing Commission Mailing (Dec 2C 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,078.3( NonTaxable invoice items 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 916.0- 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 107.8' Tota I : 2,102.1 246150 2/11/2021 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 194 CONFLICT COUNSEL- XZ0694275 P CONFLICT COUNSEL - XZ0694275 ) 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 600.0( Total : 600.0( 246151 2/11/2021 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4688787 INV 4688787 - ACCT 2185-952778-8 SHRED 3 - 65 GAL TOTES 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.0< 4689242 JAN 2021 SHREDDING SHREDDING JAN 2021 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 103.5E Total : 116.55 246152 2/11/2021 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Feb-2021 02-2021 LEGALS FEES 02-2021 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 51,878.0( Total : 51,878.0( 246153 2/11/2021 075149 LIM, VANNARA 2021 L-FEB-01 INTERPRETER - XZ0817470 INTERPRETER - XZ0817470 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.0( Tota I : 100.0( 246154 2/11/2021 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW 27480 CONFLICT COUNSEL - 9Z0839430 Page: 21 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246154 2/11/2021 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW (Continued) CONFLICT COUNSEL - 9Z0839430 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 329.5( 27481 CONFLICT COUNSEL - 9Z0679896 CONFLICT COUNSEL - 9Z0679896 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 322.5( Tota I : 652.0( 246155 2/11/2021 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC E0132992 PUBLIC WORKS - PAINT PUBLIC WORKS - PAINT 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 288.6' 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.0, Total: 318.6: 246156 2/11/2021 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 342926 PM SUPPLIES: OIL PM SUPPLIES: OIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 199.9� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.8( Tota I : 220.75 246157 2/11/2021 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY 19 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 3,043.2 Total : 3,043.21, 246158 2/11/2021 072151 MLA ENGINEERING PLLC 4186 CITY HALL - PHA EVALUATIONS CITY HALL - PHA EVALUATIONS 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,900.0( Total : 1,900.0( 246159 2/11/2021 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC ME169053 UNIT 14 - PARTS UNIT 14 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 336.1 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 22 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246159 2/11/2021 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.9z ME169107 UNIT 14 PARTS UNIT 14 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 508.8" 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 52.9, Total : 930.7f 246160 2/11/2021 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 10328855 JANUARY GOCOMMUTER FEES JANUARY FEES 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 25.0( 10328856 JANUARY FSA FEES JANUARY FEES 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 157.7( Total : 182.7( 246161 2/11/2021 024001 NC MACHINERY SECS0704633 FREIGHT Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 70.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.2E Total: 77.2f 246162 2/11/2021 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0753082-IN UNIT 121 - DIESEL FLUID UNIT 121 - DIESEL FLUID 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 194.1 E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.1 Total: 214.3' 246163 2/11/2021 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010627993.003 WWTP: PO 489 POWERFLX, ARCH PO 489 POWERFLX, ARCHITECTUF 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 14,684.1( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,527.1 E Page: 23 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246163 2/11/2021 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY (Continued) S010668631.001 WWTP: PO 505 CRS-H NPT PO 505 CRS-H NPT 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 53.5z .. 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5.51 Total: 16,270.3E 246164 2/11/2021 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 779 PLANNING -PROF SVCS E Planning Board Minutes- 0 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 190.0E o 000 00 780 PLANNING -PROFESSIONAL SERVII 'R HPC Meeting Minutes- o 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 76.0( Q. Total: 266.0( Q 246165 2/11/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 151440249001 INV 151440249001 - ACCT 9052043' N 3 MIL LAMINATING POUCHES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 T 98.91 N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 N 10.2� E Total: 109.2E .� 246166 2/11/2021 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER January, 2021 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI` Emergency Medical Services & Traun t 001.000.237.120 753.2' PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account M 001.000.237.130 13,647.5E Q Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 286.5( State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 86.9< Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 3,899.5E Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 1,508.2z Page: 24 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 246166 2/11/2021 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER (Continued) 246167 2/11/2021 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 246168 2/11/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS PO # Description/Account Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 Distracted Driving Prevention Acct 001.000.237.380 Vulnerable Roadway User 001.000.237.410 Total HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total 3685-114940 UNIT 67 - OIL SEAL UNIT 67 - OIL SEAL 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-115008 UNIT 67 - PARTS UNIT 67 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-115074 UNIT 67 - PARTS/ OIL SEAL UNIT 67 - PARTS/ OIL SEAL 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.2.a Page: 25 Amoun 711.2( 409.0" � m 7.8E u E 493.4E 'ca 4.11 O R 48.0( o 21,855.7; a a N 22.7, r N N 125.3' , 148.01 31.1( 3.2< 21.6, Page: 25 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246168 2/11/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.2,' Tota I : 105.9' 246169 2/11/2021 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 34868 JAN 2021 SECURITY JAN 2021 SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,590.8' Total : 3,590.& 246170 2/11/2021 073253 PENN VALLEY PUMP CO. INC 15655 WWTP: PO 492 HSG, TRUNNIN, GA PO 492 HSG, TRUNNIN, GASKETS 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 2,232.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 196.5( Total : 2,428.5( 246171 2/11/2021 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 39062 INV 39062 EDMONDS PD JANUARY 3 WEB -BASED PEP TESTS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 60.0( Tota I : 60.0( 246172 2/11/2021 074793 PETDATA INC 9366 INV 9366 - JAN 2021 - EDMONDS P 193 ONE YEAR LICENSES @ $4.201 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 810.6( ONE REPLACEMENT TAG 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 4.2( Total: 814.8( 246173 2/11/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1 E64269 WATER - SUPPLIES WATER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 2.2z 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 0.2' 1 F70758 PUBLIC WORKS - LED & LAMPHOL PUBLIC WORKS - LED & LAMPHOL Page: 26 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 27 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246173 2/11/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.0' 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.7� 1 F79967 PUBLIC WORKS - LED'S PUBLIC WORKS - LED'S 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 198.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.6� Total : 272.9: 246174 2/11/2021 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP S6365-2 WWTP: PO 497 POWERFLEX INST/ PO 497 POWERFLEX INSTALL 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 840.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 87.3E Total : 927.3E 246175 2/11/2021 078261 R ALEXANDER ASSOCIATES INC 6269 WWTP: 1/2020 SERVICES 1/2020 SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,756.2E Total: 2,756.2' 246176 2/11/2021 076687 REBUILD -IT SERVICES GROUP LLC 11356 WWTP: PO 495 SPROCKET, BRACT• PO 495 SPROCKET, BRACKET, CHi 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,239.1 , Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 171.6( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 146.7- Tota I : 1,557.4: 246177 2/11/2021 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 235.0E 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; Page: 27 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246177 2/11/2021 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 246178 2/11/2021 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H 246179 2/11/2021 070495 SEPULVEDA, PABLO 246180 2/11/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 28 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 38.7' PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 147.0� ui PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 147.0� u PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 147.0l 'R PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 147.0� O PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; R 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 147.0 , o 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; a FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 253.9< 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL N CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL r 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.6E c Total: 1,334.8( E 16 REIMBURSEMENT f° REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,273.1 - y Total: 2,273.1' E v 57138 INTERPRETER - 8Z0990564 r INTERPRETER - 8Z0990564 r Q 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.0( 57168 INTERPRETER - lA0213261 INTERPRETER - lA0213261 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.0( Tota I : 200.0( 14-409072 FLEET PARTS THAT WERE RETURI FLEET PARTS THAT WERE RETURI Page: 28 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246180 2/11/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 14-409177 14-409178 14-409589 14-409590 246181 2/11/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3297 246183 2/11/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200124873 200202919 7.2.a Page: 29 PO # Description/Account Amoun 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 810.0£ 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 84.2E .. UNIT - 818-POL/ PARTS UNIT - 818-POL/ PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 204.0E 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET PARTS RETURNED FLEET PARTS RETURNED o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -810.0E 10.4% Sales Tax o L 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -84.2E 0- FLEET PARTS 3-818-POL & 4-342-Pi Q FLEET PARTS 3-818-POL & 4-342-Pi 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 647.1E N 10.4% Sales Tax r 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 67.3( c FLEET PARTS RETURNED FLEET PARTS RETURNED 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -111.6( 10.4% Sales Tax a ; 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -11.6" Total : 816.51 E U PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT fd r JANUARY CONTRACT Q 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 31,764.5E Total : 31,764.5( TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.2< LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV Page: 29 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246183 2/11/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 73.0' 200274959 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 22.3, 200386456 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 101.5( E 200422418 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 803.7' o 200493153 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W �a TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W o L 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 40.9 � a 200663953 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M Q ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M .. 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 114.3, N 200748606 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW r TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW C� 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 20.6' 0 N 200943348 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V E TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 49.0E 201103561 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI m TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.9E U 201192226 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W r TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W Q 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.7( 201265980 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 209.3( 201374964 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 22.7, 201532926 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- Page: 30 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246183 2/11/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 31 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 173.3z 201557303 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 169.0< 201563434 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.2f 201582152 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W o 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.5( R 201594488 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S o LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 26.5E Q 201610276 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT N 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 9.7' r 201703758 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( c PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( y 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 34.2E . 201711785 STREET LIGHTING 1 LIGHTS @ 15( T STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ a ; 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 8.6, y 201762101 415 5TH AVE S E 415 5TH AVE S U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 29.2E r 202077194 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE Q FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 663.5' 202139655 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.5� 202161535 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 93.1 Page: 31 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246183 2/11/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 202289096 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 76.3< _-. 202356739 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 28.0E 202499539 LIFT STATION #1 105 GASPERS ST E LIFT STATION #1 105 GASPERS ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 847.1 , 202529186 STREET LIGHTING (406 LIGHTS @ o STREET LIGHTING (406 LIGHTS @ R 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,955.0- o 202529202 STREET LIGHTING 7 LIGHTS @ 40( Q- STREET LIGHTING (7 LIGHTS @ 40 Q 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 110.5E 202576153 STREET LIGHTING (2097 LIGHTS C N STREET LIGHTING (2097 LIGHTS C r 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 13,536.91 c 202579488 STREET LIGHTING (33 LIGHTS @ 2 y STREET LIGHTING (33 LIGHTS @ 2 E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 378.& 202579520 WWTP:1/1-1/31/21 ENERGY MGMT a; 1/1-1/31/21 ENERGY MANAGEMEN m 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.7, E 202620415 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA U MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA r 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.8� Q 204467435 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 22.8� 204714893 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 6.1- 204714927 STREET LIGHTING (19 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (19 LIGHTS @ 2 Page: 32 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 246183 2/11/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 204714935 204714943 220547582 220792758 222704264 246184 2/11/2021 037075 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE I-VR-4 246185 2/11/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 246186 2/11/2021 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 177332 177334 102112/4 PO # Description/Account 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 STREET LIGHTING (4 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (4 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 WWTP: 12/30/20-1/29/21 FLOWMET 12/30/20-1/29/21 FLOW METER 232' 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 Total 2020 VOTER REGISTRATION DISTF 2020 Voter Registration - District 001.000.39.514.90.41.50 Total WWTP: 1/2021 RECYCLING Recycling + taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 WWTP: 1/2021 ROLLOFF ASH DISF 1/2021 Rolloff Ash disposal & taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 Total STREET- WORK WEAR M. JOHNS( STREET - WORK WEAR M. JOHNS( 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 7.2.a Page: 33 Amoun 158.7( 86.5E tj m t U 18.8, E 43.5� o Gl 17.7z N 22,301.81 r N O N E 52,879.8, 12 52,879.81 .. 1,884.4E 1,923.2( 134.9� Page: 33 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 34 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246186 2/11/2021 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 14.0z 102137/4 FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR L. LAFA` FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR L. LAFA` 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 306.0< 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 31.& 102714/4 FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR L. LAFA` E FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR L. LAFA` 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 43.2.E 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.5E R 102748/4 FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR L. LAFA` o FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR L. LAFA` a 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 77.2E Q 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 8.0z N 102866/4 STREET- WORK WEAR D. BROWN r STREET- WORK WEAR D. BROWN c 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 470.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 48.9E 28186/6 STREET - WORK WEAR D. PEEL a ; STREET- WORK WEAR D. PEEL m 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 431.2, E 9.2% Sales Tax U 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 M 39.6E r 28499/6 STORM - WORK WEAR T. JUSTICE Q STORM - WORK WEAR T. JUSTICE 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 462.2, 9.2% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 42.5E 392053/1 STREET - WORK WEAR T. BACH STREET - WORK WEAR T. BACH 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 411.8E Page: 34 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 35 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246186 2/11/2021 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 40.3( 392072/1 STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 149.2 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 14.6, 392078/1 STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 194.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 19.0f Total: 2,945.1( 246187 2/11/2021 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L140654 01-2021 AUDIT FEES 01-2021 Audit fees 001.000.39.514.20.41.50 630.3( Total : 630.3( 246188 2/11/2021 078287 STEINMAN, SAVANNAH 01/22/2021 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 104.7- Tota I : 104.7' 246189 2/11/2021 040572 SUPER SEER CORP 70201 INV 70201 - CUSTAE052 - EDMONE MOTORCYCLE HELMETS 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 790.0( QUICK RELEASE BUCKLE 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 24.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 31.8( Total : 845.8( 246190 2/11/2021 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 25858 WATER - HH PROGRAMER FOR HY WATER - HH PROGRAMER FOR HY Page: 35 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 246190 2/11/2021 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 246191 2/11/2021 075587 THE UPS STORE #6392 246192 2/11/2021 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 246193 2/11/2021 078203 TOTALTESTING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 Tota I : 0027 WWTP: 1/20/21 SHIP CHG 1/20/21 SHIP CHG 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total US53022 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53294 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISl ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISl 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53301 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDE ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANC[ 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 US53869 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC C ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC C 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Tota I : 54904 ONLINE TESTING FOR ADM IN ASSI ENGINEERING DEPT WORD/EXCEL 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 7.2.a Page: 36 Page: 36 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 37 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246193 2/11/2021 078203 078203 TOTAL TESTING (Continued) Total: 40.0( 246194 2/11/2021 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 11 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,627.2( Total : 1,627.2( 246195 2/11/2021 076946 TSERENDAVAA, ARIUNTULGA 01202021 INTERPRETER - 1CB10C14E5EB56! INTERPRETER -1CB10C14E5EB56! 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.0( Tota I : 100.0( 246196 2/11/2021 070774 ULINE INC 129141033 INV 129141033 - CUST 2634605 - El BLACK NITRILE GLOVES - XL 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 240.0( BLACK NITRILE GLOVES - M 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 240.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 17.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 51.7E Total : 549.3: 246197 2/11/2021 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 483808 WWTP: PO 502 PH 7 + PH 4 BUFF[ PO 502 PH 7 + PH 4 BUFFERS COl` 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 137.8E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 28.7( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 17.3< Total : 183.9: 246198 2/11/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9872388495 C/A442201730-00001 iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 35.1 , Total: 35.1, Page: 37 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 38 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246199 2/11/2021 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-33 CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 17,961.2z Total: 17,961.2' 246200 2/11/2021 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 121004121 INV 121004121 - JAN 2021 - EDMON N JAN 2021 CPL CHECK 001.000.237.100 13.21 U Total: 13.2; 246201 2/11/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 12107095 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 R 136.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax Q. 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.1 z Q 12111069 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4,486.0( 10.4% Sales Tax T N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 466.5z N Total: 5,102.61 E .R 246202 2/11/2021 064800 WEHOP 643572 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 391.7- 10.4% Sales Tax t 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.7z m Total: 432.4° Q 246203 2/11/2021 048100 WEINZ, JACK D 12 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 617.000.51.589.40.23.00 1,591.2( Total : 1,591.2( 246204 2/11/2021 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 7175637 PS - BIMONTHLY SERVICE PS - BIMONTHLY SERVICE Page: 38 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 39 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246204 2/11/2021 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 103.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 10.8- Total : 114.7E 246205 2/11/2021 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR 552899 WWTP: EVAUGHAN UNIFORM ALL( t EVAUGHAN UNIFORM ALLOW. -EVE U 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 197.8� 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 19.3� o 554267 STREET - WORK WEAR S. MERBA( STREET - WORK WEAR S. MERBA( 0 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 399.5( Q. 9.8% Sales Tax a 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 39.1E .. 554743 STREET - WORK WEAR J. YARBRC STREET - WORK WEAR J. YARBRC r 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 405.2� C� 9.8% Sales Tax N 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 39.7, E 554883 STREET - WORK WEAR B. SANDEF f° STREET - WORK WEAR B. SANDEF 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 287.0" y 9.8% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 28.1 < U Total : 1,416.0F r Q 246206 2/11/2021 075161 WHISTLE WORKWEAR 631161 WWTP: DKORSTAD UNIFORM ALL( DKORSTAD UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 243.1 , 9.0% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 21.8E Tota I : 265.0( 246207 2/11/2021 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE 196136 SEWER - WORK WEAR S. MATTHE Page: 39 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 246207 2/11/2021 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE (Continued) 246208 2/11/2021 078104 WONG, LORRAINE 246209 2/11/2021 051050 W YATT, ARTH U R D 246210 2/11/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 2005709.009 PO # Description/Account SEWER - WORK WEAR S. MATTHE 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 Total REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 Total 14 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Total 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACC[ LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACC[ 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACC[ LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRA[ 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 Total 7.2.a Page: 40 Page: 40 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 02/11 /2021 9:48:10AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 41 Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 123 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 444,557.8- 123 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 444,557.8- -71 V d t V E M V O O O L Q a N N O N E V r C d E L V 2 a+ Q Page: 41 Packet Pg. 70 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB Y WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB v WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA E STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA R v STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA 0 STIR2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB > 0 STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA Q. STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC Q STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB N STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB c STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA rn a� STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA E STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB Z 0 STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC d STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC N STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA m STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA L u_ STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC E t STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD Q STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 71 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STIR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STIR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c558 E21 GA FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA ui m t v E .2 v 0 R 0 L Q Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 72 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrade i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EOCA 1042 2020 Overlay Program i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STM c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR ALOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update 1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements E20CB "=� 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STIR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility SWR E21 GA c558 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project STIR E3D6 238th St. SW WalkwayApOth Ave to 1 STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration WSTM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station WR W Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c443 monds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System Bikelink Proje STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c479 lWaview Park Infiltration Facili SWR ESGB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications g Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 73 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) JEEVc473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement c544= Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods SAW STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements ' STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance rotec - SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project ' WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update bt PM E8M"- - �urth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South g Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 74 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Y STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station m t v SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study E STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System R v WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating o STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Q. STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Q WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications N WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) N 0 SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW E PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) Z WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement d FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South N SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c m WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement g- m STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project LL PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) a� PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) E t STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project Q SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements PRK E21FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project SWR E21GA c558 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 75 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STIR EBAB i028 220th Adaptive STIR EBCA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR EBCC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STIR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STIR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STIR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STIR E21CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STIR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STIR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STIR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s02O 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STM E91FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment Q Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 76 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB Q Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 77 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c558 E21 GA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Q Revised 2/11/2021 Packet Pg. 78 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Youth Commission Ordinance Amendment Staff Lead: Shannon Burley Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Shannon Burley Background/History June 2018 - City's first Youth Commission established consisting of 11 positions; meeting on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month. July 2020 - Ordinance revisions were approved by City Council, extending commissioners terms from 1 year to 2 years; updating the regular meeting time frame to be September - June instead of 12-months and changing the recruiting timeline to be Fall instead of Spring. Item was reviewed in the Parks and Public Works Committee meeting on February 9, 2021 and approved to be added to the consent agenda on February 16, 2021. Staff Recommendation Approve on Consent, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign. Narrative Youth Commission meetings are currently held on the same day and time as Diversity Commission meetings. It has been brought to the attention of staff from Youth Commission Members, Diversity Commission Members, City Council Members and Community Members that many would like to attend both Youth Commission and Diversity Commission meetings and that the current schedule is limiting. The revised ordinance (Attachment #1) would switch the Youth Commission meeting dates to be the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month (September - June) allowing for more collaboration and community participation in both the Youth Commission and Diversity Commission. This proposed change would go into effect March 2021. Attachments: Attachment 1 Youth Commission Meeting Dates Amendment Packet Pg. 79 7.3.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 10.55 ENTITLED, "EDMONDS YOUTH COMMISSION"; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in October 2018 and August 2020, the Edmonds City Council adopted Ordinances 4130 and 4190, respectively, to amend the provisions of chapter 10.55 ECC, entitled "Edmonds Youth Commission"; and WHEREAS, having given more consideration to some of the logistics surrounding the commission, the City Council would like to make an additional amendment to chapter 10.55 ECC; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Edmonds City Code, chapter 10.55, entitled "Edmonds Youth Commission," subsection .030 ("Officers of the commission — Meetings") is hereby amended to read as follows (deleted text shown in stril ough; new text shown in underline): 10.55.030 Officers of the commission — Meetings Regular meetings of the commission shall be held on the fist second and d4d fourth Wednesdays of each month from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Frances Anderson Center from September through June. Special meetings and retreats may be held during July and August as needed, as determined by the youth commissioners. Members of the commission shall meet and organize by election, from the members of the commission, a chair and vice chair and other officers as may be determined by the commission. It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice chair shall perform this duty in the absence of the chair. Five members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. If a regular member is not present, the alternate member may fulfill the quorum requirement for that meeting and vote accordingly. Otherwise, the alternate may not vote. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Packet Pg. 80 7.3.a Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 81 7.3.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 10.55 ENTITLED, "EDMONDS YOUTH COMMISSION"; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2021. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 82 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Public Hospital District No. 2 Grant ILA - LEAP Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Shannon Burley Background/History In October 2020 the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department of the City of Edmonds began offering a new program through their Recreation Services division. The "Learning Enhancement and Activities Program" (LEAP) was developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Edmonds School Districts' remote learning model. The initial program was funded in part by paid tuition and the Federal Cares Act. Since inception the LEAP program has supported 29 kids per week and will have delivered 19,980 hours of instructional, social and recreational activity support by the end of February. The Federal Cares Act Funding expired at the end of 2020, therefore the LEAP program has been operating within the Council Approved Recreation Division budget while simultaneously working to secure grant funding to offset expenses related to participants on scholarship. Interlocal Agreement was reviewed by the Parks and Public Works Committee on February 9, 2021 and authorized to be placed on the February 16, 2021 Consent Agenda. Staff Recommendation Authorize the City to accept $30,000 in grant funding from the Public Hospital District No. 2 (Verdant) by approving attached Interlocal Agreement on the Consent Agenda. Narrative Public Hospital District No. 2 (Verdant) has awarded the City of Edmonds a $30,000 grant to be used for expenses directly related to providing social, emotional and educational support for low-income students in Edmonds through the LEAP program. This revenue will assist in lowering the expenses incurred by the Recreation Division in the first two months of 2021 when Federal CARES funding has not been available. Attachments: Attachment 1 Public Hospital District No 2 C-S402 City of Edmonds LEAP Program Packet Pg. 83 7.4.a INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE COVID-19 RESPONSE: Social Emotional Educational Support for Low-income Students This Agreement is made between Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County, Washington and City of Edmonds to provide a COVID-19 Response distance learning support program for social, emotional, and educational support for low-income students. 1. PARTIES 1.1 Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County, Washington ("PHD2"), a public hospital district formed under Chapter 70.44 RCW; and 1.2 City of Edmonds ("The City"), a Washington municipal corporation. 2. PURPOSE AND PROGRAM 2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City to provide a COVID 19 Response distance learning support program referred to as Learning Enhancement and Activity Program (LEAP) to provide social, emotional and educational support for low-income students through the Recreation Services Division of the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department ("the Program") for the benefit of PHD2 residents. 2.2 On March 23, 2020, Gov. Jay Inslee issued a "Stay Home — Stay Healthy" Order in an effort to minimize COVID-19 exposure. On May 31, 2020 the Stay Home — Stay Healthy order transitioned to a county -by -county phased re -opening plan entitled Safe Start — Stay Healthy. The Program is designed to provide social, emotional, and educational support to low-income students. 3. AUTHORITY 3.1 PHD2 is authorized under RCW 70.44.240 to "contract" with any "legal entity" to "provide any hospital or other health care facilities or other health care services to be used by individuals, districts, hospitals, or others, including providing health care maintenance services." RCW 70.44.007 defines "other health care services" to include "services that promote health, wellness, and prevention of illness and injury." 3.2 The City of Edmonds is a Washington municipal corporation. 4. TERM AND TERMINATION Agreement. 4.1 The Agreement will begin on the date of the second signature on this C-S402 PAGE 1 OF 5 Packet Pg. 84 7.4.a 4.2 The period for providing the Program is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2021 and end on February 28, 2021. 4.3 This Agreement will expire when the final reporting by the City is accepted and approved by PHD2. 5. OBLIGATIONS OF PHD2 5.1 PHD2 will fund the Program through a single payment of thirty thousand dollars and no cents ($30,000) to be paid within fourteen (14) days of execution of this Agreement with the understanding that the City will fund the balance of the costs for the Program. 5.2 Templates for required reporting by the City will be provided to the City by PHD2. 6. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY 6.1 The City will coordinate the Program including staffing, supplies, and scholarships to low-income students to operate the Program at the Frances Anderson Center Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. Programming is inclusive of social, emotional and educational supports, is focused on high risk and/or low-income youth and families, and will serve an average of at least 25 students weekly. 6.2 The City will submit a report of activities carried out under the Program, including summaries of results, to PHD2 by March 15, 2021. At a minimum, the City will track and report to PHD2 the number of participants who enroll in the Program, the number of hours of distance learning support provided, and any other relevant tracking data collected and compiled by the City during the course and scope of the Program. 6.3 The City will comply with all local, state and federal laws including, if applicable, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). 6.4 The City will use the funds provided by PHD2 only for the Program and will return any portion of the payments that are not used for the Program on or before delivery of the report due on March 15, 2021. 6.5 During the term of this Agreement, the City will give every consideration to suggestions by PHD2 for modifications to the Program to obtain more favorable health outcomes for the participants. 6.6 The City will give credit (logo or language) to PHD2 ("Verdant") in its publicity vehicles about the Program, including but not limited to press releases, annual reports, newsletters, websites, brochures and fliers. Credit should also be given in newspaper interviews about the Program. Electronic communications/websites should also include a link to PHD2's C-S402 PAGE 2 OF 5 Packet Pg. 85 7.4.a website. The use of PHD2's logo, when appropriate, is encouraged. PHD2 will provide black - and -white or color versions in digital format. 6.7 The City recognizes that PHD2 is a public agency subject to audit by the Washington State Auditor. The City will provide PHD2 with any accessible information that PHD2 is requested to provide to the Washington State Auditor or otherwise required to provide to the State of Washington or to the Federal Government or pursuant to the Washington Public Records Act. 6.8 If PHD2 determines a breach of this Agreement has occurred, that is, the City has failed to comply with any terms or conditions of this Agreement or has failed to provide in any manner the work or services agreed to herein, the PHD2 will notify the City in writing of the nature of the breach within fourteen (14) calendar days if the deliverables are not on track to be met as anticipated. The City will develop a corrective action plan within fourteen (14) calendar days of delivering notice of the nature of the breach and will specify the proposed completion date for bringing the Agreement into compliance. Determination of sufficiency of the corrective action plan shall be at the sole discretion of PHD2. In the event a corrective action plan is not submitted, or the plan is determined by PHD2 to be insufficient, PHD2 reserves the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement for performance or other reasons solely at the discretion of PHD2. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 Relationship of the Parties. The relationship created between PHD2 and the City in this Agreement is strictly that of independent contractors. This Agreement creates no partnership or joint venture between the parties, nor may any officer or employee of one party be considered to be an employee or agent of the other. Further, this Agreement provides no rights to any third parties and may not be relied on by any other person or entity. 7.2 Applicable La State of Washington. Any litigation County Superior Court. w. This Agreement is entered into under the laws of the arising from this Agreement must be filed in Snohomish 7.3 Liability and Insurance. The City will indemnify, defend and hold PHD2 harmless from any claims, lawsuits or other actions, and judgments arising in any way from the Program provided under this Agreement. The City will maintain a liability insurance policy of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence during the term of the Agreement and provide proof of coverage upon request of PHD2. 7.4 Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement is complete and integrates all understandings between the parties. No amendment or other change to the Agreement will be binding on either party unless agreed to in writing and signed by each party. 7.5 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction rules any part of this Agreement to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement will still be in full force and effect. C-S402 PAGE 3 OF 5 Packet Pg. 86 7.4.a 7.6 Force Majeure. Neither party will be in default or liable for failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement if that failure is due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of God, acts of terrorism, fires, floods, windstorms earthquakes, labor disputes or governmental acts. 7.7 Notices and Reporting. The parties agree to accept electronic service of all notifications and reporting, except original service of process. The parties may elect to transmit notices or reports electronically by transmitting such correspondence to the email addresses stated herein below, or to the mailing address stated herein below via United States Postal Service ("USPS") First Class postage prepaid. Any notice or reporting required or otherwise given via USPS under this Agreement will be considered delivered or given when actually delivered or forty-eight (48) hours after being deposited in the U.S. Mail as certified mail. Any notice or reporting required or otherwise given via electronic mail prior to 5:00 pm shall be considered delivered on the date sent. Otherwise, such electronic mail shall be considered delivered as of 9:00 am on the next business day following electronic transmission. To PHn22 Zoe Reese, Director of Community Impact and Grantmaking Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County 4710 1961h Street SW Lynnwood, WA 98036 zoe.reese@verdanthealth.org To the City: Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds WA 98020 Shannon.Burley@edmondswa.gov 7.8 Assi _ ng ment. This Agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of the other party. Each party may consent to or decline a request for assignment by the other party at the sole discretion of the party from which consent is requested. 7.9 No Separate Legal Entity. The parties do not intend that this Agreement creates a separate legal entity. 7.10 Administration of Agreement. The individuals named in Section 7.7, above, will be the joint administrators of this Agreement. 7.11 Property. All real or personal property used by the City for the Program will be held in the City's name for the benefit of the Program. [Signatures on next page.] C-S402 PAGE 4 OF 5 Packet Pg. 87 7.4.a AGREED TO: PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Lisa Edwards, EdD, Superintendent CITY OF EDMONDS Mike Nelson, Mayor Date: Date: C-S402 PAGE 5 OF 5 Packet Pg. 88 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Preliminary December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative Preliminary December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report Attachments: Complete December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report Jan -Dec 2020 P&L Revised Packet Pg. 89 7.5.a INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Revenues By Fund Summary Expenditures By Fund Summary General Fund Revenues Expenditures By Fund Detail Gen. Fund Depart- ment Expenditures Investment Portfolio Fund Balance Overview Below: The 2020 Presiden- tial election will have a big impact on local governments. Summary of Operating Funds: Revenues This report is a summary of the City's preliminary 2 operating results for the twelve months ended December 31,2020. Revenue Highlights: • The coronavirus pandemic 3 continues to have devastat- ing effects on the local and national economies, with 6 many area governments ex- periencing General Fund revenue declines of 15% or 12 more. Fortunately, Ed- monds is faring better than 32 most of our neighbors. • Overall General Fund revenues of 34 $41.7 million are only 6% behind budget. The majority of this reduc- tion is from Parks and Rec pro- grams not operating, school pro- grams being closed, and reduc- tions in traffic and parking fines. -ELECTI 21RS Collections of Retail Sales Taxes have remained strong. Year to date Sales Tax revenues are only be- hind our budgeted amount and last year's actual collections by 1.6%. This year's collections of $8.32 million are only $135,669 less than last year (page 3). This contrasts — significantly with IVour neighboring cities, some of whom are experi- encing 10% - 15% reductions in sales tax revenues for 2020. Above: The City of Edmonds has distrib- uted close to $2 million in reliefgrants to local businesses and individuals affected by the Pandemic. Revenues by Category: General Fund revenues for 2020 are high- er than 2019 in the category of Intergov- ernmental Revenues —mostly due to the receipt of CARES funds. General Fund revenues are lower than last year at this time in the categories of Taxes, Licenses and Permits; Charges for Goods and Ser- vices; Fines and Penalties; and Other Mis- cellaneous revenues. Considering the devastating effect the Coronavirus has had on the economy, Ed- monds' revenue situation remains favora- ble by comparison. A more detailed breakdown of infor- mation for City revenues can be found be- ginning on page 3. Preliminary Financial Management Report as of December 31- 2020 Packet Pg. 90 7.5.a Top: The City has given away thousands of compostable containers to local restaurants. Take- out is key to their economic survival and the City is doing what it can to make it more sustainable. Right: Whitney Rivera, a graduate of Edmonds-Woodway High School, the University of Wash- ington, and Boston College Law School, was ap- pointed to be the new Edmonds Municipal Court Judge, replacing Judge Linda Co- burn. Judge Rivera comes most recently from the Snohomish County Public De- fender Association. Welcome Judge Rivera! r", , , , , , , , , "*** Summary of Operating Funds: Expenditures General Fund expenditures for the year ended December 31 are $44.0 million, or a full 12% under the budgeted amount, a good indi- cation that the city will be able to live within its means during the current recession. I General Fund expenses by sub - fund and line item categories are on page 6 and expenses by depart- ment are on pages 13-16. Every department in the General Fund is at or near budget at year-end, and I the General Fund as a whole has spent only 88% of its annual budget. This same information I can be found in graphical form on pages 23-31. I • Special Revenue Funds during the year have only spent 66% of their annual expense budget. This is I partly due to impacts from COVID, but the majority of the underspending comes from REET I funds ($2.99 million less than budget). Much of this is because a major capital project (Civic Field) was placed on hold. Additional Special Reve- nue Fund expenditure in- formation can be found on pages 6-8. • The total fund balance for the General Fund and Sub -funds at December 31, 2020 is $16.76 million, or approximately 34% of the 2020 expenditure budget for those funds. Other City Highlights • During 2020 the City distributed nearly $2 mil- lion in CARES funds to local businesses and indi- viduals. Much of this has been earmarked for grants to the City's most vulnerable residents, in- cluding lower income residents who are the most hard hit by unemploy- ment and increased expenses brought on by the crisis. Whitney Rivera Preliminary Financial Management Report as of December 31- 2020 Packet Pg. 91 I 7.5.a I Page 1 of 1 C PTY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Receive, 001 GENERAL FUND $ 44,055,157 $46,897,549 $ 41,660,318 $ 2,394,839 95 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 437,980 425,000 425,000 12,980 97 O l l RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - ot - 0 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 56,140 30,905 56,140 0 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,230 5,000 5,000 230 96 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - 555,312 125 (125) 0 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 165,390 39,507 64,717 100,673 39 Ill STREET FUND 1,913,184 1,886,681 1,908,707 4,477 100 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,841,881 2,703,228 2,030,205 811,676 71 117 MUNICIPAL ARTSACQUIS. FUND 264,200 120,818 89,600 174,600 34 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 750 705 536 214 72 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 98,630 102,975 66,287 32,343 67 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 27,270 34,697 21,261 6,009 78 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,790 1,211 747 1,043 42 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 34,450 34,785 22,536 11,914 65 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,436,090 1,572,421 1,742,948 (306,858) 121 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 1,453,520 1,586,136 1,736,009 (282,489) 119 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 145,050 116,131 55,392 89,658 38 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 184,610 236,723 126,191 58,419 68 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 6,390 5,904 4,420 1,970 69 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 54,210 58,093 41,994 12,216 77 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,380 8,831 302 10,078 3 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 79,209 86,026 75,746 3,463 96 141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSINGFUND - 112 71,633 (71,633) 0 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND 1,860,000 - 1,775,500 84,500 95 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 12,400 30,893 - 12,400 0 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 738,400 716,398 738,385 15 100 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 1 9,638,306 4,535,024 1,547,100 8,091,206 16 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - - 32,495 (32,495) 0 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 11,121,042 9,940,889 10,029,572 1,091,470 90 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 2 6,745,424 5,218,370 5,660,499 1,084,925 84 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 3 25,279,820 14,130,995 30,703,680 (5,423,860) 121 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,100 1,991,199 1,988,096 4 100 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,801,427 1,881,899 1,821,593 (20,166) 101 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,265,219 1,108,644 1,275,841 (10,622) 101 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 72,620 69,837 55,388 17,232 76 $ 113,794,269 $ 96,132,897 $ 105,777,822 $ 8,016,447 93 Difference primarily due to the Edmonds Waterfront Development Grant received in July of 2020. 2 Difference primarily due to a 9.5%increase in storm rate. 3 Differences primarily due to $13.910 bond proceeds received in November of 2020, as well as WWTP billings to their partners. 1 Packet Pg. 92 1 I 7.5.a I Page 1 of 1 CITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 49,365,292 $ 42,573,794 $ 44,014,931 $ 5,350,361 89 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 467,140 402,572 243,697 223,443 52 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 931,523 - - C 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND - 3,835,827 - C 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,900 5,533 5,900 C 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 100,000 1,862 100,000 - 10C 019 EDMONDSOPIOID RESPONSE FUND 21,555 200,000 21,555 - 10C 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 45,800 - 30,332 15,468 66 111 STREET FUND 2,200,133 1,959,740 2,076,224 123,909 94 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,811,463 1,924,403 1,393,957 1,417,506 5C 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 244,504 63,161 36,493 208,011 15 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 128,250 95,008 92,677 35,573 72 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 25,681 632 26,248 2 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 2,768 450 2,550 15 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 33,900 31,980 15,510 18,390 46 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3,610,520 1,249,293 1,991,212 1,619,308 55 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 3,401,093 1,730,062 2,030,921 1,370,172 6C 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 113,782 82,091 87,919 25,863 77 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 195,787 191,135 180,098 15,689 92 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - 4,935 - - C 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,900 6,894 11 11,889 C 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 80,510 98,578 67,611 12,899 84 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND 1,860,000 - 1,775,326 84,674 95 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 12,400 30,905 - 12,400 C 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 738,400 716,398 738,385 15 10C 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 13,013,343 330,137 1,906,841 11,106,502 15 421 WATER UTILITYFUND 12,814,124 9,869,102 11,188,392 1,625,732 87 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 10,856,909 5,471,427 7,909,445 2,947,464 73 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 32,785,445 13,020,732 24,264,839 8,520,606 74 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,130 1,991,184 1,988,084 46 10C 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 3,225,665 2,584,317 2,947,702 277,963 91 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,517,040 924,022 1,052,893 464,147 69 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 88,700 140,802 82,005 6,695 92 $ 141,767,565 $ 90,495,864 $ 106,238,142 $ 35,529,423 75 2 Packet Pg. 93 1 7.5.a Page 1 of 3 C ITY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: 1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 2 EMS PROPERTY TAX 3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX 4 LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4 5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 8 GASUTILITY TAX 9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 10 WATERUTILITY TAX 11 SEWERUTILITYTAX 12 STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 15 PULLTABS TAX 16 AMUSEMENT GAMES 17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX LICENSES AND PERNUTS: 18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 19 POLICE -FINGERPRINTING 20 AMUSEMENTS 21 VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 22 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 23 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 24 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 25 OLYMPIC VIEW WAT ER DIST RICT FRANCHISE 26 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 27 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 28 NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 29 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 30 BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 31 ANIMAL LICENSES 32 STREET AND CURB PERMIT 33 OTRNON-BUSLIC/PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL: 34 DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 35 NCHIP GRANT 36 WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 37 TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 38 DOCKSIE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE 39 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 40 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 41 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 2 42 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY 43 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 44 ARCHIVES AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT 45 STATE GRANT FROM OTHER JUDICIAL AGENCIES 46 SCHOOL ZONE 47 WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 48 MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 49 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION 50 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOE 51 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT 52 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 53 MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT 54 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION 55 DUI - CITIES 56 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 57 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 58 MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 59 INTERLOCAL GRANTS 60 VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 61 POLICE TRAININGCLASSES 62 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND 63 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ. $ 10,737,617 $ 10,455,514 $ 10,456,907 $ 280,710 97% 4,112,031 4,042,731 4,083,288 28,743 99% 500 239 27 473 5% 8,450,000 8,452,715 8,317,046 132,954 98% 7,600 9,684 7,657 (57) 101% 760,500 811,796 810,408 (49,908) 107% 1,684,800 1,682,586 1,668,430 16,370 99% 579,600 578,572 639,670 (60,070) 110% 348,800 359,499 358,411 (9,611) 103% 1,148,400 1,166,632 1,091,647 56,753 95% 896,600 841,724 784,219 112,381 87% 471,900 437,283 484,000 (12,100) 103% 822,200 808,538 804,704 17,496 98% 823,900 798,498 666,374 157,526 81% 55,200 55,915 56,617 (1,417) 103% 40 383 476 (436) 1190% 280,900 285,122 300,672 (19,772) 107% 31,180,588 30,787,433 30,530,552 650,036 98% 250 250 465 (215) 186% 700 605 80 620 11% 6,000 4,675 - 6,000 0% 50,000 53,587 13,083 36,917 26% 682,200 676,201 678,877 3,323 100% 41,000 41,414 39,842 1,158 97% 100,600 94,045 73,239 27,361 73% 358,200 387,851 377,553 (19,353) 105% 116,300 159,033 224,179 (107,879) 193% 63,700 70,209 75,040 (11,340) 118% 64,800 53,825 - 64,800 0% 13,500 25,089 45,961 (32,461) 340% 675,600 643,329 655,426 20,174 97% 24,380 24,428 24,485 (105) 100% 45,000 41,400 55,495 (10,495) 123% 18,500 20,520 16,657 1,843 90% 2,260,730 2,296,460 2,280,382 (19,652) 101% 6,000 7,645 2,052 3,949 34% - 14,616 - - 0% - 2,285 - 0% 4,000 1,852 - 4,000 0% - 4,138 559 (559) 0% 7,100 3,501 2,618 4,482 37% 247,611 - 241,210 6,401 97% - - 5,310 (5,310) 0% 18,000 - - 18,000 0% 210,500 208,433 207,989 2,511 99% - 3,836 9,399 (9,399) 0% - 1,530 140 (140) 0% 832 - 825 7 99% - 2,594 - - 0% 13,070 12,536 13,211 (141) 101% - 5,000 - - 0% - 7,165 - - 0% 16,740 16,722 16,152 588 96% 45,600 45,102 47,280 (1,680) 104% 500 - - 500 0% 48,300 63,236 68,959 (20,659) 143% 6,000 5,827 6,129 (129) 102% 231,500 228,650 265,801 (34,301) 115% 338,200 340,906 338,497 (297) 100% - 2,500 - - 0% - 20,761 7,774 (7,774) 0% - 2,000 - 0% 1,194 211 1,194 100% 1,000 1,059 4,001 (3,001) 400% 550 - - 550 0% 1,1969697 1,002,105 1,239,098 (429401) 104% 2020 Local Retail Sa/es/Use Tax revenues are $(135,670) /Swer than 2019 revenues Please also see pagespages 18 & 19. Packet Pg. 94 1 I 7.5.a I Page 2 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 Title Budget Revenues CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: 1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES 3 CREDIT CARD FEES 4 COURT RECORD SERVICES 5 D/M COURT REC SER 6 DRE REIMBURSEABLE 7 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE 8 IT TIME PAY FEE 9 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 10 SALE MAPS & BOOKS 11 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 12 BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 13 PHOTOCOPIES 14 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 15 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 16 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILINGFEES 17 SNO-ISLE 18 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 19 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 20 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 21 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 22 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 23 FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI 24 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 25 LEGAL SERVICES 26 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 27 BOOKINGFEES 28 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 29 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 30 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 31 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 32 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 33 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 34 PLAN CHECKINGFEES ' 35 FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 36 PLANNING 1%INSPECTION FEE 37 S.E.P.A. REVIEW 38 CRITICAL AREA STUDY 39 DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 40 GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES 41 PROGRAM FEES 5 42 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 43 WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 44 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 45 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 12/31/2020 Amount Revenues Remaining % Received $ 3,000 $ 3,740 $ 5,204 $ (2,204) 1730/( 600 697 184 416 310/( 11,000 14,051 6,445 4,555 590/( 300 79 7 293 20 300 78 97 203 320/( - - 235 (235) 00/( 11,000 10,910 2,358 8,642 210/( 1,000 1,321 844 156 840/( 100 324 66 34 660/( 100 59 9 91 90/( 25,100 25,090 - 25,100 00/( 600 555 - 600 00/c 1,000 1,138 450 550 450/( 500 - - 500 00/c 125,000 223,633 248,564 (123,564) 1990/( 1,400 - - 1,400 00/( 85,000 96,075 72,359 12,641 850/( 21,000 22,780 5,795 15,205 280 30,000 38,074 - 30,000 00/( 126,800 72,018 36,753 90,047 290/( 195,000 211,867 198,859 (3,859) 1020/( - 2 58 (58) 00/( - 117 - - 00/( 52,500 54,941 59,291 (6,791) 1130/( 1,050 1,277 2,005 (955) 1910/( 45,000 46,102 39,663 5,337 880/( 3,000 2,809 2,157 843 720/( 10,000 16,335 21,269 (11,269) 2130/( 3,500 5,636 4,000 (500) 1140/( 1,007,500 1,043,753 992,345 15,155 980 2,500 1,311 2,396 104 960/( 50 100 100 (50) 2000/( 72,600 121,014 78,222 (5,622) 1080/( 375,900 616,110 263,376 112,524 700/( 4,000 10,160 17,046 (13,046) 4260/( 500 2,814 - 500 00/c 5,000 6,195 4,440 560 890/( 14,000 15,625 16,252 (2,252) 1160/c - 4,707 - - 00/( 15,500 12,160 3,083 12,417 200/( 869,162 852,477 98,503 770,659 110/( 1,300 512 - 1,300 00/( 5,000 10,950 10,328 (5,328) 2070/( 800 585 - 800 00/( 3,290,838 2,898,678 3,017,717 273,121 920/( 6,418,500 6,446,860 5,210,479 1,208,021 810% 5 2020 Parks & Recreation Program Revenues are $(753,974) lower than 2019 revenues. 4 Packet Pg. 95 1 7.5.a Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND PENALTIES: 1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 4 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 5 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6 OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 7 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 8 PARK/INDDISZONE 9 DWI PENALTIES 10 DUI - DP ACCT 11 CRIM CNV FEE DUI 12 DUI - DP FEE 13 OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 14 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 15 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 16 CRIM CONV FEE CT 17 OTHER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 18 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 19 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 20 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 21 CRIM CONV FEE CN 22 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 23 BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT 24 COURT COST RECOUPMENT 25 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 26 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS: 27 INVESTMENT INTEREST 28 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 29 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 30 LOAN INTEREST 31 PARKING 32 SP ACE/FACILIT IES RENTALS 33 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 34 LEASESLONG-TERM 35 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 36 PARKSDONATIONS 37 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 38 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 39 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 40 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 41 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 42 OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 43 POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 44 CASHIERS OVERAGES✓SHORTAGES 45 OTHER MISC REVENUES 46 SMALL OVERPAYMENT 47 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 48 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 49 L&I STAY AT WORK PROGRAM 50 FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 51 NSF FEE - DEVEL SERV DEPT 52 US BANK REBATE TRANSFERS -IN: 53 INSURANCE RECOVERIES 54 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 012 55 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 011 56 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 511 57 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 $ 4,000 $ 3,515 $ 1,202 $ 2,798 300/( 241,000 216,648 120,087 120,913 5001( 19,000 17,784 13,683 5,317 720/( 20,000 16,630 10,557 9,443 530/( 1,000 1,371 1,980 (980) 1980/( 2,000 1,232 1,320 680 660/c 147,000 143,598 70,129 76,871 480/( 2,500 2,939 1,091 1,409 440/( 7,000 9,732 9,604 (2,604) 1370/( 700 448 199 501 280/( 200 89 38 162 190/( 1,500 2,008 2,231 (731) 1490/( 140 - - 140 00/c 30,000 28,338 20,820 9,180 690/( 3,600 2,549 2,278 322 63% 1,000 622 551 9 5501( 100 (2,774) 37 63 370/( 13,100 13,903 7,411 5,689 570/( 600 314 984 (384) 1640/( 1,600 930 733 867 460/( 500 283 132 368 260/( 16,000 11,486 8,148 7,852 5101( 14,000 13,493 8,525 5,475 610/( 6,000 4,598 4,512 1,488 750/( 10,100 5,150 - 10,100 00/( 300 1,208 1,441 (1,141) 4800/( 542,940 496,093 287,693 2559247 530% 399,400 421,005 309,476 89,924 770/( 53,440 28,731 14,293 39,147 270/( 50,950 8,091 8,326 42,624 160/( - 29,239 - - 00/( - 150 - - 00/( 153,000 143,035 22,701 130,299 1501( 2,100 2,330 380 1,720 180/( 205,000 202,088 170,859 34,141 830/( 22,500 4,972 930 21,570 40/( 3,500 3,050 920 2,580 260/( 2,000 1,597 635 1,365 320/( 6,662 10,721 1,766 4,896 270/( 300 68 487 (187) 1620/( 3,000 3,731 3,872 (872) 1290/( 2,000 - - 2,000 0°/ 2,000 3 1,344 656 67°/ 200 619 268 (68) 1340/( - (70) 16 (16) 00/( 5,000 195,529 14,232 (9,232) 285°/ 100 73 95 5 950/( 100 90 30 70 300/( 150 112 142 8 950/( - 10,483 - - 00/( 370 - - 0% - - 30 (30) 0°/ 8,500 8,930 8,534 (34) 1000/( 919,902 1,074,949 559,337 360,565 619/( - 16,977 (16,977) 00/( 3,835,827 - - 00/( - 931,523 - - 00/c 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 - 1000/( 35,800 26,300 35,800 - 1000/( 1,535,800 4,793,650 1,552,777 (16,977) 101°/ TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 44,055,157 $ 46,897,549 $ 41,660,318 $ 2,394,839 950/ 5 Packet Pg. 96 I 7.5.a I Page 1 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 17,177,230 $ 15,758,890 $ 16,528,199 $ 649,031 960/ 2 OVERTIME 491,580 730,413 612,255 (120,675) 1250/ 3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 262,020 213,691 233,372 28,648 890/ 4 BENEFITS 6,607,643 6,184,431 6,348,656 258,987 960/ 5 UNIFORMS 101,798 100,926 88,202 13,596 870/ 6 SUPPLIES 497,122 451,102 482,079 15,043 970/ 7 SMALL EQUIPMENT 170,662 153,777 175,853 (5,191) 1030/ 8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,499,765 12,684,371 13,811,032 688,733 890/ 9 COMMUNICATIONS 171,571 168,790 153,430 18,141 890/ 10 TRAVEL 78,580 70,950 10,161 68,419 130/ 11 EXCISE TAXES 6,500 7,993 15,907 (9,407) 2450/ 12 RENTAL/LEASE 1,837,776 1,842,464 1,806,719 31,057 980/ 13 INSURANCE 394,124 436,448 393,746 378 1000/ 14 UTILITIES 531,525 525,607 499,415 32,110 940/ 15 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 297,966 633,864 936,856 (638,890) 3140/ 16 MISCELLANEOUS 533,664 421,037 331,383 202,281 620/ 17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 1000/ 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,266,993 1,905,778 1,206,990 2,060,003 370/ 19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 57,173 - 9,053 48,120 160/ 20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,000,000 10,296 - 1,000,000 00/ 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 168,850 183,704 163,840 5,010 970/ 22 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 218 212 288 420/ 23 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 137,250 14,045 132,572 4,678 970/ 49,365,292 42,573,794 44,014,931 5,350,361 89°/ LEO FF-MEDIC AL INS. RESERVE(009) 24 BENEFITS $ 206,650 $ 155,117 $ 143,716 $ 62,934 700/ 25 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 252,990 239,839 94,189 158,801 370/ 26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 7,161 5,793 1,207 830/ 27 MISCELLANEOUS 500 455 - 500 00/ 467,140 402,572 243,697 223,443 520/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) 28 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES $ $ 931,523 $ - $ - 00/ 931,523 00/ CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012) 29 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES $ $ 3,835,827 $ $ 00/ 3,835,827 00/ HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND (014) 30 SUPPLIES $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 00/ 31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 - 200 00/ 32 MISCELLANEOUS 5,600 5,533 5,600 00/ 5,900 5,533 5,900 00/ EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018) 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 100,000 $ 1,862 $ 100,000 $ 1000/ 100,000 s 1,862 100,000 s 1000/ EDMONDS OPIOH) RESPONSE FUND (019) 34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 21,555 $ - $ 21,555 $ 1000/ 35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 200,000 - 00/ 21,555 200,000 21,555 - 100 / DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) 36 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 45,000 $ - $ $ 45,000 00/ 37 REPAIR/MAINT 800 800 00/ 38 MISCELLANEOUS - 30,332 (30,332) 00/ 45,800 30,332 15,468 660/ 6 Packet Pg. 97 I 7.5.a I Page 2 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 723,081 $ 595,190 $ 662,902 $ 60,179 920/ 2 OVERTIME 18,400 49,613 45,506 (27,106) 2470/ 3 BENEFITS 309,539 283,525 328,778 (19,239) 1060, 4 UNIFORMS 6,416 3,344 4,079 2,337 640/ 5 SUPPLIES 263,000 254,053 198,979 64,021 760/ 6 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 2,854 1,082 18,918 50, 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,930 11,295 2,689 25,241 100/ 8 COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 7,089 7,901 (3,401) 1760/ 9 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 00/ 10 RENTAL/LEASE 230,450 268,813 231,006 (556) 1000/ 11 INSURANCE 145,219 156,514 156,937 (11,718) 1080/ 12 UTILITIES 280,918 268,546 276,907 4,011 990/ 13 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 52,000 34,649 70,694 (18,694) 1360/ 14 MISCELLANEOUS 13,000 7,302 8,435 4,565 650/ 15 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 100,000 12,343 75,658 24,342 760/ 16 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 4,170 4,033 4,161 9 1000/ 17INTEREST 510 577 510 0 1000/ COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) 18 SALARIES AND WAGES 19 BENEFITS 20 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 21 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 22 MISCELLANEOUS 23 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 24 LAND 25 CONSTRUCT ION PROJECTS 26 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 27 INTEREST MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) 28 SUPPLIES 29 SMALL EQUIPMENT 30 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 31 TRAVEL 32 RENTAL/LEASE 33 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 34 MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) 35 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 67 MISCELLANEOUS 37 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 38 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) 39 SUPPLIES 40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) 41 MISCELLANEOUS TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) 42 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 43 MISCELLANEOUS $ 2,200,133 $ 1,959,740 $ 2,076,224 $ 123,909 940/ $ $ 10,567 $ (10,567) 00/ - 6,613 (6,613) 00/ 680,130 391,992 622,464 57,666 920/ 163,028 422,794 322,615 (159,587) 1980/ - - 8 (8) 00/ 40,140 108,907 40,121 19 1000/ - 39,303 4,678 (4,678) 00/ 1,853,975 886,891 312,736 1,541,239 170/ 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 1000/ 1.970 2.313 1.952 18 990/ $ 2,811,463 $ 1,924,403 $ 1,393,957 $ 1,417,506 500/ $ 4,700 $ 3,984 $ 302 $ 4,398 60/ 1,700 640 116 1,584 70/ 229,124 53,962 33,444 195,680 1501 80 6 16 64 200/ 2,000 - - 2,000 00/ 300 - - 300 00/ 6,600 4,569 2,614 3,986 400/ $ 244,504 $ 63,161 $ 36,493 $ 208,011 150, $ 92,487 $ 90,424 $ 88,066 $ 4,421 950/ 6,763 583 612 6,151 90/ 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 1000/ 25,000 - - 25,000 00/ $ 128,250 $ 95,008 $ 92,677 $ 35,573 720/ $ 1,790 $ 591 $ 632 $ 1,158 350/ 25,090 25,090 - 25,090 00/ $ 26,880 $ 25,681 $ 632 $ 26,248 20/ $ 3,000 $ 2,768 $ 450 $ 2,550 1501 $ 3,000 $ 2,768 $ 450 $ 2,550 150/ $ 33,900 $ 28,614 $ 15,510 $ 18,390 460/ - 3,366 - - 00/ $ 33,900 $ 31,980 $ 15,510 $ 18,390 460/ 7 Packet Pg. 98 I 7.5.a I Page 3 of 6 C PIY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) 1 SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 77,223 $ 18,697 $ 2,303 890/ 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 479,831 162,209 384,486 95,345 800, 3 RENTAL/LEASE - 381 - - 00/ 4 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 176,176 408,388 360,046 (183,870) 2040/ 5 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 620 - 430 190 690/ 6 CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS 2,932,893 601,092 1,227,553 1,705,340 420/ $ 3,610,520 $ 1,249,293 $ 1,991,212 $ 1,619,308 5501 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI (126) 7 SUPPLIES 8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 10 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 11 LAND 12 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 13 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 14 INTEREST 15 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) 16 SUPPLIES 17 SMALL EQUIPMENT 18 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 20 MISCELLANEOUS 21 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES C EWE=Y MAINTENANC EIMPRO VEMENT (130) 22 SALARIES AND WAGES 23 OVERTIME 24 BENEFITS 25 UNIFORMS 26 SUPPLIES 27 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 28 SMALL EQUIPMENT 29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30 COMMUNICATIONS 31 TRAVEL 32 RENTAL/LEASE 33 UTILITIES 34 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 35 MISCELLANEOUS PARKS TRUST FUND (136) 36 SMALL EQUIPMENT SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) 37 SUPPLIES 38 TRAVEL 39 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140) 40 SUPPLIES 41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42 MISCELLANEOUS EDMONDS CARES FUND (142) 43 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) 44 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBTSERVIC FUND (231) 45 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 46 INTEREST $ - $ 55,948 $ - $ - 00/ 883,267 156,343 684,749 198,518 780/ 95,963 400,238 259,551 (163,588) 2700/ 142,736 133,025 142,731 5 1000/ 300,000 - - 300,000 00/ 1,951,937 957,596 916,129 1,035,808 470/ 24,220 23,476 24,219 1 1000/ 2,970 3,360 2,968 2 1000/ - 77 575 (575) 00/ $ 3,401,093 $ 1,730,062 $ 2,030,921 $ 1,370,172 600/ $ 48,882 $ 39,079 $ 39,033 $ 9,849 800/ - 14,694 - - 00/ 6,500 - 5,400 1,100 830/ 22,000 1,858 7,183 14,818 330/ 600 159 503 97 840/ 35,800 26,300 35,800 - 1000/ $ 113,782 $ 82,091 $ 87,919 $ 25,863 770/ $ 97,476 $ 89,239 $ 93,344 $ 4,132 960/ 3,500 3,272 729 2,771 210/ 42,029 40,767 40,160 1,869 960/ 1,000 225 230 770 230/ 7,000 4,837 2,972 4,028 420/ 20,000 17,293 18,196 1,804 910/ - 1,246 1,184 (1,184) 00/ 4,200 2,199 1,835 2,365 440/ 1,700 1,794 1,682 18 990/ 500 - - 500 00/ 8,230 6,260 8,230 0 1000/ 5,652 4,879 4,928 724 870/ 500 - - 500 00/ 4,000 19,124 6,610 (2,610) 1650/ $ 195,787 $ 191,135 $ 180,098 $ 15,689 920/ $ $ 4,935 $ $ 00/ $ $ 4,935 $ $ 00/ $ 1,500 $ 770 $ 11 $ 1,489 10/ 4,500 3,405 4,500 00/ 5,900 2,718 5,900 00/ $ 11,900 $ 6,894 $ 11 $ 11,889 00/ $ 11,850 $ 12,983 $ 9,858 $ 1,992 830/ 66,035 82,306 53,747 12,288 810/ 2,625 3,289 4,006 (1,381) 1530/ 80,510 98,578 67,611 12,899 840/ $ 1,860,000 $ - $ 1,775,326 $ 84,674 950/ 1,860,000 1,775,326 84,674 950/ $ 12,400 $ 30,905 $ $ 12,400 00/ $ 12,400 $ 30,905 $ $ 12,400 00/ $ 643,810 $ 609,623 $ 643,802 $ 8 1000/ 94,590 106,775 94,583 7 1000/ $ 738,400 $ 716,398 $ 738,385 $ 15 1000/ g Packet Pg. 99 I 7.5.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332) 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 323,349 $ 116,848 $ 446,182 $ (122,833) 1380r 2 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 112,920 - 20,316 92,604 180/ 3 CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS 12,577,074 133,247 1,440,342 11,136,732 110/ 4 DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 80,041 - - 00/ $ 13,013,343 $ 330,137 $ 1,906,841 $ 11,106,502 1501 WATER FUND (421) 5 SALARIES AND WAGES 6 OVERTIME 7 BENEFITS 8 UNIFORMS 9 SUPPLIES 10 WATERPURCHASED FORRESALE 11 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 12 SMALL EQUIPMENT 13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14 COMMUNICATIONS 15 TRAVEL 16 EXCISE TAXES 17 RENTAL/LEASE 18 INSURANCE 19 UTILITIES 20 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 21 MISCELLANEOUS 22 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 23 CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS 24 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 25 REVENUE BONDS 26 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 27 INTEREST 28 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS STORM FUND (422) 29 SALARIES AND WAGES 30 OVERTIME 31 BENEFITS 32 UNIFORMS 33 SUPPLIES 34 SMALL EQUIPMENT 35 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 36 COMMUNICATIONS 37 TRAVEL 38 EXCISE TAXES 39 RENTAL/LEASE 40 INSURANCE 41 UTILITES 42 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 43 MISCELLANEOUS 44 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 45 CONSTRUCT ION PROJECTS 46 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 47 REVENUE BONDS 48 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 49 INTEREST 50 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 845,871 $ 758,623 $ 796,988 $ 48,883 940/ 24,000 25,056 21,118 2,882 880/ 363,882 340,393 309,245 54,637 850/ 4,000 3,424 4,371 (371) 1090/ 154,772 75,291 107,441 47,331 690r 2,170,000 1,877,946 2,049,587 120,413 940r 170,000 152,622 172,203 (2,203) 1010/ 11,000 5,955 6,927 4,073 630/ 1,753,804 847,220 1,324,226 429,578 760/ 30,000 29,873 30,043 (43) 1000/ 200 - - 200 00/ 1,649,700 1,649,324 1,571,444 78,256 950i 133,158 152,721 130,244 2,914 980/ 52,865 55,096 52,541 324 990/ 35,775 31,828 32,670 3,105 910/ 75,830 237,822 20,613 55,217 270/ 131,400 117,653 138,785 (7,385) 1060/ 650,870 646,366 648,597 2,273 1000/ 3,946,207 2,251,663 3,160,207 786,000 800/ 2,800 2,709 2,794 6 1000/ 370,960 355,732 370,959 1 1000/ 25,840 25,839 25,839 1 1000/ 211,190 225,572 211,169 21 1000/ - 375 378 (378) 00/ $ 12,814,124 $ 9,869,102 $ 11,188,392 $ 1,625,732 870r $ 728,080 $ 652,439 $ 643,183 $ 84,897 880/ 6,000 35,162 13,321 (7,321) 2220/ 334,154 326,307 293,573 40,581 880/ 6,500 6,166 8,407 (1,907) 1290/ 47,958 27,114 25,331 22,627 530/ 4,000 4,114 2,464 1,536 620/ 3,047,970 1,129,413 1,822,002 1,225,968 600/ 3,200 5,391 6,187 (2,987) 1930/ 4,300 - - 4,300 00/ 470,100 509,604 562,212 (92,112) 1200r 270,830 250,181 269,789 1,041 1000/ 118,263 127,548 116,576 1,687 990/ 11,025 11,193 12,102 (1,077) 1100/ 116,183 17,250 18,753 97,430 160/ 181,100 167,833 185,382 (4,282) 1020/ 282,550 295,279 282,545 5 1000i 4,758,296 1,477,403 3,193,179 1,565,117 670/ 102,030 98,899 102,029 1 1000/ 181,210 173,932 181,205 5 1000/ 60,760 32,063 53,576 7,184 880/ 122,400 123,971 117,467 4,933 960/ - 165 165 (165) 00/ $ 10,856,909 $ 5,471,427 $ 7,909,445 $ 2,947,464 730/ 9 Packet Pg. 100 I 7.5.a I Page 5 of 6 CITY 0FFDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent SEWER FUND (423) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,953,719 $ 1,779,083 $ 1,865,904 $ 87,815 960/ 2 OVERTIME 95,000 98,788 106,756 (11,756) 1120r 3 BENEFITS 854,294 782,554 804,842 49,452 940i 4 UNIFORMS 9,500 7,267 7,967 1,533 840i 5 SUPPLIES 433,470 317,346 397,447 36,024 920i 6 FUEL CONSUMED 60,000 44,284 24,125 35,875 400r 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 - - 4,000 00/ 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 36,369 20,645 42,890 (6,521) 1180i 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,289,566 1,181,008 4,494,417 (2,204,851) 1960i 10 COMMUNICATIONS 43,886 44,183 42,785 1,101 970r 11 TRAVEL 5,000 5,016 - 5,000 00/ 12 EXCISE TAXES 978,000 1,053,670 978,545 (545) 1000i 13 RENTAL/LEASE 311,966 346,167 320,207 (8,241) 1030i 14 INSURANCE 182,121 186,110 175,867 6,254 970r 15 UTILITIES 1,540,685 1,147,784 983,600 557,085 640, 16 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 745,630 429,952 252,808 492,822 340i 17 MISCELLANEOUS 127,650 83,617 90,819 36,831 710i 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 7,197,114 1,959,171 3,308,045 3,889,069 460r 19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 33,647 117,784 (117,784) 00/ 20 CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS 15,438,495 3,021,725 9,502,326 5,936,169 620i 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 154,660 150,043 154,652 8 1000i 22 REVENUE BONDS 82,840 80,336 244,944 (162,104) 2960r 23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 173,210 172,528 173,200 10 1000r 24 INTEREST 68,270 70,427 63,506 4,764 930i 25 DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - 106,318 (106,318) 00/ 26 OTHER TNT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 5,380 5,085 (5,085) 00/ $ 32,785,445 $ 13,020,732 $ 24,264,839 $ 8,520,606 740, BOND RESERVE FUND (424) 27 REVENUE BONDS $ 755,020 $ 740,000 $ 755,000 $ 20 1000i 28INTEREST 1,233,110 1,251,184 1,233,084 26 1000r $ 1,988,130 $ 1,991,184 $ 1,988,084 $ 46 1000r 10 Packet Pg. 101 7.5.a Page 6 of 6 CITY OFEDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES 2 OVERTIME 3 BENEFIT S 4 UNIFORMS 5 SUPPLIES 6 FUEL CONSUMED 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10 COMMUNICATIONS 11 TRAVEL 12 RENTAL/LEASE 13 INSURANCE 14 UTILITIES 15 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 16 MISCELLANEOUS 17 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 18 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512) 19 SALARIES AND WAGES 20 OVERTIME 21 BENEFIT S 22 SUPPLIES 23 SMALL EQUIPMENT 24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25 COMMUNICATIONS 26 TRAVEL 27 RENTAL/LEASE 28 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 29 MISCELLANEOUS 30 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) 31 BENEFITS 32 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO TAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 266,952 $ 260,548 $ 269,774 $ (2,822) 1010/ 2,000 8,081 1,406 594 700, 112,598 111,050 112,088 510 1000/ 1,000 1,347 1,186 (186) 1190, 132,128 96,541 79,828 52,300 600/ 1,000 - - 1,000 00, 243,000 201,116 178,940 64,060 740/ 58,000 2,879 3,487 54,513 60/ 46,750 29,071 4,498 42,252 100/ 3,000 2,285 2,303 697 770/ 1,000 255 - 1,000 00/ 12,750 13,765 12,348 402 970, 27,848 30,167 43,001 (15,153) 1540/ 14,500 14,630 15,444 (944) 1070r 60,000 32,569 44,848 15,152 750/ 12,000 9,994 11,784 216 980/ 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 - 1000/ 731,139 1,770,020 666,766 64,373 910r $ 3,225,665 $ 2,584,317 $ 2,947,702 $ 277,963 910i $ 369,264 $ 298,126 $ 290,526 $ 78,738 790i 2,000 125 165 1,835 80r 124,590 100,677 97,528 27,062 780i 11,394 4,235 9,580 1,814 840r 179,555 50,258 123,180 56,375 690i 309,810 48,188 73,569 236,241 240, 58,770 58,844 61,351 (2,581) 1040i 1,500 359 - 1,500 00/ 7,490 7,300 7,271 219 970i 381,667 272,767 360,311 21,356 940i 5,000 3,491 11,748 (6,748) 2350i 66,000 79,651 17,664 48,336 270i $ 1,517,040 $ 924,022 $ 1,052,893 $ 464,147 690i $ 23,000 $ 20,417 $ 19,258 $ 3,742 840i 64,500 119,116 61,740 2,760 960i 1,200 1,269 1,007 193 840i $ 88,700 $ 140,802 $ 82,005 $ 6,695 920i $ 141,767,565 $ 90,495,864 $ 106,238,142 $ 35,529,423 750, 11 Packet Pg. 102 7.5.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDPTURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PARKS& RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES MAINTENANCE % Spent $ 418,912 $ 402,243 $ 322,555 $ 96,357 77% 306,685 297,114 331,095 (24,410) 108% 744,339 552,184 692,901 51,438 93% 1,142,871 1,001,064 1,072,252 70,619 94% 726,962 705,593 726,790 172 100% 1 1,289,583 1,262,022 1,306,188 (16,605) 101% 912,540 874,911 860,435 52,105 11� 94% 15,412,119 12,669,606 12,751,867 2,660,252 83% 12,028,805 11,701,666 11,835,142 193,663 98% 766,197 604,295 599,693 166,504 78% 3,586,753 2,833,842 2,814,664 772,089 78% 4,673,608 4,053,149 3,669,440 1,004,168 79% 3,538,610 3,097,068 3,125,780 412,831 88% 3,817,308 2,519,036 3,906,130 (88,822) 102% $ 49,365,292 $ 42,573,794 $ 44,014,931 $ 5,350,361 89% : CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2020 Amended Budget 12/31/2019 Expenditures 12/31/2020 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,814,124 $ 9,869,102 $ 11,188,392 $ 1,625,732 87% STORM UTILITY FUND 10,856,909 5,471,427 7,909,445 2,947,464 73% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 32,785,445 13,020,732 24,264,839 8,520,606 74% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,130 1,991,184 1,988,084 46 100% $ 58,444,608 $ 30,352,444 $ 45,350,759 $ 13,093,849 78% 0- 10L A 12 Packet Pg. 103 I 7.5.a I Page 1 of 4 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2020 Amended Budget 12/31/2019 Expenditures 12/31/2020 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 191,224 $ 180,440 $ 190,990 $ 234 100% OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 95,736 97,616 99,057 (3,321) 103% SUPPLIES 2,500 2,309 1,841 659 74% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 342 590 410 59% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 62,160 81,067 4,263 57,897 7% COMMUNICATIONS 5,000 6,393 8,984 (3,984) 180% TRAVEL 17,500 2,977 587 16,913 3% RENTAL/LEASE 12,292 12,118 12,329 (37) 100% REPAIRS✓MAINTENANCE 500 121 645 (145) 129% MISCELLANEOUS 30,000 18,860 3,271 26,729 11% $ 418,912 $ 402,243 $ 322,555 $ 96,357 77% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 222,432 $ 218,580 $ 223,427 $ (995) 100% BENEFITS 54,043 53,247 83,989 (29,946) 155% SUPPLIES 1,500 1,310 938 562 63% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 442 4,396 (4,396) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000 2,385 633 2,367 21% COMMUNICATION 1,400 1,258 1,462 (62) 104% TRAVEL 3,000 2,603 166 2,834 6% RENTAL/LEASE 16,860 12,548 15,871 989 94% MISCELLANEOUS 4,450 4,741 213 4,237 5% $ 306,685 $ 297,114 $ 331,095 $ (24,410) 108% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 356,658 $ 325,754 $ 356,472 $ 186 100% OVERTIME - 197 5,958 (5,958) 0% BENEFITS 142,458 113,283 143,222 (764) 101% SUPPLIES 21,066 5,512 3,940 17,126 19% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 2,762 4,336 (4,036) 1445% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 136,471 50,524 103,856 32,615 76% COMMUNICATIONS 1,550 1,315 1,425 125 92% TRAVEL 1,000 1,255 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 31,921 24,624 30,522 1,399 96% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 8,380 7,571 7,832 548 93% MISCELLANEOUS 44,535 19,388 35,338 9,197 79% $ 744,339 $ 552,184 $ 692,901 $ 51,438 93% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 647,030 $ 587,294 $ 633,794 $ 13,236 98% OVERTIME 800 1,325 16,013 (15,213) 2002% BENEFITS 223,319 209,208 231,355 (8,036) 104% SUPPLIES 10,600 10,302 10,763 (163) 102% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,144 5,418 14,461 (10,317) 349% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 124,925 90,966 70,234 54,691 56% COMMUNICATIONS 3,550 2,920 2,767 783 78% TRAVEL 6,500 3,423 37 6,463 1% RENTAL/LEASE 67,947 64,551 67,698 249 100% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 5,836 277 7,896 (2,060) 135% MISCELLANEOUS 25,100 25,380 17,236 7,864 69% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 23,120 23,120 0% $ 1,142,871 $ 1,001,064 $ 1,072,252 $ 70,619 94% 13 Packet Pg. 104 1 I 7.5.a I Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 376,214 $ 363,578 $ 399,460 $ (23,246) 106% BENEFITS 156,718 160,152 163,468 (6,750) 104% SUPPLIES 10,240 3,689 3,606 6,634 35% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 4,024 2,682 (2,682) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37,410 31,744 26,493 10,917 71% COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 33,150 21,710 18,290 54% TRAVEL 2,000 503 6 1,994 0% RENTAL/LEASE 63,850 45,548 51,510 12,340 81% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 32,530 51,805 50,957 (18,427) 157% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 11,401 6,899 1,101 86% $ 726,962 $ 705,593 $ 726,790 $ 172 100% FINANCE SALARIES $ 870,882 $ 851,763 $ 929,623 $ (58,741) 107% OVERTIME 4,500 - - 4,500 0% BENEFITS 289,923 289,662 260,112 29,811 90% SUPPLIES 7,350 6,928 5,902 1,448 80% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,650 778 66 2,584 2% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,300 1,725 1,518 7,782 16% COMMUNICATIONS 2,000 1,286 857 1,143 43% TRAVEL 3,100 2,371 - 3,100 0% RENTAL/LEASE 50,048 52,224 58,565 (8,517) 117% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 41,480 42,499 43,963 (2,483) 106% MISCELLANEOUS 8,350 12,786 5,581 2,769 67% $ 1,289,583 $ 1,262,022 $ 1,306,188 $ (16,605) 101% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 912,540 $ 874,911 $ 860,435 $ 52,105 94% $ 912,540 $ 874,911 $ 860,435 $ 52,105 94% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 110,742 $ - $ - $ 110,742 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 50,000 46,218 1,254 48,746 3% SUPPLIES 5,000 6,183 5,151 (151) 103% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,090,137 9,908,492 10,637,846 452,291 96% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 7,993 15,907 (9,407) 245% RENTAL/LEASE 15,249 11,950 15,679 (430) 103% INSURANCE 394,124 436,448 393,746 378 100% MISCELLANEOUS 91,774 73,577 103,671 (11,897) 113% CONTRIBUTION TO ECA 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 100% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,266,993 1,905,778 1,206,990 2,060,003 37% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 168,850 183,704 163,840 5,010 97% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 137,250 14,045 132,572 4,678 97% FISCAL AGENT FEES 500 218 212 288 42% $ 15,412,119 $ 12,669,606 $ 12,751,867 $ 2,660,252 83% 14 Packet Pg. 105 I 7.5.a I Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 7,026,155 $ 6,576,027 $ 6,888,107 $ 138,048 98% OVERTIME 461,280 680,738 562,395 (101,115) 122% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 262,020 213,691 233,372 28,648 89% BENEFITS 2,777,007 2,618,757 2,763,366 13,641 100% UNIFORMS 80,750 88,470 67,011 13,739 83% SUPPLIES 95,710 87,533 81,655 14,055 85% SMALL EQUIPMENT 133,177 104,509 121,089 12,088 91% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 224,548 259,293 210,471 14,077 94% COMMUNICATIONS 36,000 42,058 43,019 (7,019) 119% TRAVEL 29,310 39,517 7,933 21,377 27% RENTAL/LEASE 826,124 916,472 819,650 6,474 99% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 15,180 10,674 5,684 9,496 37% MISCELLANEOUS 61,544 63,926 31,391 30,153 51% $ 12,028,805 $ 11,701,666 $ 11,835,142 $ 193,663 98% COMMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES $ 357,423 $ 262,451 $ 350,150 $ 7,273 98% OVERTIME - - 93 (93) 0% BENEFITS 114,637 79,793 94,536 20,101 82% SUPPLIES 7,475 6,692 7,056 419 94% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,173 270 3,321 852 80% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 219,104 235,380 122,308 96,796 56% COMMUNICATIONS 2,975 1,401 2,242 733 75% TRAVEL 2,000 405 1,020 980 51% RENTAL/LEASE 13,410 12,049 11,993 1,417 89% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 10,500 - - 10,500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 9,500 5,855 6,974 2,526 73% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 25,000 - - 25,000 0% $ 766,197 $ 604,295 $ 599,693 $ 166,504 78% DEVELO PMENT SERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES $ 1,760,943 $ 1,634,056 $ 1,708,362 $ 52,581 97% OVERTIME 1,300 12,427 13,932 (12,632) 1072% BENEFITS 658,292 622,580 619,940 38,352 94% UNIFORMS 500 401 60 440 12% SUPPLIES 17,100 12,959 6,878 10,222 40% SMALL EQUIPMENT 7,300 6,789 3,729 3,571 51% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 886,518 339,569 230,662 655,856 26% COMMUNICATIONS 10,776 9,357 11,920 (1,144) 111% TRAVEL 6,800 10,138 228 6,572 3% RENTAL/LEASE 170,234 143,438 169,196 1,038 99% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 6,800 3,439 2,928 3,872 43% MISCELLANEOUS 60,190 38,688 46,828 13,362 78% $ 3,586,753 S 2,833,842 S 2,814,664 $ 772,089 78% ENGINEERING SALARIES $ 1,772,804 $ 1,695,173 $ 1,730,869 $ 41,935 98% OVERTIME 5,000 8,311 3,735 1,265 75% BENEFITS 701,327 693,171 697,338 3,989 99% UNIFORMS 450 298 256 194 57% SUPPLIES - 32 - - 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 1,744 868 1,332 39% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 188,840 4,824 1,530 187,310 1% COMMUNICATIONS 19,600 15,983 16,715 2,885 85% TRAVEL 600 1,043 134 466 22% RENTAL/LEASE 134,995 122,033 131,955 3,040 98% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - 769 1,831 30% MISCELLANEOUS 80,000 59,520 34,659 45,341 43% $ 2,908,416 $ 2,602,130 $ 2,618,828 $ 289,588 90% 15 Packet Pg. 106 I 7.5.a I Page 4 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2020 Amended 12/31/2019 12/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 2,316,676 $ 2,007,961 $ 2,029,203 $ 287,473 88% OVERTIME 10,000 20,286 4,853 5,147 49% BENEFITS 864,290 762,646 748,590 115,700 87% UNIFORMS 6,275 6,731 5,707 569 91% SUPPLIES 150,467 151,518 149,211 1,256 99% SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,900 9,514 8,870 2,030 81% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 627,168 442,370 184,381 442,787 29% COMMUNICATIONS 31,370 31,000 17,670 13,700 56% TRAVEL 5,270 5,282 50 5,220 1% RENTAL/LEASE 281,611 278,452 273,432 8,179 97% PUBLIC UTILITY 230,507 209,970 187,542 42,965 81% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 29,700 34,334 16,593 13,107 56% MISCELLANEOUS 100,321 82,787 34,286 66,035 34% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 9,053 - 9,053 0 100% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 10,296 0% $ 4,673,608 $ 4,053,149 $ 3,669,440 $ 1,004,168 79% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION SALARIES $ 380,790 $ 289,383 $ 296,910 $ 83,880 78% OVERTIME 200 339 - 200 0% BENEFITS 131,041 101,620 104,236 26,805 80% SUPPLIES 8,600 5,062 3,988 4,612 46% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 2,345 264 736 26% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 124 143 57 72% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 717 747 603 55% TRAVEL 500 1,427 - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 97,295 89,999 96,028 1,267 99% PUBLIC UTILITY 3,318 2,946 3,131 187 94% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,900 975 1,505 3,395 31% $ 630,194 $ 494,938 $ 506,952 $ 123,242 80% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 787,257 766,429 790,833 (3,576) 100% OVERTIME 7,500 6,790 5,274 2,226 70% BENEFITS 348,852 336,477 338,193 10,659 97% UNIFORMS 13,823 5,025 15,168 (1,345) 110% SUPPLIES 159,514 151,074 201,150 (41,636) 126% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,818 14,839 11,183 (7,365) 293% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 977,444 360,997 1,356,260 (378,816) 139% COMMUNICATIONS 16,000 21,950 23,913 (7,913) 149% TRAVEL _ 1,000 6 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 55,940 56,459 52,293 3,648 93% PUBLIC UTILITY 297,700 312,692 308,742 (11,042) 104% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 143,460 483,144 799,591 (656,131) 557% MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 3,153 3,532 1,468 71% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 0% $ 3,817,308 $ 2,519,036 $ 3,906,130 $ (88,822) 102% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 49,365,292 $ 42,573,794 $ 44,014,931 $ 5,350,361 89% 16 Packet Pg. 107 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2020 General Fund Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 2,281,595 $ 2,281,595 $ 2,376,947 4.18% February 4,718,069 2,436,473 4,730,574 0.27% March 7,308,614 2,590,546 7,100,593 -2.85% April 10,754,361 3,445,746 9,435,773 -12.26% May 19,216,447 8,462,087 17,528,670 -8.78% June 21,772,150 2,555,703 19,628,003 -9.85% July 24,014,399 2,242,248 22,424,193 -6.62% August 26,829,604 2,815,205 24,769,057 -7.68% September 29,160,977 2,331,373 26,979,585 -7.48% October 32,996,001 3,835,024 30,980,306 -6.11% November 41,595,562 8,599,561 39,391,635 -5.30% December 44,055,157 2,459,595 41,660,318 -5.44% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2020 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 193,769 $ 193,769 $ 323,203 66.80% February 345,606 151,837 496,485 43.66% March 547,140 201,534 685,999 25.38% April 740,550 193,410 857,110 15.74% May 973,673 233,123 998,087 2.51% June 1,219,609 245,935 1,240,599 1.72% July 1,532,815 313,206 1,463,854 -4.50% August 1,804,669 271,854 1,739,374 -3.62% September 2,081,138 276,470 2,115,408 1.65% October 2,301,037 219,898 2,574,968 11.90% November 2,520,239 219,202 2,993,059 18.76% December 2,700,000 179,761 3,350,684 24.10% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 108 1 SALES TAX SUMMARY I 7.5.a I Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: December 2020 Year -to -Date Total $8,317,046 Health & Personal Care, Automotive Repair, $248,327 , $189,028 Construction Trade, Accommodation, $1,322,318 $29,412 Clothing and Accessories, $247,699 Communications, $234,469 Wholesale Trade, $294,254 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000, 000 0 Misc Retail, $1,531,540 Others, $177,428 Amusement & Recreation, $44,910 Business Services, $862,084 Gasoline, $37,951 iii Retail Food Stores, $323,308 L Retail Automotive, $1,827,793 Manufacturing, $98,904 Eating & Drinking, $847,620 Annual Sales Tax Revenue $7,395,114 $5,840,764 $6,741,838 $6,905,122 a 2014L, 2015 2016 2017 18 $8,406,296 $8,452,715 58,317,046 2018 L. 2019 YTD 2020 Packet Pg. 109 1 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2020 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 634,902 $ 634,902 $ 692,248 9.03% February 1,436,667 801,765 1,539,597 7.16% March 2,031,860 595,193 2,187,876 7.68% April 2,597,573 565,713 2,691,601 3.62% May 3,324,621 727,048 3,191,797 -4.00% June 3,990,697 666,076 3,761,924 -5.73% July 4,697,452 706,756 4,450,258 -5.26% August 5,482,731 785,279 5,184,289 -5.44% September 6,213,489 730,757 5,920,380 -4.72% October 6,961,050 747,562 6,719,684 -3.47% November 7,750,015 788,965 7,523,231 -2.93% December 8,450,000 699,985 8,317,046 -1.57% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2020 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 81,408 $ 81,408 $ 82,496 1.34% February 168,408 87,000 177,747 5.55% March 245,012 76,604 260,308 6.24% April 308,737 63,725 337,848 9.43% May 358,094 49,357 395,193 10.36% June 392,813 34,720 430,775 9.66% July 419,421 26,607 463,305 10.46% August 441,879 22,458 489,325 10.74% September 462,623 20,744 510,729 10.40% October 486,497 23,874 535,796 10.13% November 524,782 38,285 571,050 8.82% December 579,600 54,818 639,670 10.36% Gas Utility Tax 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 110 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2020 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 79,271 $ 79,271 $ 70,129 -11.53% February 154,920 75,649 134,128 -13.42% March 224,811 69,891 191,257 -14.93% April 298,919 74,108 254,236 -14.95% May 365,795 66,876 309,632 -15.35% June 433,375 67,580 361,422 -16.60% July 497,866 64,491 424,830 -14.67% August 563,527 65,661 479,371 -14.93% September 631,163 67,636 528,163 -16.32% October 697,753 66,590 579,582 -16.94% November 761,530 63,777 606,633 -20.34% December 823,900 62,370 666,374 -19.12% Electric Utility Tax 900,000 Telephone Utility Tax 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 / 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget �Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2020 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 176,332 $ 369,755 530,960 710,778 852,710 974,520 1,088,754 1,199,457 1,311,314 1,428,233 1,552,157 1,684,800 176,332 $ 179,486 193,422 371,370 161,206 535,467 179,818 710,200 141,933 854,417 121,810 970,402 114,233 1,091,103 110,703 1,214,761 111,857 1,316,801 116,919 1,430,598 123,924 1,540,846 132,643 1,668,430 1.79% 0.44 % 0.85 % -0.08 % 0.20 % -0.42 % 0.22 % 1.28 % 0.42% 0.17 % -0.73 % -0.97 % Electric Utility Tax 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget - Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 111 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2020 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 804,719 $ 804,719 $ 737,298 -8.38% February 1,363,439 558,720 1,256,012 -7.88% March 2,170,455 807,015 2,048,593 -5.61% April 2,696,703 526,248 2,538,466 -5.87% May 3,481,516 784,813 3,275,201 -5.93% June 4,099,586 618,070 3,855,044 -5.97% July 5,087,366 987,780 4,682,817 -7.95% August 5,941,343 853,977 5,382,918 -9.40% September 7,092,152 1,150,809 6,403,521 -9.71% October 7,892,798 800,646 7,186,022 -8.95% November 8,818,044 925,246 8,061,987 -8.57% December 9,384,958 566,914 8,608,757 -8.27% City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2020 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 355,919 $ 355,919 $ 348,012 1.79% February 1,125,592 769,673 1,101,727 0.44% March 1,480,771 355,179 1,449,754 0.85% April 1,795,425 314,654 1,758,968 -0.08% May 2,150,929 355,505 2,107,634 0.20% June 2,466,536 315,606 2,417,745 -0.42% July 2,822,237 355,701 2,766,634 -1.97% August 3,592,736 770,499 3,521,551 -1.98% September 3,947,537 354,801 3,869,253 -1.98% October 4,262,734 315,197 4,179,529 -1.95% November 4,618,388 355,654 4,527,535 -1.97% December 4,921,433 303,045 4,840,626 -1.64% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 21 Packet Pg. 112 1 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2020 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 843,972 $ 843,972 $ 792,168 -6.14% February 1,528,418 684,445 1,457,427 -4.64% March 2,368,523 840,105 2,253,756 -4.85% April 3,057,434 688,911 2,905,227 -4.98% May 3,904,796 847,362 3,666,165 -6.11% June 4,601,743 696,947 4,301,071 -6.53% July 5,475,901 874,158 5,076,023 -7.30% August 6,170,772 694,871 5,723,561 -7.25% September 7,057,714 886,942 6,520,644 -7.61% October 7,759,947 702,233 7,174,847 -7.54% November 8,620,364 860,417 7,966,021 -7.59% December 9,307,969 687,605 8,619,282 -7.40% Unmeter Sewer Sales 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Ir 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 113 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2020 General Fund Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 5,679,709 $ 5,679,709 $3,641,481 -35.89% February 8,968,628 3,288,919 7,564,087 -1S.66% March 12,589,688 3,621,060 10,796,906 -14.24% April 16,832,856 4,243,168 13,318,642 -20.88% May 20,005,510 3,172,654 17,123,820 -14.40% June 24,887,169 4,881,659 21,049,664 -15.42% July 28,851,500 3,964,332 24,352,711 -15.59% August 33,184,403 4,332,902 27,602,216 -16.82% September 36,703,429 3,519,026 31,099,506 -15.27% October 40,354,845 3,651,416 35,443,149 -12.17% November 44,855,461 4,500,616 38,995,587 -13.06% December 49,365,292 4,509,831 44,014,930 -10.84% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2020 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 2,940,401 $ 2,940,401 $ 1,280,852 -56.44% February 3,425,904 485,503 2,717,261 -20.68% March 4,593,975 1,168,071 3,569,389 -22.30% April 6,436,480 1,842,505 3,731,670 -42.02% May 6,749,241 312,761 5,129,301 -24.00% June 8,560,250 1,811,009 6,488,886 -24.20% July 9,584,152 1,023,902 7,237,544 -24.48% August 11,039,405 1,455,253 8,074,263 -26.86% September 11,949,652 910,247 8,970,365 -24.93% October 12,620,072 670,421 10,148,912 -19.58% November 14,182,850 1,562,777 11,046,084 -22.12% December 15,412,119 1,229,269 12,751,867 -17.26% Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 �- 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --ft— Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 114 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2020 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 26,361 $ 26,361 $ 23,825 -9.62% February 54,130 27,769 55,625 2.76% March 88,475 34,345 81,971 -7.35% April 119,273 30,799 106,847 -10.42% May 158,791 39,518 133,074 -16.20% June 205,911 47,121 160,080 -22.26% July 239,007 33,095 186,441 -21.99% August 285,476 46,469 212,640 -25.51% September 323,555 38,079 239,066 -26.11% October 346,924 23,369 266,797 -23.10% November 382,373 35,449 291,826 -23.68% December 418,912 36,539 322,555 -23.00% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2020 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 25,001 $ 25,001 $ 28,750 15.00% February 50,898 25,897 60,151 18.18% March 76,062 25,164 87,486 15.02% April 101,769 25,706 114,642 12.65% May 126,945 25,177 142,030 11.88% June 151,749 24,804 169,276 11.55% July 177,563 25,814 196,288 10.55% August 203,939 26,376 222,950 9.32% September 229,480 25,541 249,862 8.88% October 254,419 24,939 276,971 8.86% November 279,429 25,010 303,765 8.71% December 306,685 27,256 331,095 7.96% Office of Mayor 0,000.00 0,000.00 0,000.00 1 50,000.00 0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget - -Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 115 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2020 Human Resources Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 59,744 $ 59,744 $ 68,346 14.40% February 117,844 58,101 134,278 13.94% March 179,074 61,229 184,385 2.97% April 230,899 51,825 233,118 0.96% May 286,335 55,437 283,462 -1.00% June 357,648 71,312 335,262 -6.26% July 413,242 55,594 378,306 -8.45% August 471,867 58,625 423,682 -10.21% September 533,926 62,059 476,486 -10.76% October 593,700 59,774 535,390 -9.82% November 652,971 59,271 589,830 -9.67% December 744,339 91,368 692,901 -6.91% Municipal Court Human Resources 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 - 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 86,948 $ 86,948 $ 79,231 -8.88% February 180,887 93,939 166,073 -8.19% March 273,283 92,396 249,701 -8.63% April 366,614 93,331 331,047 -9.70% May 467,192 100,578 422,932 -9.47% June 555,697 88,505 507,527 -8.67% July 648,419 92,722 595,161 -8.21% August 746,531 98,112 681,851 -8.66% September 837,918 91,387 775,370 -7.46% October 938,286 100,369 872,107 -7.05% November 1,031,813 93,527 958,702 -7.09% December 1,142,871 111,058 1,072,252 -6.18% Municipal Court 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -0---CurrentYeaz Budget �PriorYear *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 116 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2020 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 49,473 $ 49,473 $ 40,001 -19.14% February 106,815 57,343 82,357 -22.90% March 166,402 59,586 123,069 -26.04% April 229,301 62,899 165,175 -27.97% May 287,815 58,515 210,066 -27.01% June 345,097 57,281 258,279 -25.16% July 407,184 62,087 309,288 -24.04% August 475,865 68,681 360,249 -24.30% September 535,484 59,620 408,834 -23.65% October 600,799 65,315 457,484 -23.85% November 671,407 70,608 532,055 -20.76% December 766,197 94,790 599,693 -21.73% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2020 City Clerk Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 71,401 $ 71,401 $ 83,447 16.87% February 129,624 58,223 139,339 7.49% March 187,005 57,380 199,113 6.47% April 251,043 64,039 258,617 3.02% May 306,774 55,730 321,093 4.67% June 361,810 55,036 378,904 4.72% July 423,597 61,787 438,669 3.56% August 486,276 62,679 499,805 2.78% September 539,284 53,008 554,592 2.84% October 597,946 58,662 611,198 2.22% November 662,981 65,035 667,372 0.66% December 726,962 63,981 726,789 -0.02% City Clerk 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 26 Packet Pg. 117 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund 2020 Technology Rental Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 185,528 $ 185,528 $ 81,888 -55.86% February 348,776 163,248 291,582 -16.40% March 463,657 114,881 352,886 -23.89% April 551,367 87,710 396,588 -28.07% May 653,419 102,052 462,422 -29.23% June 759,617 106,198 540,328 -28.87% July 847,836 88,218 612,976 -27.70% August 950,505 102,670 699,095 -26.45% September 1,072,316 121,810 807,205 -24.72% October 1,175,112 102,796 859,114 -26.89% November 1,283,884 108,772 912,391 -28.94% December 1,517,040 233,156 1,052,893 -30.60% Finance Technology Rental Fund 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2020 Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 124,756 $ 124,756 $ 148,549 19.07% February 235,691 110,935 251,089 6.53% March 337,197 101,506 353,610 4.87% April 438,143 100,947 456,877 4.28% May 539,685 101,542 562,662 4.26% June 639,437 99,752 795,796 24.45% July 750,562 111,125 879,925 17.24% August 854,084 103,522 964,589 12.94% September 970,025 115,941 1,050,712 8.32% October 1,081,072 111,048 1,133,433 4.84% November 1,184,488 103,415 1,219,675 2.97% December 1,289,583 105,095 1,306,188 1.29% Finance 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 27 Packet Pg. 118 ■ 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2020 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 76,045 $ 76,045 $ 49,883 -34.40% February 1S2,090 76,045 142,611 -6.23% March 228,135 76,045 192,534 -15.61% April 304,180 76,045 288,462 -5.17% May 380,225 76,045 359,660 -5.41% June 456,270 76,045 431,895 -5.34% July 532,315 76,045 503,028 -5.50% August 608,360 76,045 574,161 -S.62% September 684,405 76,045 646,093 -5.60% October 760,450 76,045 718,169 -5.56% November 836,495 76,045 789,302 -5.64% December 912,540 76,045 860,435 -5.71% Police City Attorney 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 946,525 $ 946,525 $ 887,236 -6.26% February 1,903,561 957,036 1,893,712 -0.52% March 2,862,743 959,182 2,821,483 -1.44% April 3,833,127 970,384 3,703,720 -3.38% May 4,795,598 962,471 4,601,807 -4.04% June 5,794,682 999,084 5,628,905 -2.86% July 6,770,463 975,781 6,748,449 -0.33% August 7,713,554 943,091 7,666,496 -0.61% September 8,676,071 962,516 8,693,795 0.20% October 9,751,383 1,075,313 9,682,005 -0.71% November 11,010,326 1,258,942 10,862,724 -1.34% December 12,028,805 1,018,479 11,835,142 -1.61% Police 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 / 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. Z$ Packet Pg. 119 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2020 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 250,206 $ 250,206 $ 241,446 -3.50% February 531,065 280,859 461,847 -13.03% March 821,086 290,021 685,780 -16.48% April 1,116,073 294,987 922,412 -17.35% May 1,419,690 303,617 1,151,071 -18.92% June 1,699,016 279,326 1,370,746 -19.32% July 1,993,964 294,949 1,608,527 -19.33% August 2,297,647 303,682 1,851,746 -19.41% September 2,596,160 298,513 2,083,333 -19.75% October 2,902,773 306,613 2,302,031 -20.70% November 3,243,027 340,254 2,519,329 -22.32% December 3,586,753 343,726 2,814,664 -21.53% Parks & Recreation Development Services 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --*-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 315,980 $ 315,980 $ 278,296 -11.93% February 644,055 328,075 596,263 -7.42% March 992,773 348,718 892,745 -10.08% April 1,355,032 362,259 1,186,533 -12.44% May 1,728,939 373,906 1,472,976 -14.80% June 2,104,753 375,814 1,756,039 -16.57% July 2,577,915 473,162 2,047,976 -20.56% August 3,122,648 544,732 2,368,204 -24.16% September 3,564,579 441,931 2,706,435 -24.07% October 3,942,987 378,408 3,011,118 -23.63% November 4,272,423 329,437 3,343,289 -21.75% December 4,673,608 401,185 3,669,440 -21.49% Parks & Recreation 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 120 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works Administration 2020 Public Works Administration Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 51,939 $ 51,939 $ 41,796 -19.53% February 105,536 53,597 83,385 -20.99% March 157,916 52,379 125,953 -20.24% April 210,278 52,362 169,511 -19.39% May 262,800 52,522 212,944 -18.97% June 316,459 53,659 256,932 -18.81% July 370,954 54,495 298,731 -19.47% August 422,825 51,871 340,410 -19.49% September 472,902 50,077 382,165 -19.19% October 524,167 51,265 423,243 -19.25% November 575,881 51,714 465,382 -19.19% December 630,194 54,313 506,952 -19.56% Facilities Maintenance Public Works Administration 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 289,210 $ 289,210 $ 177,532 -38.61% February 594,641 305,431 353,835 -40.50% March 901,330 306,689 583,052 -35.31% April 1,199,698 298,368 781,557 -34.85% May 1,506,913 307,215 1,002,638 -33.46% June 1,767,916 261,003 1,175,527 -33.51% July 2,101,902 333,986 1,373,287 -34.66% August 2,408,736 306,834 1,592,675 -33.88% September 2,750,046 341,309 1,875,737 -31.79% October 3,059,033 308,987 2,799,364 -8.49% November 3,434,424 375,392 3,001,512 -12.61% December 3,817,308 382,884 3,906,130 2.33% Facilities Maintenance 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -*-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 30 Packet Pg. 121 I 7.5.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2020 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 219,750 $ 219,750 $ 212,290 -3.39% February 436,542 216,792 426,262 -2.35% March 671,678 235,136 646,635 -3.73% April 915,104 243,427 868,452 -5.10% May 1,155,255 240,151 1,118,106 -3.22% June 1,402,970 247,715 1,335,611 -4.80% July 1,656,398 253,428 1,551,091 -6.36% August 1,917,510 261,112 1,768,495 -7.77% September 2,156,951 239,441 1,986,661 -7.89% October 2,402,446 245,495 2,204,927 -8.22% November 2,635,839 233,393 2,404,742 -8.77% December 2,908,416 272,577 2,618,828 -9.96% Engine a ring 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 122 I 7.5.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of December 31, 2020 Years Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate Grant Cnty WA Bonds 4,014,120 0.00 4,000,000 4,000,000 01/01/21 1.47% First Financial CD 3,000,000 0.27 3,000,000 3,000,000 04/10/21 2.86% Port of Seattle WA Bonds 273,305 0.33 270,000 271,596 05/01/21 2.23% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 410,553 1.00 405,000 410,917 01/01/22 1.79% FFCB Bonds 1,998,548 1.45 2,000,000 2,049,978 06/14/22 1.88% Energy Northwest Bonds 1,466,077 1.50 1,345,000 1,441,114 07/01/22 5.00% Energy Northwest Bonds 260,748 1.50 250,000 259,535 07/01/22 2.95% Mason & Kitsap Cnty WA Bonds 948,084 1.92 855,000 931,411 12/01/22 5.00% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 1,517,955 2.00 1,500,000 1,536,300 01/01/23 1.54% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 576,332 2.00 520,000 569,587 01/01/23 5.00% Seattle WA Muni Bonds 2,224,500 2.09 2,000,000 2,198,740 02/01/23 5.00% FHLB Bonds 1,996,590 2.76 2,000,000 1,997,312 10/05/23 0.22% First Financial - ECA CD 2,803,516 2.87 2,803,516 2,803,516 11/15/23 2.10% Kent WA Bonds 286,648 2.92 250,000 284,558 12/01/23 5.00% Spokane County WA Bonds 259,075 3.92 250,000 265,183 12/01/24 2.10% First Financial - Waterfront Center CD 2,000,000 6.84 2,000,000 2,000,000 11/01/27 1.68% TOTAL SECURITIES 24,036,049 2.09 23,448,516 24,019,746 Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 21,445,523 21,445,523 Demand 0.16% Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool 20,132,419 20,132,419 Demand 1.44% TOTAL PORTFOLIO $ 65,026,458 $ 65,597,688 Port of Seattle WA Issuer Diversification Seattle Muni, 9%� WA, 1%— P Kent WA, 1% First Financial - Mason & CD, 33% KitsapCnty Grant Cnty WA, 4% WA, 27% J FFCB, 9% Spokane County WA, 1% E�FHLB, 9% Northwest, 7% Cash and Investment Balances Checking, (in $ Millions) —$5.4 , 8% Bonds, $15.6, 22% State LGIP, CD's, $7.8, $21.4, 30% 11% County LGIP, $20.1, 29% 32 Packet Pg. 123 1 I 7.5.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income $1,400, 000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 917 754 $969 614 $800,000 $653,690 $600,000 335 926 $423,816 $400,000 $200,000 IU 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YTD 2020 Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months) - - 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate 2.0% — 1.8 1.5% 1.3% — 1.0% 0.8 0.5 % ♦ — 0.3% , 0.0% T I I --I January March May July September November Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return $ 8,000, 000 6.00% $7,000,000 5.00% $6,000,000 $ 5,000, 000 4.00 $4,000, 000 3.00% $3,000,000 2.00% $2,000,000 ' $1,000, 000 1.00% $- - 0.00% 0-6 Mo 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48 48-54 54-60 60-66 66-72 72-78 78-84 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo 33 Packet Pg. 124 I 7.5.a I GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND & SUBFUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 12/31 /2020 Q4 YTD 001-General Fund $ 15,552,187 $ 11,432,266 $ 13,197,574 $ 1,765,308 $ (2,354,61, 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 355,874 379,625 537,176 157,551 181,30, 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 1,782,149 1,782,149 1,782,149 - - 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 12,187 14,687 17,187 2,500 5,00( 016-Building Maintenance 210,221 210,221 210,221 - - 017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation 864,491 864,591 864,616 25 12! 018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response 223,581 223,581 123,581 (100,000) (100,00( 019 - Edmonds Opioid Response 50,000 50,000 28,445 (21,555) (21,55! Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 19,050,690 $ 14,957,121 $ 16,760,950 $ 1,803,829 $ (2,289,74( *$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field. *$7,720,000 of the fund balance in Fund 001 added to the $1,782,149 balance in Fund 012, represent the required 20% operating reserve. General Fund & Subfunds 21 � - 18 General Fund 15 $9 33 & Subfunds 12 $5.24 $7.04 General Fund c Operating Reserve = 9 ■ Civic Field 6 $7.72 $7.72 3 — $2.00 $2.00 Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Dec 2020 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 125 7.5.a GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES O GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 12/31 /2020 Q4 YTD F0 General Fund & Subfunds $ 19,050,690 $ 14,957,121 $ 16,760,950 $ 1,803,829 $ (2,289,74C a c Special Revenue 10,622,237 10,235,228 10,677,595 442,366 55,357 ii Debt Service - (0) (0) - (C Capital Projects 6,443,150 6,878,746 6,083,409 (795,337) (359,741 a� O Total Governmental Funds $ 36,116,078 $ 32,071,095 $ 33,521,954 $ 1,450,859 $ (2,594,12z CY 0 N O N L d E d d Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - � Combined L 21 40 d 0 $19.05 $36.12 O 18 35 33.52 $32.07 Q' m $16.76 General � 15 Fund & 30 v Subfunds R 25 O c2 12 c ii . t Special $10.68 Revenue 2 20 N 9 to 15 CY 6 $6.08—� iCapital 0 o Projects 10 N L d 3 5 m m Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Dec 2020 Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Dec 2020 Q. E O U c O E t U O Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 126 7.5.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE: ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2019 9/30/2020 12/31/2020 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q4 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 39,839 $ 73,859 $ 74,225 $ 366 $ 34,38E 111 -Street Fund 1,298,473 1,067,380 1,130,956 63,576 (167,517 112- Combined Street Const/Improve 1,421,769 2,127,421 2,058,018 (69,403) 636,24E 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 634,011 646,333 687,118 40,786 53,107 118 - Memorial Street Tree 19,785 20,222 20,321 100 53E 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 93,013 101,933 66,623 (35,310) (26,39C 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 86,844 98,101 107,473 9,372 20,62� 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 13,600 13,443 13,897 454 297 123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 72,101 85,168 79,127 (6,041) 7,02E 125 -Real Estate Tax 2,625,364 2,572,735 2,377,100 (195,635) (248,264 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,486,325 2,347,350 2,191,413 (155,938) (294,912 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 332,255 312,548 299,728 (12,820) (32,52-1 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 260,685 239,431 206,777 (32,654) (53,90E 136 - Parks Trust Fund 163,071 166,670 167,491 821 4,42C 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 1,053,314 1,086,243 1,095,308 9,065 41,994 138- Sister CityCommission 10,129 12,868 10,419 (2,448) 291 140 -Business Improvement Disrict 11,546 28,653 19,682 (8,971) 8,13E 141 -Affordable and Supportive Housing Fd 112 51,036 71,745 20,709 71,63: 142 - Edmonds Cares Fund - (816,165) 174 816,339 174 Total Special Revenue $ 10,622,237 $ 10,235,228 $ 10,677,595 $ 442,366 $ 55,35-1 *$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 125 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding 12 10 8 Ln c 0 6 4 Dec 2019 Special Revenue Funds ■ Special $10.04 $10.48 Revenue I Sept 2020 Dec 2020 ■ Fund 125 - Marsh Restoration Funding *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 127 I 7.5.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31/2019 9/30/2020 12/31/2020 Q4 YTD 421 -Water Utility Fund $ 23,049,550 $ 22,426,629 $ 21,890,731 $ (535,898) $ (1,158,82C 422 - Storm Utility Fund 12,607,151 10,936,388 10,358,205 (578,182) (2,248,94E 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 46,572,051 45,952,697 53,010,893 7,058,195 6,438,841 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,961 843,970 843,973 3 12 411 -Combined Utility Operation - 31,765 32,495 730 32,49E Total Enterprise Funds $ 83,072,713 $ 80,191,449 $ 86,136,296 $ 5,944,847 $ 3,063,58: *$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of December 31, 2020 60,000,000 55,000,000 $53,010,893 50,000,000 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 — 30,000,000 25,000,000 $21 890 731 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 $1 1 205 5,000,000 $32,495 $843,973 0 $250,000 $120,115 Combined Utility Water Storm Storm - Marsh Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Firemen's Restoration Funding Pension Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 37 Packet Pg. 128 7.5.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 12/31 /2020 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q4 YTD Governmental Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Services Fund Agency Funds $ 36,116,077 83,072,713 10,803,067 146,733 $ 32,071,095 80,191,449 11,538,939 139,708 $ 33,521,954 86,136,296 9,899,906 120,115 $ 1,450,859 $ (2,594,124 5,944,847 3,063,58c (1,639,033) (903,161 (19,592) (26,617 Total City-wide Total $130,138,590 $123,941,191 $129,678,271 $ 5,737,081 $ (460,31� Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of December 31, 2020 Drug Enforcement Fund _ $74,225 Street Fund Combined Street ConsUlmprove Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund $687 Memorial Street Tree Fund $20,321 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 1 $66,623 Employee Parking Permit Fund 0 $107,473 Youth Scholarship Fund $13,897 Tourism Promotional Fund/Artst72 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 Gifts Catalog FundCemetery Maintenance/ImprovementParks Trust Fund Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Sister City Commission $10,419 Business Improvement District $19,682 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund $71,745 Edmonds Cares Fund $174 Parks Capital Construction Fund $11130,956 $1,095,308 $2,058,0 1 $2,37 ,100 $2,191, 13 $- $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $4,500,000 $6,083,409 $6,000,000 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 38 Packet Pg. 129 I 7.5.a I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND i INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES o ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 12/31 /2020 Q4 YTD s 511- EquipmentRental Fund $ 10,016,269 $ 10,654,871 $ 8,890,160 $ (1,764,712) $ (1,126,11C u 512 -Technology Rental Fund 786,798 884,068 1,009,746 125,678 222,94E t Total Internal Service Funds $ 10,803,067 $ 11,538,939 $ 9,899,906 $ (1,639,033) $ (903,161 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000, 000 6,000, 000 4,000, 000 2,000, 000 786.798 Dec 2019 Internal Service Fund Balances 71 $8,890,160 $884,068 111IF1,009,746 Sept 2020 Dec 2020 ■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund i ■ 512 - Technology Rental Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 39 Packet Pg. 130 1 7.5.b GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (Preliminary) Beginning Fund Balance 6,446,380 9,359,435 9,841,718 10,273,343 11,233,278 15,552,188 Revenue Taxes 28,714,539 29,403,794 29,572,203 30,755,578 30,846,665 30,530,552 Licenses and permits 2,132,897 2,269,313 2,506,800 2,401,855 2,299,972 2,280,382 Intergovernmental 977,585 1,261,998 890,572 1,014,434 1,008,432 1,239,098 Charges for services 5,150,816 5,403,786 5,463,913 5,810,961 6,419,836 5,210,479 Fines and forfeitures 535,078 522,051 459,929 616,783 496,093 287,693 Investment earnings 70,045 (26,712) 154,739 273,226 573,806 332,096 Miscellaneous 435,414 441,432 471,675 931,495 587,882 227,242 Operating Revenues 38,016,374 39,275,661 39,519,831 41,804,331 42,232,687 40,107,541 Nonoperating Revenues Transfers in 822,175 82,695 26,300 75,884 4,793,650 1,535,800 Debt proceeds - 549,095 - - - - Sale of capital assets - 58,451 7,143 5,273 - - Insurance recoveries - - - 15,570 - 16,977 Total Revenue 38,838,549 39,965,902 39,553,274 41,901,058 47,026,337 41,660,318 Expenditures General government 8,836,333 9,969,187 9,714,867 10,288,694 11,565,563 13,082,198 Public safety 19,371,912 20,128,896 22,228,871 22,585,212 23,036,185 23,645,907 Transportation 3,600 3,600 3,600 4,779 5,012 5,430 Economic environment 1,353,548 1,313,430 1,551,152 1,460,763 1,562,702 1,675,334 Mental and physical health 69,762 70,814 126,791 178,859 164,888 357,982 Culture and recreation 3,591,029 3,773,633 3,959,731 4,331,806 4,158,397 3,735,413 Debt service 272,793 196,663 198,361 197,694 197,967 296,624 Capital outlay 92,202 56,662 90,573 93,105 110,935 9,053 Operating Expenditures 33,591,179 35,512,885 37,873,946 39,140,912 40,801,649 42,807,941 Nonoperating Expenditures Transfers out 2,334,315 3,414,141 1,247,703 1,800,212 1,905,778 1,206,990 Debt refunding - 556,593 - - - - Total Expenditures 35,925,494 39,483,619 39,121,649 40,941,124 42,707,427 44,014,931 Prior Period Adjustments - - - - - - Change in position 2,913,055 482,283 431,625 959,934 4,318,910 (2,354,613) Ending Fund Balance 9,359,435 9,841,718 10,273,343 11,233,278 15,552,188 13,197,575 r Q R:\Finance Committee\2020\Jan-Dec 2020 P&L -Revised 2/4/2021 Packet Pg. 131 7.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 ILA with City of Lynnwood for the 76th Ave Overlay Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On February 9, 2021, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and the Committee placed the item on the February 16th consent agenda. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the ILA. Narrative The Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood each own half of 76t" Ave from 196t" St SW to Olympic View Drive (OVD). The pavement condition on this street section is in poor condition and in need of an overlay. Both Cities chose to pave the road under one contract rather than two separate ones. By performing the work under one contract, the final product will be of higher quality and more cost effective for each City. In 2018, the City of Edmonds submitted a federal grant application for this project. The application included a commitment from the City of Lynnwood to pave its half of the road as part of the same project. The grant was awarded to the City of Edmonds in October of 2018 and design funds were made available in January, 2021. The proposed Interlocal Agreement will establish a cooperative relationship between the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood to complete the project. The City of Edmonds will serve as the lead agency and will be reimbursed by Lynnwood for design and construction costs. Attachments: ILA with City of Lynnwood Project Area Packet Pg. 132 7.6.a INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CITY OF EDMONDS AND CITY OF 761' AVE OVERLAY PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Edmonds, Washington ("Edmonds") and the City of Lynnwood, Washington ("Lynnwood") (individually, a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties") as of the date entered below. RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdivisions or units of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mutual advantage to provide for services and facilities; and WHEREAS, Edmonds is currently planning a capital improvement project known as the 76" Ave W Overlay Project (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Parties each own approximately half of 76' Ave W, as described on Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, Edmonds plans to overlay its half of 76t' Ave W from 196' St SW to Olympic View Drive as part of the Project (the "Edmonds Project Area"); and WHEREAS, Lynnwood wishes to overlay its half of 76t' Ave W from 196' St SW to Olympic View Drive as shown on Attachment I (the "Lynnwood Project Area"); and WHEREAS, combining both cities' overlays into one construction contract can create a mutual cost benefit by taking advantage of economy of scale; and WHEREAS, Lynnwood concurred with Edmonds' federal grant application and scope of work combining the Edmonds Project Area and Lynnwood Project Area into one project, and WHEREAS, Edmonds received the federal grant to fund a significant portion of Edmonds Project Area, and WHEREAS, Edmonds must design and construct the Project within timelines specified by the Puget Sound Regional Council and ensure grant funds are spent in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of defining their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has taken appropriate action to approve Edmonds' entry into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynnwood has taken appropriate action to approve Lynnwood's entry into this Agreement, if necessary; Packet Pg. 133 7.6.a NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, Edmonds and Lynnwood agree as follows: TERMS Section 1. Requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW. A. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a formal arrangement under which Lynnwood will pay Edmonds to incorporate overlay work on its half of 76' Ave W into the Project and to construct said work in conjunction with Edmonds' construction of the Project. The terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement shall accordingly be interpreted to advance this purpose. This Agreement further seeks to allocate and define the Parties' respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities concerning the establishment, operation and maintenance of this undertaking. B. No Separate Entity. The Parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entity is necessary to carry out this Agreement. C. Ownership of Property. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, any real or personal property used or acquired by either Party in connection with the performance of this Agreement will remain the sole property of such Party, and the other Party shall have no interest therein. D. Administrators. Each Party to this Agreement shall designate an individual ("Administrator"), which may be designated by title or position, to oversee and administer that Party's participation in this Agreement. The Parties' initial Administrators shall be: Edmonds' Administrator: City Engineer 121 5t' Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 Lynnwood's Administrator: Deputy Public Works Director 19100 44t' Avenue W. P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008 Either Party may change its Administrator at any time by delivering written notice of such Party's new Administrator to the other Party. Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon filing with the Snohomish County Auditor in accordance with Section 17 below. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall remain in effect until the sooner of the following events: (a) Lynnwood's written acceptance of and payment for Edmonds' overlay work provided to Lynnwood pursuant to this Agreement; or (b) December 31, 2023, when it shall expire automatically. The Parties may at their option renew this Agreement for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both Parties. Section 3. Termination. The terms of the federal grant providing partial funding for the Project require the scope of work in the federal grant application, which includes both the Edmonds Project Area and Lynnwood Project Area, to be fully constructed with one construction contract. The failure by Edmonds to construct the entire scope of work in the federal grant application may result in the City being required to return or pay back federal funds received for the Project. Therefore, Lynnwood agrees to remain bound by the terms of this Agreement and shall take no action without the consent of Edmonds to terminate this Agreement. In the event that Lynnwood desires to terminate this Agreement, and Edmonds consents to the terms of such termination, neither such termination nor the 2 Packet Pg. 134 expiration of this Agreement shall alter Lynnwood's payment obligations under Section 6 for services already rendered, as well as for the normal and reasonable costs incurred by the contractor in terminating and closing out Lynnwood's portion of the work, and shall not alter the Parties' respective obligations under Section 10 of this Agreement. Section 4. Obligations of Lynnwood. Lynnwood agrees to: A. Reimburse Edmonds for design, construction engineering, inspection, management and construction costs incurred in the Lynnwood Project Area. B. Provide periodic payments to Edmonds, pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement, for design, construction engineering, inspection, management and construction costs as follows: a) at the documented hours invoiced to Edmonds by its retained design consultant and construction management firm for time spent on Lynnwood Project Area, plus b) the documented hours for Edmonds' employees at the employee's direct hourly rate of pay and overhead rate for time spent on Lynnwood Project Area. C. Review the scope of work, consultant hours and fees provided by the design consultant and construction management firm retained by Edmonds. Lynnwood will coordinate all corrections, concerns and changes to the scope of work, consultant hours and fees through Edmonds Project Manager. D. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by Edmonds or its agents regarding the Project work. E. Provide timely review of designs prepared by Edmonds' consultant, and complete final design approval by the timelines established by Edmonds to meet its construction bidding schedule. F. Obtain Bid Award Concurrence from the Lynnwood City Council within twenty-one (21) days of the bid opening. G. Attend Edmonds' weekly construction coordination meetings. H. Coordinate all corrections, concerns, issues, changes and contractor correspondence through the Edmonds Project Manager. Section 5. Obligations of Edmonds. Edmonds agrees to: A. Incorporate the overlay of Lynnwood's Project Area into Project documents. B. Assume full responsibility for the design and construction of the Project, including the portion of the Project constructed in the Lynnwood Project Area, and including but not limited to securing all necessary consultants, contractors and subcontractors, awarding a bid for the Project, processing any and all change orders, conducting inspections, and obtaining all permits required for the Project work. The Project, including the portion of the Project constructed in the Lynnwood Project Area, shall be performed and constructed in accordance with all state and local laws, regulations, policies, and standards. All construction contracts shall be procured through a formal competitive bidding process consistent with applicable state law. Edmonds shall be solely and exclusively responsible for ensuring the compliance of the Project's bidding process with all applicable requirements of state and local laws and regulations. 3 Packet Pg. 135 7.6.a C. Submit to Lynnwood for review the scope of work, consultant hours and fees provided by the design consultant and construction management firm retained by Edmonds. Edmonds will obtain Lynnwood's concurrence on the design and construction management contracts prior to work being performed under either contract. D. Submit plans, specifications, and estimates to Lynnwood for review and approval prior to granting permission to advertise for construction bids. Lynnwood's concurrence with these documents will be obtained prior to advertisement. E. Respond promptly to information request submitted by Lynnwood or its agents regarding the Project work. F. Provide Lynnwood personnel reasonable access to the Project's construction area for purposes of inspecting and monitoring the progress of the work. G. Submit to Lynnwood written invoices for payment in accordance with Section 6. Include copies of invoices from consultants and contractor, clearly indicating the Lynnwood portion of the invoices. Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and payment schedule: A. For design costs, construction contract costs, and construction engineering, inspection, and management costs incurred by Edmonds for the portion of the Project constructed in the Lynnwood Project Area, Edmonds shall within sixty (60) days of its receipt of invoices for said costs submit an invoice to Lynnwood for its share of said costs. Said invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed explanation of the methodology utilized by Edmonds in calculating the Lynnwood share of each expense. Construction contracts shall provide for separate bid schedules, or other means to clearly identify the Lynnwood portion of the project costs. Design contracts and consultant invoices shall identify all tasks and design work performed associated with Lynnwood Project Area. B. Within thirty (30) days of receiving any undisputed invoice pursuant to subsection 6.A, Lynnwood shall tender payment to Edmonds in the form of a check, money order or other certified funds for the invoiced amount for work approved by Lynnwood, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. C. In the event that the Parties disagree regarding Lynnwood's share of any cost incurred by Edmonds regarding the Project, the Parties may agree to submit the question for resolution by a mediator or arbitrator acceptable to both Parties. Section 7. Construction Claims and Disputes. If construction claims for additional payment are made by the construction contractor and/or disputes result regarding work in the Lynnwood Project Area, Edmonds shall endeavor to resolve the claims/disputes. Provided however, Edmonds shall obtain Lynnwood approval prior to resolving the claims/disputes. Lynnwood will participate in resolving claims/disputes as necessary. Financial responsibility for approved construction claims/disputes arising from the Lynnwood Project Area shall be the sole responsibility of Lynnwood. 4 Packet Pg. 136 7.6.a Section 8. Construction Project Acceptance. Upon satisfactory completion of Lynnwood Project Area, resolution of all claims for additional payment, completion of all contract closeout documents and agreement between Edmonds and the contractor, Edmonds shall recommend final acceptance to the Lynnwood Deputy Public Works Director. Approval by the Lynnwood City Council shall be the responsibility of Lynnwood staff. Section 9. Ownership and Disposition of Property. The Project work within the Lynnwood Project Area pursuant to this Agreement shall become and remain the exclusive property of Lynnwood upon completion. All other work constructed under the Project shall become and remain the exclusive property of Edmonds upon completion. Each Party is and will remain responsible for the operation and maintenance of its portion of 76t' Ave W. Section 10. Release, Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. A. Each Party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, and those of its own agents, employees, representatives, contractors or subcontractors, to the fullest extent required by the laws of the State of Washington. Each Party agrees to protect, indemnify and save the other Party harmless from and against any and all such liability for injury or damage to the other Party or the other Party's property, and also from and against all claims, demands and causes of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by its own fault or that of its agents, employees, representatives, contractors or subcontractors. B. Edmonds specifically promises to indemnify Lynnwood against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its own employees, contractors or subcontractors, and waives any immunity that Edmonds may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify Lynnwood. Lynnwood specifically promises to indemnify Edmonds against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its own employees, contractors or subcontractors, and waives any immunity that Lynnwood may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify Edmonds. Section 11. Insurance. Each Party shall maintain its own insurance and/or self-insurance for its liabilities from damage to property and/or injuries to persons arising out of its activities associated with this Agreement as it deems reasonably appropriate and prudent. The maintenance of, or lack thereof of insurance and/or self-insurance shall not limit the liability of the indemnifying Party to the indemnified Party. Section 12. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court. Section 13. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between Lynnwood and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of Edmonds, or between Edmonds and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of Lynnwood. 5 Packet Pg. 137 7.6.a Section 14. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is intended for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties hereto and no third party rights are created by this Agreement. Section 15. Notices. All notices that are given by any Party pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in -person, by United States mail, or by electronic mail (email) to the applicable Administrator designated by the Party under Section ED above. Notice delivered in person shall be deemed given when accepted by the recipient. Notice by United States mail shall be deemed given as of the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the Administrator, at the addresses set forth in Section LD above. Notice delivered by email shall be deemed given as of the date and time sent; provided that: (1) the sender does not receive any failure of delivery notice; and (2) any notice by email sent on a day other than a business day shall be deemed effective on the first business day after being sent. Section 16. Dispute Resolution. A. Settlement Meetiniz. It is the Parties' intent to work cooperatively and to resolve disputes in an efficient and cost-effective manner. If any dispute arises between the Parties relating to this Agreement, then the Parties' respective Administrators, or the Administrators' designees, shall meet and seek to resolve the dispute, in good faith, within ten business (10) days after a Party's request for such a meeting. In addition to the Administrators or designees, each Party shall send any other persons with technical or other information relating to the dispute to the meeting. B. Mediation. If the Parties cannot resolve the issue within ten (10) days then they shall mediate the matter using a mediator from Judicial Dispute Resolution, LLC or any other mediation service mutually agreed to by the Parties, or as appointed by the court if the Parties cannot agree (collectively "JDR") within seven (7) days of their failure to agree pursuant to Section 14.A above. The Parties shall evenly split any fees charged by JDR, regardless of the outcome of the mediation. Each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees in connection with the mediation. C. Notice of Default. If the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute through mediation, either Party may serve a written Notice of Default on the other Party. The Notice of Default shall describe the nature of the dispute and the noticing Party's requested resolution. Twenty (20) business days after service of a Notice of Default, either Party may file suit, seek any available legal remedy, or agree to alternative dispute resolution methods. At all times prior to resolution of the dispute, the Parties shall continue to perform any undisputed obligations and make any undisputed required payments under this Agreement in the same manner and under the same terms as existed prior to the dispute. Section 17. Duty to File Agreement with County Auditor. Edmonds shall, after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, file this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor. Section 18. Integration/Modification. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the Agreement between the Parties and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this Agreement, shall be implemented as described above. This Agreement may only be modified or amended by a written amendment executed by the Parties. 11 Packet Pg. 138 Section 19. Non -Waiver. Waiver by any Party of any of the provisions contained within this Agreement, including but not limited to any performance deadline, shall not be construed as a waiver of any other provision. DATED this day of , 2021. CITY OF LYNNWOOD CITY OF EDMONDS NICOLA SMITH, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Karen Fitzthum, Acting City Clerk Approved as to form only: City of Lynnwood, Office of the City Attorney LIN MIKE NELSON, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk Approved as to form only: City of Edmonds, Office of the City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 139 ATTACHMENT 1 - LYNNWOOD PROJECT AREA7.6.b-] ZIT. SEE DETAILA 44 y l a Aft , 1 yry 7s 1 lip EDMONDS lot , r� -aa. , _ •. is SEE DETAIL B 77 Packet Pg. 140 7.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Authorization of a Pedestrian/Utility Easement along 80th Ave W adjacent to 18227 80th Ave W Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On February 9, 2021, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and the Committee placed the item on the February 16th consent agenda. Staff Recommendation Approve the easement. Narrative The City of Edmonds is currently reviewing a proposed development project, ClearVision 2 Lot Subdivision, which includes an easement 23-ft in length along a portion of the property frontage. The easement will allow for construction of a 5 ft sidewalk around a mailbox cluster as well as installation of a public fire hydrant to meet development code requirements. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Pedestrian Utility Easement Detail Attachment 2 - Final Short Plat Docs-Draft Attachment 3 - Vicinity Map Packet Pg. 141 7.7.a 0+0 Mailbox Cluster Proposed pedesi ian and utility easement_ 4,41 fi x 23,75 f1 To provide a five foot width sidewalk around tlLe maillxax cluster and for the insiallation of the fire hydrant required by code. i�J��JJ JJJJ ��11�JJ�JJ !�77r J � Fits F1ydr.uu F 23.75 ft I 4.41 ft 4 I r_ Q Packet Pg. 142 7.7.b CITY APPROVALS: SNOHOMISH-COUNTY TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE AUDITORS FILE NO. VOL./PAGE CITY OF EDMONDS THE SUBJECT FINAL PLAT CONFORMS TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ALL HERE CERTIFY THAT ALL STATE AND COUNTY TAXES HERETOFORE LEVIED PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT CONDITIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING (i BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION AGAINST THIS PROPERTY DESCRIBED HERE. ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS AND FI LE N 0.: PLN 20170059 RECORDS OF MY OFFICE, HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND DISCHARGED, INCLUDING BY: DAY OF __________________, 2017 2017 TAXES. SCALE: 1 INCH = FT. THE SURVEY DATE, LAYOUT OF STREET, ALLEYS AND OTHER RIGHTS -OF -WAY, DESIGN OF BRIDGES, SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEM AND OTHER STRUCTURES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------- 0 PORTION OF DECLARATION AREA APPROVED, AND THE SUBJECT FINAL PLAT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY TREASURER, SNOHOMISH COUNTY DEPUTY TREASURER, SNOHOMISH COUNTY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION NE 1 /4 OF NE1 /4, S.18 T.27N. R.4E. KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS: BY:------------------ DAY OF-------------------,2017 THAT THE PHONG LE, OWNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY DOES HEREBY DECLARE AND DEDICATE THIS SHORT PLAT, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON UNDER THE CITY T AND THE ___ DAY OF _______, FREE DES FILE CC PLN-___= ____ AS THEIR FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SURVEY INFORMATION THEIR DESIRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS ______ DAY OF TRACT 14, BLOCK 1, ADMIRALTY ACRES , ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF _________, 2017 RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT: COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LOT 1: OWNERS, AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY PRESENT OR SUBSEQUENT SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. THAT PORTION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALTY ACRES, ACCORDING OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THESE LANDS, AND THE SUCCESSORS AND TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF PHONG LE DATE ASSIGNS OF OWNERS OR OTHER PARTIES HAVING AND SAID INTEREST, TOGETHER WITH THOSE CERTAIN EASEMENT RIGHTS AS SET FORTH IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED HEREBY AGREE THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2062589 OVER AND LINE: IN ALL RESPECTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OF DAMAGES FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIED WHICH MAY BE OCCASIONED NOW OR IN THE ACROSS LOT 15, BLOCK 1, ADMIRALTY ACRES. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; FUTURE TO ADJACENT LAND OR IMPROVEMENTS BY REASON OF THE BASIS OF BEARING NAD83 91 ( THENCE SOUTH 89'41'23" EAST, 143.29 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14 CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DRAINAGE ( )) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SYSTEM, AND HEREBY WAIVE AND RELEASE THE CITY OF EDMONDS NAD83(91) DATUM WAS DERIVED FROM A LINE BETWEEN 2 FOUND WSDOT BRASS THENCE NORTH 00'24'42" EAST, 129.99 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 14 AND FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES, EXCLUDING DAMAGE CAUSED DISK MONUMENTS KNOWN AS SNOHOMISH COUNTY POINT DESIGNATION THE POINT OF TERMINUS; SOLELY BY AN ACT OR OMISSION OF SAID CITY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF GP31524-78 AND GP31524-77. BEARING BETWEEN THESE TWO MONUMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHICH THE OWNERS, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, MAY WAS TAKEN AS NORTH 88°33'33" WEST THEMSELVES HAVE NOW OR IN THE FUTURE BY REASON OF THE LOT 2: STATE OF WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID DRAINAGE VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD88) THAT PORTION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALTY ACRES, ACCORDING COUNTY OF SYSTEM. NAVD88 DATUM IS PER NETWORK RTK OBSERVATIONS HOLDING THE PUBLISHED TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF ELEVATION OF A FOUND 3" WSDOT MONUMENT KNOWN AS SNOHOMISH COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: LINE: I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT PHONG LE. IS THE PERSON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE MET AND CAN BE FOUND IN THE CONTROL POINT GP31524-77 AND HELD AS NAVD88 ELEVATION 414.43' WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME, AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE SIGNED THIS FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE SHORT SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN FIL COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO BE HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT FOR THE USES PLN_____________ ION THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING ELEVATION WAS CHECKED TO THE PUBLISHED POSITION OF GP31524-78 WITH A THENCE SOUTH 89'41'23" EAST, 143.29 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14 AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED THIS DAY OF__________, DEPARTMENT. CLOSURE OF 0.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ____ THENCE NORTH 00'24'42" EAST, 129.99 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 14 AND 2017. TAX PARCEL NUMBER THE POINT OF TERMINUS; 00370800101400 ADDRESS (APPROXIMATE) SIGNATURE OF 18227 80TH AVE WEST, EDMONDS, WA 98026 NOTARY PUBLIC SITE AREA DATED 37,191 t S.F. (0.85 t AC.) SHORT PLAT NOTES MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES NOTES 1. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ALL LOTS OF THIS SHORT PLAT ARE SUBJECT 1. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FOOT, TO, AND MUST COMPLY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF GEO-TECHNICAL GROUND DISTANCES REPORT SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS SHORT PLAT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 2. NEXTITLE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT NO. NXWA-0161415, WAS 2. 15' ACCESS EASEMENT OVER LOT 1 OF THIS SHORT PLAT IS HEREBY RELIED UPON FOR TITLE INFORMATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THERE ARE NO CREATED AND SHALL BE CONVEYED FOR THE NON-EXCLUSIVE USE AND PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS OF RECORD. BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS OF LOT 2 OF THIS SHORT PLAT, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS 3. UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON SURFACE OBSERVATIONS AND TO SAID LOT 2. MAINTENANCE OF THIS ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE BORE MARKINGS FROM A UTILITY LOCATE SERVICE. THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND EQUALLY BETWEEN OWNERS OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THIS SHORT PLAT, UTILITIES SHOULD BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. PROCEDURE / NARRATIVE: 3. 10' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT OVER LOT 2 OF THIS SHORT PLAT IS NOTARY SEAL A FIELD TRAVERSE USING A FOCUS 30 ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION AND A SPECTRA HEREBY CREATED AND SHALL BE CONVEYED FOR THE NON-EXCLUSIVE PRECISION RANGER 3 DATA COLLECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WITH FIELD NOTES AND USE AND BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS OF LOT 1 OF THIS SHORT PLAT, TOPCON GR3 NETWORK RTK GPS ROVER, WAS PERFORMED, ESTABLISHING THE THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANGULAR, DISTANCE, AND VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS, INSTALLATION, RELOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY SEWER PROPERTY LINES AND IMPROVEMENTS. THE RESULTING DATA MEETS OR EXCEEDS UTILITIES. MAINTENANCE COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SAID SANITARY QUARTER SECTION VICINITY MAP THE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH IN WAC SEWER UTILITIES SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY BY THE OWNERS BENEFITING 332-130-090. FROM SAID FACILITIES. SECTION 18 REFERENCE SURVEYS 4. 26' UTILITIES EASEMENT OVER LOT 1 OF THIS SHORT PLAT IS HEREBY CREATED AND SHALL BE CONVEYED FOR THE NON-EXCLUSIVE USE AND 1. PLAT SEAVIEW FIRS 2, AFN. 8404305001 BENEFIT OF OWNERS OF LOT 2 OF THIS SHORT PLAT, THEIR HEIRS, 2. PLAT OF ADMIRALTY ACRES, VOL. 12, PAGES 48 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILITY INSTALLATION, RELOCATION AND MAINTENANCE. MAINTENANCE COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES LOT AREA OF SAID UTILITIES SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY BY THE OWNERS LOT 1= 18,555 SQ. FT.t BENEFITING FROM SAID FACILITIES. ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT ON LOT 1 = 2,134 SQ. FT.f LOT 1= 16,421 SQ. FT.t (NET LOT AREA) 5. 4.4' X 23.75' PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND UTILITY EASEMENT IS HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR THE NON-EXCLUSIVE USE AND LOT 2= 18,636 SQ. FT.t BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC FOR SIDEWALK AND UTILITY PURPOSES. NATIVE VEGETATION AREA 18 REQUIRED 30% GROSS PARENT PARCEL = 11,157 SQ. FT. DEPICTED HEREON 11,157 SQ. FT. AREA = ZONING INFORMATION PER CITY OF EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE INDEX ZONE: RS12 MINIMUM LOT SIZE=12,000SF. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 80' 1. NOTES AND SIGNATURES MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 35% 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH SHORT PLAT OVERLAY MINIMUM PARKING STALLS = 2 3. SHORT PLAT LAYOUT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK =10' MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK =25' MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK =25' w CD NOTE: SETBACK INFORMATION SHOWN OF SHEET 2, IS PER CITY OF EDMONDS Q CL MUNICIPAL CODE 16.20.030. J O > AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE: LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE LANKTREE CLEAR VISION HOMES �SWAS11 �JO 18227 80TH AVE WEST, EDMONDS, WA 98026 FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF TREVOR S. LANKTREE, THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR LAND SURVEYING, INC. �� s THIS DAY OF 2017 AT MINUTES PAST UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF � O'CLOCK AND RECORDED IN VOLUME OF SHORT PLATS, THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE REQUEST OF CLEAR VISION L 25510 74TH AVENUE SOUTH DWN. BY DATE JOB NO. ___.M. PAGES_____, INCLUSIVE, AND RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE N0. HOMES THI 27TH OF TOBER, 2014. � KENT, WA 98032 �^ c�, FJ �'F45789% _______________- RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON :DAY PHONE: (253) 653-6423 �J sioNq �� TL/BGM 4/01/19 1415 - 04/01/2019 C L A�O _____ TREVOR S. LANKTREE, P.L.S. FAX: (253) 793-1616 DATE CHKD. BY SCALE SHEET AUDITOR DEPUTY AUDITOR CERTIFICATE NO. 45789 WWW.LANKTREELANDSURVEYING.COM SIGNED 04/01/2019 TSL N/A 1 OF 3 d Q 0 00 vm c 0 c CD m N R w r c N CD m a 0 c O r r c m N L d N V O 0 R d 0 t N c U- N c m E t u R Q c (D E t v 2 Q Packet Pg. 143 7.7.b ko I10 I CITY OF EDMONDS PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT FILE NO.: P LN 20170059 FND 2" BRASS W/X LS# 4561 DOWN 0.7' IN CASE 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1'=20' co w 0 0 z FND 2" BRASS W/X --j a S89'41'23"E 334.52' 182ND PLACE SW DOWN 0.8' IN CASE 0.03' EAST OF CENTERLINE 14 I OWNER: ARNE GOEDECKE WATER \I APN.:00370800101500 METER c--------�-----------�-------------------------- 4"X4" POSTS- ___— FND 1"IIP M qM 0��Q IN89'41'23 0 0., - OF CORNER 30.00' JUN ION BOX f ASPHALT DRIVEWAY _ L ------------- ----- S89'41'23"E 285.44'------- -� �- ---- FND 2" BRASS W/X LS# 4561 DOWN 0.2' IN CASE RECORDING NO. I VOL./PAGE SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FT. 0 20 'e: •► •Ili NE 1 /4 OF NE1 /4, S.18 T.27N. R.4E. CONIFEROUS TREE °\ DECIDUOUS TREE MAP MAPLE TREE CHE CHERRY TREE ALD ALDER TREE HEM HEMLOCK TREE FIR FIR TREE CED CEDAR TREE CHES CHESTNUT TREE NVA NATIVE VEGETATION AREA LEGEND JUNCTION BOX (AS NOTED) UTILITY POLE YARD LIGHT POWER METER WATER METER WATER BLOW -OFF / AIR VAC SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (SSMH) SURVEY MONUMENT (AS NOTED) MAILBOX GAS METER PROPERTY CORNER (AS NOTED) SET REBAR/CAP LS#45789 FENCE POST ASPHALT CONCRETE WOOD FENCE HOGWIRE FENCE BUILDING LINE SSCO 12" LID RIM 315.09' FND 5/8" R/C I 8"IE E_ .78' LS# ILLEGIBLE 8"IE N= 3055\6' \ ON-LINE I S89'41'23"E 143.25' 142.20 POWER POLE AREA \ \ \ 20" 6' WOOD FENCE \ 10"MAP W/LUMINAIRE & AAILBO LIGHT SPLIT -RAIL \ ~\ ° FIR \ ° \ / 0 1 \ / / ao \ \ SS \ �� \ / ✓ 8"MAP o/ ROCK WALL TRAN_S_FORMERI WATER FENCE \ \ ��o \ / / 1 / C—� �J' _ \—\ METER 1 to 18" / / C 00 \ \ \ HEM \ M 3 �\ 12"ALD 0 6 ------------ \�A \ 20° 1 28"MAP\ \ i ------------------------- \ POWER \ FIR 1 1 \ — — — — \ tl O" \ < B oLD WILD METER G� \ 'I METER \ LD � \ U) \ "-D n 83.2' �i' c, I 10\ \ I s ALD \�� 1LOT 1 4.0' PATIO TO REMAIN N o �\\ \ CI) \ MAX LOT CO GE'I o 1 N N '� 1 ° 12"A WATER o W 35% �t (M M LOT 2 \ 12"&10" / FND 1/2" R/C METER o SPLIT -RAIL \ I I N \ \ \ ALD > / LS# ILLEGIBLE 't2i I FENCE �336— /) w \ MAX LOT COVERAGE 10"MAP 1 n w i ^+� o N \ \ \ 14 35% o ° 10 "AL I / ON-LINE uJ 3o EXISTING HOUSE �. I o� �24"FIR C> ( q p\ V LD \ I I I z ry I o / STAIRS \� (18227 80TH AVE W z I v w /\ J N oN o T »ALD LcyQ ro EDMONDS, WA 98026) �i wo X F \ o z w o w 1I1 ,ALD 0 ° VA ^ o = IIIEME,\ \✓ \ o m D �o I Q o \12 ALW \ / 14"ALD 14'ALD �� 00 w o � D CD _ _ _ _ME / 11 M 37 • 26"FIR o I( I. o o \ 10"ALD(2) / 0 10"MAP / o w rn co P D Y '1 Q w I to cv o I/ \ o o 14"ALD a I o NVA % o I I 18"CED \ \ G 0 18 ALQ I o \ / / o o z / . o y GAS I I \ "ALD ---- W WATER / v / METER \ \° \ 8"MAP �� L \ z a METER > 24" IR / 25.0' 1 \ \ \ \I 15.0' ° 00 ° — — —1\L� I \ SLOPE BUFFER 10"ALD J I 1 Z i _ J ASPHALT DRIVEWAY o _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ \ _I _\ _ �a �� _ _ _ _ _ J \ \ I I \ I I o z \ I (TO BE REMOVED) I 0"HO 18 ALD w I l ---------------- I ° I / ^o------------------------------�� r7 `o � � \, \J / � 28'HEM o a w / I B/OATER BOX ° // -� I 1 \N z 12"CHES ° 20"FIR I �'-'„ z FND 1/2" R/C JL cn SPLIT -RAIL \ \ \ o LS# ILLEGIBLE _ / - --� U' FENCE 1 \ tl"CHEAT CORNEfj/5' WOOD FENCE MAILS 143.29' SSMH — _ �• ••- � � 143.48 RIM= 342.80' I S8 '41'23 - GRAVEL I 8" PVC N&S 30.00' PARKING AREA CENTER OF _ CHANNEL=328.08; ° __-\ ---- ------ -- /—//T%7/Tr/T7T//Tl CHAIOWNER: ARMAUNI BARSAMIAN NLINK FENCE ° DECK APN.:00370800101300 CD EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING CONDITIONS W/SHORT PLAT OVERLAY .ANKTREE .AND SURVEYING, INC 25510 74TH AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 PHONE: (253) 653-6423 FAX: (253) 793-1616 WWW.LANKTREELANDSURVEYING.COM F 45789 % `�sio F�l STERN S�� Nq ( L A�0 DSIG ED 04/01 /2019 Q� j -7'_ /7't / 20.0' Q SLOPE BUFFER pF j ° CLEAR VISION HOMES 18227 80TH AVE WEST, EDMONDS, WA 98026 DWN. BY DATE JOB NO. TL/B GM 1 4/01 /19 1 1415 CHKD. BY TSL I SCALE 1 "=20' I SHEET 2 OF 3 Packet Pg. 144 7.7.b I10 ko CITY OF EDMONDS PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT FILE NO.: P LN 20170059 15.0' ACCESS EASEMENT (SEE SHORT PLAT NOTE 3 4.5' PAGE 1 OF 3) j •� 142.20' 0 0 6.5' S89'41'23"E 142.42' E4.4'x23.75' 1 T-- _ — — — PUBLIC SIDEWALK 1O'B.S.B.L. AND UTILITY EASEMENT (SEE SHORT PLAT NOTE 5 PAGE 1 OF 3) OWNER: ARNE GOEDECKE APN.:00370800101500 26.0' UTILITIES EASEMENT (SEE SHORT PLAT NOTE 5 PAGE 1 OF 3) S89'41'23"E 285.44' Cu 0!^, O "' N I W m Uj I 0 10 20 40 M I m LOT 1Lo I o I 18,555 SQ. FT.t (GROSS) SCALE: 1"=20' Z S89'06'14"E 16,421 SQ. FT.t (NET) I J / 37.00_ m vi �1 1 0 37.0' I C I NVA in N I �N o I L— S89'41'23"E 106.08' LI; _ _ I _ _ � o ¢ I — — — — — 10'B.S_B.L. 143.29' LEGEND CONIFEROUS TREE ® JUNCTION BOX (AS NOTED) o DECIDUOUS TREE -0- UTILITY POLE YARD LIGHT • POWER METER ® WATER METER MAP MAPLE TREE T WATER BLOW -OFF / AIR VAC CHE CHERRY TREE 0 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (SSMH) ALD ALDER TREE SURVEY MONUMENT (AS NOTED) HEM HEMLOCK TREE o MAILBOX FIR FIR TREE GAS METER CED CEDAR TREE PROPERTY CORNER (AS NOTED) CHES CHESTNUT TREE • SET REBAR/CAP LS#45789 NVA NATIVE VEGETATION AREA FENCE POST WOOD FENCE HOGWIRE FENCE BUILDING LINE 0 0 ui 0 0 Lri 10.0' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SEE SHORT PLAT NOTE 4 PAGE 1 OF 3) 143.25' RECORDING NO. SCALE: illoplyffollikirsTo VOL./PAGE 1 INCH = 20 FT. 0 20 NE 1 /4 OF NE1 /4, S.18 T.27N. R.4E. 0 I O'B.S.B.L. — — — — — — — — — — — 31.89-7 I � I I � I I � I I � rn rnl I. J J m N f'7 m O LOT 2 " I � o I� 18,636 SQ. FT.t (GROSS) N o, 18,636 SQ. FT.f (NET) of00 r- o 31.9, NV S48' 17'00"W 5.01' 1 / 15.0' S89'41'23"E 107.82' F F F F F F —� SLOPE BUFFER B.S.B.L. S89'41'23"E 286.77' .ANKTREE .AND SURVEYING, INC 25510 74TH AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 PHONE: (253) 653-6423 FAX: (253) 793-1616 WWW.LANKTREELANDSURVEYING.COM 143.48' 20.0' SLOPE BUFFER / W AS11 C�� s F 45789 % �J/0 F�l STERN Nq ( L A�0 DSIG ED 04/01 /2019 SHORT PLAT LAYOUT CLEARA VISIONVE WEST, QN HOMES DWN. BY DATE JOB NO. TL/B GM 4/1 /2019 CHKD. BY I SCALE I SHEET TSL 1 "=20' 1415 3OF3 Packet Pg. 145 7.7c " City of Edmonds ClearVision Short Plat Ba�A err o^� � m ' m T111 08811 18225� �1 83321 1832�80 80M 1 � 1 1s1� 18203 n 1821 1 2 w 183 65 18314 0 1B 18408 7531� t I all ■ r � M 18205 r 5 1 ■ 18209 182 . 18 182 Grp F`�r low ■ n i ti l0 75 ■ ,y� f 7605 FJ � 184% 1 7687 801 184180 7f.01 1 9� \ 7536 7526 1641 18426 7533 18421 18432 18All � NN�Nps. 7517 18508 n 1850 18512� 50 n n n 0LYMPIC VIEW ❑R m m �. 18510 ■ 7530 1 ■ 18530 -•;7L r 12 o r: 18596 , 18521 ■■�� Lit 1650� 1:3,031 1 185�f ■ 1118� ' B 118401 l .^ !—� 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is 4,514 P B P PP B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accun WGS 1984 Web Mercator_Auxiliary-Sphere current, or otherwise relial © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTII Legend Notes f a a 1 � ..,......i• �ounuak s lr�.�aLa C a Packet Pg. 146 7.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Repealing Resolution 1306 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History In 2020, the City Council formed a subcommittee to review an updated code of conduct specific to the Council. After review at numerous Council meetings, on 1/26/21 Council voted to approve a new Code of Conduct for Council. The drafted resolution removes language referring to Councilmembers. No other language changes were made. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to repeal 1306 and implement a separate code of conduct for the mayor, and members of city boards, commissions, committees, and work groups. Two versions are attached, a red- line showing the changes and a final clean copy. Attachments: Resolution 1306 Repeal Redline Resolution 1306 Repeal Packet Pg. 147 7.8.a RESOLUTION NO: 1467 1306 A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL REPEALING RESOLUTION 1306 AND IMPLEMENTING A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE MAYOR, CO iNGI MEMBERS AND ALL MEMBERS OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, OR WORK GROUPS. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that City business should be conducted publicly, in an atmosphere of respect and civility; and WHEREAS, the City Council has recently adopted its own Code of Conduct; and WHEREAS, the new City Council Code of Conduct makes the references to the City Council in Resolution 1306 unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, R€ ITTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES9 AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Resolution 1306 is repealed. Section 2: The following Code of Conduct is adopted and shall apply to the Mayor, Gity r,,,,.,,.&Re begs and members of all City Boards, Commissions, or work groups. In the course of their duties, all group leaders will: 1) provide all members a fair opportunity to participate, 2) not permit any member to dominate proceedings or intimidate other members, and 3) not permit any disrespectful behavior toward participants. In the course of their duties, all participants, including leaders, will: 1) respect the individual talents and contributions of others, 2) avoid offensive comments and behavior, 3) avoid intimidating comments and behavior, 4) listen courteously and attentively, 5) conduct public business in an open and transparent manner, 6) assist leaders in ensuring fair treatment of all members, and 7) assist leaders in controlling disrespectful or intimidating behavior. When speaking officially, all leaders and members will respectfully convey the position of their group. When speaking personally, all leaders and members will disclose that their comments are their own, and not made as a representative of their group. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adept&4-RESOLVED this da of Februar 202 . December, 204, DAME) O. EARLING, MAYOR Packet Pg. 148 7.8.a ATTEST! -NTICA CITY K, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 6, 2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2013 RESOLUTION NO: 1306 Packet Pg. 149 7.8.b RESOLUTION NO: 1467 A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL REPEALING RESOLUTION 1306 AND IMPLEMENTING A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE MAYOR, AND ALL MEMBERS OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, OR WORK GROUPS. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that City business should be conducted publicly, in an atmosphere of respect and civility; and WHEREAS, the City Council has recently adopted its own Code of Conduct; and WHEREAS, the new City Council Code of Conduct makes the references to the City Council in Resolution 1306 unnecessary; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Resolution 1306 is repealed. Section 2: The following Code of Conduct is adopted and shall apply to the Mayor, and members of all City Boards, Commissions, or work groups. In the course of their duties, all group leaders will: 1) provide all members a fair opportunity to participate, 2) not permit any member to dominate proceedings or intimidate other members, and 3) not permit any disrespectful behavior toward participants. In the course of their duties, all participants, including leaders, will: 1) respect the individual talents and contributions of others, 2) avoid offensive comments and behavior, 3) avoid intimidating comments and behavior, 4) listen courteously and attentively, 5) conduct public business in an open and transparent manner, 6) assist leaders in ensuring fair treatment of all members, and 7) assist leaders in controlling disrespectful or intimidating behavior. When speaking officially, all leaders and members will respectfully convey the position of their group. When speaking personally, all leaders and members will disclose that their comments are their own, and not made as a representative of their group. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RESOLVED this _16th_ day of February 2021. ATTEST/ NTICA CITY C K, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 150 7.8.b FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO: 1467 Packet Pg. 151 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The Planning Board has been reviewing draft tree regulations since September 2020, specifically at the September 9, October 14, October 28, November 12, and November 18 Planning Board meetings. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree regulations on December 9, 2020 and completed its review on January 13, 2021 with a recommendation to the City Council, as reflected by Attachment 1. Minutes from all the Planning Board meetings where the tree code was discussed are provided in Attachment 4. The City Council received an introduction to the draft tree regulations at the January 26, 2021 Council meeting and held a public hearing on February 2, 2021. Staff Recommendation Concur on tree topics for action (see attachment 6, matrix). Identify any changes to be made to the draft regulations before it is brought back to the Council as a draft ordinance. Introduction In 2019, the City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which contained five (5) overall goals, along with more specific policy guidance for tree retention. (See Attachment 2 for UFMP). Goal 1 of the UFMP is to: Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage. It included the following actions to achieve the 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 protecting and planting trees on private property. It included the Packet Pg. 152 8.1 following action: A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds In 2020, a code update process started to begin implementing these goals of the UFMP. On September 1, 2020, staff presented to the City Council an outline of topics and possible concepts that will be explored during this update of the City's tree related regulations (see Attachment 3). These broad topics included: 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 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 Urban Forest Management Plan and Additional Tree Measures This update of tree regulations is an early step in implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan. The primary focus of these regulations is to develop requirements that will result in more trees being retained when properties are developed and requiring replanting for the trees that are removed. These regulations are not intended, by themselves, to implement every goal identified in the UFMP and single-handedly achieve no net loss of tree canopy within the City of Edmonds. More actions by the City will be needed to implement the UFMP goals and achieve greater protection/enhancement of the environment. However, not everything can be done all at once. In forwarding its recommendation, the Planning Board recognized that additional tree -related code amendments may follow. The Planning Board minutes (Attachment 4) include other recommendations for the City Council's consideration beyond the tree regulations recommended in Attachment 1. While recognizing the current round of tree code updates was focused on tree retention with development, the Planning Board also wanted to acknowledge the public comments received during the Planning Board's review (Attachment 5), particularly regarding tree removal on already developed property and view -related issues. City Council members have also expressed a desire to expand the scope of the tree regulations and explore other actions that can help the city achieve the goal of no net loss of canopy coverage and also providing net ecological gain. Following the February 2nd public hearing, the City Council requested staff to identify other tree -related measures or actions and a timeline for implementing them. Staff has identified a number of additional tree -related actions the City could take next (and some that are already in progress) along with a potential timeline and resources required for each action. Two tables with these actions are provided. Attachment 6 provides a high-level overview while Attachment 7 provides more detail. Draft Tree Regulations The primary focus of the current tree regulations update is to retain more trees when properties are Packet Pg. 153 8.1 developed and to require replanting for trees that are removed. The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree regulations since October, including a public hearing on December 9, 2020, and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council following the January 13t" Planning Board meeting. Attachment 1 represents the Planning Board's current recommended tree -related regulations. These draft tree regulations include: New Chapter 23.10 ECDC which addresses exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention requirements, tree replacement requirements, tree protection measures, and violations. New Section within the subdivision Chapter 20.75 ECDC for conservation subdivision design, which implements low impact development principles to aid in the preservation of more trees when a site is subdivided. New Chapter 3.95 ECC, which establishes the City of Edmonds Tree Fund. Some highlights of the draft tree regulations include: Single family properties that are already developed and not capable of being subdivided remain exempt from the tree regulations, unless the property contains critical areas Tree retention requirements for new development. The retentions requirements apply to (ECDC 23.10.060): o Short subdivision and subdivision application o New multi -family development o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of an existing single-family house o Tree removal not exempted by the tree regulations (ECDC 23.10.040) Retention and Replacement Requirements o New development must retain 30% of significant trees on site (ECDC 23.10.060.C) o Replacement is required for every significant tree that is removed (ECDC 23.10.080) o A fee -in -lieu program established if site will not support required replacement tree at a cost of $1,000 per tree (ECDC 23.10.080.E) Flexibility is proposed for subdivision design to aid in the retention of trees during development (ECDC 20.75.XXX) A Tree Fund is established (Chapter 3.95 ECC) o Tree Fund is supported by the fee -in -lieu programs, penalties, or monies allocated by the City Council o Tree Fund may be used for: § Providing vouchers to individuals for purchasing and planting trees § Acquiring and preserving wooded areas within the City. Public Comments All the written public comments received as of February 11, 2021 are provided in Attachment 5. Conclusion At the City Council's February 16 meeting, a presentation on the timeline for future actions will be given and direction on any amendments to the existing draft regulations will be asked. Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations Planning Board Recommenation Attachment 2: Urban Forest Management Plan Attachment 3: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix Packet Pg. 154 8.1 Attachment 4: Planning Board Minutes 09.09.20 through 01.13.21 Attachment 5: Written Public Comments as 02.11.21 Attachment 6: Tree Topics for Potential Action - High Level Attachment 7: Tree Topics for Potential Action - Detail Packet Pg. 155 8.1.a Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose 23.10.010 Administration Authority 23.10.020 Definitions 23.10.030 Permits 23.10.040 Exemptions 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development 23.10.080 Tree Replacement 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title 23.10.090 Bonding 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.110 Liability 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; C. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents 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; D. 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; E. 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; F. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; G. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of development. Planning Board Recommendation Page 1 of 14 r c m E z U r r Q :.o c a� E M Q Packet Pg. 156 8.1.a H. 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; 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; 23.10.010 Administering Authority The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. 23.10.020 Definitions A. Caliper —The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH. 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. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. I. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. J. 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. K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. L. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Planning Board Recommendation Page 2 of 14 Packet Pg. 157 8.1.a M. 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; 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (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. N. Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height, theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. O. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional.. P. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries Q. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. T. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. 23.10.030 Permits A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter. Planning Board Recommendation Page 3 of 14 Packet Pg. 158 8.1.a 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 trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: 1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks Department. E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone. F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed with supporting documentation: a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited Planning Board Recommendation Page 4 of 14 Packet Pg. 159 8.1.a A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 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 or a demolition and replacement of a single- family house, and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention 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 Retention Plan 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);; 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.) Planning Board Recommendation Page 5 of 14 Packet Pg. 160 8.1.a V. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; ii. 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 required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080. c. An arborist report containing the following: i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions a. Phased Review i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted 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 Planning Board Recommendation Page 6 of 14 Packet Pg. 161 8.1.a 1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows: ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site 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. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One: a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH. 2. Priority Two: a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. Planning Board Recommendation Page 7 of 14 r c m E z U r r Q :.o c a� E M Q Packet Pg. 162 8.1.a 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. 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. 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; Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state 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. Planning Board Recommendation Page 8 of 14 Packet Pg. 163 8.1.a 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: 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. D. 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. 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. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. Planning Board Recommendation Page 9 of 14 Packet Pg. 164 8.1.a F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.10.080 Tree Replacement A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement tree is required. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2) replacement trees are required. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. 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. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. Planning Board Recommendation Page 10 of 14 Packet Pg. 165 8.1.a 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. 23.10.090 Bonding A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% 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 section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties: 1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2. 2. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; Planning Board Recommendation Page 11 of 14 Packet Pg. 166 8.1.a 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). f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to 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 date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. 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 Recommendation Page 12 of 14 Packet Pg. 167 8.1.a 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 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 in all residential zones provided that a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet; b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet; c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced. Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total, coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for the zoning district in which it is located. 4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with the intent of city codes and standards. C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC 23.10.085. 3.95 Tree Fund Planning Board Recommendation Page 13 of 14 Packet Pg. 168 8.1.a 3.95.010 Tree Fund Established There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund." 3.95.020 Funding Sources Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC. B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC. C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and D. Other monies allocated by the City Council 3.95.040 Funding Purposes A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health; 4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational purchases; 6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting. Planning Board Recommendation Page 14 of 14 Q Packet Pg. 169 � - L rt'wir f. Ide �IMI Jam' Urban Forest Mana'gement Plan July, 2019 A& Ho"I'l =k 8.1.b Packet Pg. 171 8.1.b City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan July, 2019 DAVEY#. 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. 172 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 OF EDP 41 o� -W d �' DAVEY#-,. Resource Group 111c. I gqo N c a� E z U Q E 2 a Packet Pg. 173 Table of Contents Executive Summary Scope & Purpose Plan Foundation Introduction Community Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest What Do We Have? 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 N C N E t V R a m E U 2 a Packet Pg. 174 8.1.b 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 in 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 Conclusions 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. r a 1 Scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 175 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 q Are We We Get Doing? There? c a c as E a� a� c as 0 U_ c L N c a� E M U a c as M U 2 a Scope & Purpose 2 Packet Pg. 176 8.1.b 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 41,8 Land Cower Tree Ca nopyr 30% brass & Vegetation 27% 1 m pervio us Su Ffaces 34% Bare Soils 2% Open Water 7% Tree Canopy CDyer Maximum Potential Canopy S 7% Investment Tree Care Pigr Capita 714 N c a� E U a r c m E U 2 a .3 Scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 177 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. 1 This estimate is partly based on an analysis of low-lying vegetation areas. c a c as E a� a� c m 0 LL c N c a� E U a r c as E U 2 a Executive Summary 4 Packet Pg. 178 Land Cover 8.1.b Water 7% Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover City Limits Tree Canopy Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation Impervious Surfaces Bare Soil Open Water 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Figure 1: Land Cover a Jr Executive Summary Packet Pg. 179 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., Packet Pg. 180 8.1.b 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 p Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care Goal 5 - Promote "Right tree, right place" Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management. 7 Executive Summary Packet Pg. 181 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. c a c as E a� a� c as L 0 U- c N c a� E U a r c as E U 2 a Introduction 8 Packet Pg. 182 8.1.b 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). Packet Pg. 183 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 (CH), 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. c a c as E a� a� c as 0 U_ c N c a� U a c as E U 2 a Introduction 10 Packet Pg. 184 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. a 11 Introduction Packet Pg. 185 8.1.b 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. 186 Right tree, right place 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. Tree roots lifting a sidewalk. a 13 Introduction Packet Pg. 187 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 L tree removal or topping. Below is a list of several trimming practices derived from Vegetation Management: A Guidefor Puget Sound Bluff Property a Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in G combination to create views without compromising w tree health or slope stability. View -enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers as L 1. Windowing 0 2. Interlimbing c 3. Skirting -up N • Note: In any pruning practice or combination, c 60% or more of the original crown should be retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The a removal of too much live foliage can reduce r the tree's ability to supply food to the roots, thereby weakening them. • Windowing. This pruning practice allows a Q view "window" throueh the existine foliaee of the tree's canopy. In pruning major limbs and Introductior Packet Pg. 188 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 N c a� E U a r c as E U 2 a 15 Introduction proper care. Packet Pg. 189 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 beingconsidered 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. Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement. c a r c as E a� a� c m L 0 U_ c N c a� E U a r c as E U 2 a Introduction 16 Packet Pg. 190 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. The state of Washington requires the City of Edmonds to manage and protect it's critical areas. cif 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. N Y C N E t V R Y Y Q Y E U 2 Y Y a Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas. 17 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 191 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. c a c as E a� a� c as 0 U_ c L N c as U a c as E U M a What Do We Have? 18 Packet Pg. 192 8.1.b 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 -year cycle, 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. r a Packet Pg. 193 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. a What Do We Have? 20 Packet Pg. 194 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. N c a� E z U a r c as E M U 2 a 21 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 195 8.1.b Canopy Cover Summary The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: • 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and woody shrubs (525 acres) • 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground • 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy is unfeasible • 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying vegetation Ak ��5 � �'��"+�• 1� �� *# * DTI i f f� y�• 4J! 710 Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds "bowl" area. • 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) • From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from 32.3% to 30.3% • Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of 3,495 acres • Private residential properties have most of the canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and commercial (4.1%) properties. • Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) kP r a What Do We Have? 22 Packet Pg. 196 Land Cover 8.1.b Water 7% Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover City Limits M Tree Canopy Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation 22 Impervious Surfaces Bare Soil Open Water , 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 2.3 what Do we Have? Figure 1: Land Cover Q Packet Pg. 197 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 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 will vastly improve by creating linkages between multiple patches of forest. Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable management tool due to the i mportance of Edmonds' critical areas and environmental stewardship. The analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes the following: • 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy * 8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy • 55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy * 26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy 8.1.b r c a� E c y� lie I Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top) leads to isolation and declining habitat quality. Ar r +{ ►` _ S * p LL cu Y It IV CU 40 ILI W. ` •+`', `�*—,.. 'fir Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest. What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 198 8.1.b Forest Fragmentation Patrh Forest Core Forest 10% Perforated Forest 8% Edge Forest 26% Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Ifs :-;.: . Pt" ;A I DR ' ?y �DAVTON Si MAIN Si � eOLWT ST �WDON WAI s City Limits �._ i N1Mi' ': 4'.1 •- • . Core Forest 22M IRMaT �J Edge Forest 9! < < ,: r Patch Forest rg Zl2t� ST �� Perforated Forest x�n+sT ti a � ` xien+sr 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation 25 What Do We Have? "e'11 ST 1 7CJH ST a Packet Pg. 199 8.1.b 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 (Piceo sitchensis), western red cedar (Thujo Canopy cover in Post 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 . What Do We Have? 26 Packet Pg. 200 8.1.b Tree Canopy By Park Meadowdale Beach Park Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks =011 i .. . Southwest Ikunty Park 118.55 117.05 Yost Memorial 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45 Park ach Padrale ii 54 25.16 98 Southwest - County Park Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66 Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 Hutt Park Hummingbird Hill Park Yost Park. Edmonds City Park Edmonds Marsh z 0— Under IS% 15% - 80% 0 - 45 45% -60% _ Over 60% 1, i U N 07 A 0 D, 5 t miles Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park 27 What Do We Have? -'-Seaview Park v' Sierra Park * Maplewood Park —Pine Ridge Park a Packet Pg. 201 8.1.b 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: • 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 native fish 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 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. 16.53 51.36 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21 Wetlands Area W 80.65 5.48 13.56 0.51 1.76 59.36 c a c a� E a� a� c r a� L 0 LL r_ cu L N C E t V R Q r c m E t r r a What Do We Have' 28 Packet Pg. 202 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 251.82 0.54 21.42 10.76 58.64 8.65 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 43.40 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80 Wetlands Area N C N E t V R Q r c m E U M a 29 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 203 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 What Do We Have? 30 Packet Pg. 204 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 for guiding 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 tnL 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 MENNimm downtown) Tree Planting 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. N c a� z U Q r c m E U 2 a Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for public safety. Packet Pg. 205 8.1.b 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 Urban Forestry Items MR Expenditure Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848 Tree Maintenance $79,779 T Management $62,771 Volunteer Activities JL _M $134,579 TOTAL $319,542 Vdget 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 protection codes 2 and Review Public inquiries (online, phone, and counter) Code Investigating and resolving Enforcement & tree complaints Investigating and resolving 2 Complaint infrastructure damage Investigation complaints Tree planting and establishment Parks & Public Structural pruning on smaller Tree 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 r a What Do We Have? 32 Packet Pg. 206 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 a Department has two staff members who provide expertise on urban forestry topics. N The first is an ISA certified arborist who is referenced by all City departments and citizen LL 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. z U Tree Acquisition and Quality a Control E The City's approach to acquiring trees is not guided 0 by any formal standard practices that ensure the Q quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties managed with new trees. 33 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 207 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. 208 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 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 o elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores) plus defense compounds produced by the a host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting E 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 a disease progresses. Excised branches will have U° vascular discoloration which is diagnostic of the disease. Infected trees may survive for years or die within weeks. Once infected, a tree will N not likely recover and will require removal. Tree injections of fungicides are not usually effective E (OSU, 2018). U • Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the a foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. E SNC is known as a "cast" disease because it c causes the premature shedding of needles (or Q casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree crowns and reduced growth. Although it is 35 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 209 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). a What Do we Have? 36 Packet Pg. 210 8.1.b • 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. 211 8.1.b 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 for the planting and maintenance of public trees. These trees are on public property parcels or select locations in the rights -of -way. Other planting strips are the responsibility of adjacent land owners: • Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction and maintenance, declares that the responsibility is with the abutting property owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent planting strips. This includes all tree care. • Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the regulation of street trees and trees on public 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, right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, or other public place. This code chapter also includes language defining abuse and damage to street trees. Tree Related Fees and Penalties To facilitate compliance and remediation for disregarding public tree codes, the City provides penalties as a punitive deterrent: • 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". Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use, including public right-of-way. r a What Do We Have' 38 Packet Pg. 212 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 D code, updates should provide more ways to ci encourage greater tree retention when properties are developed. An example may be to provide E options for reduced interior setbacks that would a allow houses to be clustered and thus provide a an opportunity to avoid trees where otherwise c development would be placed under the regulations E in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an update to consider may include evaluating the Q required width of access easements. 39 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 213 Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 8.1.b L Qi Q 0 a- v M 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 a What Do We Have? 40 Packet Pg. 214 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. VITA HNGTON COMMUNITY FORESM 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. N c a� E U a r c as E U 2 a 41 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 215 FORTSRRA FOR THE PEOPLE. FOR THE LAND. 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. N C a� E U a r c as E U 2 a A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars. What Do We Have? 42 Packet Pg. 216 8.1.b 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. 217 8.1.b 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 a What Do We Have? 44 Packet Pg. 218 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 N c W E z U a c as E U 2 a 45 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 219 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 a What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 220 City of Port Angeles 8.1.b 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_ CH11.13STTR_11.13.050STTRENRE 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, theirspecific 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). N c 0 E M CU Q r c m E M r r a 47 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 221 Arborist Business Licenses - City of Lincoln 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). Community engagement on urban forestry is important to encourage tree retention on private properties. • 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/ a What Do We Have? 48 Packet Pg. 222 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. N c as E z U a r c m E M U 2 a 49 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 223 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. c a c as c as 0 U_ c N c a� M U a c as E M U M a What Do We Have? so Packet Pg. 224 8.1.b 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. r a 51 what Do We want? Packet Pg. 225 Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for community engagement. - What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 226 8.1.b 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% 5% 0% Improved Air Quality 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 Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Carbon Storage Energy Savings Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Environmental Benefits Other r a 53 What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 227 8.1.b 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 C a r C a� E a� C a� L 0 U- C L N ar C 0 E t V Q r C a) t r r a What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 228 8.1.b 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%). Street tree along Main Street. Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the (Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear) but not necessarily every tree) Maintenance Expectations 55 what Do we want? None -Keep them natural N c a� E z U Q r c m U M a Packet Pg. 229 8.1.b 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. a What Do We Want? 56 Packet Pg. 230 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. N c a� E U a r c as E U 2 a 57 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 231 Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can obstruct the view, but can also be the view. 61 How Do We Get There? 58 Packet Pg. 232 IM Urban Forest Management Plan Goal 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) a 59 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 233 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) N c a� E z U Q r c m E U 2 a How Do We Get There? 60 Packet Pg. 234 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 3 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 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 Time 3-5 Years, On -going 3-5 Years, On -going 1 Year, On -going 61 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 235 Urban Forest Management Plan Goal s Goal 4 Time 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 1 Year B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to: 1 Year, On -going 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 1 Year, On -going and to provide guidance on tree selection and management How Do We Get There' 62 Packet Pg. 236 IM Urban Forest Management Plan Goal 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 N C N E t V R Q r C E L V 2 a 63 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 237 8.1.b 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. r a How Are We Doino' Packet Pg. 238 8.1.b 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. 65 Appendices Packet Pg. 239 8.1.b 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:gapps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot Heisler, G.M., 1986, "Energy savings with trees." Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25. Hartel, D, 2003, "GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets", 2003 National Urban Forest 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). i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of Environmental Management. 45:109-133 Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient 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? c a 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. a� E Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155. Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. c http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/ N Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. a� U- The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org r- 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. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown Q r Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast. r Q http://sncc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17 PNW Plant Disease Handbook PNW Insect Handbook Appendice- 66 Packet Pg. 240 8.1.b 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-pol lution.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/urban_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_externalreviewdraft_june152009.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. Ustin 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. 241 8.1.b Appendix B9. Table of Figures F'iures Figure 1: Land Cover Classes Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations Tables Table 1: Benchmark Values Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Table 4: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Table 5: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds Table 6: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 5,23 24 25 27 53 54 55 3 27 28 29 31 32 32 40 Appendice- Oa Packet Pg. 242 8.1.b 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): Improl' Quality Energy Savings FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Carbon Storage Wildlife Habitat Other r a 69 Appendices Packet Pg. 243 8.1.b Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Strongly Agree 74.86% 131 Agree 21.71% 38 lisagree 2.29% Strongly Disagree 0.57% 1 kot sur ° Not Sure 0.57% 1 ther (please specify) 0.00% 0 Question 2 (Extended) 36.W 4.57% 21.715/o 64 8 38 5.14% 9 13.71 / 24 14.29% 26.86% -M 47 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 9% 18 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 36.00% 63 28.57% 50 25.71% 45 22.29% 39 12.57% 22 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 49.71% 87 P175.71% 10 29.71% 52 10.86% 19 0.00% 0 175 2.88 175 3.3 0 0 a Appendices 70 Packet Pg. 244 8.1.b 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 21.71% 38 17.14% 30 Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 24.00% 42 11.43% 20 2.86% 5 Shaded Parking 3.43% 6 8.57% 15 9.71% 17 rove r reas and neighborhoods 4% 9 104k29% 18 12.57% 22 13.71% 24 Increased Property Values 4.00% 71 5.14% 9 5.14% 9 9.71% 17 Passive recreati 4.00 9 6.86% 12 12.00% 21 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. 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) 71 Appendices Packet Pg. 245 8.1.b Question 3 (Extended) rGIF1• 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86% 12 2.29% 4 1 -- 5.39 7.43% 13 2.86% 5 2.29% 4 2.86% 5 -15 6.29 9.71% 17 9.71% 17 4.57% 8 1.71% 3 17.71% 31 29.71% 52 8.57% 15 19.43% 34 175 3.03 43% 34 18.29% 32 14.29% 25 6.29% 11 175 4.25 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 40 29.14% 51 175 3.05 3% 27 20.00% 35 21. 14.86% 26 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.29% 11 175 4.89 Answered 175 Skipped i Question 5 (Extended) 36.69% 62 23.67% 40 52.07% 88 14.79% 25 12. o AnswereT .• Skipped Appendices 72 Packet Pg. 246 8.1.b 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 AM 13.02% 22 Weekly 11.83% 20 10.65% 18 Severa I Times A Year 34.32 % 58 Never IL30.18% 1 Answered 1691 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? wx,-- & IWL9- Weekly 4.14% 7 onthly % 5 Several Times A Year 41.42% 70 Never 46.15% 78 Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees? L. :: 0 9 Weekly 2.96% 5 Monthly 5.92% 10 Several Times A Year 43.20% 73 Never 42.60% 72 73 Appendices Packet Pg. 247 8.1.b Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds' public trees. Strongly agree 10.65% 18 Agree 59.17% 100 Disagree 11.83% 20 Strongly Disagree 8.88% 15 Not Sure L 9.47% 16 Answered 169 Skipped 61 Appendices 74 Packet Pg. 248 8.1.b 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 the sidewalks and streets clear) MW 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. jjWngly Agree AMMV.87% 6& Agree 28.99% 49 isagree 17.16% 29 Strongly disagree 5.33% 9 not sure ilMEW Answered 169 Skipped Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply. a 59.17% 100 Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36% 102 Sareetscapes 59.17% 100 Golf Courses 11.24% 19 p;ovvWwn 7M.60% Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77 dmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34 Other (please specify) 17.75% 30 Answered .• Skipped 75 Appendices Packet Pg. 249 8.1.b 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% 17, 169 3.47 Appendices 76 Packet Pg. 250 8.1.b 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. Seminars and workshops 44.38% 75 Interpretive trails and displays 59.76% 101 2.72% 106 Online videos (e.g. YouTube) 24.26% 41 tree Informational brochures 43.20% 73 ther (please specify) 11.83% 20 Answered .• Skipped 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) of Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41 Trees shading my yard Tree debris i� 9.04% 15 12.65% ■ Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114 Canopy loss M 57.83% 91 Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120 Other Concerns(please specify) %% Appendices Packet Pg. 251 8.1.b 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 �es nea 59.28% 99 1 want more trees near my property 25.15% 42 have no trees near my property 0.60% 1 1 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? 'IF Answer .. Yes. The City should require property owners to preserve trees on private parcels where ,reasonably possible. M& 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. 252 8.1.b Ordinances, Rules or Regulations Other (please specify) 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. 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 35.33% 59 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? Male i Female Gender Diverse Prefer not to answer 28.66% 47 59.76% 98 A1.83% 3 9.76% 16 79 Appendices Packet Pg. 253 Question 21: What age group are you representing? 8.1.b W 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% i 56+ 61.59 % 101 Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below. Downtown/The Bowl Westgate Five Corners Perrinville Meadowdale 40.85% jMjj 7.32% 12 x 8.54% 14 4.88% 8 4.27% 7 Seaview 15.24% 25 Lake Ballinger HWY 99 3.05% 5 ther (please specify) 14.63% 24 Answered 164 Skipped ill Appendices 80 Packet Pg. 254 Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply) 8.1.b M am a resident of Edmonds M 95.12% 156 1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98% 18 Own a business in Edmonds 6.71% 11 appreciate public trees 72.56% 119 planted public trees as a volunteerAMMIN 18.90% 31 1 help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98% 18 J[have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees X15.85% 26 None of the above 0.61% 1 81 Appendices Packet Pg. 255 8.1.b Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) Answered 33 Skipped 142 Appendices 82 Packet Pg. 256 8.1.b 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 a 83 Appendices Packet Pg. 257 8.1.b nnininn Rnarrl ffl • \A/hat train hanafitc rin vnii mnct nnnrarinta? A. Improved Air Quality 1n B. Energy Savings 4 0 0 Reduced Stormwater Runoff 14 ■ 0 D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0 E. Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0 F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0 G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails 4 0 3 H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4 I. �Increasecl prop 7 2 3 J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0 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" 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1 Appendices 84 Packet Pg. 2 E8 8.1.b Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are preferred/valued? A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps) i. Species selection Tre iii. Tree pruning Interactive tree selector V. Irrigation olunteer opportunities B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter) Species selectio ii. Tree planting Tree pruning iv. Irrigation C. Hands-on (Wormshops, seminars) i. Tree planting Tree pruning iii. Irrigation Volunteer opportunities 2 _0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0, 1 0 0 3 1 A 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0 Leigh borhoo or education and outreach 0 '17' 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 circulationl New name needed 0 0 0 85 Appendices Packet Pg. 259 8.1.b Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees in Edmonds? A. Trees blocking my view 11 L-1 9 B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7 M Tree debris in a # 1 5 D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3 K Canopy loss F1 1 3 F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3 G. Additional Concerns 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 Fomeone who would be willing to negotiate oTelp mediat between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps 1 0 0 to 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 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 Red dots = not concerned r a Appendices 86 Packet Pg. 260 8.1.b Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer for Dublic trees? A. None (keep them natural) B. Best possible care (all trees should look good) Mlearan� (keep sidewalk street ear) D. Take care of hazardous trees lolistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) F. Additional Ideas In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need process to effectively deal with dangerous trees. Utilize/ plant and replace trees that "heave" the sidewalks. ie- - 4 2 7 1 3 1 1 10 2 0 F MM 11 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. Q 87 Appendices Packet Pg. 261 8.1.b Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees planted? A. Parks � 10 0 0 s B. Open Spaces 10 0 1 C. Commercial proper} 9 2 0 D. Streets and medians 7 3 2 r- E. Parking lots F. Private properties 8 1 1 F. Additional Ideas 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. 262 8.1.b Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree 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 C. Education and Outreach 16 0 0 D. Tree planting events 5 0 0 JE. 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 sot at folk begin to know that alll 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 to keep both trees and preserve view. 3 0 0 City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:i 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) 89 Appendices Packet Pg. 263 8.1.b f 1. flat tree benefits do ynu Frost 2. What types of outreach and 3. What is Are your biggest l appre[ipte? educatiort are preferred valued? concerns) For trees in Edmonds? Eng. .^,,,�r A. Eleorgnie [Websile• Links, Youtube, APPO E1 A. kaas blacking my Miaw * • _ #� • f:# � i. sp..ys 8+kcr.o�� I►r+ l,co Pionr:�p _ # C' i srro P-nilage •is irons slrodirrg my yamprrlt.�,r*dlk+nr,ranrN,rneX Y. Irri�aiq.•• 'a • ••**a *i##*a # s!• M. � il.r*rArM r aryrJ N " �� B'*� �rsLieY lsi #040 �fsdrni v ME 4. What level of mafntenanse would You prefer for public trees? A. NoneIKeep fhc—ptsralj # �� gdsrp.Pyrilalsc�re {atkffaas sha,rld lank goad] • C. Clearance only Ikaap ikda lks d, i"e+, drrreF]I • D. Yoko Gorr) Vf l —dosri Ira— E. Hausa Plant He6l%Cwe1Isnprow the .,bon F6Fas1, but rsai neLlFF4rily every rreej ### # • a IM F. Add6ena11deas B. Hard Copy {pamphj&s, hteWIWIN F$)oo i. Sp«.r.sr4,r:-Sa Trt Pdbnlin% S �r. Inlpunp„ [- Nowts-OnMorkshop . SeminnFF}0• .. Tr.. PI.." a hx hwninp IK rFN)PIPR 6. AddiGgnal Idenc C. Sraa C�fbFjB in my yard 9 0 • ♦• # D, Henllhy WOMTUF4 tFdM%baing ramorad * • 0• • # as* :1501 F. Canopy No%s # 00 jo0a 00 F. Lass otwildRPe habitnl ♦• 0 •i*• o # •09 sib* • 0 " G. Add ilionalConsamf 49 _ 6. What are the Kest ways to encourage tree planting and 5. Where would you like to see more preservation on private property? trees planted? q. Fri for low -cosh Trees l� A. Parks aP40 Spaces C. Commercial Prapwias • i# Is •# ## D. Streeri and Medium E. Parking Lori % :: is P0'v #0 • O is G. Additional ldeaF • a. Infarrnat on about how to hire a prvfemskmal lrea care Kcrnpany C. Edrxcdion and Ouhaurh # D. Tree Plpnl;ng Evenis #0"• E. Addiiional Ideas Q Appendice.,, vV Packet Pg. 264 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 D cities- does that chart take into consideration N view property- does it differentiate where there are view properties and where there are not? Commenter suggested that a significant portion a of the City [of Edmonds] has views. a r c as E a 91 Appendices Packet Pg. 265 8.1.b 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. 266 8.1.c 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. 267 8.1.c 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 Q Packet Pg. 268 8.1.d Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Ferguson questioned the FIRM, itself, which the Board cannot address. Ms. Ferguson also went into detail about how the 50% substantial damage rule might impact her property should a major flood event occur. Her understanding of the current code is that Ms. Ferguson could address the situation via the nonconforming rules or pre-emptively having her property added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lien explained that if the property is certified as a historic structure, the 50% substantial damage rule would not apply. He noted that certain criteria would have to be met in order for a property to be on the register, and not all old houses are historic. Board Member Rubenkonig said a financial investment would also be required for Ms. Ferguson to pursue such a process. Mr. Lien said the application for placing a property on the City's register is free, and there are benefits associated with the designation. He explained that the register is a voluntary program, and properties that are nominated for the register must meet certain criteria. If a property on the register does a major renovation, there is potential for tax breaks. However, before any work can be done, properties on the register must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the work does not impact the historic aspects of the structure. Mr. Chave emphasized that the criteria for inclusion on the register is fairly strict, and age is not a sole determinant. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Ms. Ferguson raised a good point, but it has less to do with the proposed ordinance. She agreed that the City hasn't assessed the historicity of Lake Ballinger, and she is concerned that this needs to be attended to. She recognized that is a conversation for another time, but Ms. Ferguson presented some well -stated concerns. She asked if the Board Members feel that Ms. Ferguson has enough options and is in a position to handle any future event. Chair Robles expressed his belief that all of the bases were covered regarding this concern. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TREE REGULATIONS CODE PROCESS UPDATE Mr. Lien recalled that the Board previously reviewed proposed tree code amendments, but they were tabled until the City adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He advised that the City adopted the UFMP in July of 2019, which included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City. At that time, the City Council authorized staff to hire a part-time code writer to assist with rewriting the Tree Code. This effort was stalled due to a number of factors, including the pandemic. Mr. Lien referred to the table provided in Attachment 1, which outlines the broad topics and possible concepts that will be explored while reviewing and updating the City's tree -related regulations. He explained that regulations that impact tree retention are scattered throughout the code, and the items in the table are listed in priority. He reviewed the items as follows: Tree Retention. One of the primary concerns the City has heard over the years is when properties are subdivided and/or developed, all of the trees are cut down to accommodate development. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45.050 requires that trees be retained to the maximum extent feasible, but "feasible" is often difficult to determine. The Critical Area Regulations is the only section of the code that has a tree retention requirement. Properties within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that have steep slopes, streams or wetlands associated with them are required to maintain or establish a 30% native vegetation. The City could explore regulations that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed beyond an established threshold, developers could be required to pay into a Tree Fund. Low -Impact Development. Low -Impact Development (LID) in the City's code is primarily related to stormwater management. However, LID principles may be applied much broader. Other ideas to consider include flexible setbacks, flexible lot sizes, clustering of houses, reduced road width requirements, etc. For example, you could allow clustered development or a reduced setback to potentially preserve trees on a site. He shared an example of a property in Edmonds that was subdivided and explained how the access and utility easements, as well as the building footprints, impacted the number of trees that had to be removed from the site to accommodate development. He explained how LID principles could have been used to allow a greater number of trees to be retained. Staff will be asking the Board to consider what flexibilities could be provided in the code to potentially result in more trees being retained when a property is developed. Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 269 8.1.d • Tree Fund. The City doesn't currently have a dedicated Tree Fund. A 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, and other tree -related activities. Potential funding options will need to be explored further, but could include tree cutting violation penalties and developer fees based on the number of trees removed for development. • Incentives. The UFMP included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property. It included: a program to give away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds; exploring the establishment of a property tax rebate, stormwater utility fee reduction or other technique to reward properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover; and developing a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners who maintain a certain amount or type of healthy tree. • Definitions. Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations can be applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include significant trees, protected trees, landmark trees, heritage trees and/or street trees. Some jurisdictions also regulate certain species of trees (such as red alder) and exempt them from the tree regulation requirements. • Permits/Tree Cutting Review for Existing Developed Properties. Currently, permits are required to cut trees in the City. Developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt from tree cutting permits. If there are critical areas present and the tree is not determined to be hazardous, a permit is required. The permit is a Type 11 Permit (staff decision with notice) and the application fee is $1,010. For existing multi -family and commercial properties, tree cutting is reviewed as a Type I design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping requirements. The application fee is $315. The disparity between the cost of tree permits for single- family versus multi -family and commercial properties should be addressed. • Penalties/Fines. Currently, the base penalty for tree cutting violations is assessed based on the size of the tree, and the civil penalty is not to exceed $1,000 for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree that is three inches or more. The fines are tripled if the tree is located in a critical area or the right-of-way. Currently, the code defines a tree as having a caliper of six inches or greater, but the Critical Area Code permits the removal of trees less than 4 inches as an allowed activity. The tree cutting fines should be evaluated and updated to be more consistent with the definition of trees. • Code Location. Currently, the main tree code is in ECDC 18, which is primarily related to Public Works requirements. Because the tree regulations on private property are administered by the Planning Manager, a new chapter will be created in ECDC 23 (Natural Resources) to house the main tree -related code chapter. Other tree regulations would also be scattered throughout the code. For example, allowing more flexibility in subdivision design to encourage more tree retention would be located in ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions). Mr. Lien advised that this presentation was intended to provide a broad overview of the project, and the Board will begin its discussion in more detail on October 14'. He advised that the Citizens Tree Board was briefed on the code update topics at its August 6' meeting, and it will be consulted periodically as the code specifics are developed further. Chair Robles noted that the topics of "tree zones" or "tree districts" were not included on the list. He asked if this concept has been dropped from the discussion or if it would come up later. Mr. Lien said it was not identified as an individual topic of discussion. However, when they look at tree retention with development, the percentage of trees to be retained might be different based on the zone or area of the City. Board Member Cheung observed that trees are a topic the public is passionate about. He suggested that the City advise the local newspapers and My Edmonds News of the scheduled discussions so that the public is not surprised at the last minute. He suggested they solicit ideas and comments from the public throughout the process, and the public should also be invited to all of the meetings where the topic is discussed. Mr. Lien agreed to work with the City's new Public Relations Officer to outline a public outreach plan that gets the public engaged early in the process. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, generally, an assessment of the health of a tree will be made by a certified arborist. One of the overriding issues within the different jurisdictions that have tree codes is the dependence on the Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 270 8.1.d professional field to neutrally make these decisions. She asked if there are codes from other jurisdictions that the Board should review as examples. Mr. Lien advised that at the end of 2020 the City hired a firm to review codes from other jurisdictions (Kirkland, Redmond, Snohomish County, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Issaquah and Everett), and this information will be provided to the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig said from the viewpoint of her land -use consulting business, she is pleased by the direction that Snohomish County has taken to protect trees. She recognized they are now talking about saving what trees they can, but they haven't been saving the best of what there was. They are now in a situation of trying to dry a line in the sand. While they don't want to lose more trees, they acknowledge that some will be lost due to other considerations. In the future they want to look at replenishing the tree inventory. Mr. Lien said that "no net loss of the overall tree canopy" is identified as a policy in the UFMP. Chair Robles asked if the discussion would include outlying ideas that have never been done before. He's seen it happen where someone comes up with an idea that is so unique and/or interesting, but they can't do it because no other jurisdictions has done it previously. He said he doesn't believe that is a good approach, and he asked how willing the City is to adopt ideas that come from the brilliance of the citizenry. Mr. Lien responded that he is open to any brilliant idea. All of the jurisdictions get ideas from each other, but Edmonds is also willing to go first if a good idea comes up. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many citizens in Edmonds have spent good money maintaining the tree canopy on their private properties. The City has discussed potential incentives and an appreciation for what they are doing on behalf of the City. There are people who are very invested in what the Board will propose, yet others will look at the issue differently. The City has an opportunity to improve the percentage of its tree canopy, and she felt they should establish a goal. She recalled that the Board previously talked about the need to get a better assessment of what remains of the City's tree canopy. She asked if that will be part of the process. She likes having a benchmark that enables the City to determine whether or not the codes in place are leading the City in the right direction or if other measures are needed. Mr. Lien said the current benchmark is contained in the UFMP. A coverage analysis based on 2015 Lidar mapping identified a 30% canopy coverage in Edmonds. The UFMP notes to report on the canopy coverage at least every 10 years, and Council Member Buckshnis has mentioned this recently, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the 30% tree canopy coverage compares to other cities. Mr. Chave replied that the information was provided in the UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like this comparison to be part of the discussion. She referred to a recent critique in the local paper saying that, as good as the City's parks are, compared to other cities, they don't have the percentage of parkland acreage. If the City were to increase its public land, they could more readily establish a tree program that would increase the tree canopy on city -owned properties. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles referred to a letter the Board received from a citizen regarding Meadowbrook Park. He asked when would be the best time for the Board to respond to the concern that was raised about people abusing the park. Mr. Chave said the letter was forwarded to the City Council, and the City Council may direct the Parks Board (Planning Board) to look into the issue at some point in the future. Chair Robles reviewed that the September 231 meeting agenda will include a report on development activity, a joint meeting with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee, and a status update and discussion on climate goals planning. The October 14' meeting agenda will include a discussion on Development Code work (electric vehicle charging infrastructure and tree codes). The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will present an update to the Board on October 28'. The first meetings in November and December will also include additional Development Code work, and the second meetings in November and December will be cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles reported that he and Vice Chair Rosen met recently with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee. He recalled Board Member Rubenkonig's recent comment regarding her concern of having City Council Members participate on the citizen advisory committees and commissions, and observed that the meeting felt different than the Board's joint meeting with the City Council. He said he believes the Board's role will be to guide the committee as to how it interfaces with other Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 271 8.1.d 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 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 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 that the City adopt a Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan to further identify the community's priorities for land acquisition. The plan would provide criteria and outline an evaluation process for consideration of potential land acquisitions. Geographic distribution of resources should be a key piece of the plan. Edmonds is primarily built out, so there is a lot less opportunity to purchase additional parkland and/or open space. Board Member Pence asked how long it would 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. 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. 272 8.1.d • 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 9"' 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 Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 273 8.1.d 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 281h. 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 Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 274 8.1.d Board Member Monroe summarized that, as per staffs response, he shouldn't be concerned that the $17 million cost of the project has been allocated to the stormwater fund. Staff will spread the cost out to include regional funding rather than relying primarily on the stormwater rate payers to foot the bill. Mr. English clarified that it is not the intent that the project be funded solely by the stormwater fund. While it is a stormwater project, the CFP notes there is unsecured revenue for the project. This unsecured revenue will come from grant sources, and the project will be funded by multiple sources. Board Member Rubenkonig concurred with Board Member Monroe's concern about adding burden to the stormwater fees that the citizens of Edmonds pay for. Board Member Monroe is the point person on the Board when it comes to looking for budget items for capital projects. She hopes the City Council will consider his comments and particularly look at the burden that is being placed on the citizens via their stormwater management fees. She understands the staff s point of view, and she trusts the City staff will continue to pursue grants. But Board Member Monroe's point is well taken and should be carefully considered. She recalled that the City Council has considered funding options for this project in years past, including whether or not to float a bond issue. Board Member Cheung asked staff to respond to the comment letter that was submitted by Mr. Phipps, a representative of Save Our Marsh. Mr. English said one of the suggestions was to move the project from the stormwater fund to the park funds. The other comment was to stop work on the project until the ownership issue is resolved. He explained that the two projects scheduled for 2021 are small, and there is no proposal to move the design forward in 2021 other than potentially looking at another alternative alignment. There has been a lot of input from the community about the alternatives that have been considered in the past and that perhaps a hybrid alternative would be a better fit. Ms. Feser added that the Marina Beach Park and Daylighting of Willow Creek Projects support the marsh restoration project. It will definitely be beneficial for improving the water quality and restoring the ability for saltwater to come back into the marsh. She would hesitate to pause the project when they are at 30% design and have secured a $500,000 grant with the possibility of another $500,000 grant. The Marina Beach Project can progress independently of the marsh project. Vice Chair Rosen said his understanding is the original concept for the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor extended from Main Street to 3rd Avenue. However, it now terminates at Daley Street. He asked why this was changed. He said he would prefer that the corridor terminate at 3rd Avenue. Ms. Feser suggested there might be some misinformation. She believes the project will extend to 3rd Avenue, but there was some conversation at the City Council level that it should go further. She agreed to provide the Board with background information about the project by the end of the week. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2021— 2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT/CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Chair Robles commented that the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is brilliant in its ability to glean input from the citizens, the limitations and constraints of staff, and where the City wants to go. It does exactly what the Board was hoping it would, which is to provide guidance for the Tree Code. He said Mr. Lien did a great job synthesizing the information in the UFMP into the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing permitting process and penalties. The update also clarifies a number of definitions. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: • Goal LA — 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. The draft regulations are intended to accomplish this goal. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 275 8.1.d Goal LB — Adopt a policy of o net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft regulations do not specifically adopt that policy, but it was taken into consideration when they were written. Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. This goal specifically notes to include tree penalties in the code. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). Mr. Lien advised that there is some urgency associated with the Tree Code. A development moratorium for subdivisions and short plats was proposed to be placed on the City Council's October 27t' agenda, but it was postponed to their first meeting in November. The proposal would place a moratorium on subdivisions until the Tree Code is done. He reviewed the schedule for the Board's work on the draft Tree Code, which will involve two work session on October 28t' and November 18t'', and a public hearing on December 9th. He is also scheduled to present the draft Tree code to the Tree Board the first week of November, and the City's Tree Team will continue to review the draft and provide input, as well. • ECDC 23.10.000 — Intent and Purpose. Mr. Lien explained that he reviewed tree codes from a number of jurisdictions and picked pieces of each one that he felt would fit with the City of Edmonds and then tweaked them as needed. He noted that Items E and F in this section are in the current tree regulations. He expressed his belief that the 9 items in the section outline the purpose and intent of the Tree Code and match up with the goals in the UFMP. They focus on: • Retaining trees with development, preserving the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate. • Promoting site planning and building development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation. • Avoiding unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural environment. • Providing landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas. • Encouraging tree retention by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements. • Retaining as many viable trees as possible. • Mitigating 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 throughout the City. • Implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. • Implementing the goals and objectives of the UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she will submit some edits to staff. In addition, she suggested that the term "aesthetic character of the City," which is used in Item A, should be defined. She referred to the term, "realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property," which is used in Item F. While this is likely a legal phrase that the City and developers would use to allow room for flexibility, she felt it should be clarified. Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to send their comments related to topographical errors to him so they can be incorporated into future versions of the Tree Code. He said he would provide underline/strike out versions to illustrate where changes were made. Mr. Lien reminded them that the Intent and Purpose Section is intended to explain the philosophy behind the regulations and the definition section primarily focuses on the regulated terms that are within the code. He suggested that it might be difficult to define "aesthetic character of the City." Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, because the intent of the Tree Code is to avoid loss of canopy and, in the best of all worlds, the canopy would be enhanced, it would be appropriate to add "enhance" to the list provided in the opening sentence of ECDC Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 276 8.1.d 20.10.000. This would reinforce that the goal is more than just maintaining the current tree canopy. Also, because Item A talks about the advantages of trees, it might be worth adding the words "biodiversity" and "environmental health" after the word "safety." Vice Chair Rosen asked where the draft provisions address trees that impact neighbors. If they are addressed, he suggested it might be worthwhile to weave the concept into the Intent and Purpose Section, as well. He understands that view is an important topic and a leading cause of many neighborhood conflicts. He also asked where this issue is addressed in the draft code. Mr. Lien answered that none of the provisions in the draft code specifically address neighbor impact and views. These are private property issues that are difficult to regulate. Some people love trees, but others do not. Some people think trees block views, and others consider the trees to be the view. Regulating neighbor impact and views is not a role he would suggest the City be involved in. Public views are mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Comprehensive Plan, but the City doesn't have any regulations that specifically deal with views. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's position, but he suggested that it might be worthwhile to find a place to state this position somewhere in the draft Tree Code. Board Member Rubenkonig requested that a definition should be provided for "aesthetic consequences," which is used in Item G. She also suggested that Items H and I should be moved to the beginning of the list. She said she would prefer that implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP are listed first. Board Member Cheung suggested that Item E could be changed to also promote planting of new trees on developing sites. Mr. Lien referred to Item G, which talks about mitigating the consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve the goal of no net loss. Board Member Cheung said he is suggesting going beyond tree replacement for trees that are removed by providing some incentive for developers to plant additional trees beyond what is required. Board Member Cloutier reminded them of the City's goals to reduce CO2 emissions and have all operations be carbon free. While trees remove CO2, they could also hinder the City's goals. He referred to the concept of "solar easement" where a property owner establishes a solar array and enters into an agreement with neighbors that their access to light will not be blocked so they can continue to produce power. He asked if the draft Tree Code addresses this issue. Mr. Lien answered that it is not addressed in the Tree Code or elsewhere in the ECDC. Board Member Cloutier referred to a concept the Board discussed earlier that trees are good, but they must be planted in the right place. Mr. Lien said "right tree in the right place" is mentioned in the UFMP, but not everything in the UFMP will be implemented via regulations. Some aspects of the plan will be addressed via education and outreach. Board Member Cloutier concluded that it is important than none of the provisions in the draft Tree Code hinder the ability to have solar easements, since this would interfere with the City's ability to generate power, etc. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the draft provisions exempt a number of things, such as routine maintenance and the removal of trees on unimproved single-family lots. He suggested that these issues should be addressed in the Intent and Purpose Section. The more they can define the document in the opening statement, the better. Mr. Lien suggested that these issues are addressed in Item F that speaks to the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property, which may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover. The draft provisions do not prohibit tree cutting on private property, and a number of exemptions are included. Again, Board Member Monroe suggested that this should be stated upfront in plain language. • ECDC 23.10.020 — Definitions Mr. Lien said it is important to make it clear when a tree is large enough to be subject to the Tree Code. As proposed: A. Significant Tree. A "significant tree" is one that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. K. Protected Tree. A "protected tree" is one that is identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations. M. Specimen Tree. A "specimen tree" is a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the City's Tree Protection Professional. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 277 8.1.d Mr. Lien explained that, currently, the City defines "tree" as a "living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches having a caliper of 6 inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown." In this definition, the word "caliper" is used in the wrong place. The term is typical used to identify the diameter at breast height (DBH). Currently, the new definition does not include the part about a multi -stemmed trunk system, but it is something the City's Tree Team and Tree Protection Professional will work to include. The issue is about how big a tree must be before it is regulated. Redmond might drop it down to 4 inches if it is determined to be a significant tree. Kirkland, Lynnwood and Issaquah all start at 6 inches, but Issaquah bumps it up to 8 inches for Alder and Cottonwood trees. Lynnwood specifically lists nonsignificant species that are not subject to their tree regulations. Shoreline has an 8-inch DBH requirement for conifers and 12-inch for non -conifers. The 6-inch caliper at DBH is consistent with the City's current code and with what most other jurisdictions do. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback about when a tree is significant enough to be subject to the regulations. Board Member Cheung asked if staff collect information from other Snohomish County cities such as Marysville and Everett. Mr. Lien said Everett does not define a significant tree. Instead, they rely on the subdivision code. Snohomish County doesn't define the term, either. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Lynnwood is a bit more progressive by providing a list of nonsignificant trees that are exempted from their tree regulations. Her interpretation is that there would be no tree replacement requirement for the nonsignificant trees that are removed. In effect, they are trying to get rid of them. Mr. Lien clarified that Lynnwood defines nonsignificant trees that are unsuitable for urban or formal settings. Board Member Rubenkonig said it appears the intent is to encourage the removal of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien said he placed Alder and Cottonwood trees lower on the priority list of trees that should be retained. While they serve an ecological function, they probably are not desirable in residential settings. Board Member Rubenkonig added that these trees are more suited to critical environment areas rather than residential yards. Chair Robles asked why the code uses "diameter" instead of "circumference" to measure the size of a tree. Mr. Lien answered that DBH is the standard way to measure. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate to provide definitions for "tree topping" and "tree pruning." These distinctions could matter to some people. It would also make sense to provide a definition for "tree retention plan." Mr. Lien responded that anything that is mentioned in the code in a regulatory sense should be defined. He agreed that these three definitions should be added. He also invited the Board Members to identify additional terms that need to be defined. • ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits. Vice Chair Rosen referred to Item A and suggested the term "excessively prune" is too vague and subjective. Mr. Lien said cities frequently reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when it comes to tree maintenance. However, he agreed that a definition for "maintenance" needs to be added to ECDC 23.10.020, and maintenance does not generally include topping. • ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas). B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). C. Routine maintenance. A definition is needed, as discussed earlier. 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 than one additional lot, except for that portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. This is an exemption in the current code, as well. E. Removal of nuisance and hazardous trees with supporting documentation. A permit would not be required but documentation would be required. This exemption for nuisance trees is not in the current code, but staff is recommending it be included. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 278 8.1.d Board Member Monroe referred to Item A and suggested the phrase "any other means" should be changed to "this code." Mr Lien agreed to consider this change. Chair Robles asked if the City has a map of its critical areas, and Mr. Lien referred to the City's website (www.maps.edmondswa.gov) that provides a variety of information such as zoning, planning, locations of utilities, critical areas, etc. However, he cautioned that the map does not show the exact location of all critical areas within the City. It provides a rough idea of where the critical areas are, and when development is proposed in those areas, the City does a site visit to determine the exact location of the critical area. Board Member Cheung requested clarification of Item D. Mr. Lien explained that an erosion hazard (15% to 40% slope) is considered a critical area. He used the 25% slope that is mentioned in the current tree code, since that is when slopes start to get steep enough that the exemption would no longer be appropriate. The language is similar to a provision in the SMP. Board Member Monroe suggested that the list in Item B should include WIFI. Mr. Lien suggested that WIFI would be covered as a communication line. Board Member Monroe suggested they could keep the language vague to say that any franchise utility could do what is necessary to maintain their facilities. They don't need to be listed out. Mr. Lien said he prefers to list them. If they want to include maintenance for cell towers, the language could be changed from "communication lines" to "communication facilities." Ms. Feser also referred to Item B and asked if it would be more appropriate to say "city -owned properties" instead of "city - owned rights -of -way." This would make it clear that the exemption includes maintenance in parks, as well. Mr. Lien said the exemption was written specifically for utility purposes and not necessarily a park exemption. However, a park exemption could be added. ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited. Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree removal would be prohibited for the following: 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 in ECDC 23.10.040(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees). This is similar to a provision in the existing code. 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. Critical Areas. In critical areas, critical area buffers and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapter 23.40 Board Member Monroe referred to Item B and asked if using the term "prior to" would be difficult to enforce. It can mean different things to different people. Mr. Lien reviewed that the current code states that, "There shall be no clearing a site for the sake of preparing the site for sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pursuant to a clearing permit, which has been approved by the City." He expressed his belief that the new language in Item D is intended to accomplish the same thing, and he doesn't foresee an enforcement problem. He explained that the Tree Code is not intended to address forest practice applications, which isn't something that typically occurs in Edmonds anyway. As proposed, the code would prohibit someone from clearing a vacant property unless the trees were deemed hazardous or nuisances. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there is a minimum lot size requirement for tree harvesting permits from the State of Washington. She pointed that developers can assemble properties to create larger areas for development and then take down trees years before submitting a development proposal. She suggested that Item B be changed by replacing "vacant lot" with "vacant parcel." If the parcel is of a certain size, it could require a state permit for harvesting timber. This would meet her concern that clear cutting be addressed. Mr. Lien explained that Item B is intended to prevent vacant properties from being clear cut, but he could look into including language specifically related to forest practices. He explained that the other sections of the code provide definitions for both "lot" and "parcel," and they are used interchangeably throughout the code. The definition could be added to this section of code, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said she tends to think of "parcel" when Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 279 8.1.d she thinks of clear cutting because they are looking at creating lots out of the parcel. She would prefer the word "parcel," because it extends the image of what they are looking at. Because the two terms are interchangeable, the exception in Item B could also apply to a lot. Mr. Lien said he prefers "lot" because "parcel" refers to a tax parcel. He advised that the County will draw tax parcel lines anywhere, and it doesn't necessarily mean a developable lot. Vice Chair Rosen referred to the last sentence in Item C, which states that replacement trees may be required. He commented that when a very large tree is removed, the replacement tree does not contribute at the same level. If the overall objective is to be neutral or even enhance the canopy, it is important to recognize there will be a gap. To address this gap, he suggested the City create a tree credit program that requires applicants to close the gap by supporting the tree fund, which would be used to replace the canopy in other ways. This concept could advance and fund the objective of making sure the canopy is maintained and even enhanced. Mr. Lien said they will discuss this idea further when they talk about the proposed language related specifically to tree replacement and a tree fund. Student Representative Bryan voiced concern with Item B. The idea of allowing the Director to decide what is reasonably needed to conduct demolition activities allows too much wiggle room. He suggested that "Director" should be changed to "qualified arborist." Mr. Lien explained that the Director may require documentation from a certified arborist to justify the removal, but it would still be the Director's responsibility to approve any tree removal associated with a demolition permit. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it would be the Development Services Director, and not the developer, who would make the decision as to what tree removal is reasonable needed. She suggested the language should be amended to provide this clarification. • ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity. Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all new single- family, short plats, subdivisions or multifamily developments. He noted that Item C requires that for new single family, short plat or subdivision development, at least 30% of all significant trees on a developable site must be retained. "Developable site" is defined and does not include such things as critical areas. This is consistent with a provision in the Critical Area Ordinance that development in RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with steep slopes, streams or wetlands must have a 30% native vegetation area. He reduced the number to 25% for multifamily development because it is a denser type of development. Mr. Lien advised that, as per Item CA, if a certain retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant would be required to pay a certain amount into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, in addition to requiring applicants to retain 30% of the significant trees on the developable site, the City should also require applicants to pay a certain amount into the tree fund equal to 100% or even 110% of the total number of trees that were removed from the site. The intent is to enhance the tree canopy. Board Member Monroe suggested they go even further and require a 2:1 replacement ratio. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the 30% retention requirement is likely lower than what most other jurisdictions require, and it sure doesn't help the City maintain its tree canopy. It equates to a 70% reduction in tree canopy. She said she also believes the 1:1 replacement requirement is low compared to surrounding jurisdictions. This replacement ratio won't help the City maintain its tree canopy, either. Board Member Monroe said he can understand the intent of the 25% and 30% retention requirement because they need to allow developers enough area to build projects. Requiring 100% retention would be unreasonable. However, developers should be required to plant a certain number of trees elsewhere in the City for each significant tree that is removed. Vice Chair Rosen said this would be consistent with his recommendation that developers be required to pay a certain amount into a tree fund for each significant tree that is removed. This would give the power to the City to decide how to replenish the canopy. The replacement requirement should be equal to the value of the significant trees that are removed. Ms. Feser reminded the Board that the tree fund would be used to plant trees on City properties, primarily in the parks. She voiced concern about leaving it up to a landowner to decide where and what types of tree would be planted. She would prefer that developers be required to pay into a tree fund. That way, the City would have the ability to plant the right trees in the right places. Board Member Monroe said he works for Sound Transit. For their projects in Federal Way and Kent, they have removed 15,000 to 20,000 trees and will be required to replant 45,000 more trees, and they are required to purchase property to plant the Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 280 8.1.d trees on. They would prefer to pay into a fund, since that is the easiest solution. However, they have found ways to accomplish the more stringent requirement. The City should ask no less of developers than is being asked of Sound Transit. Board Member Rubenkonig said there are options for accomplishing a greater tree retention requirement than 1:1 while still allowing for development. The best way to meet the requirement should be left to the person creating the landscape plan. If the requirement is too onerous, a developer could approach the City with a request for mitigation. If mitigation cannot be adequately addressed, and applicant could pay into tree fund. However, the tree fund should be the last option. Applicant's should be encouraged to do what they can to replace the trees on -site. Board Member Rubenkonig said that cities often have a minimum height requirement for replacement trees, which results in more mature trees. Vice Chair Rosen said he is concerned about the gap (value and loss) between a mature tree and an immature replacement tree. The City's code should require applicants to cover this gap. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are methods for getting more mature replacement trees, but the replacements would not be equal in value to larger significant trees. She suggested the Board should look in-depth at how other cities regulate tree replacement. Again, she said allowing applicants to pay into a tree fund should be the last resort. Vice Chair Rosen commented that there needs to be a variety of options in the toolbox. The end goal should be to require developers to make the City whole when a significant tree is taken down. This can be done via replacement and/or funding. The funding could be used to offer grants to residents to encourage tree planting elsewhere. Mr. Lien suggested that rather than the minimum tree retention requirement in the current draft, another option would be to base the requirement on zone. A 30% requirement in an RS-6 zone could be very different than the same requirement in an RS-20 zone. Board Member Cheung suggested that if they make the requirement so onerous, developers will simply decide to pay into the tree fund and build the cost into the price of the homes. This could have an impact on the cost of housing in the community. Board Member Monroe agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that the preferred option would tree retention, followed by planting replacement trees on site. The last option should be paying into a tree fund. Rather than putting all of the replacement trees in parks, the trees should be replaced in zones that are similar to where trees were removed or at least equitably distributed throughout the City. Mr. Lien said the Tree Board has discussed taking a more global approach. If there isn't space to plant more trees in the parks and open spaces, the City could partner with other organizations, such as the Mountain to Sound Greenway, to use the tree funds to purchase additional open space in other areas. Also, he suggested that if the tree fund requires a high dollar value for each tree that is removed, developers will be encouraged to consider options for either retaining more trees or planting the replacement trees on site. However, at this time, he doesn't have a suggestion as to what the dollar value should be. Board Member Monroe asked how the proposed 25% and 30% tree retention requirement compares to neighboring cities. Mr. Lien said only one other jurisdiction he reviewed used a percentage requirement. However, he would conduct further research and report back with additional information. Board Member Cheung referred to Vice Chair Rosen's point that some trees are more valuable than others. There is nothing in the 30% requirement that differentiates between the different sizes of significant trees. Mr. Lien reviewed that the tree retention provisions are broken out based on priority. Priority trees to focus on for retention include specimen trees, significant trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. The intent of prioritization is to make sure developers try to save the more significant trees. Board Member Cheung asked if the priorities are recommendations or if developers are required to follow the priorities. Mr. Lien said there is some flexibility. If the only 60- foot tall tree happens to be right in the middle of the only buildable site on the lot, the City can't require a developer to retain it. • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement. Mr. Lien summarized that, as currently proposed, a developer would be required to retain at least 30% of the significant trees, and replacement trees would be required for those that are removed at a ratio of 1:1. If the trees cannot be replaced on site, a Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 281 8.1.d developer could pay a certain amount per tree into the tree fund. At the next meeting, staff will be prepared to have a discussion with the Board about what the appropriate tree replacement might be. It could be based on tree size, requiring a higher replacement ratio when larger trees are removed. He reminded the Board that the last time a draft Tree Code was presented for public hearing, there was a lot of controversy regarding the idea of basing the replacement requirement on the type of zone (density). He said he would research what other jurisdictions are doing in preparation for the Board's more in-depth discussion. Board Member Rubenkonig thanked Mr. Lien for creating the topic matrix, which helped her organize her thoughts. She felt it helps ensure the Board addresses all of the items. Mr. Lien encouraged the Board Members to submit their comments, suggestions and typographical corrections to him via email. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility. Mr. Lien explained shared an example of a subdivision to illustrate why trees are often clear cut. Although there might be a number of substantial trees on the site, once all of the development standards (access requirements, utility easements, setbacks, etc.) were applied, only a few trees were left intact. The remaining trees might be exposed and spindly and not necessarily the trees that you want to retain. At the next meeting, the Board will discuss how to provide flexibility within Development Code that allows houses to be grouped to one side a bit so more trees can be saved. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles announced that, due to Veteran's Day, the Board's November 11I meeting was rescheduled to a special meeting on November 181. The agenda for that meeting will focus solely on the draft Tree Code. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code amendments is tentatively scheduled for December 91 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Pence observed that this has been a very different kind of year for the Planning Board. Due to the pandemic, the Board missed a number of meetings prior to starting the Zoom format. The Chair and Vice Chair haven't had an opportunity to put their stamp on the Board's activities like previous leaders have. It occurred to him that they should re-elected them both for another year. Chair Robles said they have been able to put a pretty big stamp down, and he believes that Board Member Rosen will carry forward quite effectively as the chair next year. Board Member Pence commented that he didn't mean to diminish their efforts, just note that they could have shined even brighter with a regular routine. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 282 8.1.d Agenda Item." Mr. Chave commented that the software that is used to create the agendas has limitations about how items can be named. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding was that tonight's meeting would only be a public hearing on the CIP and CFP. She thought that the schedule that was agreed to at the last meeting would stand, and the Board would continue its review of the Tree Code Regulations on November 18tk'. Mr. Lien responded that, because the Board had to add another meeting for the CIP/CFP public hearing, he thought it would be a good idea for them to also continue their review of the tree code regulations. However, they do not need to redo their discussion from the last meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Anna West, Edmonds, suggested that some verbiage regarding protecting water views should be included in the intent and purpose section of the revised Tree Code. It hasn't been included in the draft yet, and the City would be remiss not to include it. Puget Sound helps define the City of Edmonds, and the water is one of the reasons that new residents purchase homes, current residents stay, and visitors spend money in the City. Adding verbiage in the Tree Code to protect water views is important because trees have the potential to block those cherished views. She is hoping the City can work with the citizens to come up with language that protects both trees and the water. Chair Robles emphasize that this is a Tree Code and not a View Code. View will not likely be specifically mentioned in the Tree Code, since it is a different category of regulation. Mr. Chave added that the City has had a number of discussions about views in its history of policy and codes. Up to this point in time, the City has chosen not to regulate private views. Ms. West commented that it seems the City is spending a lot of time regulating private trees, and she thought it might be a good segway into a piece that really defines the City. The City has a symbiotic relationship with the trees and the water. She supports tree retention, but there needs to be some guidance for residents. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Ms. West is requesting that some reference to the City's stance on private view protection be incorporated into the Tree Code. Ms. West said she would actually like the City's stance to change from what it has been for the past three decades. She is cognizant it will be an uphill battle, but it needs to be addressed, as water views play a huge role in the City. She asked that the City have dialogue with the community on the best way to maintain that piece of the City as it continues to thrive and grow. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. West is suggesting that the City consider options for protecting private views. Mr. Chave suggested the Board consider this request as they review the draft Tree Code later on the agenda. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he serves on the City's Citizens Tree Board. He asked that the Board Members consider his written comments from two letters he submitted prior to the meeting as they review the draft Tree Code. He invited them to reach out to him with questions and comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred to the written Development Services Director Report and noted that it appears to be outdated. There were no other questions or comments regarding the report. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP) Chair Robles briefly reviewed the rules and procedures and then opened the hearing. Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is tied to the Comprehensive Plan and is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long-term capital projects related to addressing growth and demand. It covers planning horizons of 6 and 20 years. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is tied to the City's budget and is organized by the City's financial funds. It includes not only projects that are budgeted for the upcoming year, but also identifies the maintenance and capital projects anticipated over the next 6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects with funding sources. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 283 8.1.d • Goal LA — 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. • Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. • Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. Mr. Lien referred to Ms. West's comment, made earlier in the meeting, regarding protection of views. He advised that none of the goals and policies in the Urban Forest Management Plan specifically address views, but views were discussed as they relate to planting the right trees in the right places. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board started its review of the draft Tree Code on October 28t''. Following tonight's work, the Board will continue its discussion at a special meeting on November 18t''. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 91. He advised that the draft proposal will be updated to incorporate the Planning Board's feedback following the special meeting on November 181. • ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements Mr. Lien reviewed that, as proposed, for new single-family short plats or subdivisions, 30% of all significant trees on the developable site must be retained. This mirrors the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance for tree retention on RS-12 and RS-20 sites in critical areas. For multifamily sites, the requirement is 25%. For replacement, the proposed language would require a 1:1 ratio for tree replacement. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board requested information about how other jurisdictions address tree retention and replacement requirements, as well as how they determine the appropriate dollar amount per tree. They also raised a concern that the replacement requirement might not be sufficient. He referred to the memorandum he sent to the Board prior to the meeting, outlining the results of his research that focused specifically on what other jurisdictions require for tree retention with development. Some of the jurisdictions have general density requirements, which isn't something the City is considering as part of the Tree Code update. He briefly reviewed the results as follows: o Lynnwood does not have a specific tree retention requirement, but they do require trees that are removed to be replaced based on the number of tree units, which is derived from the diameter of the trees that are cut. If applicants choose not to plant trees for the required tree units, they can pay a fee into the city's tree fund at a rate of $187 per tree. If a site cannot support the required number of replacement trees, the applicant would be required to pay $106 per tree into the fund. o Shoreline requires that 20% of significant trees be retained if there aren't any critical areas on the site and 30% if critical areas are present. They require replacement if more trees are removed than what is allowed by the retention requirement. The replacement requirement of up to 3 trees is based on the size of the trees that are removed. They don't have neither a tree fund nor a fee -in -lieu option. o Redmond requires that 30% of significant trees be retained, and the replacement ratio is 1:1 for each significant tree that is removed, except landmark trees, which must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. They do not have a tree fund, but they do have a fee -in -lieu program to cover the cost of tree replacement. They don't specify a specific dollar value for each tree, but just a cost that covers tree replacement. o Kirkland has a tree -density requirement based on a tree -credit system. Developments are required to have 30 tree credits per acre, and larger trees are worth more tree credits. They have a fee -in -lieu program that is paid into a City Forestry Account if trees cannot be planted on site. The dollar amount is based on the current market value. o Issaquah requires retention based on zone. In single-family zones, 30% of the total caliper of all significant trees must be retained. In multifamily zones, the requirement is 25%. While Edmonds calculates percentage Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 284 8.1.d based on the total number of trees on the site, Issaquah calculates based on the total caliper of all of the trees on the site. Replacement is required if the retention standard is not met, and they have a fee -in -lieu program that doesn't identify a specific dollar value for each tree. o Medina has a fee -in -lieu program that is based on the size of the tree, and the dollar value is based on the diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH). They require $200 per inch for trees with a DBH up to 20 inches, which would equate to $4,000 for a 20-inch tree. Mr. Lien commented that, while Medina's dollar values might be too much, he likes the way their program is structured. He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board discussed that larger trees should be valued greater than small trees. He suggested that Edmonds could consider a similar approach, but lower the dollar value. Chair Robles agreed that Medina's approach is creative, and he suggested the dollar values are not really out of line when you attach them to the increase in property value associated with improved view. Mr. Lien commented that not all properties in Edmonds have potential views, so he cautioned against attaching that high dollar value to all properties in Edmonds. Again, he said he likes the structure, but the dollar values seem excessive. Board Member Rubenkonig said the principle found in Issaquah's code stands out to her as a clear approach. It requires replacement if the retention standard is not met, which makes it clear that the goal is retention. She suggested that Edmonds should also identify a specific principle that underscores its approach. She said she didn't find the other examples to be as clear. Mr. Lien noted that Shoreline also requires replacement if the retention standard is not met. The current proposal simply requires a 1:1 replacement, but it could be changed to incorporate this concept. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that Issaquah's replacement requirement is based on caliper (DBH) of the tree. Mr. Lien said Shoreline's approach, which is based on "significant trees," would be the easiest to implement. Rather than having to measure the size of each tree, it counts the number of trees that are at or greater than a specific size. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be an acceptable approach, but she still wants language that makes the intended principle clear. Board Member Monroe asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting the best thing to do is retain the existing trees, and the next best option would be to replace the trees. If you can't do that, you should pay a fee -in -lieu. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that the best approach is to require tree retention as a first priority. Board Member Monroe agreed, as well. He said replacement should be an option, but it should be the second choice. Replacement should be more difficult than retention, and it should be more costly still to pay an in -lieu fee. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that the first option should be retention, followed by replacement, recognizing there is a lot of innovation available when it comes to planting trees. She also supports having a tree bank or fee -in -lieu program in place. Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the Board's direction, the tree retention should remain at 30% and 25%, and replacement would be required if the retention requirement is not met. He will consider options for what the appropriate replacement ratio should be. As the tree gets larger, the replacement ratio should increase, too. The Board indicated support for these changes. Chair Robles suggested they consider the scenario of a tree that is blocking the view of the sound. If the tree is cut down, the property value would increase substantially. Would the property owner be able to purchase the extinction of the tree for the property value benefit? Mr. Lien reminded them that, as currently drafted, the Tree Code would apply to certain new development applications: short subdivision, subdivision, new multifamily and new single-family. The requirements would not apply to a developed single-family site with no critical areas. Board Member Monroe suggested that the Purpose and Intent Section should clearly explain when the requirements apply. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Subdivision Design Flexibility Mr. Lien shared a diagram of a sample subdivision application, pointing out how the development requirements (utility easements, access easements, setbacks, etc.) reduce the buildable area and impact a developer's ability to retain existing trees. He explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, which was discussed at the last meeting, would be applied to Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 285 8.1.d this section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following flexibility is proposed: 1. Setbacks may be reduced up to 20% in all residential zones provided that no side setback is less than 5%. The required front setback may not be reduced more than 5 feet, but an additional 5-foot reduction may be allowed for covered entry porches. 2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering so dwelling units can be shifted to the most suitable locations, but the overall density cannot be increased. 3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone. 4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes. Mr. Lien advised that, prior to the public hearing, he will create a drawing that illustrates how these flexible options might be applied on a property that is being subdivided. Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed flexibility, but he questioned how the City would ensure that the protected trees are retained after the properties are developed and sold? Mr. Lien said that, as proposed, trees that are required to be retained with development would be classified as "protected trees, and the term is defined in the Tree Code (ECDC 23). Chair Robles asked about the administrative cost of keeping a track of protected trees. Mr. Lien explained that a tree plan would be required when flexibility is granted, and the City would use that plan to track the trees. There are some other ideas for addressing the issue via the permit process, too. Chair Robles summarized that, when purchasing a home in Edmonds, due diligence may include going to the City to research the property's tree liability. Mr. Lien said that if a tree is retained as part of a subdivision, the condition could be specifically listed on the face of a plat. For multifamily development, a landscape plan would be required. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to record a tree plan as part of a subdivision plan. She agreed that it is important that subsequent owners be required to maintain the protected trees per the approved tree plan. However, without proper documentation, it would be difficult for the City to identify problems. Mr. Lien explained that, typically, subdivision approval is based on certain conditions that are listed in the staff report and on file with the City of Edmonds. The tree plan could be recorded as one of the conditions, and someone doing due diligence would be able to contact the City to find the list of conditions that apply to the property. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a new development that tied into a regional stormwater system. The water flowed a certain way, and the individual yards were designed to assist with the flow. However, the homeowners landscaped their yards in a way that interfered with the programmed flow. She summarized that, oftentimes, plans look good on paper, but they need to consider what the City needs to do to make sure that the plans are maintained and enforced. Mr. Lien agreed that, if the City does allow design flexibility to retain trees, it makes sense to ensure that the conditions are documented, either by recording the tree plan or specifically calling the requirements out on the plat plan. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that many people are looking for accountability with the tree code, and accountability is a big part of making a program successful. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has made a case for the priority of tree plantings the City prefers. In addition to planting the right tree in the right place, do the regulations stipulate a preference for a grove of trees versus stand-alone trees. Mr. Lien said that, for retention, this is specifically called out in the proposed language. He referred to the priority list that was discussed at the last meeting, noting that the grove environment is priority one. Similar language is also included in the replacement section. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is important to get the best return for the environment. Mr. Lien said the current proposal does not include a preferred tree list, but it could be added. The Tree Board is currently working on a list that could be provided to property owners to educate them on the right tree for the right place. Board Member Rubenkonig said it is important that the list include trees that support habitat. Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is interested in adding language to ensure that the protected trees are documented when this section is applied to a new development. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 286 8.1.d • ECDC 23.10.060(B) — Tree Retention Plan Mr. Lien explained that a tree retention plan must be submitted as part of an application for new development. As proposed, the tree retention plan must include a tree inventory that contains a numbering system of all existing significant trees on the property and identify the size of all the trees, the proposed tree status (retained or removed), the general health or condition rating, and tree types or species. The tree retention plan must also include a site plan that shows the location of all proposed improvements, the accurate location of significant trees, and the location of tree protection measures. Trees must be labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system, and the limits of disturbance must be drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances. The proposed tree status must be identified, as well as the proposed locations of any supplemental replacement trees as needed. Board Member Rubenkonig said it isn't clear as to which professionals can do each part of the Tree Retention Plan. Mr. Lien responded that, as proposed, a qualified tree professional may be required to prepare certain components of the tree plan. For example, an arborist will need to make a determination on the health of the trees, but a surveyor will identify the location of trees. Like with all development applications, a team of consultants will put together the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that some jurisdictions are tightening their requirements and specifically calling out who is qualified enough to develop the tree plan. The Board should discuss how exacting it wants the requirement to be. Chair Robles said he would be reluctant to get too particular, since it could result in a barrier. He asked if there is any incentive for a property owner to submit a tree plan for his/her property, thereby adding to the tree inventory the City can possess without having to produce. Ultimately, a City's tree inventory will provide the information to make the bigger decisions about the canopy going forward. The barrier to this is the resources to count all of the trees. It isn't so much of a problem if individual property owners submit tree plans. Mr. Lien said this concept is not in the proposed Tree Code. The City is currently doing a partial inventory of the street trees, and the Urban Forest Management Plan talks about a canopy assessment. However, he doesn't know if it would be possible to conduct an inventory of all of the trees in the City. Again, he reminded the Board that the proposed Tree Code would only apply to new development. He doesn't know what the City would do with tree inventories submitted by random private property owners. When they discuss permits, he will highlight some ideas that have come forward that could get to the tracking of trees, what has been planted, and what has been removed. He summarized that a tree inventory is required with new development because there will be a retention requirement. The City will need to know what trees are on the site, so they know how many have to be retained to meet the retention requirement. Chair Robles pointed out that 90% of the trees in Edmonds are on private property. He questioned the scope of the tree plan if it only accounts for a small number of trees (10%). Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the proposed language is not intended to be a tree plan. Instead, it provides regulations that deal with trees that are associated with development. The Urban Forest Management Plan is a tree plan that talks about canopy assessment, coverage, tree inventories, etc. However, this information is outside of the tree code, itself. Mr. Lien advised that the tree retention plan must also include an arborist report that provides a complete description of each tree's health, condition and viability, a description of the methods used to determine the limits of disturbance, etc. Board Member Monroe pointed out that some trees may not be viable for retention because they are in the way of the proposed development. He asked if these situations are adequately addressed in the proposed code. Mr. Lien referred back to the priorities for tree retention. There is also language in the code that talks about working in good faith with the applicant and the City. Obviously, a tree cannot be retained if it is located where a building is proposed. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that, as proposed, an applicant would be required to provide an arborist report to support this claim. He suggested that staff review the language and decide if clarification is needed. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the proposed design flexibility that allows structures to be grouped differently on a site would relieve some of the pressure when it comes to deciding which trees can be retained. She concluded that, if they allow more flexibility in the design standards, the approach will not be as rigid. Mr. Lien explained that, oftentimes, when subdivision applications are reviewed, applicants don't know where the actual buildings will go. This makes it more difficult to do a tree retention plan. As proposed, they can do an initial version of a tree retention plan as part of the subdivision submittal, and a more detailed plan when the project reaches the building phase. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 287 8.1.d REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its work session on the draft Tree Code at their November 18 special meeting. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. He reminded them that they will also need to elect new officers for 2021 at their December 9' meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank announced that she was elected to serve as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission, just in time for the big project the Commission has been assigned, which is the Airport Master Plan. Landrum & Brown has been hired as the consultant for this project, and a special virtual meeting is scheduled for November 19' at 6 p.m. She invited those interested to tune in. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 288 8.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom November 18, 2020 Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Barbara Chase, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Tree Board, and was present to follow the Board's work on the Tree Code. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he is also a member of the Tree Board. He said he submitted written comments to the Board just prior to the meeting regarding the Tree Code Regulations. Vice Chair Rosen confirmed that the Board received the letter. The Board confirmed that they also received a letter from Duane Farman regarding the Tree Code Regulations. Packet Pg. 289 8.1.d Vice Chair Rosen asked staff to respond to the question that was posed by Board Member Pence about why the Planning Board did not review the street vacation application that was recently approved by the City Council, even though it involved trees. Mr. Chave explained that street map amendments are a Planning Board legislative recommendation to the City Council, but street vacations are decided only by the City Council, without Planning Board involvement. Occasionally, a street map amendment is also a street vacation. In these situations, the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council on the street map amendment, but it still does not make a recommendation on the street vacation application, itself. Board Member Pence asked how they could change the code to include the Planning Board in street vacation applications. This seems equally as important as some of the other issues the Board deals with, including the street map changes. Mr. Chave explained that the street map is a planning document, and street vacations are technical documents dealing with public works and rights -of -way. Street vacations are covered in Title 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), and the City Council has never chosen to have these standards come under the purview of the Planning Board. Chair Robles referred to the Staff Report, which notes a number of goals and actions in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) related to tree retention. He asked that Mr. Lien identify when a proposed Tree Code amendment meets one or more of those goals. Mr. Lien agreed to circle back to the UFMP goals and actions as part of his presentation. Mr. Lien reminded the Board and members of the public that the City has created a website for the Tree Code update (www.treecode.edmonds.wa.gov) that provides links to all of the Planning Board's agendas, videos and minutes. It also provides a link to the latest version of the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien reported that written comments been received since the last Planning Board meeting on November 12t1' were included in the Planning Board's packets. Those that were received today will be included in the next Planning Board packet. All of the written comments will be attached to the packet that is prepared for the Public Hearing on December 9' Mr. Lien advised that the official notice for the December 9' public hearing will be published on the website. The hearing will also be published in THE EVERETT HERALD and posted at the Public Safety Building, City Hall, and the Library. In addition, he will write a press release prior to the public hearing. To raise awareness of the Tree Code update, staff presented the concepts table at a City Council meeting that was broadcast on the local television. Staff also issued a press release for the new website that was published in My Edmonds News and announced on the City's website. The Tree Code update has been mentioned twice in the City's news bulletin that goes out every other week, as well. He acknowledged that public involvement has been more difficult due to the pandemic, and the City has had to rely on technology to allow people to participate. In addition to participating via Zoom, citizens can use their phones to listen to and speak at the meetings. He summarized that staff is doing the best it can with technology given the current situation. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: Goal 1— Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage. • Goal LA — 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. The draft code currently before the Board addresses all of these topics. • Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft code does not adopt this policy. However, the Planning Board recommended that language should be added to the "Purpose" section. This additional language will be inserted prior to the public hearing. • Goal 1.C—Ensureprotection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The Tree Code does not explicitly accomplish this goal. However, the City's Critical Area Code, which is referenced in a number of places throughout the draft Tree Code, addresses this goal. Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 290 8.1.d • Goal 1.D — 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. The Board will be reviewing the draft language related to the tree fund during their upcoming discussion. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). • ECDC 23.10.070 — Tree Protection Measures During Development Mr. Lien explained that this section outlines the requirements for protecting the trees that have been identified for retention. As proposed, prior to initiating development activity or tree removal on a site, trees to be preserved must 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 parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building materials, and dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to a tree that is designated for protection. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City would address violations to this standard. Mr. Lien said that, rather than fines, violations would be picked up during inspection and developers would be required to comply. He reminded them that a pre -application meeting with the developer would be required as part of the Tree Retention Plan process. At that meeting, staff would review the proposal to ensure that the tree protection measures are in place before any construction activity begins on the site. Board Member Rubenkonig said she was particularly concerned about the last sentence. For example, would attaching a chain to a protected tree result in a violation. Mr. Lien said the language is more about ensuring compliance with development. B. Protective barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling, or any land alteration, applicants must: 1. Erect and maintain temporary protective fencing (6-foot, chain -link) along the limits of the disturbance. 2. Install highly -visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence. The signs must be approved by the Director and state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violators. If a protected tree is damaged to the extent that a tree dies, replacement would be required. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers. However, the Director may allow activities that are approved and supervised by a qualified professional who is retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the Director authorizes removal. 5. Ensure any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers is accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. 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 the depth of at least 6 inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar materials to protect the roots and soil from damage. 7. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot deep trench at the edge of the critical root zone to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred the roots with heavy equipment. 8. Do corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. 9. Maintain trees throughout construction by watering and fertilizing. Board Member Monroe pointed out that, as proposed, developers would be fined or required to replace any protected trees that don't survive. He questioned if this section is overly prescriptive. Couldn't they just require a Tree Retention Plan. If it doesn't work, regardless of the reason why, the developer would be required to remedy the situation. What if someone follows all of the prescribed steps and the tree still dies? Mr. Lien recommended that the code should be Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 291 8.1.d prescriptive as far as tree protection measures. He explained that sometimes things happen and trees are damaged during development. When this occurs, developers who haven't met the retention requirement would have to replace the tree. Board Member Monroe agreed that the requirements should be prescriptive, but language should make it clear that tree retention would be measured at the end of the project and not during the project. Mr. Lien agreed to adjust the language in ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Requirements) to make this clear. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if a new tree fails, nurseries will often replace them. She also commented that the proposed language in this section appears very similar to what is required in other jurisdictions her company has worked in. C. Grade. This section deals with grading that might occur around a protected tree. As proposed: 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of a protected tree without the Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The Director may allow coverage of up to '/z inch of the critical root zone with light soils to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans if it will not imperil the trees survival. "Critical root zone" is defined as the area surrounding the tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to 1 foot for every inch of trunk diameter. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode the tree's critical root zone, it must be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the Director's authorization. The Director may require construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure a tree's survival and minimize potential root -induced damage. 4. To the greatest extent possible, utility trenches must be located outside of the critical root zone of protected trees. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the trenching would significantly reduce the chances of a tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained where feasible. D. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage of trees designated for retention. E. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forest industry practices. Board Member Monroe asked if Item C.1 is intended to limit the power of the Director. If a better opportunity presents itself, and a qualified professional supports it, the Director should be allowed to approve it. Mr. Lien answered that a balancing act is required when determining the level of flexibility that should be allowed. The goal was to be consistent with the intent of the code, which isn't always black and white when it comes to flexibility. Board Member Monroe suggested that Item C.2 should be amended to clarify who would determine if a rootzone has been permanently stabilized, such as a qualified professional. He also suggested that the last sentence in Item C.5 should be replaced with a reference to the City's existing erosion control standards. Sometimes shrubs, ground cover and stumps are not the best way to control erosion. Mr. Lien said the existing erosion control standards typically address temporary stormwater situations, and Item C.2 is intended to be more long-term. If you don't have to disturb the shrubs and ground cover, they should be maintained to help prevent future erosion. Erosion control wouldn't be needed if the shrubs and ground cover are left intact. Board Member Monroe asked if it would make sense to add some examples to Item E. As written, applicants are left to guess what the Director might give them latitude to do. Mr. Lien responded that this provision was intended to be general because it isn't possible to consider all of the site -specific options. Board Member Monroe asked if it would be possible to cite a specific urban forest industry practices document. He is concerned that applicants will present crazy ideas that the Director will have to study and make a decision on. Mr. Lien explained that if the City doesn't have the expertise to evaluate an applicant's idea, it would be sent out for peer review. The Director will consult with Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 292 8.1.d the City's arborist, as well. Mr. Chave suggested they could add language in this provision that requires the approval of the City's arborist. Mr. Lien cautioned against this since the arborist's current job description does not include project review. Chair Robles commented that anyone who is developing land with any kind of complexity would be wise to hire their own consultant. He asked if the City would provide a checklist of things a consultant should review when advising an applicant. Mr. Lien said the required Tree Plan, which must be prepared by a qualified professional and arborist, would cover all of the items that must be included in a development application. Item C is intended to outline the actual implementation of the Tree Plan. • ECDC 23.10.090 — Bonding. Mr. Lien reviewed that the City currently requires bonding for development that requires native vegetation or landscape plans, and they are typically done before the City issues final approval on a project. However, the City also requires 2-year maintenance bonds, which are 15% of the bond amount. At the end of 2 years, the City does an inspection and the bond won't be released until any vegetation that didn't survive is replanted. The proposed language was copied from the landscape chapter of the code. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item C, noting that there is no mention of a 2-year timeframe for the maintenance bond. She reviewed that the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy happens before the trees have really established themselves. Mr. Lien agreed to adjust the language to add the 2-year timeframe. • ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits. Mr. Lien recalled that when the last Tree Code update was presented to the Board, the permit requirement drew a lot of attention. The existing code has two types of tree -cutting permits. For single-family properties that do not fall under the exemptions, tree cutting requires a Type II Permit, which is a staff decision with notice. The application fee is $1,000 for every tree that is cut down, and permits take about 2 to 3 months to process. For multifamily properties, tree cutting requires a Type I Permit, which is also a staff decision with no notice. The application fee is $305 for every tree that is cut down. These permits are reviewed to make sure that the proposed tree removal is consistent with the landscape plan that was approved for the development. Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit. Although not included in the proposed draft, Mr. Lien said some people have suggested, and other cities have implemented, a requirement that private property owners must seek permission to cut down a tree. If the goal is to track tree removal across the City as a basis for measuring the no -net -loss requirement, there must be a way to track trees that are cut down. Some jurisdictions allow a certain number of trees to be removed in a given time period. No permit is required, but documentation must be submitted. This would be similar to how the City addresses hazardous trees; no permit is required, but documentation is. Staff has voiced concern that it would require additional staff time to review and track each application, and they question what benefit would be gained other than giving people pause when considering tree removal. Chair Robles said this potential provision would be a way to regulate tree cutting on private properties. Mr. Lien explained that the Tree Code would generally apply to new development activity: short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. For the Commission's information, he briefly reviewed the exemptions found in ECDC 23.10.040. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas). Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 293 8.1.d B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). (Note: The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director has also requested an exemption for tree maintenance in parks) C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain health of cultivated plants and to contain noxious weeks, remedy potential fire hazards and other threats and 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 than one additional lot, except that portion of the lot contained in the critical area or associated buffer and excepting erosion hazards on slopes less than 25%. (Note: Based on the recent moratorium on subdivisions, staff is suggesting that the phrase, "which is capable of being divided into not more than one additional lot" should be deleted. Otherwise, the exemption would allow someone to cut down trees before applying for a subdivision.) E. Nuisance and hazardous trees that do not meet the above exemptions may be removed with supporting documentation. Mr. Lien also reviewed ECDC 23.10.050, which identifies tree removal that is prohibited: A. Protected Trees: Protected trees cannot be removed unless they are determined to be hazardous. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited unless they are determined to be hazardous. C. Demolition: Tree removal as part of a permitted demolition is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the Director. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited. Board Member Monroe pointed out that Exemption D will be what private, single-family property owners will be most interested in. He suggested that this exemption should be moved to the top of the list. Chair Robles agreed that the exemption should be at the top of the list and clearly visible to members of the public who attend and comment at the public hearing. Board Member Monroe also suggested that language be added to the "Intent and Purpose" section to make it even clearer that it is not the City's intent to control private property owners' ability to maintain their trees. Board Member Monroe asked if the City tracks the planting of trees. Mr. Lien answered only those that are required as part of development. The City doesn't keep a running log of how many trees are planted with development, as this would require a lot of staff time. Board Member Monroe said he understands the purpose of requiring private property owners to register their tree removals with the City and limit the number of trees that can be removed per year. But if the City isn't tracking the number of trees that are replanted, the information would be incomplete and not provide an accurate indication of the number of trees in the City. For future regulations addressing existing residential lots, Board Member Rubenkonig advised similar parallel language to the single-family/multifamily approach in the draft Tree Code. With that approach in mind, she said she favors starting with a tree credit balance and an arborist tree survey. This would be similar to the City of Kirkland's tree credit system, without the density requirement. This approach would reinforce the main underlying objective of retention. Many homeowners have maintained a healthy tree canopy, and this benefit to Edmonds needs to be rewarded and incentivized for others to do the same. Property owners who have a tree credit balance would not have to pay for a tree permit because they already have as many trees as they need to provide on their property. She summarized that she would like the City to implement a system that rewards those homeowners who have planted trees and incentivize others to continue to plant more trees. The goal is to increase the tree canopy. Chair Robles added that property owners should also be rewarded for leaving existing trees in place. He said there have been some suggestions of managing this type of program by using certain newer technologies. While they can't get to that point with the current proposal, the idea of a credit system sounds promising. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions accept satellite images of tree canopy to establish the tree coverage on a single lot. While the technology is certainly available, she said she can't speak to the amount of staff time that would be required to administer the program. Mr. Lien said the program described by Board Member Rubenkonig would be a type of density requirement for all properties in the City. If the City establishes a density requirement, it would also need to create a program to review all tree removal within the City. He recalled that the previous draft Tree Code included a density requirement, as well as a review for any tree removal. Even if the permit was free, a property owner would have to submit a site plan for staffs Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 294 8.1.d review. Staff would then determine if the application would meet the density requirement. If not, replacement trees would be required. He reminded them that this approach created a lot of community concern. Rather than the term "density requirement," Board Member Rubenkonig said she would prefer to use the phrase "benchmark figure for retention of mature trees on a lot." She doesn't want to go as far as the City of Kirkland has, but she would like to consider a tree credit program for residential sites. This would affirm the City's goal of tree retention and increasing the tree canopy. Mr. Lien said the proposed Tree Code includes a tree retention requirement associated with new development, but it would not apply outside of the development review process. Whatever the concept is called, it has not been proposed to apply citywide. If it was, the permit process would need to be expanded to include all tree removal. • ECDC 23.10.110 —Liability. Mr. Lien said this section makes it clear that property owners would still be liable for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed with any permit issued by the City. There is similar language on nearly all of the City's permit applications that indemnify the City. It makes it clear the property owners assume any liability associated with the permit. • ECDC 23.10.100 — Violations. Mr. Lien explained that, in the existing code, violations are split up based on tree diameter. Trees that are 1 to 3 inches in diameter can be fined $1,000 to $3,000 per tree, depending on whether it is within a right-of-way or critical area. Trees that are greater than 3 inches in diameter can be fined $3,000 to $9,000 per tree. The proposed code has multiple ways to assess the fine. He specifically reviewed the following sections: A. Penalties. 1. Aiding and Abetting. Not only would property owners be responsible if a tree is cut in violation, but the company that does the tree cutting would also be held responsible. 2. Civil Penalties. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonable determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction. b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property, etc.). This provision addresses situations like the Point Edwards clear cut of the slopes prior to development. c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal using the trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. This is similar to a house appraisal. A tree has a value based on where it is, how important it is to the neighborhood, etc. Rather than having a fixed fee for larger trees, the proposed code would require a tree appraisal to establish the fine. d. For smaller trees (less than 12-inches in diameter), the penalty would be $1,500 per tree. e. Tree topping is considered an illegal tree cutting. Particularly for tall Douglas Firs and Cedars, it can do significant damage to a tree and can create a hazardous situation. If an illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owners will be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a 5-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. f. Penalties will be paid into the City's tree fund. Board Member Monroe asked if "illegal tree topping" is defined in the code. Mr. Lien responded that if a permit would have otherwise been required to cut a tree, topping the tree would be considered illegal. He said he could add a definition or "tree topping." He explained that topping trees that are exempt from the Tree Code would not be considered illegal, but it still wouldn't be considered good practice. Student Representative Bryan asked who would be responsible for actually doing the pruning labor for the next five years. Mr. Lien answered that the property owner would have this responsibility. Student Representative Bryan asked what penalties would be applied if the 5-year pruning schedule is ignored. Mr. Lien said that, similar to critical area mitigation Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 295 8.1.d plans, the City could require monitoring reports throughout the 5-year period. However, he is concerned about how the City would inspect the tree each year to ensure that proper pruning has been done. Because of safety and liability issues, it would behoove a property owner to comply. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that failure to enforce tree plans and landscape plans after the 2-year performance bond is released is a chronic issue in most all jurisdictions. There isn't enough staff to accomplish this task, so most cities rely on citizen complaints to address these situations. She would prefer an approach that requires monitoring reports, which would at least require some accountability. Mr. Lien questioned where the tickler would be put in the City system to make sure a monitoring report is submitted every 5 years. Board Member Crank pointed out that the draft Tree Code is being created as if the pandemic doesn't exist and everything is normal. That isn't the case, and they don't know when things will get back to normal. She asked if qualifying language would be provided at the beginning of the Tree Code to recognize that some of the timelines and penalties might need to be softer if the pandemic is still a reality in two years. If that is the case, it may not be possible to comply with some of the code requirements, such as regular monitoring. At this time, they don't know how the pandemic will alter timelines going forward. Mr. Lien explained that an emergency proclamation related to the pandemic was issued by Mayor Nelson. It acknowledges the extraordinary times and gives the Director flexibility to not apply the strict standards of the code that would otherwise be required. He cautioned against including a disclaimer in the ordinance stating that the code was developed under the pandemic and may be reviewed again in a few years. Board Member Crank said she is not suggesting a disclaimer or that the code should be reviewed again in two years, but the language should at least recognize that there may need to be some flexibility due to the pandemic. Board Member Rubenkonig said her focus has been on the fact that most of the work related to trees is done outdoors, and most of the plans can be submitted electronically. There hasn't been a big shift in terms of how the work is being done, unless Governor Inslee shuts down any type of outside work. If that happens, it would be a temporary measure. While she agreed the City needs to be mindful that the process could be compromised due to the pandemic, she is comfortable with the fact that the Mayor has issued an emergency ordinance that allows flexibility as appropriate. Board Member Cheung commented that as Item C.1 currently reads, both the homeowner and the person cutting the tree could be fined separately for each violation. Mr. Lien clarified that the fine would be established per code and split between the responsible parties. Board Member Cheung suggested the language needs to be clarified. He also questioned why the person cutting down the tree would be responsible if it is done at the homeowner's insistence. Mr. Lien said that, for the most part, the work is done by tree -removal companies, and they typically contact the City prior to removing a tree to find out whether or not a permit is required. Some companies are more scrupulous than others, and if one company declines to cut down the tree without a permit, a property owner can usually find another that will. For that reason, he felt that both parties should be held responsible. Mr. Chave said it is important to also have the party that cuts the trees down potentially liable because it is in their interest to make sure they understand and follow the rules. Board Member Cheung asked if a handyman or friend (not a tree removal company) would be held liable if he/she was hired to cut down a tree and the property owner fails to obtain the proper permit. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as written, the provision doesn't say who would be responsible to pay the penalty, but the notice of violation and penalty would be addressed to both parties and there would only be one fine. It would be up to the two parties to figure out how the penalty would be paid. Board Member Pence said that, if he were offering advice to a tree removal company, he would suggest they include in their agreement with clients that they assume responsibility for any permits that are required. Then it would become a legal issue between the tree removal company and the homeowner, with the tree removal company trying to push the liability onto the homeowner. Chair Robles said that, if he were to hire a tree consultant, he would want to know the best, safest and legal way to cut down the tree. He felt the onus should be on the tree removal company to understand the laws where they operate. Board Member Monroe asked how the triple damages called for under civil penalties would be applied. Mr. Lien said that, as per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.12, which is referenced in Item C.2, trespassing onto someone else's Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 296 8.1.d property could result in triple damages. That means the damages could be triple if trespassing occurs in any of the situations listed. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a bad situation that occurred on her first day on the job in Maryland. After she parked her car, she approached a man who was cutting down trees in the parking lot, asking if her car would be safe. She was informed that it would. However, later in the day she learned that a tree was dropped next to her car and had bounced up and landed on her car. The person cutting the tree was neither bonded nor licensed, and getting the corporation that hired him to cut the trees to pay for the damage to her car was very difficult. Not only did the person cutting the trees lie to her by saying her car was safe, he didn't take responsibility when the accident occurred, and neither did the corporation. She doesn't want Edmonds residents to encounter a similar situation. Board Member Rubenkonig also shared an example of a sad situation. Although the people in her neighborhood once prized trees, that is no longer the case for some. Recently, she was awakened to the sound of tree cutting. The hired tree service was going over a fence to cut back the limbs of a tree on a neighboring property right at the trunk. She approached him and informed him that what he was doing was illegal. She asked him to halt the cutting, but he refused and advised her to take up the issue with the property owner. He said he assumed the property owner had contacted the neighbors, but she had not. When she called the City, she was told that because the tree service didn't operate in the City more than a certain number of times per year, it was not subject to the City's licensing requirements. She concluded that this is a troublesome area of enforcement concerning tree cutting, and it needs to be given quite a bit of attention. Mr. Lien responded that both of these situations would be civil matters. A business license is required of anyone doing business in the Edmonds, regardless of how much. Board Member Rubenkonig again said she was advised by the Planning Division staff that the tree service was below the threshold of having to be licensed and was, therefore, not subject to the City's purview. Mr. Lien said that, regardless of whether or not the tree service was licensed, the City responds when illegal tree cutting occurs. Whether or not the person doing the cutting is licensed and bonded is outside of the Planning Division's purview. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is a troublesome area, for her and for others, and having good relations with neighbors concerning their priority of retaining trees is important. Whatever they can do to address this, she welcomes further language that can help homeowners who are in such situations. • ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. There was a request that Item D in ECDC 3.95.020 (sale of seedlings by the City) be removed. As proposed, the funds could be used: 1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees. However, the vouchers cannot be used to purchase trees required as part of a development or for replacement under the conditions of a violation. There have been some questions about how the City would run the voucher program. It could be spelled out in this Tree Code, or it could be addressed as a policy after the Tree Code is adopted. He expects the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department would be responsible for the voucher program. 2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional. 3. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City. 4. To purchase supplies and materials for the City's observance of Arbor Day. 5. For other purposes relating to trees as determined by the City. Mr. Lien said it has been suggested that additional items be added to this list: paying for services that support urban forest management and health and as specified for any grant -funded projects. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that Item 4 be changed to a broader definition of educational purposes. This would give the City more leeway to do things that may or may not include Arbor Day observance or purchasing supplies. He assumes the intent is education. Mr. Lien agreed to add "or other educational purposes." Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 297 8.1.d • ECDC 23.10.XXX — Tree Replacement Mr. Lien said he has heard the comment that planting a small tree will not replace a large tree that is cut down, and he agreed that it takes time for a tree to grow. However, professional arborists, wetland specialists and biologists who do mitigation plans say that larger trees do not establish as well as smaller trees. Professionals have explained that if you plant a 1-inch caliper deciduous trees, its roots establish faster and it grows faster than a larger tree would. The requirement of 2.5-inch caliper deciduous trees and 6-foot-tall evergreens is pretty standard and consistent with other areas of the City's code. Vice Chair Rosen acknowledged that smaller trees establish better and grow faster than larger trees. However, if the City's goal is to be made whole, they must make up this gap through money. Board Member Monroe suggested the City could require a 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratio. Mr. Lien recalled that the Planning Board discussed this and provided direction regarding the replacement ratio at their last meeting. The updated version for the public hearing will require a greater replacement ratio for large trees. He is thinking of using the City of Shoreline's model, which starts at 1:1 for the smaller trees (6 to 8 inches). For every 3-inch increase in diameter, the replacement ratio would increase by one. Shoreline tops out at 3 replacement trees for the larger trees. Board Member Monroe requested more information about how the Tree Code would be applied. Mr. Lien responded that for short subdivisions, subdivisions, new multifamily, new single-family on vacant lots, or development that doesn't fall underneath any of the exemptions, applicants would be required to retain 30% of all significant trees on the site. The decision regarding which trees to retain would be based on the priorities outlined in the code: 1. Specimen trees, significant trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. 2. Healthy tree groupings associated with undergrowth, trees that have a screening function and other significant native and non-native evergreen and deciduous trees. 3. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetland or creek buffers. Mr. Lien explained that, as currently drafted, tree replacement would be required for every tree that is cut. However, at their last meeting, the Planning Board indicated support for only requiring replacement for trees that are removed beyond the retention standard. He explained that, if there is a cost associated with tree removal, developers will make every effort to retain as many trees as possible. One approach could be to require developers to replace all trees that are taken down, regardless of the tree retention requirement, to meet the no -net -loss goal. The replacement ratio would be based on the size of the trees that are cut down. If there isn't room on the site to plant that many trees, developers could pay into the Tree Fund for each tree that cannot be planted on the site. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board indicated support for a 3-step process: 1) retain; 2) if you can't retain, replace; 3) if you can't replace, you have to pay. Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that, by allowing flexibility in development design, retention becomes more possible and the City can secure a higher retention rate. Mr. Lien agreed that is the intent of the design flexibility provision for subdivisions. Mr. Lien said he will rewrite ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity) to reiterate the Planning Board's direction. He summarized that the basic retention requirement would be the minimum. Replacement trees would be required to meet the 30% retention requirement, and the replacement ratio would be based on the size of the trees that are removed. If you the required replacement trees cannot be planted on site, applicants would be required to pay into the tree fund. Board Member Rubenkonig reiterated that the 30% retention requirement is comparable to what other jurisdictions in the area already require. Chair Robles voiced concern that, as proposed, a person who has 25 legacy trees on his/her property and wants to cut down an 8-inch plum tree that is clogging gutters would be required to replace the plum tree at the same ratio as someone who is cutting down the last tree on his/her property. He suggested that the replacement requirement should take into consideration the number of trees a property owner is actively cultivating on site. Mr. Lien emphasized that the retention Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 298 8.1.d requirement would only apply to new development or properties that do not fall under the exemptions. Existing single- family property owners would not be required to obtain a permit to cut down a tree. Chair Robles said he understands this distinction, but he suspects that people who are seeking to protect the tree canopy will be concerned that the Tree Code would not apply to existing developed single-family lots where 93% of the City's tree canopy is located. Mr. Lien agreed that some people will be unhappy. However, his charge, when drafting the Tree Code, was to address the largest complaint, which is clear cutting sites with development. The way the code is currently drafted, the exemptions, including single-family development, would still apply. The City could require a permit and limit tree removal on single-family properties to a certain number during a 3-year period. However, this approach would likely receive a lot of pushback from the community. Board Member Cheung clarified that, as proposed, a homeowner is allowed to cut down an unlimited number of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien agreed, provided there are no critical areas on the site. Board Member Cheung asked if this would include the smaller replacement trees that are planted as part of development. Mr. Lien answered that the required replacement trees would be considered "protected" trees, which cannot be removed. Board Member Cheung asked if the replacement trees would remain protected trees in perpetuity. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. That mean that a permit would be required, and they could only be removed if they are determined to be hazardous or a nuisance. Board Member Cheung asked how a property owner would know that a tree has to be protected. Mr. Lien explained that for short subdivisions and new subdivisions, the protected trees can be recorded on the face of the plat. For new multifamily development, the landscape plan would be on file and tracked. However, protected trees associated with new single-family development on vacant lots would be difficult to track because it wouldn't be recorded anywhere. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that when properties change hands, the new homeowners would have no way of knowing that a tree is protected. He is concerned about having something built into the code that requires subsequent property owners to know which trees are protected. However, he doesn't have a recommended solution. Mr. Lien advised that the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) was recently updated to require a notice on title when a property has a critical area or is adjacent to a critical area. When someone purchases the property, the title report will flag that information. A similar concept could be used to address protected trees, but there would be a fee associated with recording the information as a notice to title. Chair Robles suggested that the City could provide some incentive for property owners to voluntarily provide the City with an inventory of the trees on their properties. The information could be submitted electronically at no cost to the property owner. Perhaps the incentive could be a reduction in the cost of a permit that is proportional to the number of trees on a property. This type of approach would make the rules the same for everyone, and it wouldn't be costly to implement. While it might be too late to incorporate it into the current draft Tree Code, he felt the idea should be pursued at some point in the future. He suggested that the Tree Code could be reviewed every two to four years. As they implement the code and collect feedback, they can consider changes to address future needs and problems. Mr. Lien agreed that the City should offer other incentives to encourage tree preservation, but there isn't time to incorporate the concept into the current draft. He suggested the City can continue to pursue incentive programs, but the current proposal is a development regulation as opposed to an incentive program. Again, he said his charge was to draft a Tree Code that addresses the biggest complaint the City receives, which is trees being removed with development. There is currently a moratorium in place, and it is critical that the City Council adopts code language that addresses tree removal with development as soon as possible. The next step could include a discussion about incentives. Mr. Lien advised that he is preparing a press release that will be published prior to the public hearing to address upfront some of the issues that might raise concerns. Chair Robles said he wants the public hearing to be successful, which means everyone needs to feel they have been listened to. Board Member Cheung suggested that any type of action or penalties that are restrictive will probably be viewed unfavorably by a significant portion of people in attendance at the hearing. However, he doesn't believe most people would be opposed to an incentive program that encourages tree retention and tree planting. Providing incentives will be seen as a positive thing as opposed to penalizing people who cut down trees. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as proposed, Tree Fund dollars can be used to offer tree vouchers for people to plant trees. Board Member Cheung concluded that the more the City can promote tree retention Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 299 8.1.d and tree canopy through incentives as opposed to penalties, it will be accepted better by the community. Chair Robles concurred. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that, in addition to inviting the public to the hearing, she would also like to hear from professionals who will have to work with the code. Mr. Lien said he invited two developers to comment on the code, but neither have responded to date. He recently invited another developer to comment, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that practicing professionals in the area should be specifically invited to attend the hearing and provide feedback. Mr. Lien responded that the City has hired The Watershed Company to work with the Tree Board to establish the Tree City USA application. Their arborist reviewed the Tree Code and indicated support. She particularly noted that the Tree Code clearly spells out what is required for a Tree Plan associated with a development proposal. The City's tree group, which has representation from all departments, has also reviewed the draft Tree Code, as has the City's arborist. Board Member Rubenkonig requested that the City issue a pertinent invitation to professionals who will be working with the Tree Code, requesting their feedback either in writing or at the public hearing. Mr. Lien announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for December 9`h, and notice will be published next week. A revised version of the Tree Code will be prepared based on the Planning Board's discussions. Board Member Pence said he supports Board Member Rubenkonig's suggestion that the City's outreach for the public hearing be enhanced to include the affected professional communities. In addition, he suggested that when money is paid into the Tree Fund in lieu of a tree obligation that cannot be met on site, the City has an obligation to use those funds to plant trees so that the net tree canopy can be achieved. As proposed, the Tree Fund can be used to support a number of soft projects that will not directly yield more trees. He would rather the funds be used to plant trees in City parks, greenbelts, planting strips, etc. where they can contribute to the City's overall tree canopy, which is the ultimate goal of the Tree Code. Mr. Lien agreed that is possible. When money comes in for the Tree Fund, different numbers could be used to identify what the funds could be used for. Mr. Chave said there could be a problem with the amount of available public land where trees can be planted. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Board would have an opportunity to review the Tree Code a year or two after it is adopted by the City Council. Knowing that the Board would have an opportunity at some point in the future to make appropriate adjustments would help her move forward with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Chave responded that, with any recommendation, the Planning Board can make a request that it be reviewed down the road. However, it is not something that should be adopted as part of the code. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles announced that the Board's next meeting will be December 9th, at which time the Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the draft Tree Code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles thanked staff for their support. They have so many conflicting projects, and he appreciates their hard work. Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 300 8.1.d PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Student Representative Bryan said he was a bit surprised, when he opened the Planning Board's website to prepare for the meeting, to learn that the Board had a special meeting on November 12'. He apologized for missing the meeting. He asked that he be added to the email list so he can receive future notifications. Mr. Chave agreed to follow up on the request. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board would elect 2021 Officers on December 9'. Mr. Chave said the election would be added to the December 9' agenda. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City could revisit limiting the height of privacy hedges. At one time, their height was to be the same as fences. Mr. Chave said that is a topic the City Council would have to refer to the Board. There was a rather lengthy, time-consuming discussion at the City Council. The gist of the discussion was that hedges are growing things, and it is difficult to regulate the height of something that grows. The City Council ultimately decided not to regulate hedges. Board Member Pence agreed that hedges are growing things, but by their nature, they are in most cases designed to be trimmed into a shape of some kind. They shouldn't be planted and forgotten. He felt the City could find a way to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Board Member Pence also praised staff. He appreciated having all of the comment letters attached to the Staff Report, but forwarded separately to each of the Board Members via their City email accounts, as well. He suggested this should be a standard procedure anytime a letter is received that deals with a Planning Board issue. E."I -[$Ili"111t5I 0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 301 8.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom December 9, 2020 Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. Packet Pg. 302 8.1.d PUBLIC HEARING ON TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on the Tree Code 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 explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: • Goal LA — 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. • Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. • Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. • Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10 (exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, and violations). There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in a new chapter Edmonds City Code (ECC 3.95). He reviewed each section. • ECDC 23.10.020 -- Definitions Mr. Lien advised that the following definitions were added and/or amended. A. Significant Tree. A tree that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. K. Protected Tree. A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations. • ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all short subdivisions (up to 4 lots), subdivisions (5 or more lots), new multifamily development, and new single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-family house. A tree plan would also be required for tree removal on developed sites that are not exempted by ECDC 223.10.040. • ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 303 8.1.d o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means. o Removal of trees for utility maintenance. o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park Department. o Routine landscaping and maintenance. o Routine re -topping of trees to a previously -topped level. Mr. Lien explained that the removal of hazard and nuisance trees would not require a permit, but supporting document would be required. An example of a nuisance tree would be a healthy tree that is buckling a driveway or continually plugging the sewer line. • ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, the following would be prohibited: o Removal of protected trees unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees. o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees. o Removal of trees during permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition activity. o Removal of trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in ECDC 23.40 — 23.90. • ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed tree retention requirement for proposed development would be 30% of all significant trees for new single-family, short plats and subdivisions. The retention requirement for new multifamily and unit -lot subdivisions would be 25%. He reminded them that the focus of the tree code update is to retain more trees with development, and the Planning Board has considered the following priorities: o Priority 1 — Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas and trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH. o Priority 2 — Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function and other significant native and non-native trees. o Priority 3 — Alders and Cottonwoods. • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed, and the number of required replacement trees would be based on the diameter of the trees removed. One replacement tree would be required to replace trees that are 6 to 10 inches DBH; two replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are 10.1 to 14 inches DBH; and three replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are above 14 inches DBH. • ECDC 23.10.080(E) — Tree Replacement Fee -in -Lieu Mr. Lien explained that if all of the required replacement trees cannot be planted on a project site, the current proposal would require $1,000 per tree not planted to be paid into the City's Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund would have to be used to purchase trees to be planted elsewhere within the City limits. • ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title Mr. Lien recalled that questions were raised at a previous meeting about how a subsequent property owner would know that a tree on his/her property is protected. This provision was added to require that protected trees be recorded as Notice on Title. When someone purchases the property, they will see the notice when reviewing the title. The language was copied from the Critical Area Ordinance, which also requires Notice on Title. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 304 8.1.d • ECDC 20.75 — Conservation Subdivision Design Mr. Lien explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and natural resources through some amount of flexibility in the lot layout of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, as noted earlier in the presentation, would be applied to this section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following flexibility is proposed: 1. Setbacks could be reduced to no less than 15 feet for street setbacks, 10 feet for rear setbacks and 5 feet for side setbacks. 2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone. 3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone. 4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes. • ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. As proposed, the funds could be used: 1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds. 2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional. 3. To pay for services that support urban forest management and health. 4. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City. 5. To purchase supplies and materials for Arbor Day and other education purposes. • ECDC 23.10.030 -- Permits Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit. • ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties Mr. Lien explained that, as per the proposed code, civil penalties would be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction. b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property, etc.). c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal of the tree value by the City's tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. using the 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 the code. d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" DBH and the appraised value of trees 12" DBH or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the City's Tree Fund. e. Violators will be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the Director. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 305 8.1.d Mr. Lien added that a new section "Aiding and Abetting" would make the tree cutter equally as liable as the property owner. • Examples Illustrating How the Proposed Tree Code Provisions Would Be Applied Mr. Lien shared examples to illustrate how the proposed tree retention, tree replacement and tree fund provisions would be applied to new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. He also provided examples of how the conservation subdivision design provisions would be applied. For each example, he pointed out the number of existing trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments. Mr. Lien explained that, in addition to the Tree Code, there are a number of other provisions that apply to new development such as access easements, landscaping, setbacks, utility easements, etc. These other code requirements also have a significant impact on a developer's ability to save existing trees. Using the conservation subdivision design concept, the houses could be clustered closer together in order to retain more trees. In the example he provided, the lot widths, access easement and setbacks were reduced. Using the flexible design concept, the developer would be able to save 62 existing trees as opposed to just 15. Because more trees could be retained on site, the Tree Fund payment would be reduced from $315,000 to $202,000. Mr. Lien said he is concerned that the required Tree Fund payments are too high. He referred to the example he provided earlier of the 4-lot subdivision, noting that although the developer could retain 40% of the existing trees, the required Tree Fund payment would still be substantial. Using Park and Traffic Impact Fees for comparison, the 4-lot subdivision example would require a $58,000 Tree Fund payment compared to a combined payment of about $27,000 for Park and Traffic Impact Fees. He proposed the following alternatives to reduce the required Tree Fund payment: o Reduce the replacement ratios to 1 replacement tree for trees that are 6 to 14 inches DBH, 2 replacement trees for trees that are 14.1 to 24 inches DBH, and 3 replacement trees for trees that are greater than 24 inches DBH. o Reduce the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500. o Place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Mr. Lien reviewed each of the examples again to illustrate how they would be impacted by the alternative language. He pointed out that, in most cases, the Tree Fund payments would be substantially less than the required Park/Traffic Impact Fees. However, with the conservation Subdivision Design, the Tree Fund payments would still be substantially greater than the Park/Traffic Impact Fees. Mr. Lien reiterated that the proposed Tree Code was primarily focused on how to retain trees with development. The Tree Code, in and of itself, will not help the City meet its no -net -loss requirement. Additional work on potential incentives to encourage property owners to retain trees on their sites will follow. In addition to the voucher program to encourage people to plant trees, the City is working to update the Street Tree Plan. There are many things the City can do to retain trees, including educating the public about their importance. The City is currently working on a Heritage Tree Program, which will be a voluntary program to recognize special trees on private properties. Board Member Monroe asked if staff is suggesting that they retain the 30% retention ratio and $1,000 per tree fee. Mr. Lien responded that a fee of $1,000 per replacement tree resulted in some very high replacement costs. He suggested that the Board consider the alternatives he recommended: reducing the replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu amount and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing. Anna West, Edmonds, said she spoke before the Board a few weeks ago about the need to address the protection of water views in the Tree Code. Trees have potential to block views. She said she lives in the Edmonds Bowl, and tree topping comes up in a lot of discussions because it helps to maintain water views. She is concerned with the phrase "illegal tree topping" and its associated penalties. She is also concerned about the definition for tree topping, which is "the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. " She expressed her belief that there should be an exception for when tree topping is used to maintain a water view. She noted that the draft Tree Code includes Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 306 8.1.d a lot of exceptions for pruning canopy growth to protect utilities. Knowing how important the water is to Edmonds, she suggested the code should also include exceptions for when trees impact water views. From a physical perspective, residents with water views pay more in taxes, which is valuable to help the City thrive in a variety of ways. She said she is prepared to ask for a tax reduction if the revised Tree Code impacts her water views, which seems like a lose/lose for everyone. She said she reviewed the archives and watched the video recording of the Planning Board's May 27, 2015 public hearing on the Tree Code where some residents requested that the code provide more balance, addressing both trees and water views. However, the current draft does not take this into account. She summarized that, in her opinion, not including view protection in the Tree Code highlights a disconnect in how valuable the Puget Sound is to Edmonds residents and visitors. The current draft has the potential to penalize residents who are trying to maintain their water views, and she believes it will backfire on the City in the long run. She asked that the Board consider verbiage regarding water view protection, or at the very least, remove the tree topping penalty clause altogether. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code update represents a great start. The provisions that would apply to new development are better than he expected, but he is concerned that they are already considering modifications that would weaken them. He said he is not in favor of the alternative replacement criteria suggested by Mr. Lien. It is important to plant multiple replacement trees for every three that is lost. Following adoption of the proposed update, he suggested it will be time to address tree loss on land that is already developed, which is where most of the City's tree canopy is located. He noted that most cities limit the number of trees that can be removed in a given period of time. He urged the Board to finish the job of writing a thorough and meaningful tree code. He asked the Board to consider the thoughts he shared in a letter he submitted to the Board prior to the meeting. Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, agreed that it is important to protect the existing tree canopy, but the effort must be addressed on a more global level in order for it to succeed. He noted that about 98% of the property in Edmonds is already developed, and a small percentage is undevelopable. He questioned the fairness of passing the entire cost of protecting the tree canopy to new property owners when the overall society will benefit. He suggested they consider other ways to accomplish the overall goal. For example, they could raise the fees for cutting down trees on developed properties or providing incentives for people to plant additional trees on their lots. These approaches would result in more trees. While there is a lot of friction coming from the general public, equal participation from all citizens is important when it comes to meeting the needs of the community. He expressed his belief that the net effect of the Tree Code, as applied to new development, would be negligible, and the costs would be high. They need to come up with a code that is more equitable for all citizens of the community. If proposed properly, the City's residents might be more willing to save trees on their own properties. He pointed out that clear cutting has happened on developed property, as well, specifically about twenty-four 10-inch trees were taken down recently at 527 121 Avenue North with just one permit. The danger of losing trees is as great on developed land as it is on undeveloped land. Chris Yockey, Edmonds, said that from a developer standpoint, the proposed Tree Fund payments seem awfully high. He voiced concern that the payments will significantly increase the cost of each unit, making it more difficult to address the need for affordable housing in the City. While he understands that topping can kill a tree, he asked if the proposed Tree Code would allow him to take care of the limbs from trees on adjacent properties that hang over into his yard by 30 feet. Louise Favier, Edmonds, commented that the access given to street and sidewalk seating for her business has made a massive difference in her life. She appreciates the work the City puts into creating a good plan for the businesses in Edmonds, in particular the restaurants and bars to be able to continue to use the rights -of -way during these challenging times. They would like to continue to have street and/or ongoing sidewalk seating for another year or two so the businesses can have an opportunity to recover. She said she loves the City's tree retention efforts and appreciates the existing tree canopy. Larry Vogel, Edmonds, said he was present to cover the public hearing for MYEDMONDS NEWS. He requested a copy of Mr. Lien's PowerPoint presentation, and Mr. Lien agreed to send it along. Lora Hein, Edmonds, asked the Board to weigh their recommendation based on the broad -scale impacts. She recognized that the current culture prioritizes monetization of business and financial gain over preservation and conservation of natural systems, which are more challenging to assign a dollar value. One indication is how many people express being tired of the impacts endured in the face of multiple crisis in 2020 and wish to return to normal. However, 2020 has presented an essential opportunity. The challenges they are facing are the culmination of gross mismanagement of the planetary ecosystem. Until and unless they take a serious look at combined effects of colonization and monetization mindset, they will be looking down Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 307 8.1.d the barrel of 2020-like years and worse for decades to come. On the other hand, if they take time to stop, listen and look both ways, back as well as forward, they may yet have a chance to halt the juggernaut of climate destruction that is becoming increasingly out of control. Ms. Hein commented that forging ahead without a plan only compounds the current dilemma. A flawed result is not better than none, it is worse because it gives the impression that something has been done. She proposed that the City adopt a moratorium on removing any trees in any development until a functional tree ordinance can be crafted. Such a moratorium needs to be accompanied not only by hefty fines, but a halt to any construction that continues in violation of a moratorium. They need to end, or at least pause, business as usual, take a deep breath of the air provided courtesy of the arboreal neighbors and decide how they will manage to pay back the dept that is owned to the living forest they have inherited from the first inhabitants recognized in words at the beginning of each City Council meeting. She observed that before the Salish-speaking tribes took up residence on these shores, other inhabitants as deserving of our honor, not only in word, but in deed, made their lives and ours possible. Ms. Hein emphasized that without more stringent replacement and enhancement requirements, incentives and penalties, they will continue down the path of ever decreasing quality of the natural support system. They need more widespread understanding of the essential benefits trees provide in saving energy, not to mention sequestering carbon, our only current hope to prevent global catastrophe from climate transformation. Goals for trees on single-family residential lots in non -critical areas, which are the majority of land resources in the City, are woefully inadequate. The City must go far beyond asking for voluntary public participation. Instead, they should ask how much the air we breath is worth. Trees are more than pretty individuals. They require a network of supporting species to remain viable. The same can be said of humans, as a species. Without trees and the communities that support them, we too are doomed to years far worse than what we have experienced in 2020. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, said she was disappointed to hear the proposed reduction in Tree Fund payments. With minimal fees, the City will lose the motivation to protect the trees. She said she submitted a letter prior to the meeting emphasizing her points of concern. She is concerned that there is too much emphasis on exemptions to the proposed regulations. There is also too much focus on replacement rather than retention, which is far more valuable. What is missing is scientific evidence to determine the goals of the Tree Code and the effects of the exemptions. Lack of environmental analysis, measurable goals and baseline data limits the value of the code. She said she hopes the Board will continue to adjust the Tree Code to achieve the goal of retaining trees in Edmonds. Richard Bologna, Edmonds, asked how an illegal tree removal fee would be enforced and collected and who the City would retain to assess the health of trees. He also asked if anyone has ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree and how much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council. Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he is speaking as a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for six years, as well as chair of the citizen's group called TreePAC. He commended the City for pursuing with the proposed Tree Code update. He said the City of Seattle has been working to update its tree ordinance for 11 years, and it appears that the City of Edmonds will be adopting a number of steps that have been recommended for Seattle but haven't yet been put in place. He said Portland is an example of a City that has taken steps to preserve trees, including a tree fund, and a few years ago they raised about $1.5 million to help plant new trees within their City. Portland just recently updated its tree ordinance to address trees with new development. They changed the replacement requirement to apply to trees over 20 inches, and it had previously been 36 inches. They have been charging $450 per inch for trees that are 12 to 20 inches DBH, and they are now proposing $1,800 per tree removed. When considering replacement requirements, it is critical to take the approach that the larger the tree that is removed, the greater the replacement requirement. He suggested that an additional category be added for trees over 30 or 36 inches. The priority should be to preserve existing trees, as it takes decades for trees to reach their ultimate size. Existing trees provide immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by smaller, younger replacement trees. Replacement trees also need more maintenance, and not all of them will survive. He suggested that the Tree Code specifically require that the replacement trees must be maintained for a certain number of years. He summarized that the proposed Tree Code is a great first step to protect the urban forest and the benefits that trees provide to the City's citizens. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, commented that no trees have ever been retained in her neighborhood when new development has occurred, and she is happy to see that the City will be requiring tree retention. She said she would like the City to have a goal Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 308 8.1.d to increase the tree canopy. She is worried about the impacts of climate change in the future. They will need every tree they can get to provide shade, cooling, etc. She said she is interested in the emphasis on education. She has been running the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat and Native Plant Demonstration Garden at the fish hatchery for the past 10 years, and they have done a lot of education. She said she is looking forward to sponsoring some tree planting workshops and teaching people how they can plant trees. She will work with the Snohomish County Conservation District on this effort. They have a lot of good materials, and they sell trees and native plants at a low cost. She said she appreciates that the Tree Code indicates a preference for native plants and trees, but she would prefer Alders to non-native trees. She said she misses the trees that have been lost over the years. Chair Robles closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Crank voiced concern that developers would lean towards tree replacement rather than tree retention, and she doesn't see how this would result in increased tree canopy. She said she would not support decreasing the fee -in -lieu payments because developers tend to be okay with paying in -lieu fees, especially if they are in areas where the housing market prices are high. Mr. Lien explained that the UFMP did not adopt a goal to increase the tree canopy. The UFMP adopted goals of no net loss of the overall canopy and continuing to enhance the tree canopy in parks as per the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The current proposal is a Development Code update that is specifically focused on retaining trees with development and was not intended to achieve all of the goals spelled out in the UFMP. If the City's Council chooses to address trees in a more holistic way, other actions will be needed and could include incentives, a heritage tree program, more education, planting trees with vouchers from the Tree Fund, etc. Board Member Crank asked if any thought has been given to establishing a cap on how much of the replacement requirement can be satisfied with the in -lieu payment. Again, she voiced concern that developers will take full advantage of the fee -in -lieu opportunity. Without a cap, it will be difficult for the City to achieve no net loss when development occurs. Mr. Lien explained that when he prepared the examples, he felt that the replacement costs were too high. He applied the alternatives (reducing replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500 and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund) to show how the replacement costs would be impacted in each scenario. He felt this information would be informative to the Planning Board's discussion. He pointed out that, in some situations, the replacement costs could be excessively high for a development impact fee. Mr. Lien responded to the following questions raised by Mr. Bologna during the public comment period. • How would an illegal tree removal fee be enforced and collected? Mr. Lien explained that the City's code includes Notice of Violation Procedures. The City investigates reports of illegal tree cutting. If it is determined that a tree has been cut illegally, a Notice of Violation will be issued to the property owner and fines will be assessed depending on the situation. The process is clearly spelled out in the code. • Who would the City retain to assess the health of trees? For hazardous tree removal, Mr. Lien advised that the City would require that the tree be assessed by a certified arborist, and the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Assessment Form must be filled out. If the assessment comes back as high or extreme, the tree would be classified as a hazardous tree that could be removed. • Has anyone ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree? Mr. Lien said there are a variety of tools to calculate the value of a tree. While some early drafts of the UFMP identified values based on the ecological services that trees provide, some questions were raised about how accurate they were and the section was removed. • How much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council? Mr. Lien said this provision was included as just one of the ways that funds could be placed into the Tree Fund, but there was no specific dollar amount associated with it. Vice Chair Rosen thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work preparing the update, and for his quick responses to the comments and questions raised by the Board to date. He also thanked the citizens who provided both oral and written comments. He found them to be very thoughtful, and they absolutely influenced his thinking. He asked if the City considers wildlife corridors as critical areas. Mr. Lien answered that the Critical Area Ordinance recognizes the Priority Habitat Species Layer, which is maintained by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are a few wildlife corridors identified in the City, and one of the main ones is Shell Creek from Yost Park down. While habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, there are no specific regulations or setback requirements associated with them. Most of them are associated with stream channels. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 309 8.1.d There are forested areas in the northern portion of the City, and there is a 30% native vegetation requirement for development in these areas. He summarized that habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, but they don't have any specific regulations that apply to them because there aren't any species of local importance. Vice Chair Rosen observed that the City's tree canopy is currently at 30%, and the maximum potential is 57%. The City is nearly built out and the current proposal will not achieve even no net loss. If the City is serious about no net loss, they need to be more aggressive. They must either change what they are doing or change the goal. He said he understands staff's sensitivity when it comes to applying the tree replacement requirement to larger developments, but he felt the City should be agnostic to the use of the land. Loss of trees and loss of land has an impact. Whether it is for a few units or 30 units, there is an economy of scale and profit that comes with that. While he appreciates that staff offered the alternatives, he encouraged the Board to follow the original proposal. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's historic position when it comes to protecting views, but it is important to acknowledge that views are both financially and emotionally valuable and cherished in the community. Passions run high when it comes to views. To address this, he suggested that the following language could be added to the Intent and Purpose Section: "The City of Edmonds recognizes and celebrates the value of our proximity to and views of Puget Sound and the mountains. "ile the City does not enforce tree limits for views, except as expressly stated in this code, property owners are encouraged to consider mature heights when planting to avoid planting things that will block views down the road and to allow windowing, drop crotch and other pruning methods that won't damage the tree at the beneficiary's expense when asked. " Vice Chair Rosen also suggested that the Board send a parallel recommendation to the City Council that they consider, through the Board if they prefer, addressing vegetation that is used as fence. While there are reasons why a hedge is desirable to a property owner, neighbors, the community, etc., that is not always true. He recommended the following language be added: "Vegetation used as a fence be restricted to the maximum height allowed for fencing if there is a demonstrated cause by someone negatively affected by the greater height and for those that already exist at the expense of the person who would benefit. " Vice Chair Rosen explained that the language could be very narrowly defined to address situations where hedges block solar panels, result in the inability of a neighboring property owner to grow plants due to shading, block light from entering into a home, or reduce safety. This issue has been out there for a while and could be addressed as part of the proposed update. Board Member Monroe recalled the citizen comment/question regarding tree topping. He said his understanding is that there would be no penalty associated with a private property owner topping trees on his/her property. The penalty would come if you top a tree on someone else's property. Mr. Lien explained that tree topping is considered tree cutting and would be prohibited on properties that are not exempt from the Tree Code. Trees on properties that are exempt from the Tree Code, such as developed single-family properties with no critical areas, can be topped without a fine. However, topping is bad arboriculture practice and opens trees to rot and damage. On properties that are not exempt, a property owner could apply for a permit to remove a tree that is blocking view and then plant a tree that is more appropriate for the location. Board Member Pence asked about the cost associated with planting trees off site using money in the Tree Fund. He suggested that perhaps the per -tree fee should be attached to the actual cost of planting new trees elsewhere. Mr. Lien said he doesn't know the cost associated with purchasing and planting trees, but he could ask the Parks Department to respond. If the planting cost is reasonable, Board Member Pence observed that the City could plant more than one tree for each of the trees that are removed. Mr. Lien reminded them that, based on the proposed replacement ratio, more than one replacement tree would be required for most of the trees that are removed. He said that in some jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu programs are based on the cost for planting and maintaining a tree. When the concept was initially introduced to the Planning Board, the feedback was that developers would be more likely to find ways to retain and/or plant more trees on site if the dollar value is a little higher. Board Member Cloutier summarized that, as proposed, someone who has been topping a tree to protect a view would be allowed to continue to top the tree. However, new trees that are planted and eventually grow to block a view could not be cut down Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 310 8.1.d without a penalty. Mr. Lien referred to the last sentence of ECDC 23.10.040.E, (routine maintenance exemptions), which states that, "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone. " He explained that if a tree has been previously topped, a property owner could continue to do so back to the previously topped level. Whether or not a new tree that grows to block view would require a permit would depend on whether or not the property falls under any of the other exemptions. On developed single-family properties with no critical areas, trees could be topped without a permit, but it would still be considered poor arboricultural practice. On developed single-family properties with critical areas, a tree cutting permit would be required to replace the tree. Board Member Cloutier clarified that critical areas include steep slopes, properties near watersheds, etc. That is not the case in most of the City's neighborhoods. Mr. Lien noted the steep slopes on properties in the bowl area and explained that critical areas include erosion hazard areas (slopes between 15% and 40%). However, in the proposed code, the exemption was modified to exclude trees on properties with a slope of 25% or more. Developed single-family properties with slopes of less than 25% would be exempt from the tree code. Chair Robles asked if the Board is ready to send the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval or if more work is needed before that can happen. Mr. Chave said that is something the Board will have to decide. The Board can either make a recommendation at the end of the meeting or identify specific issues they would like staff to work on further. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, based on her own review of the proposal, as well as the written and oral public testimony, she found that, whereas the general nature of the code rewrite is acceptable, it is time for the Planning Board to support a more robust approach to retaining existing tree canopy and its habitat. Upon hearing from the citizens of Edmonds, she believes the current proposal falls short because it is limited to retaining only 30% of the existing tree inventory of the original lot. If there is little inventory, there would be no gain for additional tree canopy. Instead, the City should encourage retention and even increasing available tree canopy, which includes shrubs and ground cover, by proposing that subdivisions provide 30% coverage of the lot to be tree canopy, typical of the Pacific Northwest forests, include retaining, which can count towards the 30% of the significant trees and the understory shrubs and ground cover. This approach would be similar to the Snohomish County regulations, which seemingly provide more coverage for tree canopy, understory and ground cover, along with flexibility for site design to meet the requirements. She expressed her belief that this approach would be a workable solution that would honor the goal of the UFMP towards zero net loss of the tree canopy and would provide developers with flexibility. Increasing tree canopy habitat, which would be more than what exists in the current code, along with site design flexibility, which the proposed update already addresses, would be a workable solution for Edmonds. She summarized that she would be interested in having Snohomish County's approach being considered as part of the proposal. At the very least, she would like it to be included as an item that deserves further attention if the Board decides to forward a recommendation on the proposed Tree Code to the City Council. She would also like the City Council to give attention to the proposed replacement schedule, as well as Vice Chair Rosen's suggestion that language be included to address private view sheds. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many of the citizens who provided comments stressed the importance of tree retention. They are not as interested in replacement. She would rather have an approach that hinges on retention as opposed to replacement. Board Member Monroe summarized that Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting there is a preference for having a final result of density on the property at the end of the day. If there is a limited number of trees, a developer would be required to plant more trees than are there right now. To that extent, he suggested that the retention requirement be increased to 40% or 50% or 30% total density, whichever is greater. This would challenge the developers to figure out how to make that work and size the houses right to fit on the lots. He suggested that the Board ask staff to evaluate this option's impact on the cost of development. While the numbers might be high for an entire development, the per home cost would be consistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave commented that Mr. Lien's analysis had less to do with the number of homes and more to do with how many trees were on the property. The most expensive example was on a property that was being subdivided into four lots. The cost associated with the 10-lot example was far less. Board Member Monroe said his approach would raise the price of the 10-lot subdivision because a developer would no longer be allowed to take advantage of open grassland. It would force a minimum of 30% density when the project is completed. He noted that is the benchmark the City is trying to achieve. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 311 8.1.d Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that when she uses the words "tree coverage," she is looking at the site plan and wants to see where the trees have been maintained. Significant trees that are retained could go towards the count, but it would be evident on the site plan how much the site would create towards the City's total tree canopy. She said she is not as comfortable with the word "density" when applying it to Board Member Monroe's recommendation because the public better understands the coverage that is needed for the lot. Board Member Monroe said he understands her concern, but the UFMP specifically states that the City's current canopy is 30%. That same mathematical equation should be applied to properties that are being developed. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed. She pointed out that Snohomish County requires 30% coverage, and it is up to the developer to determine how that 30% will be provided on the site. This approach is more direct and emphasizes retention, which is what the citizens seem to prefer. Board Member Cheung recalled that, at the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Lien mentioned that the current proposal is only intended to address one topic of the UFMP. The Board could have a separate discussion on trees that are on private properties. Mr. Lien responded that the current proposal is focused on retaining trees with development. At this time, he can't say that another update will follow to address trees on developed properties. However, other steps will need to be taken to reach the goal of no net loss of overall tree canopy. These steps include educating property owners on the importance of retaining trees, providing vouchers for private property owners to plant trees, reviewing opportunities to plant more trees in city parks, updating the Street Tree Plan and creating incentive programs to encourage tree retention. Again, he said the primary focus of the current update is how to retain trees with development. Mr. Lien said he would need more information to create language to implement the concept put forward by Board Member Rubenkonig. Is she suggesting that 30% of the lot must have trees on it as canopy coverage, or would one very large big -leaf maple tree meet the requirement? While counting the existing trees and applying the replacement ratio would be easy to do, a 30% lot coverage requirement would be significantly more complicated to apply. Board Member Cheung said a number of citizens voiced concern that the proposed update doesn't do more to protect trees on private property, which is where the majority of the existing trees in the City are located. It would ease their concern if they knew that the City would be considering other actions at a later date. He noted that the issue of view would be better addressed by private property tree regulations. Mr. Lien said the update would only regulate trees on private property as part of development. They could add a provision in ECDC 23.10.030 (Permits) that would limit the number of trees a developed single-family property could remove during a set period of time. However, this would require the City to establish a tracking system and additional code enforcement would be necessary. Board Member Cheung recalled that, when the last Tree Code update was presented for a public hearing in 2015, there was significant opposition to the idea of regulating trees on developed single-family properties. He suggested the Commission focus on solving the immediate problem at hand, which is tree retention and replacement requirements associated with development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the current proposal addresses a concern that staff hears most frequently, which is clearcutting on properties that are being developed. However, the City Council may direct the staff and Planning Board to address trees on developed properties at a later time. Board Member Cheung said it is important that the public understand that this is the first step, and additional steps can be taken in the future that might address their other concerns. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that the beauty of Snohomish County's approach is that they give credit for the canopy size of any retained tree. This credit goes towards the total tree canopy that must be provided on the site. They also give credit towards species that are planted that will provide a healthy canopy within so many years. Snohomish County's approach appears to be creating mini Pacific Northwest forests around the County, which is healthy. Their approach appears to practice retention of the tree canopy and its understory shrubs and ground cover, which create the necessary habitat. She would like the City's code to focus on retention versus replacement, as well. Board Member Robles reminded the Board that the proposal before them relates strictly to tree retention and replacement as part of development. Any comments related to trees on private properties that are already developed are mute in this discussion. At this time, the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council with some caveats, or they could decide that the proposal needs more work and the recommendation could be postponed to a future meeting. Board Member Cloutier commented that, while the Snohomish County code emphasizes retention, it also has the exact same replacement consideration outlined in the draft proposal. If the trees are located where a structure needs to go, they cannot be Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 312 8.1.d retained. The 30% requirement is only applicable to one specific kind of lot. The requirement for a single-family home is 20%, and it goes down as low as 15% in urban areas. As Mr. Lien pointed out the goal of the Development Code should be no net loss, and increasing the tree canopy can be addressed by implementing the goals and policies outlined in the UFMP. As proposed, the trees could be shift from one side of the property to the other, new trees can be planted, or money can be paid into the Tree Fund for trees to be planted somewhere else. It is not the objective of this code to create new forests in the City. If they want to change the objective of the code, they will need to start all over. He expressed his belief that the proposed Tree Code adequately accomplishes what it is intended to: no net loss and requiring developers to pay for the offset. In terms of the best approach to meet the goals of the UFMP, Board Member Rubenkonig said she sees both options as equal. Option 1 would be to recommend the approach presented by Mr. Lien and Option 2 would be to consider Snohomish County's approach of requiring 30% retention. She cautioned that they need to be very mindful that development will either take away or add to the tree canopy. Although she always respects Board Member Cloutier's approach to make sure they are on firm ground and focused on what they are being tasked to do, she would have a hard time seeing the option outlined by Mr. Lien as being any different than the option she is recommending. Both options would meet the same objective. Board Member Crank commented that, if the Board decides to recommend approval of the proposal as currently drafted, she remains firmly opposed to the alternatives put forward by Mr. Lien that would reduce the replacement ratios, reduce the fee - in -lieu for each tree planted or place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Edmonds is a fairly expensive real estate area, and she doesn't foresee developers choosing to retain trees rather than paying into the Tree Fund regardless of the amount. Vice Chair Rosen concurred. Board Member Monroe commented that, after hearing from Board Members Rubenkonig and Cloutier, he is comfortable withdrawing his suggestion that they increase the retention requirement to 40% or 50%. However, he felt that Board Member Rubenkonig's suggestion is worth further exploration. He agreed with Mr. Lien that the replacement cost might be too high, and there needs to be a balance of property rights, community rights, views and the environment. Vice Chair Rosen asked if any of the Board Members would object to adding additional language to the Intent and Purpose Section to address views. Mr. Lien pointed out that, without specific regulations that protect views within the code, it wouldn't make sense to have it in the Intent and Purpose Section. He sees this issue being addressed via education. For example, they could educate property owners about planting the right trees in the right places. The Tree Board has been working on a tree list that can be used as an education piece. Mr. Chave agreed that codes are not a good vehicle for messaging. Codes are generally used to tell what is allowed and not allowed. Folding the view issue into the education piece would be a better approach. Vice Chair Rosen respectfully disagreed. While he understands staff s point of view, views are such a high interest. The draft code addresses trimming and maintenance, and views should be part of the equation. Board Member Cloutier summarized that Vice Chair Rosen is suggesting that the City should be mindful of property rights and people's desire to have a view and should make regulations that are aligned with that. However, he said he doesn't believe the issue should be addressed in this particular development code. There is nothing in the proposed update that would change the rules related to view, and there is nothing in the current code that addresses retaining and/or maintaining views. The proposed update would not grant any special rights or place any limitations based on view. He voiced concern that adding language stating that view is important would imply that properties with views would get special treatment, which is not the case. Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that they can use their meeting minutes to share their concerns with the City Council. For example, the minutes could reflect that the Board is interested in reviewing regulations related to private view sheds. The minutes could also reflect that the Board is interested in regulating the height of hedges and bushes the same as a fence if used for privacy purposes on a lot's perimeter boundary. While the issues would not be addressed as part of their recommendation on the Tree Code, they could emphasize the issues as warranting further consideration in the future. Vice Chair Rosen agreed that would be an appropriate approach. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THEIR INTEREST IN REVIEWING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE VIEW SHEDS AND PRIVACY SCREENS SUCH AS HEDGES AND BUSHES. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 313 8.1.d Board Member Cloutier asked if Mr. Lien's alternatives for the tree replacement fee were incorporated into the language that is currently before the Board. Mr. Lien said they alternatives have not been incorporated into the draft code language. He suggested the Board specifically look at the replacement ratios, which is directly tied to the high fees in the examples he provided. He suggested that the replacement ratio he recommended in his presentation would be more appropriate. The larger trees (greater than 24 inches) would still be replaced at a ratio of 3:1. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Snohomish County code doesn't use ratios. Developments are simply required to provide 30% tree coverage. He suggested the City's measure of tree retention is better. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that would only be true if there are few trees on a property to retain. Board Member Cloutier observed that the current proposal would not require a developer to plant more trees than are currently located on the property, while the Snohomish County code would require a developer to plant additional trees to a minimum of 30% coverage. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the current proposal would base tree replacement on the inventory of the current trees on a lot. But if there are no trees, there would be no retention requirement or requirement to provide additional trees. This is a big negative for that approach. She noted that the public is tired of the number of trees that are being cut down for new subdivisions. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern about how the Snohomish County concept would be applied on a commercial lot in downtown Edmonds. It wouldn't make sense to require that 30% of the lot be covered with trees. Retaining the existing tree coverage would make more sense. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that requiring 30% tree coverage would be a proactive approach, recognizing that such things as utility easements, rights -of -way, etc. would be taken away from that. Mr. Lien advised the Board that they are not required to make a recommendation on the Tree Code tonight. He said he would like more time to review the Snohomish County code to provide helpful feedback to the Board, and he is still a little confused about how the current proposal is different than the proposal recommended by Board Member Rubenkonig. There are other minor tweaks he would like to make before the document is forwarded to the City Council. He summarized that it appears the majority of the Board wants to retain the $1,000 fee for each tree not planted, but they still need to provide feedback on the replacement ratio. Board Member Cheung asked staff to provide calculations of what the fee would be based on $1,000 per tree but with different replacement ratios. The Board agreed to carry their deliberations over to the January 13' meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021 Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the citizen Planning Board has benefited from each and every Board Member who has given of their time, experience and hopes for the City of Edmonds. The Chair brings a unique approach to helping all Board Members participate fully and professionally. Her recommendation of Board Member Rosen as her nomination for the 2021 Chair of the citizen Planning Board would do no less. They already know his measure and have been rewarded by his presence and contribution. He will endeavor to lead the Board and encourage robust deliberations with fair outcomes. She said she welcomes his support and offer him hers in his role as the 2021 Chair. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER ROSEN TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR 2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER ROSEN AS THE 2021 CHAIR OF THE BOARD. Board Member Monroe commented that the duties of Vice Chair are leadership and engagement. He has known Board Member Crank for over five years and has found that she has these leadership capabilities. She is a member of a variety of community groups, including the Snohomish County Airport Commission and Snohomish County Tomorrow. She can do a great job as Vice Chair of the Planning Board. BOARD MEMBER MONROE NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CRANK TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR 2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER CRANK AS THE 2021 VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 314 8.1.d REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its deliberations on the draft Tree Code Update at their January 13' meeting. He advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will provide an update on January 27' PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles thanked the Board Members for allowing him to chair the Board during this fascinating time. The Board set their agenda and got some very important things done. The Board Members thanked Chair Robles for his leadership. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Rosen thanked the Board Members for their trust and kind words. He thanked Chair Robles for his leadership, particularly for engaging him in such a meaningful way as Vice Chair. He appreciates the way he advocated for the Board. He also appreciates his desire to engage more of the residents and increase collaboration with other boards and commissions. Vice Chair Rosen commented that in recent years, the country has experienced and observed the impacts of dysfunctional government organizations and individuals, and he has never observed the Board looking for either a Republican or Democratic answer. Rather, they have worked to search for the best answers. He has never seen the group seek to blame others, but only to accept personal and group responsibility for the job they have been given and the impacts of the decisions they make. Each Board Member has demonstrated grace and respect, and he appreciates how they model the best of how local and national government can and should be. Student Representative Bryan said he appreciates the diversity of perspectives that were acknowledged amongst the Board during the hearing. The residents voiced a lot of concerns on a huge range of topics. For the most part, the Board discussed them well and thoughtfully. He said he is proud to be part of a board that strives to do the right thing. Board Member Pence announced that the City Council extended the duration of the Housing Commission to the end of January. They will be reporting their policy recommendations soon, and he expects the Planning Board will be tasked with reviewing the recommendations to the extent they affect the code. This could be a time-consuming endeavor. Board Member Crank thanked the Board for their vote as Vice Chair. She commented that 2020 has been an interesting year for her from a professional, community service and personal standpoint. She attributed a lot of her success on the Snohomish County Airport Commission to her experience on the Planning Board. She appreciates that the Board has remained functional throughout the pandemic. Everyone has had a passion to move forward and get as much done as possible, when they had every excuse to rest on their laurels and not get much done. This speaks a lot about each and every Board Member. She hopes the Board can continue its momentum into 2021. She particularly voiced appreciation to staff, who has had to adapt to a new way of doing business while still providing excellent support to the Board. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 315 8.1.d ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 316 8.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom January 13, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Daniel Robles Conner Bryan, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG Board Member Rubenkonig read the following statement: "Tonight, I say goodbye to the grand experience of serving on the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board with all of you. I've been prepared for being removed from the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board since Mike Nelson was elected Mayor. It is a peculiar emotion being called out by the City Council and the Mayor for removal from the Board. I found the process poorly conducted and fraught with wrong facts. How did it happen that four out of eight position terms were expiring in one year? The proverbial red flag should have gone up in the air, but many party to board appointments did not act. This was disappointing. Why didn't they act to protect the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board? The inaction led me to share the situation with the local newspaper, My Edmonds News, on December 28' Maybe you are wondering why would the Mayor and City Council fire a standing Board Member. Usually when a citizen volunteer opts to continue serving the City of Edmonds on a board, commission and/or committee, as I did, it is considered to be a plus for the City. If my having a dissenting opinion to a standing mayor was a consideration for dismissal, then past Mayors Fahey, Haakenson, and Earling had plenty of reason to not renew my Board appointments, but they did not. I'd like to believe they valued discourse, including disagreement. Throughout my 14 years, starting in 1996, our youngest daughter was three years old, I committed to serving the people of Edmonds, not the elected officials. Allow me time for a quick back story. As a stay-at-home mom, like many women in our community, I gave volunteer support to many non-profit groups during the years of child Packet Pg. 317 8.1.d raising. Getting back into my profession took 16 years, but my citizen volunteer work on the Architectural Design Board helped me keep my mark in the game. Ten years later, I was asked to apply for the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, and here I am six years later. I have thoroughly enjoyed and greatly benefited from Board work and the years of challenge, including serving with male -dominated boards. Being voted as chair and vice chair of both boards showed Edmonds can support women as leaders. Now, here I am wanting to share my farewell remarks to this fine City Board. I'm proud of how we have been proactive on affordable housing, elevating it to a City concern. And we have been very attentive to the concerns of the community about the Urban Forest Management Plan. Each of us has a framework in which we look and analyze the known facts. I describe mine as a sailing ship, navigating rough seas to a safe harbor. My life experiences inform my perspective, the rigging. Some of those experiences are shared by others, raising children in troubling times, pushing hard to change careers, starting a business during the recession, and reinventing oneself for work. Not easy life experiences. Why am I sharing this? Because I am defending the Planning Board's ability to also help the City move through a very difficult and necessary time of cultural change. In order to help the community move through difficult times requires a ship to befitted out to navigate the rough seas. Navigating relies on a crew of others to safely move forward, and that is how I witnessed the Board handling challenging issues. Another back story. In my first years on the Architectural Design Board there were plenty of contentious issues, plenty. Emotions reigned high at the meetings, and police monitored those sessions. I encountered strong push back from the Director of the Port of Edmonds, the then City Attorney, and the ten all -male City Council. At three separate occasions, each of those men took the time to talk to me and explain that their push back was not personal. My response, it feels it. It took me more years than I'd like to share to understand what they were saying to me. In essence, it was `when we meet on opposites sides of an issue, I'm doing my job and I expect you to do the same.' I now know dissention and discussion is key to the best decision. I slowly learned to not take opposition so personally. When I've been on the dais listening intently to citizens, I know they have the right to talk and to disagree. I champion their right to do so. The need for rigorous rules of engagement is vital for Edmonds. I valued each and every opportunity to listen to the community, and I valued each and every opportunity to discuss (to really argue) with all of you, my fellow Board Members. I learned not to take public engagement personally. Yet, being fired, is just that. It is personal. I campaigned for the Mayor's opponent. Opposition to this mayor is something he appears to take personally. In my experience, opposition, dissention and disagreement, when shared in discussions and deliberations, leads to the best decisions possible. But that is not what he or his partisans on City Council are looking for in an appointment. This upsets my sensibilities on behalf of all of Edmonds. My parting words to you fine people, I hope you, as an Edmonds Citizen Planning Board continue your history of conducting yourself in the arena of discussion and debate. Listen to the words of Joseph Joubert from 1754 to 1824: It is better to debate a question without settling than to settle a question without debating it.' Carry on making the tough decision on behalf of we, the citizens of Edmonds. Thank you for your time of service. And now, according to ECC Section 10.40.020(A)(4), I congratulate Roger Pence, previously referred to as alternate to the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, in his new standing as Position 5. I leave you to conduct necessary citizen business as members of the Board. " All of the Board Members thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her service. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA A discussion of the Planning Board Membership Roster was added to the agenda, and the remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 318 8.1.d AUDIENCE COMMENTS Marjie Fields, Edmonds, commented that many Edmonds citizens are relying heavily on a new and improved Tree Code to stop the constant clear cutting that always seems to accompany development. Unfortunately, it appears that the current Tree Code draft is not designed to achieve the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) goal of no net loss of tree canopy. Lacking an analysis of various measures in the draft, such as exempting private property, it will not actually be possible to determine what will be gained or lost. She cautioned against the Planning Board finalizing their recommendation on the Tree Code without an accompanying examination of the implications for each restriction and exemption. Will the exemptions and restrictions increase, reduce or maintain tree canopy? Without this data, she doesn't think it is possible to evaluate the Tree Code. She asked them to take more time before making a recommendation. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, observed that a Tree Code should address all of the trees in the City, not just a small minority of them. The draft code only addresses 3% of the residential land in Edmonds (the land that is currently undeveloped). He reminded the Board that the stated intent and purpose of the draft code is to implement the goals of the UFMP, which is to enhance and retain or no net loss of our forest canopy. He expressed his belief that the draft code is inadequate to perform the stated intent and purpose. The draft code would have been much more useful if enacted 10 years ago when there was more undeveloped land. Now there is only 3% of the land that is undeveloped. As time goes forward and more development occurs, the code will have less and less impact to the point where it will have no impact at all. He said he was very disappointed to see the relaxation of the tree replacement criteria. There aren't that many large trees in Edmonds, and he would encourage the Board to go back to the criteria of the previous draft. Every significant tree lost to development should require multiple replacement trees. That is the gold standard of forest management and tree replacement strategies. Mr. Phipps stressed that if the code is going to be codified, it should be meaningful and address all of the trees in Edmonds. He noted that 80% of the forest canopy is on developed lots, but the draft code totally ignores these trees. He cautioned against the Planning Board passing forward this empty and insignificant Tree Code. The current draft is simply a token and symbolic effort to make the Board feel good. It does very little to stop the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He emphasized that a flawed result would be worse than no code at all because it gives the impression that something was done. The code, as written, will do very little to decrease the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He asked the Board to spend more time on the Tree Code before making a recommendation to Council. Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he spent 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and was involved in doing a draft tree ordinance, which hasn't been adopted yet. The commission spent a lot of time looking at what other communities are doing in the region and country. He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, he noted that Portland, Oregon requires that developers save all trees 20 inches and larger. If they are removed, they must be replaced inch -for -inch. They established a replacement fee of $350 per inch of the tree removed. Folsom, California's tree code is based on the idea that the larger the tree, the greater its value in terms of providing ecoservices to the city. He said he provided a copy of Folsom's study, noting that they recently adopted a fee of $250 per inch for trees that are removed. They estimate their cost was $389 per tree, based on not just the acquisition and planting, but also tree maintenance. The draft Tree Code requires a 2-year bond, and the City of Seattle's proposed ordinance would increase the bond requirement from 3 to 5 years. The consensus is that, with climate change, it is not enough to plant trees. They must be maintained, and a much larger time frame is needed to make sure this happens. While requiring native species for replacement trees is good, they must also keep in mind that climate change is affecting a number of native species, making their survival difficult. Mr. Zemke commented that if the City proceeds with the proposed replacement requirement, which uses increments of 8 inches, he strongly recommended they add an additional category to require four replacement trees for trees that are 32 to 40 inches in diameter and five replacement trees for trees that are 40 inches or greater. He emphasized that the Tree Code should recognize the significant benefits that the larger trees provide. It will be a long time before the replacement trees will provide the same benefit. He noted that, as proposed, the Tree Code would only apply to tree removal associated with development. However, Portland requires permits to remove trees on all private properties, as does Lake Forest Park, Kirkland and a number of others cities in the region. Chris Yake, Edmonds, asked when the video from the meeting would be posted, and Mr. Chave said it should be available within a week. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 319 8.1.d John Marante said he is a past resident of Edmonds and now works for a developer. He was participating in the meeting to observe what is going on with the Tree Code. Nancy Winston, Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds and is very concerned about how strong the City's commitment is to make sure that future development is not just clear cut. She is a concerned citizen and a tree lover. Nicholas Capos, Edmonds, recalled that he attended the public hearing for the previous Tree Code update. The proposal was very controversial and there were so many opinions that some of the attendees continued their discussions in the parking lot until 1 a.m. He voiced concern that, since that time, the process has gone underground even though the outcome will impact everyone who owns property with trees. He owns property with a home and a large number of trees that he cares very much about. However, he believes the proposed regulations would be onerous and severely restrictive. He reviewed that the UFMP outlines the following goals: • Incentivize the planting and protection of trees on private property. • Create a program for giving away trees or tree vouchers. • Establish a property tax rebate or stormwater utility rate reduction for properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy. • Implement other techniques that provide financial recognition to the benefits of tree planting and protection. • Provide resources to the community to educate and inform them of tree planting and care. • Provide signage and other information about significant trees. • Establish a Tree Board. • Develop community education materials. • Participate in original tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to volunteers. • Report annually to the City Council. Mr. Capos referred to Question 17 of the survey the City recently conducted regarding the Tree Code, which asked, "When private properties are developed or improved, trees on property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?" Of the 167 respondents, 53.89% answered yes. Eight did not respond to the question, 17.95% indicated that the City should not concern itself with trees on private property, and 28% weren't sure. If you subtract the number of people who didn't respond, you end up with a 51% majority that favor requiring property owners to preserve trees on private parcels. That is not much of a majority. He summarized that this incredible set of restrictions, fines and fees can eventually financially impact every property owner in Edmonds that has trees. While it starts off with developers, the stated goal is to apply it to developed private properties, too. The impact could be thousands of dollars per lot. He said he wants to build a house for his disabled son on the lot next to him. By the time he pays the building fees, stormwater fees, and tree replacement fees, he could be looking at $75,000 to $80,000 before any construction can start on the house. Again, Mr. Capos voiced concern that the issue has gone underground and hasn't included the institutional discussion about taking away private property rights. He has paid property taxes on his trees for 25 years, and he felt it was a violation of his property rights for the City to tell him what he can and cannot do with them. He suggested that this entire subject needs to receive a much wider vetting to the public. The meetings haven't been published in any of the local newspapers, and no information has been disseminated to the property owners via the mail. Only 12 people were present at the last meeting to comment on a proposal that would have a deep financial impact to property owners into the far distant future. Richard Ellison, Seattle, said he is a semi -retired, part-time adjunct instructor at community colleges in the region. He said he believes it is very important to protect trees on private property. They are part of the environmental infrastructure. He voiced concern that the general way of doing things continues to allow more and more loopholes for developers to remove the largest trees. While he is glad the City is trying to categorize trees in a fashion, there needs to be a better definition for trees between 6 inches and a specimen tree. Trees that are 12 inches in diameter and greater provide a lot of habitat and canopy. They are looking at summer record heat and fires, and cities need to plan for a future of climate change. They need to figure out how to preserve the large trees and still allow more housing to be developed. He suggested that one option is to allow taller buildings or to allow development to be reconfigured on lots so that trees can be saved. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 320 8.1.d Mr. Ellison also encouraged the City to prohibit tree topping. Trained professionals know how to create a view through a tree canopy without creating hazardous tree conditions in the future. He also encouraged the City to do as much planting as possible. He noted that the larger trees capture a lot of rain and slow the stormwater runoff so it doesn't get into the system as quickly. The City of Seattle is currently paying people to build cisterns for free on their properties in an effort to collect water during heavy rains so it doesn't all come into the stormwater system at once. He suspects that Edmonds is also experiencing problems with stormwater runoff. Rather than having to build additional infrastructure to capture the runoff, Edmonds should retain the existing large trees that are doing an excellent job. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Vice Chair Crank asked if canopies for outdoor dining will become standard in the downtown. Mr. Chave said the City Council adopted an interim ordinance, which provided some new standards for streeteries and outdoor dining. Business owners are starting to submit applications, and he suspects there will be more as time goes by. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Chair Rosen thanked the members of the public who provided comments regarding the draft Tree Code. He also reminded the Board Members that they have received a number of written comments since the public hearing on December 9t''. Other people have expressed their opinions via letters to local newspapers, etc. According to his count, the Board has heard from 96 citizens regarding the draft Tree Code. He emphasized that the citizen voices have been heard by the Board and will influence their recommendation. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He reviewed the UFMP goals that are addressed in the draft update as follows: • Goal LA — 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. The draft Tree Code covers all of these topics. • Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. While this goal was taken under consideration when the draft Tree Code was developed, it is understood that the regulations, in and of themselves, cannot achieve no net loss of canopy within the City. The City will have to do other things, such as education. The Tree Board is doing a good job of education and outreach but more work is needed. • Goal LC — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The draft regulations will supplement the City's Critical Area Regulations. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. The draft regulations will establish a Tree Fund that will be funded by penalty fees and the fee -in -lieu program. • Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. Mr. Lien recalled that, following the December 91 public hearing, the Planning Board requested additional information about the proposed tree replacement ratios and Snohomish County's coverage approach. He referred to the tree replacement requirements in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.080. As proposed, replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed and the replacement ratio would be based on the diameter of the tree removed. At the public hearing, he provided a number of examples of how the replacement ratios would apply and the resulting fees into the Tree Fund. While he felt the fees would be too high, the Planning Board did not seem concerned. He suggested other options, including modifying the replacement ratio or modifying the dollar value per tree for the fee -in -lieu. The Planning Board indicated they wanted to retain the $1,000 fee per tree, but they were willing to consider an alternative replacement ratio. As requested by the Board, he shared a chart showing how the updated alternative replacement ratio compares to the previously proposed replacement ratio: Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 321 8.1.d Previously Proposed Replacement Ratio (Option 1 Updated Alternative Replacement Ratio (Option 2 6 to 10 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required 6 to 14 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required 10.1 to 14 inches DBH* -- 2 replacement trees required 14.1 to 24 inches DBH* — 2 replacement trees required Greater than 14 inches DBH* -- 3 replacement trees required Greater than 24 inches DBH* — 3 replacement trees required *Diameter at Breast Height Mr. Lien reviewed the four examples that were provided at the December 9t' public hearing again to illustrate how both Option 1 and Option 2 would impact the Tree Fund payment required for new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. In each example, he pointed out the number of existing trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments. He also provided information showing how the required Tree Fund payments would compare to Parks and Traffic Impact Fees. He summarized the following: • New Single -Family Development — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 22 to 19, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $16,000 to $13,000. Park and Traffic Impact fees would be almost $9,000. • Four -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 58 to 50, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $58,000 to $50,000. Park and Traffic Impact fees would be almost $27,000. • Ten -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 98 to 84, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $98,000 to $84,000. Park and Traffic Impact Fees would be almost $63,000. • Conservation Subdivision Design — Applying the current zoning regulations, Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 315 to 222, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $315,000 to $222,000. Applying the proposed conservation subdivision design regulations would allow a lot more trees to be retained. Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 202 to 141, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $202,000 to $141,000. The park and traffic impact fees for both options would be about $33,000. Board Member Monroe asked how the park and traffic impact fees are calculated. Mr. Lien responded that the City only has two impact fees (traffic and parks). For new single-family residences, the traffic impact fee is $6,249 per unit and the park impact fee is $2,334, and credit is given for existing homes. In the examples he provided, the fees were calculated based on the number of new residential units being constructed. He explained that both fees were established based on a lengthy analysis, and the City's fees are about average compared to other jurisdictions in the area. Board Member Monroe commented that the traffic and park impact fees are the same for each unit regardless of design, whereas the draft Tree Code is intended to influence behavior and incentivize developers to retain trees. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that a fee of $10,000 to $20,000 per unit sounds appropriate. He would like the fee to be high enough that developers are encouraged to reconfigure lots to save trees whenever possible. If the fee is not high enough, most developers will simply choose to pay the fee and fold it into the price of the home. Mr. Lien pointed out that the proposed subdivision design flexibility would allow developers to cluster the lots and retain the existing trees. Board Member Monroe summarized that Option 1 is more conservation minded and would make it more difficult to remove trees, and Option 2 would be a more liberal approach. He said he leans towards being more conservation minded, making it more difficult to remove trees in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained that Option 1 would likely result in fewer trees being removed. If more trees are retained, the potential fee -in -lieu payment would go down. If developers want to reduce the amount required for the Tree Fund, they will find a way to retain and/or plant more trees. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE REPLACEMENT RATIO. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bryan said he supports Mr. Zemke's idea that the replacement ratio categories should be expanded to require more replacement trees when trees greater than 32 DBH are removed. This would reduce the potential canopy loss in the City without further complicating the code. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 322 8.1.d Board Member Robles observed that the traffic and park impact fees are flat fees, property taxes are based on the assessed value of the home, and, as proposed, the tree replacement fee would be based on the size of tree. He asked if there has been any discussion about basing the replacement fee on the value of a property. For example, a higher replacement fee might be appropriate if cutting down trees exposes a view and significantly increases the value of the homes that are built. On the other hand, the higher fee might not be appropriate for development of low-income housing. Mr. Lien said the Board did discuss this concept, but he is not sure how it could be implemented. He explained that when subdivision applications are reviewed, staff does not require specifics about the homes that will be developed. Implementing the concept would require appraisals with each application to identify the potential value of the property after subdivision and development. Chair Rosen suggested that the Board should focus on taking action on the current motion, recognizing that Board Member Robles' idea could be presented as a separate item for discussion at a later time, as appropriate. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board review Snohomish County's Coverage Approach. He met with Board Member Rubenkonig following the meeting to get a better understanding of what she was recommending. He noted that the draft code includes a retention requirement. However, if there are no trees on a site, there would be no retention requirement. Snohomish County's approach requires 30% coverage post development. Developers are required to retain 30% of the canopy coverage. If replanting is required, a 30% coverage would be required at the end of 20 years. Snohomish County's code doesn't include a definition for canopy coverage, but it appears to mean the portion of the site covered by a vertical protection of the tree crowns as expressed at a percentage of the area of the site. That means that, looking down on the site, the tree canopy needs to cover 30% of the site. You could have a single tree with a large canopy that covers 30% of the site or you could have two or three trees that provide the same amount of canopy. The coverage requirement is calculated based on the area of the circle and allows credit for retention of certain trees. Mr. Lien said he drafted some regulations based on Snohomish County's model. He kept the same percentage requirement (30% for new single-family and subdivisions and 25% for multifamily), but changed from "retention" to "canopy coverage." The table on how to measure tree canopy was copied from Snohomish County's code. There would be two options for measuring the existing tree canopy: Option 1 would require a tree survey, measuring the canopy of each tree and calculating the total area; and Option 2 would require an aerial estimation. Calculating the required new canopy would depend on the species of the trees that are replanted. A developer would need to calculate the radius of the canopy of each proposed tree at 20 years maturity and multiply the area by the number of trees to be planted to obtain the total canopy area. Mr. Lien cautioned that Snohomish County's model would be difficult to administer. It is much easier to count the number of trees than to calculate the canopy of each of the trees that are removed and replanted. The Snohomish County code offers credits for existing trees, for example: • Individual significant trees retained on a site shall be counted at 125% of the total actual canopy area. • For clusters or stands of five or more trees, each tree shall be counted at 150% of the actual canopy area. • For clusters or stands of five or more significant trees, each tree shall be counted at 200% of its actual canopy area. • Retained trees located within no more than 20 feet of a rain garden or a bio-swale on site shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy area. • Retained significant trees qualified to receive flow control credits shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy area. Mr. Lien noted that the Snohomish County Model doesn't have a replacement requirement like what is proposed in the draft Tree Code. If implemented, the replacement ratios discussed earlier in the meeting would need to be eliminated from the code. The fee -in -lieu program could be retained for situations where the coverage requirement could not be met on site, but it would be complicated to apply. For example, a developer could avoid paying a fee -in -lieu by planting one big -leaf maple with a large canopy instead of multiple other tree species with smaller canopies. Mr. Lien summarized that, if the Planning Board wants to pursue the Snohomish County model, it would take at least one more meeting. While he drafted initial code language, he would need to review the rest of the code to identify other sections that would be impacted. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 323 8.1.d Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Lien to share staff s recommendation regarding the Snohomish County Model. Mr. Lien said he prefers the draft Tree Code for ease of implementation. The Snohomish County Model would be very complicated to administer and require more work on the part of developers and staff. Board Member Monroe asked if staff believes the Snohomish County Model would be consistent with or go beyond the UFMP goals. Mr. Lien answered that the Snohomish County Model would be consistent with the UFMP goals, but the draft Tree Code would also be consistent. The difference is that the Snohomish County Model would require trees to be planted as part of development even on properties that have no existing trees. The draft Tree Code would not. Board Member Monroe observed that implementing the Snohomish County Model would likely result in a net gain, which goes beyond the UFMPs no -net -loss goal. Mr. Lien agreed it would result in a net gain for properties that have no trees. Vice Chair Crank asked if the Snohomish County Model would be better from a long-term standpoint as opposed to a short- term standpoint. Mr. Lien referred back to the example he shared earlier of a typical 4-lot subdivision with an existing canopy coverage of about 40%. Applying the draft Tree Code, the end result would likely be a 30% canopy coverage plus a $58,000 payment into the Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund must be spent on tree planting within the City of Edmonds. He suggested that the proposed Tree Code would result in more trees being planted because of the fee -in -lieu program, which would likely go away if the Snohomish County Model is adopted. Vice Chair Crank recalled that in past conversations there appeared to be a consensus that the City's code should be in line with Snohomish County's code. However, doing that might result in more work for the staff. The question is, would the extra work be worth it. Mr. Lien responded that most of the cities he researched did not use a coverage requirement approach. Some have a density requirement and others use a tree retention approach similar to the draft Tree Code. Some jurisdictions use a tree credit approach, as well. Vice Chair Crank summarized that the City of Edmonds wouldn't be the "odd person out" if they were to implement the draft Tree Code. Chair Rosen said there appears to be consensus amongst the Board that the approach outlined in the currently draft Tree Code is appropriate. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Lien concluded his report by reminding the Board that the draft Tree Code update was primarily focused on retention with development. The primary complaint the City has received over the years has been about properties being clear cut when developed. He acknowledged that the draft Tree Code does not implement all of the UFMP goals, and more will need to be done to implement the UFMP. Potential ideas include pursuing more incentives and education opportunities and the creation of a heritage tree program. The draft Tree Code is intended to implement the first goal of the UFMP, which is to develop tree regulations to retain more trees with development. Board Member Monroe asked if it is fair to say that if the City Council wants to pursue tree regulations for already developed private properties it will come back to the Planning Board for consideration and a recommendation. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Chair Rosen asked if there would be additional opportunities for public input after the Planning Board forwards its recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered that there would be another public hearing at the City Council level. As per the current schedule, the draft Tree Code Update would be introduced to the City Council on January 19'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 261 BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT TREE CODE UPDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Rosen invited Board Member Robles to comment further on his earlier suggestion that the tree replacement requirement could be based on property value. Board Member Robles said he has been pondering the citizen input and how to distribute the impact in a more justifiable way. He suggested the discussion would be more relevant if and when the Board considers tree replacement requirements for private properties that have already been developed. He shared an example of a neighboring property owner who cut down several significant trees to create a view, which enabled him to sell his property Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 324 8.1.d for a much higher value. Vice Chair Crank pointed out that the City cannot legislate behavior. Board Member Robles agreed, but potential solutions might include incentives and education. He commented that the draft Tree Code Update is a good first start. CLIMATE GOALS PLANNING — STATUS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION Mr. Lien reviewed that the goal was to update the Climate Action Plan in 2020. The pandemic postponed the update, which is now scheduled to occur in 2021. The City has hired a consultant, Environmental Science Association (ESA), to help draft the plan. ESA has already completed the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and created the tracking tool that was previously presented to the Planning Board. In addition, the City has consulted with Cascadia to assist with the public engagement program. Cascadia has been helping with the Citizen Housing Commission. Mr. Lien reported that, currently, staff is working to develop a website that is specific to the Climate Action Plan Update, which should be live by January 21". An article on the Climate Action Plan Update will be published in the City's next quarterly newsletter, and a virtual open house will take place in February to re -introduce the topic to the public. A community workshop is scheduled to occur in March, and the City will also kick off an on-line survey in March. Following the open house, workshop and survey, ESA will begin drafting the update. He said he anticipates a second workshop in the fall, with the goal of having a Climate Action Plan Update that is ready for City Council review by the end of 2021. He will provide regular updates as the process moves forward. Chair Rosen commented that, as work continues on the Tree Code and Climate Action Plan, it is important to consider the efforts of the Housing Commission, the Tree Board, the Climate Protection Committee, the Conservation Advisory Committee, Architectural Design Board and the City Council. The work from all of these groups is interconnected, and they all need to work together to address the City's goals. Mr. Lien said all of the groups mentioned have been identified as stakeholders in the Public Engagement Plan, and staff will reach out to all of them. Tackling the issue of climate change will touch on all aspects of society. In addition to code changes, people will have to make personal decisions. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Board Member Pence noted that there has been a problem with keeping track of the term expirations of each of the Planning Board Members, and it resulted in a situation last month where, according to the staff report, the terms of four of the eight Planning Board Members expired at the end of 2020. The that established the Planning Board is very clear that only two terms expire every year; but somehow, monitoring the terms ran askew. He suggested the Board get it back on track with the original code so that two terms expire each year. He said he sent the Board Members a screen grab of a roster that was created by Board Member Rubenkonig with some help from Ken Reidy. He invited staff to review the roster for accuracy and share their ideas for addressing the problem. The Board could continue the discussion at the next meeting. Chair Rosen asked the best way to address the situation. Mr. Chave responded that for the past 10 years, the current system has tracked each of the 4-year term limits. He said he reviewed the original ordinance that identified term expirations for each year, with new terms starting on January 1 st. At least half of the current positions track with the original ordinance, but some got off track. He suggested that the discrepancy likely has something to do with replacing members mid-term or moving people into expired terms. He noted that there are a variety of options to address the problem, but it will need to be sorted out by the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney. Board Member Cheung asked who is responsible to track term expirations. Mr. Chave explained that the mayor makes recommendations and the City Council affirms the appointments, so the responsibility is shared. Over the past 10 years when appointments were made, the terms and expirations were usually clearly stated. Board Member Pence recalled that, when he was appointed to the Planning Board by Mayor Earling 1.5 years ago, nothing was said by anyone at any point as to his term on the Board. He didn't have the presence of mind to inquire at that time. He reviewed all of the paperwork associated with his appointment and confirmation and found nothing about the term. Member Pence said he understands that it is up to the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney to address the problem, but he asked if staff would provide a recommendation. Mr. Chave indicated he couldn't answer that question because he hasn't been part of the discussions. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 325 8.1.d Chair Rosen summarized that Board Member Pence's original concern was getting the term expirations back on track. However, he also voiced concerns related to communication and who is responsible for addressing the problem. If the Board's primary concern is getting the Planning Board Member Roster straightened out so it is consistent with the original intent of the code that established the Planning Board, he recommended the Board send a request to the Mayor asking that the terms be clarified and standardized consistent with the code. Vice Chair Crank thanked Board Member Pence for bringing the issue forward. She agreed with Chair Rosen that addressing the problem will be an administrative task. Other than understanding the accurate terms, there is no need for the Planning Board to be involved in the matter. She asked that staff update the roster as needed and present it to the Board at the next meeting. Board Member Cheung suggested that it would be helpful if the roster that is provided on the Planning Board page of the City's website indicated what position each person serves in. This might make it easier to track the terms. Chair Rosen summarized that the Board is asking the City Council to clarify the terms, identify start and end dates of each term to bring them into compliance with the code and then document the roster. Board Member Cloutier recalled that historically when the Board elected new officers at the end of the year, staff provided a roster of Planning Board positions and term dates. This should become standard practice for the Board. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said he has used the roster over the past 10 years, and the rosters have tracked with the actions the City Council has taken when appointing new members. Board Member Cloutier suggested they could add another column to the roster to verify the years of rotation. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen reviewed that the January 27t1i meeting agenda will include an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and a presentation on the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan update focus recommendations. The February 10' meeting agenda will include a presentation on a potential code amendment to allow unit lot subdivisions in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, as well as a review and discussion on code update work (EV Charging Charging). Mr. Chave announced that the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance on outdoor dining on private property, and the issue will come before the Planning Board in the near future. Board Member Pence pointed out that the Planning Board typically holds a retreat each year where they consider the Board's long-term activities and agenda. However, the retreat is not currently listed on the extended agenda. Chair Rosen said he intends for the Board to meet with the City Council in February or March to discuss their priorities and how they will impact the Board's extended agenda. Mr. Chave said that, generally, the Chair and Vice Chair meets with staff to review the schedule and identify an appropriate date for the retreat. Typically, the retreat takes place in the spring. Chair Rosen said he would work with Vice Chair Crank to set up a meeting with staff to discuss the retreat and report back to the Board. Board Member Robles pointed out that the Planning Board page on the City's website needs to be updated to reflect the leadership changes that were made. He asked if the student representative has been added to the list to receive Planning Board emails. Mr. Bryan said he has been receiving Planning Board emails. Mr. Chave agreed to make sure the website is updated. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rosen referred to the disgrace that recently occurred at the nation's capital, as well as other state capitals. He said it was a horrible day for our country, and we are better than the violence, sedition and insurrection that took place. We cannot tolerate this type of behavior, and they must put an end to it. They must also put an end to the racism that was clearly on display on that day. Monday is Martin Luther King Day, and he encouraged each of the Board Members to work on creating a community that is free of hatred, injustice and poverty. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 326 8.1.d Chair Rosen emphasized that, from his count, there are 17 boards, commissions and committees, adding up to 144 community members who volunteer to serve. He recognized that they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council, and their job is to provide them good information so they can make good decisions. The value of the volunteer groups is incredible. The volunteer force is the secret sauce that is the engine of a good community. On the Planning Board, the hourly rates if the City were paying for their service would run to at least $500 an hour. It would seem the City should create an environment where they recruit and retain the best possible talent and that they feel appreciated. We failed recently and we can do better. Chair Rosen thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her incredible service. She was passionate and showed up and will be missed. Chair Rosen commented that being part of a community means showing up and participating, just like the individuals did tonight regarding the Tree Code. He encouraged members of the public to show up and have an opinion at public workshops and hearings, to serve on the boards, commissions and committees, and to run for office. It works better when the load is shared. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Bryan announced that January 27t' will be his last meeting as student representative to the Edmonds Planning Board. He said that while representing the youth of Edmonds on the Planning Board over nearly the past 2 years has provided him with valuable professional experience and the satisfaction of community involvement, it has become clear that he no longer intends to pursue a career in urban development. Consequently, he wishes to devote his time to activities that align more closely with his interests. Moreover, he felt it would be unfair for him to maintain the position when there are undoubtedly students in the community who could engage more meaningfully with the Planning Board with respect to their own professional aspirations. He thanked all Board Members and City staff for the experience and wished the Board and City success in the future. Board Member Robles commented that Mr. Bryan did a great job as student representative. He served his community and was as good if not better than any student representative. He thanked him for his service, and invited him to rely on Board Members for recommendations in the future. Board Member Monroe welcomed Board Member Pence as a Planning Board Member rather than the alternate. He said he would miss Board Member Rubenkonig, who had passion and a breadth of knowledge that lined up will with the Board's goals. He complimented Chair Rosen for a well -run meeting. Lastly, he said he has been impressed by Mr. Bryan's professionalism as he shared his viewpoints on a host of issues. Board Member Cheung also thanked Mr. Bryan and said he was the best student representatives the Board has had. He was sorry to see him leave the Board. He encouraged him to find other opportunities where he could share his skills with the community. He said he was surprised to learn that Board Member Rubenkonig was leaving the Board, especially on such sad terms after serving the community for a number of years. She has been a great voice on the Board. He said he is looking forward to having Chair Rosen and Vice Chair Crank lead the group. Vice Chair Crank also thanked Mr. Bryan for his service on the Board. She agreed with Chair Rosen's comments. As someone who works with non-profit organizations, she understands that volunteers are the lifeblood. They need to treat all volunteers with the respect they deserve. She was not happy to be the person that had to tell Board Member Rubenkonig that her time was over. It was a surprise for all of the Board Members. She expressed her hope that they can learn to do better in how they serve one another. Vice Chair Crank echoed Chair Rosen's comments about what has been happening in our country. It is not the way she wants the country to go into 2021, but she anticipates it may get worse before it gets better. They also need to look locally, and treat each other well. She received two very disturbing images on social media during the meeting. It makes her sad that there is bad behavior in Edmonds. They must remember that bad behavior is everywhere and Edmonds is not exempt. They need to call it out and address it as they see it. She hopes the community can get better from the inside out. She also Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 327 8.1.d reminded them that Monday is Martin Luther King Day, which is typically a day of service. Obviously, the pandemic limits the amount of physical service they can do. She wrote a letter to My Edmonds News, providing some great suggestions for things that can be done while in your home, either by yourself or with family members, to challenge the equality and equity piece they are trying to all do together. Board Member Pence agreed with the comments made by his fellow members. However, he expanded on the comments made by Vice Chair Crank about the problems in Edmonds and the need for much more vigorous conversation. The community needs to be talking about the issues amongst themselves on something more substantive than the comments read under My Edmonds News articles. He doesn't have an easy proposal for accomplishing that, but they need to work at building the civic energy of the City more. This can be done by people talking amongst themselves using the technologies that are available since they cannot meet together. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 328 8.1.e From: Bill Phioos To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Fw: Proposed Tree Code Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 6:43:32 PM ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> To: citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Edmonds City Council <council@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 06:28:36 PM PDT Subject: Proposed Tree Code Greetings Planning Board members; A typical Tree Code has three main requirements :. 1.) Requires a percentage of significant trees to be saved when new development is done on unimproved parcels. 2.) Requires a limit on the number of significant trees that an existing developed property owner can cut down per year. 3.) Requires replacement tree planting for any significant tree lost for any reason, anywhere at any time. The bigger the tree, the more replacement trees required to be planted. While looking at the proposed Tree Code submitted by staff, I clearly see the first requirement addressed on page 6 section C. 1. 1 would encourage the City to make substantial penalties for developers who want to opt out of requirements by paying a fee into the tree fund ( section C. 4.) Otherwise developers will just opt out of requirements by paying fees that are insignificant in cost to them. As for the second requirement , i don't see it addressed anywhere in the proposed Tree Code. This needs to be addressed in any proposed tree code. What i see happening is people moving here and buying an existing home where the property has a large number of significant conifers and the new owners immediately clear cut all, or most, of the trees on their new property. This practice needs to be curtailed by including restrictions in the number of trees a person can cut down per year. A typical number is 3 significant trees may be cut per year for a 10,000 square foot lot and 6 trees per year on a 20,000 square foot lot. As for the third requirement; i would encourage the City to require multiple replacement trees be planted for each significant tree lost depending on the size of the tree cut. We need to realize that a sapling replacement tree won't really be a replacement tree until decades later. An example is the loss of many large trees due to the building of the light rail transit system through Shoreline. There they required three replacement trees for each significant conifer lost. Another problem for Edmonds is that our parks and public land is pretty "treed out", that is there is no room to plant replacement trees. If you build a large house on a lot and you take out, say, 6 significant conifers there most likely won't be room to plant replacement trees on that lot that will eventually become quite large. A solution to this problem is the City entering into a partnership with local tree preservation groups such as the " Mountain To Sound " tree preserve or the Million Tree program in Snohomish County. Planting our replacement trees in these off site locations will give us the same environmental benefits in the long run. One last point, for now; I would encourage the City to not charge large fees to private home owners who are applying for a permit to cut trees on their lots in excess of the code restrictions. This will really anger our citizens. There should be no fee involved in order to get better compliance and cooperation. The key to this whole Code should be replacement trees. We recognize that we will continue to lose Packet Pg. 329 8.1.e significant trees due to development. We must be forward looking by requiring multiple "of kind" replacement trees for every significant tree lost anywhere, at any time and for any reason. Thank you for your time and consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds resident. Packet Pg. 330 8.1.e From: ericth uesen (Wrontier. corn To: Lien. Kernen; Council; Citizens Planning Board Subject: Tree code /email submittal / notification to property owners / Zoom meetings Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:34:58 PM From: Eric Thuesen <ericthuesen@frontier.com> To: citizens-planning@edmonndswa.gov. Sent: Thursday, November 12, 5:01 PM PDT Subject Proposed Tree code Good Afternoon Planning Board members; 1).Normal due time for submittal of written and oral comments is prior to the start of the of a meeting. I spoke to Kernen today at 3:30 and was advised cutoff date was 3;OOpm. I am sending this email prior to the 7pm meeting in hopes that it will be submitted as a comment. There has been only one comment to date from Bill Philipps. Few citizens are aware of the rules and are not getting a chance to express their thoughts. 2).Landowners - It is my understanding the City was to send out meeting notifications to landowners.. I am a landowner and did not received an email. Only became aware of the meeting when I called the Development Services Department and was told there was a meeting. 3).Zoom meetings. A large portion of Edmonds residents are not tech knowledgeable. Because of this they are locked out of participating in virtual meetings. Please review the address code required to enter the virtual meeting. Staff needs to recognizes that citizens have right to have access and notification of the decisions our Board members and Council are making. Regards; Eric Thuesen Packet Pg. 331 8.1.e From: Chave, Rob To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Fwd: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:22:11 AM Attachments: image.ona Rob Chave Planning Manager, City of Edmonds Begin forwarded message: From: Anna Forslund West <forslund.anna@gmail.com> Date: November 11, 2020 at 3:58:30 PM PST To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "Hope, Shane" <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>, "Chave, Rob" <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views Hello Planning Board + City Council, I'd like to follow up on the email I sent over on Oct 13th to City Council, in regard to including a section in the revised tree code for protecting water views. I see this is not included in the draft version, as of yet. The very definition of our city is described as: "facing the Puget sound". The Puget Sound is a vital part of our identity. In many cases it is the reason people buy homes here and spend time in our restaurants, bars, farmer's market + shops vs. spending their dollars in other cities. While we are spending time revising tree codes that affect private property, and drill down to the detail (ex: what is defined as an "insignificant tree", size tree that can be cut, penalties, etc), I do believe we need to add, protecting water views, to this code. At the very least, a section on hedge height guidelines/ when vegetation is used as a fence/privacy row and negatively impacts another resident's water view. Specifically I'd like to suggest this be woven into the INTENT + PURPOSE Section. Regardless if you think the tree is the view or the water is the view, trees have the potential to block water views; and both are important to our identity as Edmonds residents. We would be remiss to ignore this. While the city has not chosen to protect water views in written code over the past few decades, I do know the water view is of importance, the city tells me so with increased taxes for private property that have water views. Taxes which in turn, benefit our community. Our town's logo "It's an Edmonds Kind of Day" is literally a picture of a ferry, on the water. Packet Pg. 332 8.1.e }} P - Ids an low land of days How often are our city departments (police, city council, etc) called upon to deal with a hedge height or blocked view situation? A more concrete guideline would help take the pressure off these departments. While the draft version shows we are detailing out the tree code substantially (and specifically only to trees), if the city chooses to not include a section on how trees also affect water views on private property, I feel shows a disconnect. We have max height guidelines for buildings and fences, but when vegetation is used as a "fence" the sky's the limit — quite literally. I suggest we use the Tree Board's "Right Tree in The Right Place" motto to help write code which will help protect our trees and our water views, which I think we can all agree, are both vital to our community. Thank you for your consideration! Anna West Packet Pg. 333 8.1.e From: Chave, Rob To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Fwd: Revised Tree Code Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:19:22 AM Rob Chave Planning Manager, City of Edmonds Begin forwarded message: From: cdfarmen@comcast.net Date: November 11, 2020 at 7:35:19 PM PST To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Revised Tree Code Dear Board Members, An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward controlling the loss of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be helpful in reducing the loss of significant trees, especially in large wooded areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern. I would like to see a provision in the tree code for new construction on wooded lots that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain as many trees as possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10, especially items "C and D" where it talks about development practices that work to avoid the removal or destruction of trees. Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed property. The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of 20% of the existing trees, the same as required for new construction sites. Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the city will be relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a solution, versus tree retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers, are not capable of absorbing even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared to significant trees. The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as to where those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything in the revised code that addresses that issue. And, who would decide where to plant the replacement trees and who would be responsible for planting them? Is the city going to be liable for planting on some non - owned property? Packet Pg. 334 8.1.e One of the code's alternatives to tree removal is paying for the removal of significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those "fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I recommend the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden program. Using those dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative that I could accept. Thank you for considering my comments. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview area homeowner Packet Pg. 335 8.1.e From: Bill Phio)s To: citizens- plan ninoboard (c edmondswa.aov Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Proposed Tree Code Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:30:06 PM Greetings Planning Board; I enjoyed sitting in on your meeting on Oct. 28. It was a good discussion about the tree code. But first, the subject of public input came up. I would recommend sending a notice to My Edmonds News whenever you are having a public hearing. They will publish it and people read it. i would also consider letters to you , the Planning board , as public input. My letter to you, on the tree code, dated Oct. 14, 2020 wasn't acknowledged by a single one of you. But, I guess you must be flooded with letters and public comments... Concerning the tree code, it was good to hear your understanding of the issues around "replacement trees"; the tree saplings planted to replace the large conifers lost to development. The next question is where are we going to plant those replacement trees ?! We're talking about significant areas of open spaces, where it's appropriate to plant large conifers. I do think you missed one key element of tree codes. Private property owners on already developed land should be curtailed from removing excessive numbers of trees from their property.. Most cities restrict tree removal to a certain number of trees per period of time; such as 3 significant trees per year. See the Exemptions section of the draft tree code, section d). Previously developed parcels should not be exempt from the tree code. Should there also be a minimum percentage of tree canopy saved on developed land, just as there will be for developers ? What we see is new owners of houses moving in and immediately cutting down all or most of their big trees, that have been maintained for decades by previous owners of the property.. We could try to slow that process down, to see if the new owners might end up liking a few trees around them ?! I have other ideas and concerns, but that is enough for now. Feel free to contact me. I'm looking forward to attending your next meeting and Mr. Liens' excellent presentation of the proposed tree code and your insightful and lively discussion about the future of our forest canopy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 336 8.1.e From: Bill Phim) To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:07:59 AM Greetings Planning Board ; And Mr. Lien !....I would like all my comments to the Planning Board to be considered as comments to you as well. For the record, thank you. You , the Planning Board, were doing so well at the first meeting; you were asking real questions to the real issues of replacement trees. You realized the math. If you take down 70% of the trees, for new development, how are you going to maintain the stated goals of the UFMP; no net loss of forest canopy ?. You were talking about the necessity of multiple replacement trees for each big one cut down. Then at the last meeting you dropped the ball. Or were you punting ? You all of a sudden dropped replacement trees completely. Did you realize the difficulties at hand ? Did you want to do deal with it at all.? How was that decided? A couple nods of the head ? Whose nods ? Do you take votes? No matter. It's not too late, Buckle up and dig down and deal with this. Back up and look at the simple math. All of you. If we say we want to maintain a forest canopy of 30%; how are we going to do that without replacement trees planted for every tree that is lost to development.? If we say we want to maintain our forest canopy with "no net loss"; how are we going to do that without replacement trees planted for trees lost when private property owners build mother-in-law studios on their lots? The math has to add up. A replacement tree has to be added for every one that is lost.. How can we create incentives for people to plant or retain trees? How about storm water bill discounts? We can deal with the question of : where are we going to plant those future big trees. One idea is entering into a partnership with a local Tree Bank/Preserve. We will fund local tree planting with the funds from our Tree Fund. You can do this . We can do this. Let's create a meaningful and sustainable Tree Code. Thank you for taking your responsibilities seriously; Bill Phipps Packet Pg. 337 8.1.e a Packet Pg. 338 8.1.e From: Barbara Chase To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Thoughts on other entities and trees Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:30:46 PM Kernen, Thanks for the work you have done. I know it must take a lot of patience. As they talked about where to put trees I thought about where in the parks there is room. I saw on one map that various parks have some (not a lot) space for trees. Perhaps Rich Lindsay can tell you where. The Tree Board has done planting in Yost Park for one example. The other area is the schools. I promoted planting a small plot near the large school sign at Edmonds Elementary. It had lots of weeds and one unhealthy apple tree which was removed. The area was replanted with a vine maple and other native shrubs and groundcovers. It took a lot to work with the school district, but there are many spots on school grounds which could be planted with trees. Tomorrow I will be meeting with David Jackon of the Snohomish Conservation 'District. That is a state agency (as you no doubt know) which has a lot of experience with working with schools. When I find out more I will let you know about it. It is usually beneficial to work with various groups so they can learn about each other. The teacher and principal at Edmonds Elementary have been very supportive. If it can be used with their curriculum all the better. Again, thank you. I will be sure to attend the December Public hearing. Barbara Chase Packet Pg. 339 8.1.e From: Martin, Michelle To: michelle.martin(dedmondwa.aov; cdfarmen(ocomcast.net Cc: Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen Subject: FW: Planning board coments Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:39:00 PM Greetings Duane Farmen, Your comments have been received and distributed to the board. If you should have future comments specifically related to the Tree Code, please forward those directly to Kernen Lein. Thank you, 11) 1,0 x J r• '4icheCCe L. Martin Development Services Department- Planning Admin. Planning webooael121 5th Avenue North 1 Edmonds, WA 98020 2: 425-771-0222 directl F:425-771-0221 Imichelle.martin(C)edmondswa.gov NOTICE: Email & attachments subject to Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) CITY HALL IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Services will continue to be provided by email and phone. Please visit www.edmondswa.gov for up-to-date information For inspections: httgs://inspection.mvbuildinooermit.com/ For planning permit inquiries please email: olanningpermits(cDedmondswa.goov For all other permit inquiries please email: devserv.admin(o)edmondswa.gov From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:22 PM To: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Planning board coments Dear Board Members, An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward controlling the loss of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be helpful in reducing the loss of significant trees, especially in large wooded areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern. I would recommend a provision in the tree code for new construction on wooded lots that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain as many trees as possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10, especially items T and D" where it talks about development practices that work to avoid the removal or destruction of trees. The exemptions for single family residences needs a change. If a single family home Packet Pg. 340 8.1.e site has 8 or more trees per 10,000 sq ft of lot space it should not qualify for an exemption. A case in point. Behind my home is a 15,000 square foot lot with 35 significant trees. The owner is building a 3,900 sq ft home with a 785 sq ft ADU. All but 7 trees are being removed. These are all significant trees, some nearly 150 ft tall. Why should this property be exempted? Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed property. The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of 20% of the existing trees, the same as required for new construction sites. Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the city will be relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a solution, versus tree retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers, are not capable of absorbing even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared to significant trees. The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as to where those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything in the revised code that addresses that issue. And, who would decide where to plant the replacement trees and who would be responsible for planting them? Is the city going to be liable for planting on some non -owned property? Another alternative to tree removal, which I do not subscribe to, is paying for the removal of significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those "fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I recommend the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden program. Using those dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative that I could accept. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview area homeowner Packet Pg. 341 8.1.e From: Martin, Michelle To: Planning Work Group Subject: FW: Trees and Water Views Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:22:10 PM Kernen, would you like this one? O -Michelle From: Ryan Boyd <rjeremyboyd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:19 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trees and Water Views Hello, I recently purchased a home off Walnut street and am concerned about tree growth blocking my views. In our case, our view was paramount to our decision to not only purchase our home, but move to Edmonds in the first place. I naively assumed there were rules in place to prevent your existing view becoming blocked by the growth of trees. This is very troublesome to me and my family and I believe the rules should be modified in order to prevent this from happening. We are so happy to have joined the Edmonds community and despite the covid concerns we have been welcomed warmly. I hope there isn't a case down the line that we come to regret our decision because there weren't responsible codes in place that negatively impact the value of the property we purchased. Thank you! Ryan Boyd Packet Pg. 342 Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.XXX Intent and Purpose 23.10.XXX Administration Authority 23.10.XXX Definitions 23.10.XXX Permits 23.10.XXX Exemptions 23.10.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited 23.10.XXX Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity 23.10.XXX Tree Protection Measures During Development 23.10.XXX Tree Replacement 23.10.XXX Bonding 23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.XXX Liability 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 23.10.XXX Intent and Purpose RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER 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; 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 Packet Pg. 343 8.1.e 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.XXX 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.XXX 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) - P,c o 1(? .11 r c (iy I. 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; 2. 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. 344 8.1.e 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. K. 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_ _ �74,1 0U 6 ,- =-, :*e , ra c?:,r 23.10.XXX 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.XXX 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.XXX 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. B. 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. 345 8.1.e 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.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.XXX Hazard 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.XXX.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.XXX 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.XXX. 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. 346 8.1.e 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. 2. 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; 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.XXX. 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. 347 8.1.e (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 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. ii. 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 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.XXX Hazard 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 6 tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. , , , _ ,r��,,.;� �f-Y. r' -, :yTe a D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: In identifying significant trees to be retained trees should W- s be retained in the following priority order of priority: "�`ica 1. Priority One: a a. Specimen trees; E b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; U a Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 348 8.1.e 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. 3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that 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.XXX 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. B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 349 8.1.e 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: 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. 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. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the Director. The Director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 13 Packet Pg. 350 8.1.e 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the Director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. D. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. Additional Requirements. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.10.XXX 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.XXX.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced by one new tree in accordance with subsection ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 of this section. Trees that are removed which are classified as landmark shall be replaced by three new trees in accordance with subsection RZC 21.72.080.0 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. 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. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 351 8.1.e 1. 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. 2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 23.10.XXX Bonding A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration 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 Ooj�S 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. A 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. II)P_ tA (cot&VO 6�� in 23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties A. Noncompliance with any other section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code. B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties: 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: An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; 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 �os�tsrealr�izedy the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); �, �or Ih ' Gttvnicj�lly �� r� cA Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 352 8.1.e 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. d. 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 in o tha-dty-tr-e - vv KC.-V d e fed. 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 t Nis �� growing conditions. 1 vvtno a� � e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued 5 , t- SE rcec�cx thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance Wi with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and tcaee- 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 ec�SSc the absence of the violation(s). r� f. If illegal tree toy ' as occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified e i-r— arborist develop an lement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree rep ttlnc rlo+ M 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 CAae-S 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 i necessary corrective action within a specific time. �&Y-e- 64 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as4Ygi� established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. tZVVY 1 23.10.XXX 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.XXX shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shali 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.XXX and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 353 8.1.e 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; 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: 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; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 354 8.1.e 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; 5. 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 i�GCk«`/ ma,iY1 �er)ccyY ce- w,6r"I-&-V--.3 L W eU k h o- W -VvV el CCIR I T S Some es 01P PLav)�i h , rriCk'A vl �a i v1 i Y1.G a n d r,--P1a.cL J/ cl ry Gtr�e� �J N y n is %� cw 1n eevZ c�a �v►� h.5 a� c�; 0 o �- ®t-' r b h rix.b �- ,�o r s a ��- �,r�� P E a CC> Yn YYI (-ie e�- Gun a, c, C ,a d7� ) w�,F,r y)�y be tcSe� 3 c C 5079 lid U Gi(� CC �^ )/ O u G�vtn CL� �'cw�c--c� �- �� °�`� � �,✓�� v -j-h (2 nc v-) C-- w C e 5 (-S i S Y) c7 -i- Ce rz i vm e CA '� W 1 e-y ; is Y) 0 �- c - v\, i Y? Ce M E � v Q Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 355 8.1.e Q Packet Pg. 356 8.1.e From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:18 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane Cc: Planning; Nelson, Michael; Council Subject: Draft Tree Code Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I have attempted to review the draft Tree Code to prepare "informed" comments for tomorrow's public hearing at the Planning Board, but find I can't make informed comments without seeing an accompanying SEPA review. Where is the draft SEPA environmental impact document that will help the public and the decision makers understand the likely significant impacts of the proposed code both on the people of Edmonds as well as our environment if the draft code doesn't actually result in "no net loss of tree canopy" as called for in the Urban Forest Management Plan? The public and our decision makers (the Council) need to see the analyses on how different aspects of the proposed tree code will affect existing and future tree canopy in Edmonds, the environmental services of large trees (i.e., carbon removal), the wildlife in our City, as well as the impacts it will have on residents and future development in our City. This is a huge contentious issue in our City with property rights advocates, people wanting views, people wanting safety from falling trees, people wanting to preserve what trees are left in Edmonds, and people wanting to protect the 'green' environment of Edmonds. All of this necessitates a environmental impact review that is made available to the public concurrent with the draft tree code. Without an accompanying SEPA document, how will anyone know what the effects of each of the exceptions in the draft code will have on retaining the existing tree canopy, let alone increasing it as some are calling for. Packet Pg. 357 8.1.e From: Johnson, Kristiana To: Hope, Shane Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Fwd: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:54:46 PM Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From: "Judge, Maureen" <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Date: December 8, 2020 at 2:32:59 PM PST To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance Good Afternoon, An Edmonds residence asked me to pass along this message to you regarding the tree ordinance: Patrick Sampson-Babineau and his partner Robley King would like you to consider taking a common sense approach to the tree ordinance. They are concerned about safety and that you incorporate safety exemptions in your decision making. The exemptions they are most concerned about are trees falling on homes, damaging sewer lines, and damaging roofs. They can be reached at 206-372-0013. Thank you! Maureen Packet Pg. 358 8.1.e From: Bill Phim) To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: tree code public comment Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:25:34 PM Hello Planning Board members and Mr.Lien; Please enter the following comments, on the Tree Code, into public record and as comments to Mr. Lien Thank you. I really enjoyed your last meeting on November 18, 2020. You really dug into the issues surrounding the updated tree code. I appreciate your efforts. I liked the way you danced around the issues and each other ! We now realize that the proposed code, as written, only addresses 5% of the private land in Edmonds. That is the amount of un-developed land that remains.. It does not address the 95% of private land in Edmonds that is already developed. Is it true that Edmonds is 95% "built out".? Thus, there is only 5% of private land left that might be developed. That's the land this code addresses, so far. Some of us realize that this is not enough. In the Urban Forest Management Plan it was stressed that 83% of our forest canopy is on private land. It was a goal of the UFMP to update our codes in order to control deforestation on that 83% of land in Edmonds. The code, as written, doesn't do enough to address deforestation on private land. Not when you remember phrases like "no net loss". So, we can look at "alike" nearby cities and see what they have done: In Shoreline, a property owner can take out three significant trees in a three year period. In Kirkland, a property owner can take out two significant trees at a time and may not take out the last two trees on the lot. It goes on and on with permits vs notifications, fees, plans, penalties, It's complicated. But it can be done. Most of our neighboring cities are already doing it. You know, these are not draconian measures we're talking about. On my street in the last month, 6 significant conifers were cut down; on two different properties. Even under a strong tree code, both of these events would have been permissible. But neither of those folks are replanting conifer saplings.! If you're scared of the "property righters", at least institute a notification system; whereas property owners notify the City of tree cuttings on their property. Then the City knows how many trees are being lost and how many replacement trees to plant in our Tree Bank from proceeds from our Tree Fund. The city of Kirkland uses such a system to track their forest canopy. I've always thought the key to a good tree code is replacement trees. We have to realize that we are losing tree canopy due to development and "property rights". We must commit to replacing lost trees with new trees. We must be forward looking and play "the long game". The trees we plant today will make a huge difference to our grandchildren and their grandchildrens' quality of life. We must plant multiple "of kind" replacement saplings for every tree cut down. Any significant tree cut down anyplace, any time, for any reason; must have replacement trees planted. Once again, thank you for allowing me to sit in on your "tree code" meetings. I appreciated your nuanced discussions about tree replacement requirements, penalties, fees -in -lieu -of, permits, and especially incentives. Packet Pg. 359 8.1.e We must encourage tree plantings and incentives for property owners to retain their trees. Tree credits, tax breaks, storm water bill discounts, tree vouchers; all are good ideas. I hope you choose to broaden the scope of the draft tree code. I hope you look at regulating tree removal on the already developed properties in Edmonds. This is where our urban forest canopy is. Let's create a meaningful tree code that we can all live with and be proud of. Thank you for your time and consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds Packet Pg. 360 8.1.e From: K Keefe To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Public Comment on 12/9 Planning Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:07:48 AM Good morning Kernen, I would like to submit public comment for tonight's Planning Board Meeting in regard to the draft tree code. If I submit my comments here, will it be read during the "public comment" period of the meeting? I am unable to attend the meeting via zoom this evening, but would like to ensure that my comments are seen or heard by the board. Please let me know if there is a different avenue I need to take to make sure that I have properly submitted my comments, which I have included below. Many thanks, Killy Keefe Please consider this my public comment on the draft tree code for tonight's Planning Board meeting. I support the draft tree code and would encourage it to be passed as soon as possible. However, I wish it would include MORE restrictions pertaining to trees on private property. If a majority of Edmonds tree canopy exists on private property, wouldn't it make sense to do more to protect those trees? I have 12 significant trees on my property and I would support protections to keep those trees here, even if it was what some would consider "an over step of the government telling me what I can or cannot do on my property." Trees like mine are good for the entire community, and are a community asset, even if they are on my personal property. Please consider passing the tree code now and continue to strive toward further protections for trees in Edmonds on private property in the near future. Killy Keefe Edmonds Packet Pg. 361 8.1.e Killy wheekawheek(&gmail.com "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix "Dawn is breaking everywhere. Light a candle, curse the glare." Touch of Grey, The Grateful Dead. "She knew how animals would act, she understood what animals thought, but you could never be sure about people." From "The Long Winter" by Laura Ingalls Wilder What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected. N Chief Seattle Packet Pg. 362 8.1.e From: Donna Murohv To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien. Kernen; citizens-climate (abedmonds.wa; Johnson. Laura; Buckshnis. Diane; bebopbi I I(dya hoo. com Subject: Tree Code discussion public comment Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:37:50 PM Dear Planning Board Members and Mr. Lien, Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about the current proposed Tree Code. I appreciate the time and dedication that Mr. Lein has given to researching other codes, writing and presenting the current Tree Code draft. I would like to propose the following additional proponents to the current draft: 1. Limit the amount of significant trees, per year, that a property owner can remove from their property, especially paying close attention to trees that result in the continued deforestation on private land. 2. Require private property owners to notify the City Arborist of which significant trees they plan to remove and if those trees could be better managed (through education and resources to help the homeowner). 3. If a homeowner plans on building on their property, by either adding on to an existing structure or a detached building that the trees be marked on the site plan, and any trees labeled problematic or to be removed be evaluated during the pre -construction meeting. 4. Offer incentives to home -private property owners to keep their significant trees or plant replacement trees. Incentives may include reducing storm water fees, tax breaks, tree credits and such. Let's move towards a "no net loss" of trees and protect our urban canopies which in turn, protects our watershed. As noted by the many larger cities' tree codes, "Our urban forest is a critical infrastructure." A plan of action is as important as knowledge and resources. According to the "Morton Arboretum": "Trees are the only infrastructure that increases in value with age." Clearly larger trees provide larger benefits. With Edmonds being built out from developers, I have confidence that most of Edmonds' private land/property owners, with education, guidance and incentives, are willing to take action to protect our limited tree canopy Respectfully submitted, Donna Murphy Sent from iPhone please excuse typos/brevity Packet Pg. 363 8.1.e December 9, 2020 RE: Proposed Tree Ordinance My name is Doug Wrigley and I live at 9724 214" PI 5W, Edmonds, WA. I wanted to share my comments regarding the proposed tree ordinance. I am a 21-year employee of Select Homes, Inc. who has constructed 70 new homes on single lots, short plats that we have developed or regular plats throughout the City of Edmonds since 2015. 1 wanted to share with you how the process works and who benefits from this construction activity. 1. Finding the land. The majority of the land we acquire is from sellers who are moving from a single-family home into some form of senior housing. The proceeds from the sale of the land we believe is used to maintain or improve the citizen's standard of living. In many cases the homes we purchase are run down, dangerous dwellings. We have been praised by many that our action to purchase, tear down and build a new home, eliminating the eye sore, rodent infestation, fire hazard, etc., is very much appreciated. Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who are paid the highest price for their land based on developable lot yield. Neighbors near the dwelling who get a safer community as a result of a derelict home being removed from their neighborhood. 2. We make a preliminary plat application if the land will be subdivided. Sometimes during the processing of the plat, we can allow the Seller to remain in the house for a year or more. This is helpful to make the process of moving into senior housing a gradual change vs. an immediate one. Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who sometimes enjoy rent free living for up to a year. City Staff who have sufficient work to maintain gainful employment as a result of department reviews of our projects. Local engineers, planners, architects, surveyors, soil testing organizations, asbestos testing organizations and asbestos remediation organizations to name a few. Once construction is started, we pay 10.4% in WSST for everything that goes into the home. Included in the 10.4% is the local Edmonds portion of the sale tax rate, 3.9%. On a typical new home, we will pay approximately $66,000 in state sales tax of which approximately $25,000 is Packet Pg. 364 8.1.e the Edmonds local portion. In addition, there are a host of permit fees associated with constructing a new home ... fees that can easily exceed $30,000 with most of that collected by the City of Edmonds. Any you can't forget the big one: the millions and millions of dollars of value that is created by developer/builder activities that gets taxed in the form of property taxes forever more. Hospital districts make more, school districts, etc. Benefited parties: City of Edmonds general revenue fund. State of Washington general revenue fund. Citizens of Edmonds. Hundreds of employees throughout the area who are paid a living wage to form and pour foundations, frame, side the home, roof the home, wire and plumb the home, landscape the home. School districts, hospital districts, etc. 4. Once the home is completed and the home sell and closes, we are charged Excise Tax on the sales price of the home regardless if any money was made on the project. It's a variable rate (new 2020) but is approximately 1.8% of the selling price or $24,930. Part of this goes to the State and part goes to the City of Edmonds. Benefited parties: State of Washington / City of Edmonds. While we love building in Edmonds where a lot of us live it is fairly restrictive even without the new tree ordinance. We have height constraints on all our homes. We have to amend the soil where landscaping will be installed. We have to retain/manage every drop of water that hits the lot through sometimes expensive/elaborate storm water systems. If the house is over 3000 sf then a fire suppression system is required to be installed. We have to install underground utilities to the new home where once the utilities were overhead. Often, we need to add sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and other public improvements. It takes a lot of money to make sure we are doing it right. It was funny but when purchased my lot, I had no idea that I'd spend $55,000 on Edmonds lot requirements on top of what I paid for the land and small tear down home. That's a real number and that is what it cost me for my storm system, soil amendments, underground utilities, improving the side sewer, etc. not to mention approximately $8,000 to install fire suppression in my home. Finally, I am concerned about the timing of the enhanced tree ordinance. We are in the middle of a pandemic and we need all the sales tax revenue we can get to offset some of our shuttered businesses. We need to focus on the health and wealth of our senior citizens, those of whom might be thinking of selling their homes and need the proceeds from the sale to help them survive financially. We need to think of our City employees and their livelihoods. Where would many of them be if redevelopment was squashed in the City of Edmonds as a result of an onerous tree ordinance. I would ask the Mayor and Council to tap the breaks on the tree ordinance implementation. It needs more thought. Stakeholders like us should be at the table helping to draft a commonsense ordinance. What you currently have will certainly lead to fewer applications, fewer new homes being constructed and fewer tax dollars for Edmonds. It's just to costly, especially in these unprecedented times. The ordinance needs balance and I am sure you will hear specifics from others. Packet Pg. 365 IL Select Homes INC December 9, 2020 Kernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds — Planning Division Re: Draft Tree Code Review Response My comments and concerns are: Page 3, 23.10.020, M Qualified professional — How many people in our local area have 2 of these credentials that are in business? Why not just one credential? What are they going to charge? In our experience these fees are very high and will contribute to an increase in housing costs. Page 3, 23.10.202, O City's qualified professional — who is this person? Is it someone on staff or an outside consultant? And, what criteria do they use for specimen tree. Page 5, 23.10.060, A Are remodels and additions exempt? Page 5, 23.10.060, B The cost and time to meet all the details you are listing is going to add a lot of cost to new homes and bring down the value of older homes that are over grown. A lot of elderly people have stayed in their homes for extended years and have not been able or afford to take care of their yards. When they have to sell to move to assisted living or can't care for themselves, they are going to be penalized by this ordinance as it will make their properties less desirable Unless we exempt some types of landscaping like non-invasive species -- Laurel and Emerald Green hedges, Holly Trees, even Rhododendrons and Fruit Trees. Many of them exceed 6 inches if they are old. These should not be considered in this ordinance. 8.1.e 16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 plivne 425.742.6044 Px 425.742.5082 www.selectlyomeswa. town Packet Pg. 366 8.1.e Page 6, 23.10.060, C What happens if you cannot save 30%? Are they going to be cases where you make some lots unbuildable? If so is the City going to buy these lots, or just deny use. Page 7, 23.10.060, D Alders and Cottonwood are another example of trees that die early, rot and fall. Page 8, 23.10.070, B 1. Fencing —Why not use orange construction fencing. 2. Who is the "director", who determines when you can remove fencing? Page 9, 23.10.070, C 3. This will make it very hard to save trees that are in the setback, close to driveways and sidewalks, etc. 4. In very few cases can you hand dig a tunnel under a tree root system to lay pipe. Page 10, 23.10.080 Tree Replacement— Can your replacement trees be planted on a different lot within the city limits? Page 11, 23.10.085 This is the worst thing in the whole proposal. No one should have to record their trees on their title. This has the potential for a lot of misunderstanding by lenders, title companies and future buyers. I strongly disagree with this item and hope it is removed. Page 11, 23.10.090 Bonding There is no way to buy a bond for this. This would have to be cash out of pocket and in some trust account at the City. A lot of administration to manage this. Again, adding cost to the home. If you sell during the two years can you transfer the bond/cash payment responsibility to the new owner? How would it work if you planted trees on someone else's lot? 2 16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 981W plww, 425,742.6044 Ja . 425.742.5082 wrv+v.seleethomesrva. cam Packet may. 367 8.1.e In closing, I'm not sure what the priority is for the City. You have been talking about affordable housing for a long time. Easy to do with the proper zoning changes. But, this proposal will add a lot of cost to a home. I am very concerned it will make some properties unbuildable or under- utilized. Edmonds has a huge shortage of lots and buildable land. We need to prioritize what is most important. Trees are a necessary part, but they are also something that can and should be managed. Big trees and houses don't go well together. By continuing to harvest and replant everything seems to works better. We hope that the City will utilize these comments and concerns as you move forward with the tree code. We'd also like to see that lots that are currently part of subdivisions that have been submitted be vested in the current code. These properties were purchased and the subdivisions designed without the knowledge that they would be part of a new tree code. The subdivision moratorium is already allowing that no new subdivisions be submitted during this time, but those that have already been submitted should be vested in the existing code. Lastly, while I am a business owner I am also a resident of Edmonds. 1 want the best for our community and feel we can find a more balanced way of managing our trees. Sincerely, Randy Clark President Select Homes, Inc. 3 16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 pb, w 425.742,6044 fay. 425.742,5082 iviviv.selecthomesiva.com Packet Pg. 368 8.1.e December 9, 2020 RE: Proposed Tree Code Update To Whom It May Concern, I am an Edmonds resident and an employee of Select Homes, Inc. We have been building in Snohomish County for thirty years and in Edmonds over the last decade. I have worked with nine cities in Snohomish and King counties while working in land development and residential construction. I have seen how different tree ordinances impact this process in many ways. For instance, when laying a house on a property we take many things into consideration — privacy, yard size, views, how can we maximize daylight in the yards, etc. With overly strict tree ordinances we have little flexibility (or it becomes overly cost prohibitive) in making the best layout for the families that will be living in the future home. The City of Edmonds permitting process takes weeks, if not months, longer than many of the other jurisdictions I work with. The addition of such strict ordinances will extend this process in many ways — finding qualified arborists is difficult and the wait times for reports can take many weeks. When we receive comments from the City, we'll likely have to go through another wait time for updated reports from the arborists. The longer we hold onto these properties, the more they cost us and this ultimately adds to the price of the home. In the same way the added expense caused by time lost adds to the price of the home, so will the added expense of arborists, tree protection, tree replacement, etc. that will all go to driving up the price of homes. The subdivision moratorium has already made the City of Edmonds builder unfriendly and now this new tree ordinance will do the same. This will go for builders of all kinds and will make it even more prohibitive for any new housing in Edmonds, including affordable housing. We hope to see a more balanced tree ordinance. We'd like to see exemptions for plantings that were originally done as landscaping (emerald greens, rhododendrons, fruit trees, etc.) that have become overgrown and now exceed 6 inches and/or the Significant Tree definition increased from 6 inches. We're very concerned with the requirements for bonding and putting the trees on title. The requirement for bonding will be a deterrent to builders as the trees are out of their control upon sale of the property and the title requirement will be a hinderance for home buyers. We hope to see lots that are part of a subdivision that are already submitted to be vested to the current code. Thank you, Kayla Nichols Packet Pg. 369 8.1.e From: Chris Walton <emailcwalton@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:56 AM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Spellman, Jana; Barbara Chase Subject: Last Night's Presentation Hello Kernen, Thanks to your team for the presentation last night. It was interesting. I was hoping to make a couple of comments at the end, but to be honest I couldn't bear to go through the beginning slides a 2nd time. I gave up. No worries. I truly understand the challenges of Zoom. • It appears to me that in the end, it all boils down to money. Unless I am misunderstanding the document (and that is very possible!), the concept is that developers are "encouraged" to maintain trees, or replant trees, because if they don't there will be a price to pay. I suspect that most developers will clear cut the lot and just consider that price as part of the expense of the project and pass it on to the buyers. • Cutting down huge mature trees and replanting puny replacements will have little effect on the environment for years to come. • The way we build now maximizes density. One large single lot can easily end up having 3 large houses put on it. (Example: new houses on corner of Pine and 9th where there used to be many beautiful trees). This is a people versus nature issue that I doubt we will solve. The reality is that when houses are packed together like that, large trees will never fit. • Hopefully we are "measuring" in some way what we are doing. In other words, 5 years from now, did these monetary incentives work, or are we continuing to loss the canopy in significant numbers? We'll see. I am glad that I am a senior and won't be around much longer. What humans are doing to this planet is disgraceful and not sustainable. I do applaud your team and the Tree Board for "trying", but I doubt nature will win in the end. No reply is expected. Just sharing my personal thoughts. Respectfully, Chris Walton Cedar Street, Edmonds Packet Pg. 370 8.1.e From: Sharon Sneddon <sksneddon@frontier.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:16 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Council Subject: Tree Code After reviewing the Urban Forest Plan as well as the existing Tree Code, I believe regulations need to be strengthened if Edmonds is to maintain/increase our current 30.3% tree canopy. With our climate changing, trees face increased challenges to their survival. Rainfall patterns, pests and diseases both current and new, are already affecting our trees. With 83% of the trees in Edmonds growing on private property, stronger regulations are needed to protect that portion of our urban forest canopy. Present regulations requiring new developments to retain 30% of the trees on the property should be increased to at least 50%. Permission to cut trees on private property needs to be more regulated with documentation by a tree professional required to remove even potentially hazardous trees. Removing trees to increase the home owners' view could be regulated by a clause in the buying/selling documents for that property. I am not aware of any public engagement opportunities regarding trees in Edmonds except for the native plant garden (Demo garden) on Pine. I hope you will consider my suggestions. Sharon Sneddon Edmonds Resident Packet Pg. 371 8.1.e From: Janie Worm <hello@janieworm.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:21 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Subject: Tree Codes To whom it may concern, I attended a recent Tree Board meeting, and board member Bill Phipps recommended that I share some thoughts with you regarding tree codes. First of all, I am s000... grateful that tree codes are being written & updated to help meet the current environmental needs of our times. My thanks to everyone who has put their time and attention into this! I think it's great to charge a hefty fee for contractors not able or willing to replant the desired number of trees on lots of completed construction projects. This is a great step. My concern, however, is that many will opt to pay the fee and move on. Then, we have money in the bank, but money will not clean our air, our water, and support our soils. It feels to me like a major education campaign needs to happen. Awareness/Education --> Appreciation; Appreciation --> Protection/ Preservation. How can we impress upon people that trees are not like light posts that we can tear down and reconstruct somewhere else. They take years of growth and are the best purifiers of our environment, better than anything we can construct from inorganic materials. Trees are unpaid employees working silently and efficiently everyday on our behalf! Can we offer incentives to home and land owners? At tax time, those who have purchased hybrid vehicles get a tax break. Can we offer tax breaks or a stipend to those planting and maintaining large trees, since the whole community is benefiting from them? Someone mentioned a tree at 8th & Walnut that neighbors prefer to have removed. Can we first educate people? I recommend putting a sign near the tree that offers facts showing how it benefits them personally, and giving the tree a voice. (I haven't seen the tree so I'll make up an example.) Sample of one possible educational sign. Packet Pg. 372 8.1.e "I am a 20 year old Blue Spruce that removes 200 lbs of carbon from the air each year, improving air quality by 22%. I also filter 100 gallons of water annually, and my canopy reduces surface temperatures, benefiting all residents. I offer these gifts of service for free. " Nature is very dear to my heart, and trees are one of the most important keys to turning around global warming. Since my yard is full, I am willing to plant trees on any public lands (city, state, national, global). Please let me know how I can help increase the number of trees in this area. I have many friends, arborists, gardeners, plant nursery workers, teachers, students... all ready and willing to help. After the recent wildfires, this feels more important than ever. There's a "must see" documentary titled, "Call of the Forest: The Ancient Wisdom of Trees." Thanks so much for all you do, and for thinking about the health and well- being of the planet, all life and future generations. Together we can accomplish anything! Thanks again. Janie Worm "Let's bring your space to life with paint." Harmony Paint & Music "Love moves like a song." -- Janie Worm. com Packet Pg. 373 8.1.e December 12, 2020 TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FROM; LARRY NAUGHTEN RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER.. Packet Pg. 374 8.1.e PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COM IISSION-TY a Packet Pg. 375 8.1.e EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful "GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes, but only with considerate Neighbors and a new City tree height ordinance.. I lived in Edmonds for 50 years ... 20 of those years were spent in public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with views and trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, as Mayor,I always had empathy for homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed, when possible —to protect their views. Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits fences. The City should pass a new tree height ordinance limit of 25' on any new tree plantings. This would protect future view corridor impacts. This new height ordinance would also send the positive message that the City values the need for trees and views to coexist and thereby maintain and improve the quality of life for the residences of Edmonds. If you live in a view corridor a 25' height limit,on new tree plantings, is important for your homes f value. ' ugh ee Edmonds M or (1983-1991) Packet Pg. 376 8.1.e December 2.2020 TO: EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LARRY NAUGHTEN RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER Packet Pg. 377 8.1.e EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful "GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes, but only with considerate Neighbors and a City tree height ordinance.. I lived in Edmonds for 50 years...20 of those years were spent in public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with Views and Trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, I always had empathy for homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed, when possible —to protect their views. Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits fences. The City should pass a tree height limit of 25' on any new tree plantings. This would protect future view impacts. This height Ordinance would also send the positive message that the City values the need for Trees and Views to coexist and thereby maintain and improve the quality of life for the residences of Edmonds. �ughte ,'4 or (1983-1991) Packet Pg. 378 8.1.e January 7, 2021 Mr. Kernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov Dear Mr. Lien: RE: Comments on Draft City Tree Code These comments, submitted on behalf of the Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protec- tion Committee (CPC), are written in support of the City's action in expeditiously adopting the Tree Code' to implement the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Man- agement Plan. The CPC `s mission is to encourage action by Edmonds citizens and govern- ment to minimize the impact of climate change through a combination of reduc- ing Green House Gas emissions ("GHG mitigation") and preparation for the im- pacts that are already upon us ("climate adaptation"). We do this by providing citizen - stakeholder input to the Mayor and City staff. While it is common knowledge that trees offer cooling shade, block cold winter winds, attract wildlife, and add beauty to the Edmonds community, we also are learning that trees are vital to both GHG mitigation and climate adaptation. GHG Mitigation As trees grow, they help stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the at- mosphere.2 Trees help to absorb carbon and other gasses from the atmos- phere. A single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs. of carbon a year and make enough clean oxygen for four people to breathe fresh air annually.' 1http://www.edmondswa.90v ima es/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/ Plan- ning Division/Codes/TreeCode Clean Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB PH Draft 12.09.20. pdf z htt s: www.arborday.org/trees/climatechange/ 3 https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation Packet Pg. 379 8.1.e CO2 absorption is very important because CO2 - already in the atmosphere due to human activities such as fossil fuel production has already warmed the world by 1 ° Celsius (° C) (as compared with pre -industrial data) and is on track to in- crease up to +1.5° C (2.7° F) by 2030. That number will continue to rise if we don't take immediate global action to cut emissions and reduce the GHG already in the atmosphere.4 In addition, shading by trees in urban areas helps reduce energy consumption when it's hot, thus reducing carbon emissions and saving on cooling costs. In August 2020, the Edmonds City Council took the bold step to manage climate change by adopting 1.50 C as the City's Climate Action Planning Goal. This means Edmonds will do its part to ensure the global heat measurement will only rise 1.50 C by 2030 when compared to 1900. Please see the excellent summary of "Why 1.5"by Edmonds Planning Services Department. 5 However, in September 2020 projections of GHG emissions by Climate Action Tracker showed a substantial gap toward reaching our goal of maintaining 1.50 C. 6 Forest ecosystems are the largest terrestrial carbon (C) sink on Earth and their management has been recognized as a cost-effective strategy for mitigating GHG emissions.' While Edmonds Urban Forest is but a small piece of the global forest ecosystem, it is a piece over which we as a City have some direct control. By acting quickly today to keep our urban forest viable, we can start tipping the balance to maintain and enhance the forest C sink in the United States and be- yond. Climate Adaptation The Fourth National Climate Assessment states this about impacts of climate change to the Northwest: [E]xtreme events, like heavy rainfall associated with atmospheric rivers, are also anticipated to occur more often. Along the coast, severe winter storms are also projected to occur more often, such as occurred in 2015 during one of the strongest El Nino events on record. El Nino winter storms contributed to storm surge, large waves, coastal erosion, and flooding in low-lying coastal areas. 8 4 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/ s https://www.cityofedmondswa.com/post/why-1-5 6 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps/ 7 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24649 8 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/24/ (citations omitted.) Packet Pg. 380 8.1.e Trees are an increasingly important adaption tool in that they protect against se- vere flooding and storms by slowing the water's strength as it surges on land and absorbing excess water in the soil which they then release as water vapor into the air. 9 As a committee tasked to recommend on climate change issues, we unanimously recommend the City expeditiously adopt the proposed Tree Code to implement the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. We trust this background will be helpful to the City staff, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. City of Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protection Committee By Co-chairs T.C. Richmond and Lisa Conley 9https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation Packet Pg. 381 8.1.e City of Edmonds: To best examine the issue of allowing the City of Edmonds to stomp on our personal property rights concerning trees I am going to use an example of a conifer that sits exactly fourteen feet from one property owner's basement foundation and twelve from the adjacent neighbor. This tree has a split top, sits on essentially level ground in a 5x8 foot semi -circle of converging paved driveways, with gas, water, sewer and electrical running directly beneath it, and, in a location just shy of fifty feet from a tree covered slope that has been deemed above 15% grade. (Wasn't that 25% just last year?) Foresters and biologists concur the Western red cedar requires room to spread out, at minimum six feet and only if the tree has room for the roots to grow horizontally, which of course would preclude this particular tree as it is 3' inches from one driveway and 8" from the other. Also recommended is at minimum a distance of 20' from foundations, here again a point of concern. More importantly the proximity to underground utilities alone makes is an example of "wrong tree, wrong place". City officials told these property owners to "not touch their (own) tree". Certainly it is unfortunate when a tree of this size is removed, but this particular tree is a hazard to those that live underneath it and the decision of removal should have no place in the our city's discretion, nor incur even one penny for a permit. That is the function that should be covered by property taxes and anything else should be deemed extortion. I would suggest that increasing our city's tree coverage should be concentrated in the numerous parks that are publicly owned. It is impossible to walk through any one of them and not notice that there is room for increasing the number and variety of coniferous trees. There would be many of us that would eagerly volunteer to assist under the guidance of accredited specialists. That is where officials should concentrate their efforts and not our backyards or on sub -dividable, privately owned land. The City of Edmonds has used Covid-19 to surreptitiously, and successfully, mask decisions that affect all citizens, confident in the knowledge that beyond the majority not paying attention there is a large herd of'sheeple' blindly following their lead without complaint. When did we grant city officials the right to access our property and impose restrictive codes that derive from their personal agenda, and bias, and have no reality in science? When did the majority of residents grant to our local officials the ability to impose what should be illegal fees in the guise of permits and penalties? Aren't enough of us fed up with this type of governance to take back power that is being stripped from us on a daily basis and increasing so? Trees on personal property, with the exception of a slide area, should never be under city authority. 7010 4U ILt�1011 P.S: Ms. Buckshnis, instead of wagging a finger at people who want the right to remove dangerous or nuisance trees, might consider her own residence where there exists one 20' topped tree between herself and the view and another behind her house of the same height..... instead of attempting to legislate what homeowners and builders should do ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY! The hypocrisy is laughable. She has lived there long enough to plant an entire hillside of forty foot evergreens so if she cares so much for trees: start planting. Packet Pg. 382 8.1.e a Packet Pg. 383 8.1.e From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:16 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Hope, Shane Subject: Tree Code Edmonds Planning Board and Mr. Lien; Thank you for letting me provide recommendations to the proposed tree code. We know that the proposed code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds; the 3% that has not already been developed. Edmonds is 97% "built out". We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the 80 % of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots. The proposed Code is simply too little too late. There isn't much more land to develop. It would have been much more meaningful if it had been enacted 10 years ago! Plus, it doesn't seem fair to the new construction home owners that have to maintain 30% canopy on their lots, while the rest of us don't. It has been said that everyone should have some tree canopy requirements ! We must address the forest canopy where it mainly is; on private already developed lots. Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code, concerning their private land, if it is friendly, inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings. The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting on their land. The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots. A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings for every significant tree lost. Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter. All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees. We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air. We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are really going to need those trees that we plant today Packet Pg. 384 8.1.e Are we going to enact an insignificant tree code that doesn't address the main problem ? A tree code in name only? A symbolic and token effort? To make us feel good, or look good, as if we had done something? Or are we going to get back to work and create a meaningful, effective and far reaching tree code that we can be proud of? A code that achieves the goal of "no net loss" A code that our grandchildrens' grandchildren can be thankful for ? If we are going to enact a tree code, why not do it right? Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds Packet Pg. 385 8.1.e From: hglandau@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:17 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Fwd: Tree Code Dear Edmonds Planning Board, By forwarding Mr. Phipps excellent summary of tree issues, I mean to convey that the issues he sites deserve thorough consideration by the Board. Like Mr. Phipps, I want my children and grandchildren to breath healthy air in a healthy climate with the abundance of flora and fauna that trees provide. Thank you, Hank Landau, PE, Ph.D. -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill(a)yahoo.com> To: 'Nancy Johnson' <najohnso .operamail.com>; Marjie Fields <mvfields(abme.com>; Gayla Shoemake <gaylashoemake(c�yahoo.com>; Climate Justice <climateiustice.team a(�euuc.orq>; Kate Lunceford <kurlykate888(o)gmail.com>; Joe Scordino <loe.scordino(a)_yahoo.com>; Charles D. Farmen <cdfarmen(o-)_comcast.net>; Bloom Joan <joanmbloom(o-)_icloud.com>; Gayle Leberg <lebergwq(a-)_me.com>; Hank Landau <hglandau(o-)_aol.com>; Lora Hein <heinsight(o)earthIink. net>; Clara Cleve <dancer.ca64(q-)_gmail.com>; Karen Helland <kaycat2173(aD_gmail.com>; Rachel Maxwell <rachelmrmaxwell(o-)gmail.com>; Citizens Climate Protection <citizens-climate(o)edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Tree Board <citizens-tree(a-)_edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 8:37 pm Subject: Fw: Tree Code Dear friends; Please email or zoom in to Planning Board meeting on Wednesday evening, the 13th. Tell them we need a real tree code. Also let the City Council know. Thank you for all that you do ; Bill Phipps ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill(a)-yahoo.com> To: Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning(a)edmondswa.gov>; Kernen Lien <kernen.lien(q-)_edmondswa.gov> Cc: Edmonds City Council <council .edmondswa.gov>; Shane Hope <shane.hope(o)edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 08:16:04 PM PST Subject: Tree Code Edmonds Planning Board and Mr. Lien; Thank you for letting me provide recommendations to the proposed tree code. We know that the proposed code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds; the 3% that has not already been developed. Edmonds is 97% "built out". We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the 80 % of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots. Packet Pg. 386 8.1.e The proposed Code is simply too little too late. There isn't much more land to develop. It would have been much more meaningful if it had been enacted 10 years ago! Plus, it doesn't seem fair to the new construction home owners that have to maintain 30% canopy on their lots, while the rest of us don't. It has been said that everyone should have some tree canopy requirements ! We must address the forest canopy where it mainly is; on private already developed lots. Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code, concerning their private land, if it is friendly, inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings. The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting on their land. The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots. A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings for every significant tree lost. Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter. All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees. We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air. We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are really going to need those trees that we plant today. Are we going to enact an insignificant tree code that doesn't address the main problem ? A tree code in name only? A symbolic and token effort? To make us feel good, or look good, as if we had done something? Or are we going to get back to work and create a meaningful, effective and far reaching tree code that we can be proud of? A code that achieves the goal of "no net loss" A code that our grandchildrens' grandchildren can be thankful for ? If we are going to enact a tree code, why not do it right? Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds Packet Pg. 387 8.1.e a Packet Pg. 388 8.1.e From: Gayla Shoemake <gaylashoemake@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:20 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen; Council; Hope, Shane Subject: Tree Code Update- Public Comment Greetings to the Planning Board, City Council Members, and City Staff, I understand that you are in the midst of updating the Tree Code, which is important before making any Planning Changes, and I commend you for this step. As I look at the information available, it does not appear that there are any cutting restrictions or enough incentives to retain trees (which would be preferable) for private property owners who have most of the trees in Edmonds. It does not seem meaningful to write a Tree Code which leaves out 70% or more of the trees in the city which are on private property. The goal of the Tree Code is to retain and increase the number of trees in our city because their numbers continue to decrease. As you well know trees are one of the best carbon digesters available. In this time when we have significant carbon reduction goals, it makes sense to keep as many trees as we can. Obviously, people are attached to their own property, but sometimes they do not realize the health and other consequences to the community, and ultimately to their own families, of cutting down trees on their property (unless they are diseased or dangerous). By first educating the public and especially property owners about the value of trees to the community, some property owners may decide to retain that tree. Next, offer incentives to retain the trees (such as reducing city utility bills or adding another tree to their property (I think this idea was originally included) or other incentives. Also, encourage tree donations by individuals in the community to locations where there is room in the city, of course in parks and open spaces, but also on private property in low income neighborhoods where there might be few trees, or nearby county land where there is space. Assessing fines for unlawful tree removal would only be used in the most dire situations. It is possible that the current Tree Code has significant additions or changes from the earlier version that I saw. I will be interested in reviewing the up- to-date Code to see what alterations have been made. Thank you for your work on this Code and for the other policies and codes you work on each year. I appreciate your time in looking at these issues seriously and your attention to public comments. Packet Pg. 389 8.1.e Sincerely, Gayla Shoemake Q Packet Pg. 390 8.1.e From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello Planning Board and Mr Lien, I appreciate all you do for Edmonds. Nancy Johnson <najohnso@operamail.com> Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:04 AM Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Tree Code Follow up Flagged As an Edmonds resident living south of Yost Park, I have seen a shocking number of mature, healthy trees taken down in the last several years - just in my neighborhood, mostly on private lots. I understand that the proposed tree code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds as Edmonds is 97% "built out". We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the 80% of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots. Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code affecging their private land, if it is clear, inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings. The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting on their land. The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots. A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings for every significant tree lost. Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter. All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees. We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air. We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow. Packet Pg. 391 8.1.e Thank you for your consideration -and my children and grandchildren thank you too! Nancy Johnson 9411 216th St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 392 8.1.e From: Rachel Maxwell <rachelmrmaxwell@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:28 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Hope, Shane Subject: I support a strong tree code to protect urban forests! Dear Edmonds Planning Board, As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in our city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent. While I applaud the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan, I urge the Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life. I stand with the League of Women Voters in supporting "management of land as a finite resource not as a commodity, since land ownership, whether public or private, carries responsibility for stewardship". With gratitude for your service to our city and my kind regards, Rachel Maxwell Rachel Maxwell she/her/hers 425.231.8313 Packet Pg. 393 8.1.e 1 of 2 To: Edmonds Planning Board From: George Lasch, Executive Director, PlantAmnesty Date: January 13, 2021 RE: Oppose Amending Draft Tree Related Regulations to Permit Tree Topping It has come to our attention that the City of Edmonds is drafting an updated tree ordinance and that there has been a proposal from a homeowner to amend it to allow tree topping in certain instances, in particular to maintain water views. We strongly disagree with a proposal to allow tree topping. Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or to lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role. Other names for topping include "heading," "tipping," "hat -racking," and "rounding over." Topping is used to reduce the size of a tree. A homeowner may feel that a tree has become too large for his or her property. Topping, however, is not a viable method of height reduction and, in addition to the problems it causes listed below, it certainly does not reduce future risk. In fact, topping will increase risk in the long term. The following has been adapted from International Society for Arboriculture (ISA) brochure titled "Why Topping Hurts Trees" and maintains tree topping is an unacceptable practice for the following reasons: 1. Topping Stresses Trees - Topping can remove 50 to 100 percent of a tree's leaf -bearing crown. Leaves are the food factories of a tree. Removing them can temporarily starve a tree and trigger various survival mechanisms. Dormant buds are activated, forcing the rapid growth of multiple shoots below each cut. The tree needs to put out a new crop of leaves as soon as possible. If a tree does not have the stored energy reserves to do so, it will be seriously weakened and may die. A stressed tree with large, open pruning wounds is more vulnerable to insect and disease infestations. The tree may lack sufficient energy to chemically defend the wounds against invasion, and some insects are actually attracted to the chemical signals trees release. 2. Topping Leads to Decay - Correct pruning cuts are made just beyond the branch collar at the point of attachment. The tree is biologically equipped to close such a wound, provided the tree is healthy enough and the wound is not too large. Cuts made along a limb between lateral branches create stubs with wounds that the tree may not be able to close. The exposed wood tissues begin to decay. Normally, a tree will "wall off," or compartmentalize, the decaying tissues, but few trees can defend the multiple severe wounds caused by topping. The decay organisms are given a free path to move down through the branches. 3. Topping Makes Trees Ugly - The natural branching structure of a tree is a biological wonder. Trees form a variety of shapes and growth habits, all with the same goal of presenting their leaves to the sun. Topping removes the ends of the branches, often leaving ugly stubs. Topping destroys the natural form of a tree. Without leaves (for up to six months of the year in temperate climates), a topped tree appears disfigured and mutilated. With leaves, it is a dense ball of foliage, lacking its simple grace. A tree that has been topped can never fully regain its natural form. 4. Topping Is Expensive - The cost of topping a tree is not limited to only the job cost. Some hidden costs of topping include increased maintenance costs, reduced property value and increased liability potential. Topped trees may pose an unacceptable level of risk. Because topping is considered an unacceptable pruning practice, any damage caused by branch failure of a topped tree may lead to a finding of negligence in a court of law. Packet Pg. 394 2 of 2 8.1.e 5. Topping Can Lead to Unacceptable Risk - The survival mechanism that causes a tree to produce multiple shoots below each topping cut comes at great expense to the tree. These shoots develop from buds near the surface of the old branches. Unlike normal branches that develop in a socket of overlapping wood tissues, these new shoots are anchored only in the outermost layers of the parent branches and are weakly attached. The new shoots grow quickly, as much as 20 feet in one year in some species. Unfortunately, the shoots are prone to breaking, especially during windy or icy conditions. While the original goal was to reduce risk by reducing height, risk of limb failure has now increased. New shoots develop profusely below a topping cut. Trees topped or pruned for utility clearance (generally within public right of way) provide an asset to the entire community - light and warmth. Trees topped on a homeowner's lot will provide only the resident with benefits - the view - and does not convey a community benefit at all. In fact, tree topping can disrupt a potentially delicate equilibrium with adjacent trees (wind) and houses/streets (increased storm water runoff). We are learning that trees provide numerous benefits for our urban areas including enhancing air quality, reducing the heat island effect, and attenuating storm runoff which ultimately protects habitat and water quality in Puget Sound. We support the current draft regulations as they provide for "the protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees". Tree topping leads to the decline and ultimately kills the trees in question. Furthermore, the Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000.C. state that the intent of the code is "To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents 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". Tree topping on private property does not contribute to the health, safety or general welfare of the residents of Edmonds. In closing, tree topping should not be allowed because it affects the health and viability of the topped trees long term. It is unsightly, increases the cost of maintenance, and can actually lead to increased liability/risk to the property owner. And importantly, as this draft ordinance recognizes, healthy trees are an asset to the community at large and should be regulated as such. Sincerely, George Lasch, Executive Director, PlantAmnesty Jack Bautsch President of the Board of Directors, PlantAmnesty Packet Pg. 395 8.1.e From: Nicholas Kappes <consultnick@pea k.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:52 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code Update Comments Hello Mr. Lien, I was unable to attend the Planning Board meeting of December 9th, 2020, regarding the proposed Draft Tree Code. These regulations have the potential to drastically affect my plans for building a home for my disabled son on an adjacent lot that I have spent 23 years and will have spent nearly $300,000 acquiring --next to my present home in the Pine Ridge neighborhood, where I have lived for quarter of a century. Both lots are "heavily-tree'd", which is why I bought here in Edmonds in the first place, and very clearly I do love my wonderful trees! However, these proposed Tree Code changes could in time have great impact on the property values of either of my lots, and by default could turn both into substantial financial/penalty liabilities for myself, and significant profit -centers for the City and for its short roster of expensive private arborists, should I choose to maintain my trees or build a home. All of this has happened/will happen without an open election on an initiative about which voters have had no opportunity to decide! Are property owners even remotely aware that they might face fines and "tree expenses" of perhaps as much as $40,000 if they happen to have a significant number of trees on their vacant lot, and if they should trim or remove them without city approval be treated as grand larcenists? I certainly think not! Frankly speaking, this is the type of regulation activity that fires the MAGA-Trumpers--legislation/taxation without real representation! The Tree Board, as it was instituted and is currently comprised, cannot be regarded as fully representing community interest. A prime example of its institutional failure would be that I had to search very hard in past issues of the Beacon to find any public mention of the profoundly important December 9th meeting, which was very surprising after remembering the volatile and heavily -attended meeting about this issue that took place in 2015, which I did attend, and which went far into the night! Quite possibly the failure to widely/effectively publish notice for the December 9th 2020 meeting is why only a dozen folks "attended" —by Zoom! It certainly raises the question: Was this on purpose? Is the Planning Board taking advantage of citizens pinned -down by a pandemic and preoccupied by near -term tumultuous —almost pre- revolutionary conditions? That attendance level-12 citizens —cannot be construed as a wide public vetting of this very critical and impactful set of regulations. Nor can the utter lack of subsequent meeting coverage in the Beacon, in which the City could have headlined these regulations to its residents. And I have received absolutely nothing in my mail box regarding this profoundly important property owner matter. It could be argued that these impending tree regulations, restrictions, fines and impositions could have more effect per Edmonds citizen than the widely -vetted, carefully managed anticipated Housing Commission sets of recommendations. Almost every property owner in Edmonds has trees to manage and enjoy, but relatively few Edmonds citizens anticipate significant remodeling or development of their properties, where they might encounter the new Housing Commission's highly anticipated regulation recommendations. Those have enjoyed a full democratic process, well -managed by Development Services, such that a wide spectrum of opinion and comment has been solicited from the community -at -large. In spite of almost zero public notice, I was fortunate to contact a neighbor who did attend the December meeting by Zoom, and he assured me that a video would be available on the Planning Division's website. It is not, and I wonder why not, especially as we are on the precipice of adopting these profoundly impactful decisions. With almost no public vetting, the potential financial impacts could reach many tens of thousands of dollars per property, an eventuality that very, very few owners would have any idea is being preemptively levied upon them! And it must be pointed out that these fees and fines "grow with the trees" —as the trees grow larger --so do the fines! An enormous and very expensive set of responsibilities, including professional arborist surveying, documenting, tagging, registering and subsequent attorney county deed recording services are being proscribed on an unwitting public who happens to have trees on their land. Virtually no one knows this is coming their way. And it begs questions of constitutionality --and certainly approaches city condemnation/confiscation of private property, and seriously affects "enjoyment" of ownership. Lot owners are to become unwitting hostages, who will have to pay "ransoms" to the City to trim or remove their own trees. How does the concept of property rights intersect with these intended regulations? Packet Pg. 396 8.1.e For many of us in this city, fortunate --or perhaps now very unfortunate --to own property in perhaps a more "tree'd city" than any other in Puget Sound, few things could be more important than the City of Edmonds taking de facto ownership/stewardship of our trees --at our considerable expense now and into the far distant future. Has anyone performed a study on the potential costs to the average lot owner, regarding the depressive impacts on property values when adding -in these onerous fees, studies, permit processes, tree registration and tree -recording on deed requirements, and harsh/ugly punitive fines, which even eclipse court -imposed fines for serious criminal behavior, over the cutting of a tree that is personal property as defined by present law? A close read of these regulations reveals very exacting, very expensive and sometimes very laborious city- micromanaged procedures that have to be paid for out of pocket. How does all of this impact property evaluation for taxation purposes, as taken together this set of requirements may add great complexity to the permitting process and the cost of building a home, perhaps exceeding the cost of the building permit itself! There are bizarre rules determining where a property owner might even place material on his own lot —or where he may be able to walk his dog on his own lot during the construction process! These proposed fine-grained micro -management rules are indeed onerous. In this "Tree Board process", there seems to be a distant echo of the Point Edwards Tree -Cutting Fiasco, where the developer devastated a coastal community landmark landscape in the process of profiting by millions, and eventually paid a mere pittance of a fine. Are we in the community to be regarded as suspects in "tree -crimes" against our own property? Is it our legacy to pay for history's lesson of Point Edwards? It is certainly not hard to understand how the city may wish to influence how structures are placed and must be built to standards and codes, but it is a huge leap to understand how the city can interpose itself between a property owner and his/her trees that are already in the ground and growing, and that about which that owner's decisions about their tree does not affect another neighbor's property, or have geological land stability impacts. The "Tree Board process" seems to be rooted in aesthetic considerations --their aesthetics. Are uniforms next for Edmonds citizens --who would design those? A close read reveals the City's desire to control bushes and shrubs, as well! Where does this end --with a Tulip Board .... a Rhododendron Board? For many of us, our trees may be regarded as extremely personal and intimate "property" --sometimes little different than pets --and it can be very difficult to see them thru to their end. They can also be home -destroyers. I am still recovering from over $80,000 in damage from one that fell on my house. But the decisions about whether, how or where they may grow should belong to the property owner, who is ultimately responsible for that tree's "behavior" under the law, should it "go bad" and fall on a friend or neighbor --we are. If one must invest so much to build a home, (e.g. $300,000 for the lot and perhaps $450,000 to construct a "cheap/simple" Edmonds home, including possibly $75,000 in building permit and surface water management costs) they should enjoy the rights of property ownership. The City could certainly be helpful and suggest solutions encouraging more tree accommodation, but these proposed regulations are in places very strict, harsh and clearly punitive. One could spend thousands to comply, only to see a wave of disease air a storm destroy everything 2 years later .... and even be forced to remediate that disaster! Some of these regulations are a reach too far. It could be argued that there has been vanishingly small public notice and almost zero public opportunity to vet or comment about this very important and dense set of intended regulations. I cannot even at this point find the video of the last public meeting. To my mind, this ongoing lack of public information jeopardizes the validity and possibly the underlying legitimacy of the entire "Tree Board process". Perhaps it is purely circumstantial and unintentional, but there is an air of "sneakiness" about this whole endeavor, which appears to disregard the facts that we are deep in a pandemic, and now possibly even in a social revolution, if not living through a deeply disturbed time. This begs the question of whether there is any consideration of better -accommodating —even hearing —the community's concerns? I do believe we need much more time and need to once again hear many more voices, as inconvenient and messy as that might be. Certainly democracy is messy .... the last "big meeting" about this subject was very messy! Certainly from the looks of things as they now read, the horse has left the barn and the gates are locked behind it, begging the question of how much does the community at large know and how much input did they have in the preparation of this set of policies? From what has been published in the Beacon —virtually nothing! It's Edmonds' biggest secret. Only one of my many neighbors knows that the city "is thinking about our trees".... Way back at the big uproarious meeting, I didn't then —and do not now —envy your job, but I do believe that you are sincere. So I'm sincerely asking for more time. We need a public meeting --a Zoom meeting of 12 in a pandemic is not a public meeting! Can we not wait until our forums are more widely open? And could the city of Edmonds take care to widely publish that time and place? Packet Pg. 397 8.1.e After all --the trees have grown slowly. A few years is virtually nothing to my 150 year old Douglas Fir. So should the city move slowly .... and wisely. Thank you for your time. My Regards, Nicholas Kappes Pine Ridge Neighborhood 425-297-0243 Packet Pg. 398 8.1.e From: Steve Zemke <stevezemke@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:34 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Subject: Comments on Edmonds draft Tree Ordinance update. Here is some more specific information and links on Portland, Oregon's recent update to their Tree Protection Ordinance that I mentioned in public comments at the Planning Commission's Dec. meeting. Portland, Oregon last week took another strong step toward strengthening their Tree Ordinance. "On Nov. 12, the Portland City Council adopted an ordinance that updates the city's tree policies to promote greater preservation of trees when development occurs in certain types of commercial, employment and industrial areas, and to further incentivize preservation of larger trees in other development situations." Among the provisions of the updated ordinance, it • "Reduces the threshold for required preservation of private trees from 36 inches to 20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) wherever tree preservation is required • Reduces the threshold for the application of an inch -per -inch fee in lieu of preservation for private trees from 36 inches dbh to 20 inches dbh ... • Directs Portland Parks and Recreation to bring a scope of work for future updates to the city's tree code Title 11 of Portland City Code) to City Council by March 31, 2021 and directs the City Council to consider funding for that work during the fiscal year 2021-22 City budget process." Link to full Portland news article below, which has a link to the amended ordinance text for Chapter 11.50 -Trees in Development Situations and accompanying documentation of the adoption process. Portland.gov - Portland City Council adopts updates to city's tree code, strengthening tree preservation Packet Pg. 399 8.1.e Portland, OR as of Dec 12, 2020 requires that developers pay a Fee in Lieu of 2 for 1 replacement cost for removed trees 12-20 inches diameter and inch for inch cost for trees removed that are over 20 inches in diameter. The amended ordinance in Exhibit C, of the accompanying document shows the new amended Fee in Lieu cost: Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry Title 11, Trees Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT effective December 12, 2020 DEVELOPMENT preservation, Fee in Lieu private trees trees>12 inches and <20 inches in diameter .... $1800/tree trees>20 inches in diameter ..... $450/inch NON -DEVELOPMENT planting and establishment Fee in Lieu .... $450/inch With budget shortfalls this year note that Seattle continues to lose potential revenue to support our urban forest infrastructure as lots during development are frequently clear-cut. Portland, Oregon meanwhile is generating revenue to help reduce tree loss and counter it by replacing trees. Here is a link to Portland's latest report. Urban Forestry Title 11 Fund Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019. Portland reported that they generated $1,444,426 for their Tree Planting and Preservation Fund and $981,720 for their Urban Forestry Fund for revenue in fiscal year 2018-2019 totaling $2,426,149. These number will go up as Portland has lowered its threshold for its Fee in Lieu for tree loss during development from 36 inches DBH to 20 inches DBH. Private homeowner's Fees in Lieu start at 12 inches DHB but are seldom used as it appears as they choose to replace the removed tree and thus not have to pay a Fee in Lieu. Another report on in -lieu fees can be seen here. City of Folson Tree In -Lieu Mitigation Fee Nexus Study - Jan 2020 "The Tree In -Lieu Fee proposed by this nexus study is designed to fund mitigation of impacts to Protected Trees removed as a result of development activity through replacement planting of trees in Folsom in order to preserve the City's existing tree canopy. The fee is structured such that the larger the Packet Pg. 400 8.1.e Protected Tree removed, as measured by diameter inches at standard height, the greater the in -lieu fee. Since larger trees provide a greater benefit compared to 3 smaller trees, more smaller trees need to be planted to provide the same benefit of a larger tree. Given this, the removal of larger Protected Trees requires the planting of more one -inch replacement trees. Thus, the diameter inches of the removed Protected Tree are multiplied by the Tree In -Lieu to account for the need to plant more one -inch replacement trees. The Tree In -Lieu Fee is intended to cover the cost of tree acquisition, planting, maintenance and monitoring of each one -inch replacement tree for a three-year period. " Steve Zemke Chair - Tree PAC Packet Pg. 401 8.1.e From: Clara Cleve <dancer.ca64@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:45 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code Dear Kernen Lien, As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in the city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent. We congratulate the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. But we urge the Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life. I would like to have us have a Urban Forest Management Plan similar to Shoreline's Management Plan. We need to have laws & ordinances that stop builders from clearing all the trees off lots they are building on. Sincerely, Clara Cleve 550 Elm Way #203 Edmonds, WA98020 Packet Pg. 402 8.1.e From: Pam Iverson <pam.iverson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:42 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Hope, Shane Subject: Trees Dear Edmonds officials, Thank you for this opportunity to talk about trees in Edmonds. As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in the city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent. We congratulate the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. But we urge the Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life. Thank you. Pam Iverson Packet Pg. 403 LC To Whom It May Concern: JAN 13 2021 nEVELl PNIENT CQUNTC', My wife and I live on 941h Avenue West in Edmonds. To the north of our property is Hutt Park replete with hundreds if not thousands of native trees. To the south is a small ravine with hundreds of native trees. To the east are houses with various landscapes including many trees and ornamentals. To the west are dozens of Douglas Fir Trees, Pines, Cedars, Hemlocks and ornamentals in landscaped yards. There is no shortage of trees. The following is an example of the ludicrous situations a "tree ordinance" creates. We have only one mature tree in ouryard and it is alongside our driveway on the shared property line with our neighbor to the south. It is a Cedar of approximately 80 feet in height and three feet in girth, two feet off theground. The tree sits atop a sewer line serving my neighbor's house. The root system of the tree regularly blocks the sewer outfall through the line. Furthermore the tree's root system is pushing -up the concrete pads in our driveway, cracking them. It is only a matter of time until the driveway repairs will entail expensive replacement. My neighbor and I want to remove the tree thus ending the damage it is causing. We have agreed to split the cost because the tree appears to sit equally on the property line. We have had two "tree specialists arborists" examine the tree only to conclude that the tree is "at worst a nuisance" and not a "high risk" tree. Numerous trees have been removed from this property and neighboring ones so there is a precedent for tree removal where needed. We have not applied for a permit because we were told in a letter from Kernen Lien that the tree is located within 50 feet of a potential landslide hazard area. Landslide? The tree has a soil perimeter of 3" to 21 "surrounding its base! We have never considered the tree a high risk in spite of several moderately high windstorms in the past several years, but what about that unknown and unknowable next windstorm? What loss of property or life is worth that tree? We have always considered the tree a risk to the sewer system and the driveway. That should be enough for us to remove the tree. It is damaging both of our properties. We have not applied for a Type 11 permit because of the nearly prohibitive cost of the process with zero refund if denied. That in itself is larcenous! For the City of Edmonds, bureaucrats and politicians alike, to deign to think you can tell me what I can and cannot do with my property is the height of ignorant arrogance! It is an illegal "taking" of my property and "rights " to my property. You or your legal counsels certainly know that you cannot "take" my property without due process and just compensation. Merely writing an administrative ordinance stating trees cannot be removed or trimmed is tyranny at its worst. What kind of trees? They are all different. What age tree? Young or old - it makes a difference. How about when a tree represents a risk to life and home? Would you seriously sacrifice a property or a life to "save a tree?" What about when a tree damages infrastructure, such as the one on our property? If the tree were on public property and stopping a utility service in a public right of way, would you save the tree and allow the infrastructure to be damaged? I'd bet not. Packet Pg. 404 8.1.e Think people. This is not about some perceived "class warfare" between haves and have-nots. This is simply doing what is right, using common sense and thinking matters through to their logical conclusion. John and Bonnie Magnuson 18622/6--94t" Avenue West, Edmonds ylkz M� Packet Pg. 405 8.1.e From: Gellman, Jana To: Hope. Shane Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: FW: The Value of Trees Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:45:37 PM FYI - Jana From: amearns@aol.com <amearns@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:58 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Spellman, Jana <Jana.Spellman@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Subject: The Value of Trees Why is it that, in the draft Tree Code, which covers only 3 percent of the City of Edmonds, the dollar value of trees is estimated whereas for the 80% of the City... residential areas .... the residential trees have no monetary value to the city or it's residents? When residential trees are cut, residents pay commercial tree cutters often thousands of dollars each, enriching private commerce, while reducing habitat and carbon capture and increasing land heat, soil desiccation, and pollutant runoff to our creeks and Puget Sound ... and not paying a dime to the City for the loss or restoration. Please place the same dollar value on a 50 foot cedar regardless of whether it is on developing property or on existing residential property. Alan Mearns Edmonds Attached. Bald Eagle roost across street from my house. Packet Pg. 406 8.1.e From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:43 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane Subject: Tree Code Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson; The proposed tree code that you will hear about tonight is a good start. It covers about one third of what a good tree code should cover. The proposed tree code does a good job of addressing private undeveloped lots when they come up for development. But, the proposed code does nothing to address the already developed residential lots. That is where most of our forest canopy grows and where it is being cut down. Little cuts lead to big tears. I hope the Council will take the time to fix this proposed code. Get it right. Address all the trees in Edmonds. Get a sustainable self funding tree planting program set up. Tree replacement planting is the key to a good tree code. We gotta realize that more and more trees are gonna come down; for all the usual reasons. Our commitment should be to planting replacement trees for every significant tree lost. Any tree, any place, at any time for whatever reason should have multiple replacement trees planted. I've looked at other tree codes in neighboring cities. They all try to control and/or mitigate the loss of tree canopy on private land. The attempts at "control" include: fees, permits, inspections, penalties, "fees -in -lieu -of', and endless enforcement issues. Attempted control of privately owned trees leads to public resentment because of added expenses and hassles. It leads to cries of "private land rights!". Whereas, "mitigation" recognizes and acknowledges the loss of forest canopy, which leads to action. Positive and cooperative action. We can all agree to the idea of planting new trees, just as long as they're not in my way ! We all recognize the environmental benefits of forests. And it's a lot less hassle and cost to City staff. I encourage the Council to not "kick this can down the road." Let's just do it right the first time. (Oh, no wait, the second time!) Let's take the time to institute an all encompassing and self sustaining Tree Code that actually fulfills the UFMP goal of "no net loss." Let's institute a "Lost Tree Notification" system. You just notify the City of when you are cutting down trees. Then the City can replant multiple "of kind" tree saplings. We can advertise this program through the City water bills, local media, pamphlets and city groups. All tree replanting and retention efforts should occur in Edmonds first; through tree vouchers and lower storm water bills. But it may require us participating in a local tree preserve, such as the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Initiative, in order to fulfill our obligations. It will feel good to do it right. We need it. A sense of accomplishment. Let's do it! An all encompassing, self sustaining and meaningful Tree Code For our future. Thank you for your consideration; Packet Pg. 407 8.1.e Bill Phipps Edmonds a Packet Pg. 408 8.1.e From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:37 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council); Lien, Kernen; Nelson, Michael; Hope, Shane; Passey, Scott Subject: Public Comment on Draft Tree Code 1. First and MOST OBVIOUS Comment - WHERE'S THE SCIENCE? Trees are an integral part of our natural environment and any/all decisions (i.e., codes, ordinances, regulations) on removal and/or replacement should be based on BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE!! The draft rule has percentages, diameters, etc. with NO scientific or societal basis for those metrics. What are the metrics in the draft code based on? Where is the rationale and calculations that resulted in the metrics chosen in the draft tree code? What tree protection and canopy goals/objectives will or will not be achieved? How will the level of tree removals authorized by the draft code affect the ecological services that native trees provide? 2. Will the "Intent and Purposes" of the draft tree code be achieved by the prohibitions set forth in the draft tree code, or will the exemptions and replacement requirements (as drafted) make that impossible? Is it really the intent of this draft rule to implement the City's Urban Forest Management Plan? One of the goals of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan is "no net loss to overall tree canopy." Unless there are analyses (as stated above) that indicate otherwise, the draft tree code appears to fall way short of that goal and will more likely result in continued significant loss of tree canopy. 3. Is this draft code consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Packet Pg. 409 8.1.e Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under Environmental Quality, states: "Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide." "So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non -sustainable approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system." Any/all allowances in the code for tree removal must take into account the "ripple effect." We are already seeing the "ripple effect" in the Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek watersheds where land development practices have caused HUGE erosion and flooding problems in our creeks. 4. What percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property in Edmonds could potentially be removed under this draft tree code? The Council and the public must be provided the answer to this question before it proceeds to a public hearing on the draft tree code. 5. Starting off the draft code with "blanket exemptions" to all of the prohibitions and requirements is BAD NEWS for trees in Edmonds. The entire exemptions section should be DELETED. If there are necessary exemptions for social or safety reasons, they should be specifically described under the appropriate provision in the code. Further, there should be an accompanying document that explains exactly why and where the exemption is necessary and how such exemption affects achievement of the goals of the UFMP and Comp Plan. Packet Pg. 410 8.1.e 6. "One size does NOT fit all" - the draft rule needs to address differences between the watersheds in Edmonds. More tree protection should be provided in environmentally sensitive watersheds (such as Perrinville and Shell watersheds) that will be further damaged with every large tree removed (i.e., the ripple effect mentioned above). Further, the remnant wildlife corridors provided by trees and tree canopy in Edmonds should be afforded more protection to preserve the wildlife. Thank you to those Council members that are actually listening to public comments and making informed decisions by requesting additional information from staff and asking staff to make necessary changes to the draft code BEFORE it goes to public hearing. Packet Pg. 411 8.1.e From: STEVE WAITE <waitearch@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:15 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code, City Council Review (2/26) Hello Kernen, Might you include my comments below for the City Council 2/26/21 meeting: City Council Members, The Draft Tree Regulations do not consider the accommodation of solar access, either passive or active, on a single developed lot, *. Sustainable energy practices should not be mutually exclusive of the natural environment. Adopting solar access will allow reasonable use of property, while still balancing holistic ecological concerns. I ask that you consider this issue for inclusion into the Tree Code. Thank you, Steve Waite, Edmonds *The concept of solar easement was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes (10/18/20), but that referenced only adjacent properties with no further discussion or consideration. Packet Pg. 412 8.1.e From: Danielle Hursh <hurshdc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 7:55 PM To: Council; Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Ordinance Public Comment Dear Edmonds City Councilmembers, I am unable to attend the Public Hearing on 2/2 to address the draft Tree Code ordinance. I am in favor of protecting trees in Edmonds. However, the proposed ordinance does nothing to protect trees on already developed private property in Edmonds - where the vast majority of Edmonds' tree canopy is located. I encourage the Council to adopt this ordinance as a first step. The ordinance should be further improved upon by placing restrictions on tree cutting on private property in order to preserve Edmond's existing tree canopy, wildlife habitat, and neighborhood character. I moved to Edmonds due to its private and well forested neighborhoods. The scenery/view in my neighborhood are the large native evergreens. Yet, I see healthy trees coming down at an alarming rate in my neighborhood - often the property has just been sold or is about to be sold. The removal of trees impacts everyone in our community - it changes views, removes shade, allows more streetlight/business light and noise to come through into residential neighborhoods, stresses wildlife (who then crowd remaining trees/habitat and get labeled as "nuisances"), and stresses or damages remaining trees who are no longer sheltered by the trees that were removed. I urge the Council and the City of Edmonds to continue the important work to preserve trees and our community by adopting this proposed ordinance and working to strengthen it in the future. Thank you for considering my comments. Danielle Hursh Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 413 8.1.e From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 2:18 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane; Nelson, Michael Subject: Public Comment for Public Hearing on Tree Code Attachments: Tree Code comments.pdf Council Members; The draft Tree Code needs substantive revisions!!!! The draft Tree Code does NOT even come close to achieving the goals and objectives of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) of 2019. Why did the City go through the whole process of developing and the Council approving a UFMP, if it only results in an ineffective Tree Code? There is no apparent scientific basis for what appears to be arbitrary numbers, percentages, and provisions in the draft. Further, the draft lacks acknowledgment of the functions and ecological values of different species of trees and the conditions of the watersheds that these trees occur in. The Council NEEDS TO REQUEST the City's Tree Board, which consists of citizens knowledgeable on trees, to provide recommendations based on the "best available science" on each of the metrics (diameters, numbers, percentages, etc.) in the draft Tree Code. As a starting point to fixing the draft code, attached (and below) are suggested changes to definitions, exemptions, permit requirements, and other sections that need to be made to the draft Tree Code to start making it more consistent with the UFMP. Section 23.10.020 Definitions Change definition of part F. Hazard tree to read as follows: "A significant tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional, or causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure, sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, or parking lot." Delete F. Nuisance Tree and change all references of Nuisance tree to "Hazard tree". (see revised definition of Hazard tree above. There is no reason to separately distinguish trees that are causing significant damage to property - they are a "hazard") Delete K. Protected Tree and change all references of Protected Tree to "Significant Tree". (This makes it clear that primary purpose of this code is to protect and retain trees with 6" or more diameter) Section 23.10.030 Permits Change A. Applicability: to read as follows: Packet Pg. 414 8.1.e "No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree without a permit except for removal of trees, with notification to the Planning Department, by the Public Works Department, Parks Department, Fire Department and or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities. 2. In response to situations involving public safety, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility." Delete part B. (Not needed with above change to part A) Add new part B. "B. Fees. Permit application fees will be assessed for each significant tree proposed to be removed, except no fees will be charged for permits solely for removal of trees on an improved single-family lot that is not suitable for subdivision." Section 23.10.040 Exemptions Delete entire Section 23.10.040 Exemptions. (Exemptions should only apply in specific and necessary situations such as permit requirements and fees, and be noted in the applicable sections of the code) Section 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited Change/simplify this section to read as follows: "Removal or alteration of a significant tree is prohibited except as provided in a permit issued by the City of Edmonds." Section 23.10.080 Tree Replacement Change/simplify this section to read as follows: "Every significant tree removed or altered must be replaced with "an ecologically equivalent number of same species trees (taking into account the growth and survival of replacement trees) in the parcel where removed, or in another parcel or park in the same watershed." Subsequent Sections Revise subsequent sections of the draft tree code to be consistent with the changes noted above. Packet Pg. 415 8.1.e From: Richard Senderoff <richsend@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 20214:01 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane; Nelson, Michael Subject: Public Comment- Perspectives on Draft Tree Code Dear Councilmembers, I'm writing to address some overall perspectives regarding the draft tree code and then further elaborate on the relationship between development, storm water, and trees. First, some overall draft tree code perspectives: • There are way too many exemptions! The KISS (Keep It Simple Silly) principle needs to be followed. The exemptions are subjective and will be subject to "interpretation" by the Planning Department and, subsequently, the Hearing Examiner/Superior Court. Exemptions should be few and far between, not the rule. Developers will look for "loopholes" in the code, which will lead to "band -aids" and a messy code. Keep It Simple! • The requirements to replace significant trees or charge developers per tree removed is much too lenient! The number of replacement trees should be doubled if not tripled. And the charges per tree removed should be at least 2-3 times (if not up to 5-10 times) higher. Developers will just see these "costs" as the price of doing business. o There should also be requirements for replacement based on the number of trees removed per sq. ft. regardless of size/type; trees removed beyond a specified number per sq.ft. need to be replaced or the developer charged. This is the only way to protect pocket forests and to dissuade developers from their current practice of essentially clearcutting prior to construction. The Tree Fund needs to be better described in terms of how it will be managed and this should include tree vouchers provided for free on a first come basis to citizens who want to plant trees on their properties (as per Lynnwood). More than three (3) tree code violations should result in a developer/contractor being banned from working in Edmonds, as should have happened during Point Edwards construction years ago. Developers/contractors need to understand the City is serious. Again, developers will just view charges for violations as the price of doing business. Carrots won't work for tree preservation; sticks are required! It's insufficient to focus on code ONLY pertaining to new development. We need a comprehensive tree code and this includes currently developed property, etc. o If we approve only a tree code pertaining to new development, Council will simply believe they have "checked the box" and move on, without completing a more comprehensive code. And the tree code will be left unfinished for a long time (if not forever). o I don't believe current developed property owners should be charged for permits. But they should be required to obtain a free permit, allowing the City to document the number of allowable trees being removed for tracking Packet Pg. 416 8.1.e purposes. And at this time, they could also be encouraged to donate to the tree fund based on the cost of a tree voucher/removed tree that could be provided to other citizens (as described above). Developers should also need to document the number of trees being removed during construction. Finally, we can't make decisions regarding tree preservation in a vacuum that doesn't consider the impact on the environment and utility/stormwater requirements. I shouldn't need to remind you of the importance of trees regarding stormwater handling, purifying water draining into our salmon streams, and cleansing the air (in addition to providing wildlife habitat). I previously was a Steering Committee member on the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project. The objective of this project was to enhance the wildlife corridors within neighborhoods that connect to pocket forests, parks, and other open spaces. The speed at which we achieved Community Wildlife Habitat designation for Edmonds from the National Wildlife Federation is a testament to the concern and interest that Edmonds citizens have for maintaining and enhancing our environment. In fact, we were achieving the specified requirements so quickly (e.g., record time) that the National Wildlife Federation seemed to keep changing the rules in terms of how they calculated "points" which extended the time for us to achieve the designation. My point being that the Edmonds community has much interest and concern regarding our natural areas and tree canopy. As such, the environment, including tree canopy preservation must be seriously considered when adopting any development proposals. And the impact of tree removal and development on our existing stormwater issues MUST be given serious consideration; flooding that results increases both the City's liability and disrupts the lives of families. For instance, ALL of our current storm water systems throughout the City failed during recent rain events, especially in the Perrinville watershed. This included issues on my street in the Seaview neighborhood, in which stormwater ultimately drains into the Perrinville watershed. In trying to address these issues with both the Snohomish Conservation District and Public Works it was stated clearly to me that the Perrinville watershed is the most challenging stormwater handling area in the City and the current system is insufficient. Yet, the Planning Department continues to advocate for zoning changes to allow development in Perrinville Woods. It's as if the Planning Department and Public Works aren't working in a coordinated manner. In other words, the Planning Department works on behalf of developers to facilitate development proposals and leaves it up to Public Works stormwater engineers to deal with the consequences, with a stormwater handling system that currently is insufficient! Don't get me wrong. As a scientist, I have great respect for engineers. But frankly, they are not always right and there are many examples of this. And when stormwater systems do not adequately keep pace with development, solutions become even more challenging and expensive. Yes, I'm aware of the "excuse" that this was a historic storm. But to offer this excuse is to deny that climate change (and global warming) is real and the frequency and extent of these events Packet Pg. 417 8.1.e won't continue to increase. Remember, it's not about temperature. Rather, it's about energy. And when more energy (e.g., heat) is put into a system the frequency and extent of the subsequent reaction is increased. We MUST keep these factors in mind when considering development projects; otherwise, current and future taxpaying residents will suffer the consequences. There should be NO more development within the Perrinville watershed, especially Perrinville Woods, until the current stormwater issues there are sufficiently addressed. To allow otherwise, is legislative malpractice! Respectfully, Rich Ed w vi d1; Wad fgto-w .. . A greatPlac�To-Spen&A Day Or A L6fP,t'i v wll Richard I. Senderoff, Ph.D. Executive Committee- Sierra Club Sno-Isle Group Member- Save Our Marsh Member- Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds Former Commissioner- Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission Former Steering Committee Member- Community Backyard Habitat of Edmonds Former Member- Hazel Miller Plaza Design Team Former Board Member- Save the Rose House 425-778-9746 Packet Pg. 418 8.1.e February 2, 2021 Dear Mayor Nelson and esteemed City Council members My name is Val Stewart. I lived in Edmonds for over 30 years. I know most of you through my City involvement for many years including Planning Board where I served alongside Mayor Nelson and councilmember Kristiana Johnson. I chaired the Climate Protection committee for two years and started Students Saving Salmon, a student led group that restores salmon habitat and educates the public and decision makers about how they can be better stewards of their watershed. I appreciate all the hard work you are doing during these unprecedented times. This is when citizens really need you to represent them. Tree code is near and dear to my heart. I happened to chair the meeting back when the tree code first came to Planning Board. There were 100 people who wanted to comment. It was a long night. That was when we all learned the hot button items. It became clear that an Urban Forest Management Plan needed to be developed to guide tree code updates. That finally got done and now here we are looking at the latest proposed updates passed on by Planning Board. I think the proposed tree code should focus more on undeveloped land and how to protect environmental assets on a tract that could be developed. LID is a step in the right direction. Assessment of existing ecosystems and species of wildlife they support should be imperative. One aspect of the proposed tree code provides for the option of using flexibility measures to try and arrange the building sites in a way so more trees are preserved. Using such measures would require the developer and the city planner to reach a common agreement on a modified plan. I hope that means that building footprints can be moved to where they would not impact an already established ecosystem of trees. Townhomes and cluster housing could allow for common areas with nature to be retained and appreciated by residents. This could also contribute to affordable housing with increased density requirements with code adjustments. What I don't see in this draft is enough attention paid to wildlife habitat. Edmonds is a NWF certified Community Backyard Wildlife Habitat. We need to revive that and continue to educate citizens on how they can certify their properties. They would need to provide food, water, shelter, and a place to raise young for wildlife. The emphasis is on native plants where possible. When older trees are cut down, we set ourselves back generations and destroy a complex ecosystem that has been evolving often a hundred years or more. I believe in the UFMP it states : "Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to 7 years to establish after planting, and another 10 years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach Packet Pg. 419 8.1.e functional maturity." That's 17 years. So when you take down a hundred year old tree and everything under it, ask yourself how many human generations it will take to replace that complex ecosystem it supported. it's not just the tree you removed, but the whole network of life under the tree, the roots, understory shrubs and the complex network in the soils that have been developing and nurturing diverse life for decades. Planting a few trees with a much smaller diameter and not replacing the ecosystem that has been destroyed falls way short. The UFMP asks the City to provide a report which documents Ecosystem Services provided by Public Trees. I think it should include private property trees as well. I am not in favor of a fee in lieu program since I see it as giving developers permission to take down trees indiscriminately and assuage guilt by paying what amounts to not much money to them in a tree bank. With regard to views, trees can be windowed to reveal some view. We did that on our property and got the benefit of beautiful trees along with a water view through them and alongside. That was until a developer took all the trees down on a neighboring lot when it was redeveloped. Look up "Not a Tree Left Standing" in the Beacon archives. I wrote that at the time. A 4 ft diameter Big leaf Maple along with at least 10 other significant native trees and understory shrubs went down. We never did see the diversity of wildlife we enjoyed ever return. Seaview woods is a precious and fragile ecosystem since it encompasses a portion of Perrinville Creek drainage basin. This area has been under a microscope for years by neighbors who want to protect it. Development would not be a good idea on that 5 acre tract. Citizen Duane Farmen said recently in an editorial " Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan recommends new open space acquisitions to preserve environmentally sensitive land, particularly land that is adjacent to an existing park or open space. The Seaview Woods is exactly what those recommendations call for." I propose that citizens and the City come up with a plan to purchase the land from the developer who bought it. That should have happened years ago. It's not too late. There's a lot of talk about property rights. But what about the rights of trees. After living for so long and contributing to cleaning our air and water, controlling erosion, providing shade and coolness, and providing critical habitat for wildlife, we are jeopardizing our own sustainability if we don't protect them. I'd like to end with a quote from the Rights of Nature by David Boyd, 2017. "Who Speaks for Trees? And now I ask all of you Will you speak for the trees?" Thank you for your consideration and service to our community. Kind regards, Val Stewart Packet Pg. 420 8.1.e a Packet Pg. 421 8.1.f Tree Topics for Potential Action Topic Timeline Resources Draft Development Tree Regulations Complete Q1 2021 No additional resources would be needed to complete this item or • Complete review and adoption of the draft implement regulations once adopted. tree regulations currently under review by the City Council. Tree Retention on All Properties Begin Q1 or Q2 2021 Staff time in drafting of code and Complete Q4 2021— Q1 2022 managing the code update process. • Additional code amendments applying to developed properties Additional staffing (perhaps several employees) would be required to implement a code that requires a review of all tree removal in the City. Street Tree Plan and Inventory Began Q1 2021 Inventory: $16,800 (already in budget) Inventory complete Q2 2021 Street Tree Plan Update: $27,500 (already in budget) Street Tree Plan update complete Q4 2021 Canopy Coverage Analysis With funding, could possible begin Q2 2021 $18,000 - $25,000 for a LiDAR based canopy coverage analysis. Page 1 of 3 L L Packet Pg. 422 8.1.f Topic Timeline Resources Nonregulatory Incentives Tree voucher program Q3 of Q4 2021 if draft It will take staff time to establish the code adopted and monies available in Tree tree voucher programs and administer • Tree Vouchers Fund the program once established. • Financial Incentives (property tax break, Financial incentive programs would take at Reduction in property tax or utility reduce stormwater utility fee) least a year to develop revenues for tree retention may need to be compensated by reduction in other City programs or additional revenue may need to be identified. Education On -going For increasing education & communication, additional resources may be needed (depending on the desired level of education/communication). Recognition Programs Begin Q2 2021 Additional staff resources to process and maintain information related to • Heritage tree or other certificate programs the heritage tree or other certificate programs. Watershed and Stormwater Planning Under the Washington State Municipal Depending on the scope of the Stormwater permitting requirements the City watershed planning effort, the cost can is required to update its code by 2022, include be between $15,000 and $100,000 a "Watershed Inventory" by 2022, and provide dollars or more. "Stormwater Management Action Plan" by 2023. An update to the City's Storm Water Comp Plan is beginning later this year with targeted completion by end of 2022. Page 2 of 3 ■■ c 0 U a R c m 0 a L 0 .Q 0 m m io c m E U Q c a� E c� a Packet Pg. 423 8.1.f Topic Timeline Resources Stream & Wildlife Corridor Protection/Enhancement Ongoing education efforts. A percentage of the tree vouchers from the Tree Fund program could be targeted for planting within stream and wildlife corridors. Page 3 of 3 Q Packet Pg. 424 8.1.g Tree Topics for Potential Action Topic Status Description Timeline Resources Draft Development Tree Underway Complete review and adoption of the draft tree regulations The moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 4200 expires No additional resources would be needed to complete this item or Regulations Now currently under review by the City Council. on March 10, 2021. This code update can be completed in the implement regulations once adopted. next couple of City Council meetings and be adopted before One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree the moratorium expires. removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. This concern is further highlighted by the moratorium on subdivisions under Ordinance No. 4200. The first goal in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is to "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." The draft tree regulations implement Goal LA as well as establishing a tree fund (UFMP Goal 1.F), a tree voucher program (UFMP Goal 3.A), and implement low impact development principles with the conservation subdivision design section. Tree Retention on All TBD Many comments have been received during the current Six months to one year to complete a code update that Staff time in drafting of code and managing the code update Properties review of the draft tree regulations that the City should includes review of tree removal on all properties. process. require review of tree removal on all property within the City, including developed single family property with no Many other jurisdictions have existing programs that the City Additional staffing (perhaps several employees) would be required critical areas. The Planning Board was receptive to these of Edmonds could modify for an approach specific for the City. to implement a code that requires a review of all tree removal in comments and included in its minutes a recommendation to While code could be drafted fairly quickly, it generally takes six the City. Besides resources for application review and tracking, the City Council to refer future code updates to the Planning months minimum for code to work through the process. For additional resources for code enforcement and education would be Board for review of this topic. example, the current draft regulations update began in August required. 2020 with a presentation to Council of topics being considered One of the challenges would be to identify criteria for with this update. A code that addresses tree retention and approving or denying tree removal. removal on all property will likely draw a lot more citizen involvement and require more public engagement. Page 1 of S Packet Pg. 425 8.1.g Topic Status Description Timeline Resources Street Tree Plan and Underway Street trees are trees that are planted within the City right- The inventory of the downtown street trees will begin this The tree inventory will cost $16,800 for the Watershed Company to Inventory Now of -way, usually between the sidewalk and the street or spring after trees leaf out and will be completed this summer. conduct the inventory and staff time is required to manage the within tree grates. The Street Tree plan is currently an process. appendix in the City's Streetscape Plan and adopted in to the The Street Tree Plan update could be completed by the end of Comprehensive Plan, which provides direction on the 2021. The contracted amount for the Street Tree Plan update is $27,500 planting and maintenance of street trees within certain areas (as Council previously approved in the budget) and will require a of the City (primarily downtown and the major arterials). significant amount of staff time (Parks, Public Works, Engineering, and Planning) to review and provide direction for the development The UFMP contains the following the follow sub -goals form of the Street Tree Plan. Goal 2 — Manage public trees proactively: C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example, along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically The City has contracted with the Watershed Group to conduct an inventory of street trees in the downtown area and assist the City in updating the Street Tree Plan. Canopy Coverage TBD A canopy coverage analysis was conducted with the A Lidar analysis would require a flight over the City with a $18,000 - $25,000 for a Lidar based canopy coverage analysis. Analysis development of the UFMP which found the City had 30% plane equipped with Lidar equipment which would need to canopy coverage. Goal 1 of the UFMP contained the occur while trees are leafed out. It is possible that a Lidar following sub -goal: flight could be scheduled for this year with a new canopy coverage assessment by the end of the year. I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage The canopy coverage analysis in the UFMP was based off a 2015 aerial photo of the City of Edmonds. Aerial photo analysis is one method for a canopy coverage assessment. Another tool which may provide a more accurate picture is Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging), which is a remote sensing technology which uses the pulse from a laser to collect measurements which can then be used to create 3D models and maps of objects and environments. Page 2 of 5 c 0 r a 2 c m 0 a L. �0 .Q O F_ m m L r E a E a a Packet Pg. 426 8.1.g Topic Status Description Timeline Resources Incentives TBD Tree retention goals cannot be achieved solely through The current draft tree regulations have a tree voucher It will take staff time to establish the tree voucher programs and regulations. One way to encourage tree retention is to program incorporated in the Tree Fund. It would probably administer the program once established. provide incentives to property owners for retaining trees; take a couple months after adoption of the current tree another is to provide assistance for tree planting. Goal 3 of regulations to set up the tree voucher program before the City Reduction in property tax and stormwater utility fees will have the UFMP relates to incentives as follows: could begin providing tree vouchers to property owners (after impacts on the City's budget. Property taxes make up a significant there is money in the Tree Fund). portion of the City's budget and the stormwater utility fees fund Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private stormwater projects, staffing and other stormwater program items. property The financial incentive portion (Goal 3.13) could be complicated Reduction in these revenues for tree retention may need to be To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city and take some time to develop. A review of the financial compensated by reduction in other City programs or additional recognizes that voluntary public participation must be impact of tax rebates or utility fee reduction would need to be revenue may need to be identified. encouraged. The following actions will support this part of the review as well as establishing criteria for objective. participation in such programs. Estimate a minimum of a year A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree to establish and implement a financial incentive program for vouchers for use in Edmonds tree retention. B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of: Certification/awards programs is discussed in the Recognition i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City Programs below. 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. Page 3 of 5 c 0 r a 2 r 0 a L. 0 :i .Q 0 F- d L r E a E M a a Packet Pg. 427 8.1.g Topic Status Description Timeline Resources Education Partly Another tool to achieve increased tree retention beyond The Tree Board has been providing an educational role for For increasing education & communication, additional resources Underway; regulations is through education. Goal 4 of the UFMP years. The Tree Board, with City department support, has may be needed (depending on the desired level of More addresses education: developed a couple of brochures (Alternatives to Cutting education/communication). possible Down Trees and Trees for Small Spaces), and is working on a Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to tree list that may be completed soon, hold tree planting educate/inform on tree planting and care events during the year (non-COVID years), annually post the The city recognizes the importance of the privately estimated value of street trees, and provides other outreach. managed tree population in the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The Education through City staff will also be a necessary element following actions will support this objective: of implementing any new regulations and programs. 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 Recognition Programs TBD A recognition programs is a way to highlight property owners A heritage tree program would require a code update, which Additional staff resources to process and maintain information for their exceptional care for their portions of the urban typically takes at least six months to work through the related to the heritage tree or other certificate programs. forest. The UFMP identifies a couple of goals related to process. recognition programs: A certificate program will likely take a year to two years to Goal LD Develop a voluntary heritage tree program develop. If the City choses to establish a certificate program, Goal 3.0 Develop a certification/awards program to it could be combined with the financial incentives. publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees A heritage tree program could be something similar to the City's Register of Historic Places that recognizes special trees as well as the property owners that care for them. Alternatively, a heritage tree program could have mandatory elements. Other certificate programs code could be established similar to the Certified Wildlife Habitat program by the National Wildlife Federation. Page 4 of 5 c 0 r a 2 c m 0 a L �0 Q 0 m m L r c m E 0 a E a a Packet Pg. 428 8.1.g Topic Status Description Timeline Resources Watershed and Underway Watershed planning can identify and propose solutions to Under the Washington State Municipal Stormwater permitting Depending on the scope of the watershed planning effort, the cost Stormwater Planning through flooding, water quality and habitat problems at a sub -basin requirements the city is required to update its code by 2022, can be between $15,000 and $100,000 or more. Public scale. Some of the main stream basins in the City include include a "Watershed Inventory" by 2022, and provide a Works Perrinville Creek, Shell Creek, and the Shellebarger/Willow "Stormwater Management Action Plan" by 2023. Creeks basin. Often, watersheds sprawl over multiple jurisdictions, so that watershed planning requires An update to the City's Storm Water Comp Plan is beginning coordination between jurisdictions. later this year with targeted completion by end of 2022. Most of the sub -basins in the City have had some analysis over the years, though some are dated. For example, a number of studies for the Perrinville Creek watershed are provided on the City's Stormwater website. The new Municipal Stormwater Permit (the program that the City's stormwater regulations must comply with) includes a watershed planning requirement. The next update of the City's Stormwater Management Plan and stormwater code will include a watershed planning element and the Perrinville Creek watershed has been identified as the priority watershed. Stream & Wildlife Partially While tree retention is important everywhere, it is Ongoing education efforts. A percentage of the tree vouchers from the Tree Fund program Corridors Underway particularly critical in the stream and wildlife corridors. could be targeted for planting within stream and wildlife corridors. Now These areas are largely protected by the City's critical area regulations. However, much of the City was developed prior to the establishment of critical area or other environmental regulations. The City can work with landowners to improve the quality of the City's stream and wildlife corridors. Currently, the City's stormwater crews are the primary contact with streamside landowners and have been providing landowners with best management practices such as the information provided on the City's stormwater website. The City could also partner with organizations like Stream Keepers to help educate streamside property owners. Over the past several years the City has been supporting Students Saving Salmon which has been doing excellent documenting the state of the City's streams and working with property owners and streamside maintenance and planning. Page 5 of 5 c 0 r a 2 c m 0 a L �0 Q 0 m m t= ti c m E t 0 a E a a Packet Pg. 429 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 WWTP Staffing Change - WWTP Supervisor Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Phil Williams Background/History In 2020 budget, staff proposed an organization change which included an increase of 1 FTE. In that request and a subsequent request to City Council a new position called Chief Operator was approved. In 2020, the WWTP lost 3 State Certified Group III Operators and to date have not attracted qualified staff to fill these vacant positions. This has adversely impacted our ability to staff the WWTP. It is for these reasons that we bring forward this request. On 2/9 this item was reviewed by the Public Safety and Personnel committee and recommended for presentation to the full Council on 2/16. Staff Recommendation Authorize the WWTP Supervisor position to be filled. Narrative The Edmonds WWTP provides regional wastewater treatment services not only to the City of Edmonds but also to the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water/Sewer District, Ronald Wastewater District (soon to be fully assumed by the City of Shoreline), as well as other areas adjacent to the City of Edmonds. The needs of the treatment plant are evolving. This evolution includes advancement in treatment technologies, additional regulatory requirements for testing, reporting and removal efficiencies, increasing biosolids management regulations, and more robust automation systems for control of treatment processes. Human resource needs are now most critical to us. To effectively keep up with these on -going changes, the WWTP must build a workforce of trained, experienced, and certified Operators and qualified staff to successfully and efficiently provide the regional services that our citizens, partners, and regulatory agencies demand. The WWTP is highly automated and with the Carbon Recovery Project being implemented, it will become even more sophisticated. Competent leadership, certified operators and a qualified maintenance team are essential to ensure the continued day-to-day smooth functioning of the treatment processes and the equipment. After the loss of the WWTP Supervisor (a non -union management position) in 2016, the City was unable to attract a replacement. After an exhaustive 2-year search, some of the duties of this position were re- allocated to a contracted Program Administrator in 2019. After the loss of our Operations Lead in early 2019, and finding no one internal that was interested in a promotional opportunity, the position was re -allocated to a Chief Operator and a new job description Packet Pg. 430 8.2 for that position was added to the Teamsters list of authorized positions and approved by City Council. The addition of this job description still needs to be bargained with Teamsters. The NPDES permit requires that all permanent shifts be filled with at least one Washington State Group III Certified Operator. However the City currently does not have adequate qualified staffing to routinely achieve this. In 2020 we proposed a new Organization Structure hoping we would be able to attract an Operator in Training (OIT), an Instrument/Electrical support person, and a Chief Operator. The OIT was filled in Nov 2020. The Chief Operator's position, due to Labor and Council processes, could not be posted until Jan 2021. The Chief Operator was created to develop a coordinated approach between operations and maintenance activities and would help to develop a leadership team approach for the WWTP. Feedback from prospective candidates has been that the position pays "well below" the regional market rate. After 4 weeks of posting, the posting has not attracted a single applicant. Those who expressed interest over a year ago, when the position was first conceived, have not applied. Further, since this effort began, the WWTP lost three Group 3 Certified Operators which has adversely impacted our ability to staff the plant and train new Operators. The requested and approved Instrument/Electrical position was then re -allocated to an Operator in order to hopefully attract a trained and qualified person to backfill for one of the two Group III Operators that have notified us of their pending retirement. However this effort was not as successful as we hoped. Over the last ten years we have not been able to hire a single fully -trained Group III Operator. We have instead been forced to hire Operators in Training (OIT) or Group I operators and then work with them to get the requisite training and experience so they can the take and pass the tests for the Group III level. This takes 3-4 years to accomplish. At that point they are in great demand in a very tight market and have often left for higher paying jobs in the Puget Sound area. In order to make the following Organization Chart work, we must commit to an aggressive training and mentoring program. This is one of the primary justifications for hiring a WWTP Supervisor at this time. The main reason we are seeking rapid action on this package is we have found an interested, qualified candidate for the WWTP Supervisor's position. It is anticipated that hiring at the top step in the Plant Supervisor range may be required. The budgetary numbers included here anticipate this. This level is more in alignment with starting salaries of similarly situated positions in our market area. The WWTP has been authorized 16 FTE for many years. In recent years we have expanded our pretreatment responsibilities, successfully expanded our energy management efforts, and taken on management of a considerably expanded capital project portfolio, including the new Carbon Recovery Project (construction starting in April), the Nuvoda Nitrogen removal trial project (started in 2020), replacement of most of our solids handling equipment, re -built a secondary clarifier, and replaced our aeration blowers and re -configured our aeration basins to achieve better oxygen distribution. All of this, so far, has been accomplished without any increase in total authorized FTE positions. In 2021, an additional FTE (the 17th) was requested and approved for the hiring of an Operator -in - Training (OIT) to help facilitate the multi -year training that is required. However, with new systems coming on-line this year, new regulations on the immediate horizon (Nitrogen), new and increased expectations in monitoring and reporting, higher expectations from Packet Pg. 431 8.2 regulators regarding asset management, biosolids marketing, and an increasing capital project load we strongly feel the time has come to re -structure our organization. The recommendations we have in the near -term are as follows: Hire a WWTP Supervisor (not a Chief Operator as we had previously planned), likely at the top step of the salary range NR13 to focus on Training, Mentoring and Daily Supervision of staff. Conduct a targeted salary survey in 2021 focusing attention on the Wastewater Treatment Plant regarding competitive pay and benefits. We are currently advocating for the following proposed organizational structure and will continue to evaluate the best approach to meet the needs of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. We will be coming back to Council shortly with additional information in the near future. Packet Pg. 432 8.2 LWAA !•ROLL - 77V P%umrr6Fi"il74 funj ww=u J Account N urn ber I Proposed Count1 423.00D.7&535.90.11.00 SALARIES SI.L61900.00 Positioneudgets Once colas are added $1,374,522.34 OFFICE COORDINATOR 1 Batyah Chliek 577.650.56 WWTP MANAGER 2 Pamela Rardolph $151,948.83 WWTP PROD, ADMINISTRATOR 3 Michael Derrick $102.843.66 WW7P Supervisor 4 7BD- 10 months $99,213.33 5R WWTP INSTRUMENT TECH/PLANT 5 Dan Kors:ad $89.725.08 SR WWTP LAS TECH 6 Jeanie MrKentle $89.725.08 WWTP OPERATOR 7 Fred Pangellnan $83.421.84 WWTP OPERATOR 8 Daniel Garcia $84,232.01 WWTP OPERATOR 9 Eric Duenas $83,826.86 WWTP OPERATOR 10 Hyuk Ro - 10 months $55,470.00 WWTP OPERATOR 11 Jon Clay $85,446.71 WWTP OPERATOR 12 MichaelVanPelt S85,446.71 WWTP OPERATOR 13 Greg Carreon -10 months $55.470.00 WWTP OIT -Step F2 14 7E3D $53.700.00 WW+TPPRE-TREAT MENT TECH 15 Les Krestel $83.804.88 WVVTPMAINT. MECHANIC 16 Eric Vaughan $76.356.00 VMTP MAINT. MECHANIC 17 Jim Nordqulst $77,490.00 NEW: WWTP CHIEF OPERATOR - Step N1 {Step M5 DO NOT FILL INSTRUMENT/ELECTRICAL TECH. -STEP DO NOT FILL Pmrrmla!lu1dkM 1, Lra Rtra,nl 1 f rr[url44ci.+r .r I�� I iN,Inl�r�,�LwIV1•c}Fnsil� {+i F f Mcik - I EILC ll�LyhilY 5 A r0,4 UUMNA I.I, MbreM id4 I,, Fo"I Pm W1111MI Sr.r n5Vg11&ifmhffw Cal :on L>rY �Oah 1€era 14 IILMJ�f6D alYlLIU I Attachments: 2021 Wastewater Salaries $IA35,771.54 Packet Pg. 433 I FTE Account Number C our�t 423.0017ES35.80.11.00 SALARIES positiongudge#s Once colas are added OFFICE COORDINATOR 1 Batyah Chliek wVVTP MANAGER 2 Pamela Randolph WWTP FROG, ADMINISTRATOR 3 Michael Derrick W VV T P Supe ry i sor 4 TBD- 10 months SR WWTP INSTRUMENT TECH/PLANT 5 Dan korscad SR WWTP L S TECH 6 Jeanie Mckentoe W7P OPERATOR 7 Fred Pangelinan VVV5+7P OPERATOR 8 Daniel Garcia VVV5+7P OPERATOR 9 Eric Buenas WV47P OPERATOR 10 Hyuk Ro- 10 months WV4TP OPERATOR 11 Jon Clay WWTP OPERATOR 12 MichaelVanPelt VVVVTP OPERATOR 13 Greg Carreon -10 months WWTP OIT -Step F2 14 TBD WWTP PRE-TREATMENT TECH 15 Les Krestel WWTP MAINT. MECHANIC 16 Ericvaughan WWTP MAINT. MECHANIC 17 Jim Nordquist NEW VV TP CHIEF OPERATOR - Step N1 (Step M5 DO NOT FILL INSTRUMENT/ELECTRICAL TECH. -STEP, DO NOT FILL tl Pq n UN40 rufL W1Nud Form N ry�,eE�x11�F Jar? L1ay UIE)m rt V ra IwGY I - lwmla!lam" h . 3. a�M1e. caarrl.r,.. L d----Y rrr�x r MicKanx�r ,] M�IMan�niy 14Lac�r �I�• VYu/IMA S A 7n t 1%L4F4dW*h%%iE1" cal I 8.2.a I P $1.462 90L $1,374,7512 f f,65( L $151,949 ai 102,842 m a 99, 212 in 89,725 89.7 25 83,421 $84,232 83,82E 555.470 V 585,44E c 585,44E 555.47C v� . 70C H 83.804 76,356 $77,490 c� $1A35,771 y 3 d N O N C d S V ftf w rr Q Packet Pg. 434 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Update on the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project (Stage 2) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On July 21, 2020, City Council approved Supplement #3 with SCJ for the Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project. On February 9, 2021, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and the item is scheduled for a presentation at the February 16th City Council meeting. Staff Recommendation For information only. Narrative This project will replace the existing center two-way left -turn lane on Highway 99 with raised landscaped medians and c-curb along the entire corridor from 2441" Street to 210th Street. Additional improvements include a High -Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK) north of 234t" Street and gateway signs at both ends of the project. This project will improve corridor safety by reducing right-angle vehicle accidents and providing a safe pedestrian crossing with the HAWK signal. The design phase began July 2020; the following has been accomplished: Update accident crash diagram along entire corridor; Survey work; Initial submittal of Channelization Plans to WSDOT Specific location for proposed HAWK signal determined; Progress on 30% Design (to be completed in March 2021); and Start Public Involvement Process. Meetings with the property owners (in small group sessions) were held in December 2020 and January 2021. An Open House is scheduled for February 25, 2021, to provide a project update. The design of the Gateway Sign will soon begin and will be completed by another consultant (HBB). The schedule remains for the completion of the Design and Right of Way phases by the end of 2021 (in order to advertise the project shortly after). Right of way acquisition is needed for the HAWK signal poles and the Gateway Signs. In 2015, the City secured $10 Million from Connecting Washington for the Highway 99 Packet Pg. 435 9.1 Gateway Revitalization Project., of which $1.3 Million is available prior to July 2021 and the remaining $8.7 Million available as part of the 2021-2023 biennium. There is also $290,000 of City REET funds programmed for this project. Attachments: Presentation Packet Pg. 436 9.1.a Highway 99 Gateway - Revitalization Project (Stage 2) City Council Meeting February 16, 2021 City of Edmonds SCJ ALLIANCE Packet Pg. 437 9.1.a Introductions <*City of Edmonds' Project Manager — Bertrand Hauss <:=>SCJ Alliance's Project Manager— Lisa Reid SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 2 Packet Pg. 438 9.1.a Agenda Project Introduction/Background Crash History Proposed Improvements Process to Determine Where to Allow Midblock Left- and U-Turns Access Control Benefits Property Owner Impacts Project Schedule <*Up -Coming Meetings / Public Outreach <=>Q&A SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 3 Packet Pg. 439 9.1.a Introduction to Stage 2 Project <�::>Highway 99: Corridor with serious safety concerns <::>High collision rate (=> one of the highest statewide for similar State Routes) <::>Serious -injury collisions <*Goals Reduce vehicular crashes -Reduce active transportation crashes <>Consistent with Hwy 99 Subarea Plan completed in 2017 <>Continuation of Stage 1 of Highway 99 Gateway & Revitalization project (secured funding through Connecting Washington funds) SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 Packet Pg. 440 9.1.a Project Limits � 244th St SW to 210th St SW <::> City Limits Edmonds <::>Esperance / Snohomish County oo 232nd to 228th / west side of street Mountlake Terrace oo 220th to 217th / east side of street <*Lynnwood oo 217th to 210th / east side of street <* SR-104 Interchange on south end <* Interurban Trail (parallel / less % mile to east) <* Future Light Rail / MLT Transit Station (236th St. SW and 1-5) SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 Packet Pg. 441 9.1.a Crash Diagram(Segments 4 & 5) 224th to 220th SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND 14 • REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY R • REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY y • REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY 4) ♦ SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY 0 ♦ SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m r - C9 06 0 0 Cu y - r•1 . f. 1�. At. 6 Packet Pg. 442 9.1.a Crash Diagram(Segments 5 & 6) 220th to 21 8th S ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND ai • REAR END — INJURY # ENTER AT ANGLE — INJURY ca • REAR END — NON INJURY ENTER AT ANGLE — NON INJURY cl) • REAR END — POSSIBLE INJURY # ENTER AT ANGLE — POSSIBLE INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE — INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION — INJURY aui ♦ SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m _ 06 maim o ca N 00 Packet Pg. 443 Crash History <�*7.52 crashes per million miles traveled Table 2. Type of Crash (2017-2019) Fatal/All Fatal/Serious Injury Total Description (crashes) (crashes) (crashes) Rear End 2 86 230 Sideswipe 0 10 75 Enter at Angle 3 34 109 From Opposite Direction (One left 3 78 173 turn -One straight) Involving Pedestrian/Bicyclist 8 22 22 Other 3 13 52 Total 19 , 243 661 Table 1. Crash Severity Level (2017-2019) Table 3. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crash Severity Level (2017-2019) Description 2017 2018 2019 Total Description Pedestrian Bicyclist Total Fatal 0 2 Fatal 2 2 Serious Injury 5 9 3 17 Serious Injury 5 1 6 Evident Injury 22 1 8 11 41 Evident Injury 011*4 5 Possible Injury 70 66 47 183 Possible Injury 6 3 9 Property -Damage -Only 153 133 130 416 Property -Damage -Only 0 0 IN 0 Unknown 0 1 1 2 Unknown 0 0 0 Total 250 218 193 661 Total 17 5 22 SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 8 Packet Pg. 444 9.1.a Crossing 3-Lanes of Traffic from Two -Way Left -Turn Lane Driveway I NOT TO SCALE SR 99 ~ v2 41® CM C C 41 I= CM CMD CM CM [M COD 4r=t Vil SCJ Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 �J BEFORE ACCESS MANAGEMENT �J O — -------------------- ---------------------- rY - - -pMyW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <✓ 15 CONFLICTS AFTER ACCESS MANAGEMENT N O -------------------------------------------- _t ---------------- �} -------------------- n } 8 CONFLICTS 9 Packet Pg. 445 9.1.a Proposed Improvements <*Raised Landscaped Median along entire corridor with mid -block left turn pockets <=>H igh Intensity Activated CrossWa I K ( HAWK) Signal <=>(2) Gateway signs on each end of project limits SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 10 Packet Pg. 446 Access Controlled Median to be Landscaped and Hardscar)ed ENHANCED — — -- HARPS{ARE- 51GNATURE STANDARD TREE WITH EVERGREEN UNDERSTABY PLANTING — HARDS€APE IV-0' MIN' Y-0' 3--0' 0-6, f' V i AIJRCR AVE NOS 3D'-0' O.C. - 3d'-B' D.C. `DIMENSIfINS fsPVEN FOR WIDTH DF MEDIAN FRbM FACE OF CUR T6 FACE OF CURB �A r a Packet Pg. 447 9.1.a Cross Sections - Existing SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 12 Packet Pg. 448 9.1.a Cross Sections — Proposed at Raised Median SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 13 Packet Pg. 449 9.1.a Cross Sections — Proposed at Low Median SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 14 Packet Pg. 450 9.1.a Proposed Cross Sections at Left Turn Pockets SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 15 Packet Pg. 451 9.1.a @ Doug's Lynnwood Mazda Looking South Before SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 After Packet Pg. 452 9.1.a Location of mid -block left turn pockets 220th St SW to 216th St SW SB and NB: No midblock turns are feasible in this section because they would conflict with the SB left -turn lane at 220th. 50 Crashes 5 From 5ppasite or Same Direction {2 NI, 2 PI,1 1) 2 Rear -End 11 NI, 1 PI) 1 Entering al Angie (NI) ________ __ _________'"_- `VALLIV �� VILLAG 1,320 Through Qu e >700' Left Turn Queue r*-275` Left Turn Queue — — ------ — — — — — — — Thro 9 Queue �9iL u h e N_B Crashes 2 Rear -End (1 NI, 1 PI) \ ` IPA PA 1 From Opposile or Same Direction (NI) 1 Side Swipe (NI) I = Injury PI = Possible Injury NI = No Injury NB = Northbound SB = Southbound Signalized Non -Signalized 600' U-Turn Left -Turn, U-Turn, Potential Midblock Intersection Intersection Separation or Through Queue Zone Packet Pg. 453 216th St SW to 212th St SW SB: A midblock left -turn and U-turn was added. NB: No midblock turns is feasible because it would conflict with the SB through queue at 216th and because of the high crash volumes. W —Cfssh- 7 From Opposhe or Same Directlon (5 PI, 1 N1, 11) 5 Rear -End (4 NI, 1 Involving a Pedestrian) 3 Entering at an Angle (1 PI, 1 NI, 1 1) "I IjEVILLAGF COMWINF� 'k TFXAi 0 MAGIC TOYUTA - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -------- I,M, hro-ughQueu lie o -*---300'Leff Turn Queue 400' Left Turn Queue - Queue — -- — -- 470'Through Queue — ;A 1PN5 Crashes 2 From Opposite or Same 01wItIon (1 P1, 1 1) 2 Rear -End (1) I Side Swipe (PI) Injury P1 Possible Injury HI = No Injury NB z Northbound SB = Southbound Signalized L__] Non -Signalized 600'U-Turn Left -Turn, U-Turn Potential Midblock Intersection Intersection Separation or Through Queue Zone Packet Pg. 454 9.1.a N N al Proposed HAWK Signal 0 (N 600' north of 234th St SW) (L 3 CHG COMMUNITYk IEALTPROPOSED HAWK SIGNAL H New Development (193 Units) , SCHWAS I{AfV1AN f1UCT1C 06 IN N EXISTING TRANSIT STOP RELOCATED TRANSIT STOP r' `r° — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _. — —. — — ^^' -- -- RELOCATED TRANSIT STOP • I VIKING AUTO SALES _ 1 - PACIFIC PARK � .� HOUSE OF GUNS ',, �. * APARTMENT HOMES PROPOSED CROSSWALK IRLY BALL , O 5 1 C i 1 1 4 r 1 1 Vi y• a` SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 19 E t C� r+ Q Packet Pg. 455 9.1.a HAWK Signal <*Active Transportation Crossing (cyclist / pedestrians) <*Pedestrian/Cyclist Actuated Signal <*Mid -block crossings at HAWK signal <*% ± mile from existing signalized intersections (238th St. SW and 228th St. SW) Between relocated transit stops SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 N I'snossxnis CAO53WPH • • STOP • • cap 1�1 BE"o • to U Hoer to use the.411 (L 3 H A W K 06 d AL 0 N ncnC[DToIftA�le „r POSH THE BUTTON STOP 5 WAIT for the WALK signal. START CROSSING Alnrtlgo WOM for cars. FINISH CROSSING DRIVERS Iv �• DRIVE Alwags IooA fnr people w lto plan to cross. / SLOW DOWN �.; K person has antWted the Oush 6ut[on, PIASXIHE � • • S TAB P o STEP • for petleslr to i [Aa With eng , Q AfA means Stop, STOPwIFIRST N ftASHIHS it no peopleere present. L a c m E t boo 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 456 Gateway Signs Internally lit posts? Stainless steel with painted or cut -steel lettering? Painted or cut steel lettering,�,.. ig. B I rVVELCOMEto DM0NDS . , ... -. _ INC. 16W R 77 <*Approximate location North side => approximate location N 212th St. S South side => approximate location — 244th St. SW Not designed at this time (showing examples of types here) <>Will be coordinated with public task force SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 Corten with cut -steel lettering? N 4 Packet Pg. 457 9.1.a Summary of Left- and U-Turn Locations (by type) Allowed at all Signalized Intersections <::>244th, 238th, 228111 224111 220th, 216th & 212th Allowed at Most Non -Signalized Intersections <�::>2401hI 2361hI 2341h & 230th Prohibited at 76th Ave W (already restricted by existing raised median) <�*Midblock Where Meets the 600' Spacing, Avoids SR 99 Thru and Left Queues, and Avoids High Crash Locations Between 234th and 230th oo SB into Pacific Place Apartments oo NB into Community Health Center (no u-turns) Between 224th and 220th oo NB into Doug's Lynnwood Mazda Between 216th and 212th oo SB into CarMAX SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 22 Packet Pg. 458 9.1.a Access Control Benefits Reduces the vehicle crash rate about 37% and the injury rate about 48% compared to a two-way left -turn lane (TWLTL) Reduces pedestrian -related crashes by 45% and pedestrian fatalities by 78 <*Improves flow of traffic Redevelopment tends to increase property values <*No impact on the demand for goods and services <:=>A majority of drivers have no problem making U-turns to get to businesses on the opposite side of the road SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 23 Packet Pg. 459 Similar Access Controlled State Routes Shoreline (SR 99, SR 522) HLynnwood (SR 99, SR 524) ♦ Mukilteo (SR 526) ♦ Kenmore, Bothell (SR 522) SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 �SeaTac, Des Moines, Kent & Federal Way (SR 99) r a Packet Pg. 460 9.1.a Property Owner Impacts Minor Right -of -Way Takes <*HAWK signal @ 234th St. SW (both sides of street for signal pole installations) Gateway signs on both end of project limits Driveway Access Impacts Safer access to / from driveways will be provided Left -turn access will be provided at signalized and unsignalized intersections and mid -block openings <=>U-Turns will be allowed at all intersections and all but one mid -block opening (U-Turn restricted NB at mid -block north of 234th) SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 S Packet Pg. 461 9.1.a Project Schedule 2020 AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECSurveying and Basemappin• ♦♦ - — ---------- Environmental DOCLImen"con ----Right of Way Acquisition --- ------Final Engineering & Plan Preparation --- -----------------�� (Jan -Sep Sep 022) CC=City Council Meeting, PPW =Parks and Public Works Committee Meeting SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 26 Packet Pg. 462 9.1.a Up -Coming Meetings / Public Outreach <*Stakeholder Meetings #1 & #2 Public Open Houses Parks & Public Works Committee Meetings * 30% Design, 90% Design, and Approval of Construction Contract Council Meeting * 30% Design, 90% Design, and Approval of Construction Contract SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 January & April February & November throughout Design Phase throughout Design Phase 27 r a Packet Pg. 463 9.1.a F 0 O edmondscorridor99.org 0 0 0 0 GO TP ©© ❑ n� ,;; Apps Da SO .I� -;i;- SO Alliance G SO Intranet [] Edmonds About CORRIDOR OVERVIEW STAGE 1 OVERVIEW STAGE 1 PUBLIC OUTREACH STAGE 2 OVERVIEW Corridor Overview Highway 99 is a key regional corridor that extends into Edmonds from 244th St SW to 212th St SW. It is comprised of a two-mile stretch of Highway 99 (a state highway) and the land area around it. Parts of this corridor abut the jurisdictions of Shoreline, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Snohomish County. It is also within WSDOT's right of way at the SR 104 interchange. The City of Packet Pg. 464 9.1.a www.edmondscorridor99.ore N al R V �O L IL r ,0 V 06 0 0 R N cu r d O� R 3 a� 0 2 r a Packet Pg. 465 9.1.a Summary of Left- and U-Turn Locations (in order S to N) t* 2441" (signalized intersection) t* 240t" (non -signalized intersection) <* 238t"(signalized intersection) t* 236t" (non -signalized intersection) <* 234t" (non -signalized intersection) t=> NB into Community Health Center of Snohomish (no u-turns) <* New HAWK Signal (no turns, pedestrian only) t=> SB into Pacific Place Apartments <* 230t" (non -signalized intersection) t=> 228t"(signalized intersection) <* 76t" Ave W — PROHIBITED t=> 224t"(signalized intersection) <* NB into Doug's Lynnwood Mazda t� 220t"(signalized intersection) t� 216t"(signalized intersection) <* SB into CarMAX <:=> 212t"(signalized intersection) SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 30 Packet Pg. 466 9.1.a Crash Diagram Legend ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND • REAR END - INJURY • ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY REAR END - NON INJURY ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY j SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE INJURY PEDESTRIAN HIT OTHER - SEE CALLOUT SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 31 Packet Pg. 467 9.1.a Crash Diagram (Segment ,) 244th and SR 104 ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND 14 • REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY R • REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY y • REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY o • SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m r 0 C9 06 c 0 SR99 z w S= Cu N_ V in N� L7� �THRFFIC6Wl0 Q% SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 32 Packet Pg. 468 9.1.a • Crash Diagram(Segments 1 &2) 240th to 2361h ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, PEDESTRIAN HIT o OTHER - SEE CALLOUT Packet Pg. 469 9.1.a Crash Diagram 236th to 232nd z� (Segments 2 & 3) ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND 14 • REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY R • REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY y • REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY • SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY 0 • SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m r R C9 06 " o ca ' N � R r R _ - 3 ?t � U[ �r t � r a HITSsE dti-�v<r� O r C to d L � f_ SCJ LLLIA3NCE r a Packet Pg. 470 9.1.a Crash Diagram 232nd to 228th ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND * REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY * REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY * (Segment 3) ♦ REAR END - SIDE SWIPE POSSIBLE INJURY - INJURY * ■ ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, PEDESTRIAN HIT o OTHER - SEE CALLOUT Packet Pg. 471 9.1.a Crash Diagram(Segments 3 & 4) 228th to 224th ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND ai • REAR END - INJURY # ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY ca u. REAR END - NON INJURY ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY • REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY # ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY • SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY aui SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY A SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m ^x c� 06 C O a+ fC N Q Packet Pg. 472 9.1.a Crash Diagram(Segments 5 & 6) 220th to 21 8th S ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND ai • REAR END — INJURY # ENTER AT ANGLE — INJURY ca • REAR END — NON INJURY ENTER AT ANGLE — NON INJURY cl) • REAR END — POSSIBLE INJURY # ENTER AT ANGLE — POSSIBLE INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE — INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION — INJURY aui ♦ SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m _ 06 maim o ca N 00 Packet Pg. 473 9.1.a Crash Diagram 2181h to 214th SO Alliance I scjalliance.com 2/12/2021 (Segments 6 & 7) ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND 14 • REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY R • REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY y • REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY 4) • SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY o • SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m r 06' 0 , r N R r d AW R OWL* a� SR99 — w w 38 Packet Pg. 474 9.1.a 224th St SW to 220th St SW SB: No midblock turn is feasible because it would conflict with the NB through queue at 220t" and because of the high crash volumes. NB: A midblock left -turn and U-turn was added. 174' Through Queue . _ 240' Leif Turn Qu! _-__-- ___-�_--__��..�-_ F NP I = Injury PI Possible Injury Signalized Non -Signalized Intersection Intersection SB Crashes 2 Rear End (1 NI, 1 PI) 1 Side Swipe (NI) NB Crashes 81 From Opposite or Same Rireciion (15 NI, id PI, 6 II 4 Rear -End (2 NI, 1 PI, 1 Involving a Pedestrian) 1 Side Swipe (NI) NI = No Injury 600' U-Turn Separation ' 400' Len Turn Queue •% • 1h Queue:,-----------------------�----------��ti_ {L;�iiiif r' NB = Northbound Left -Turn, U-Turn, or Through Queue SB = Southbound Potential Midb{ock Zone Packet Pg. 475 9.1.a Crash 2141h Diagram to 210th (Segment 7) ACCIDENT HISTORY LEGEND 14 • REAR END - INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - INJURY R • REAR END - NON INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - NON INJURY y • REAR END - POSSIBLE INJURY * ENTER AT ANGLE - POSSIBLE INJURY SIDE SWIPE - INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - INJURY ♦ SIDE SWIPE - NON INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - NON INJURY o • SIDE SWIPE - POSSIBLE INJURY ■ FROM OPPOSITE OR SAME DIRECTION - POSSIBLE IN, d PEDESTRIAN HIT 0 OTHER - SEE CALLOUT 3 m M a c 0 Y .fC � r * 3 a� 00 Packet Pg. 476 9.1.a Process to Determine Where to Allow Midblock Left- and U-Turns Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway and Revitalization Project Stage 2 SCJ ALLIANCE Packet Pg. 477 9.1.a 1. Locate Signalized Intersections 244th St SW to 238th St SW Left -turns and U-turns are allowed at all signalized intersections. Signalized Intersection Packet Pg. 478 9.1.a 2. Locate Non -Signalized Intersections 244th St SW to 238th St SW Left -turns and U-turns along SR 99 are allowed at non -signalized intersections unless previously restricted. Left -turns, U-turns and through movements are prohibited out of all non -signalized cross streets. Signalized Non -Signalized Intersection Intersection Packet Pg. 479 9.1.a 3. Consider 600' Spacing for U-Turns 244th St SW to 238th St SW WSDOT and AASHTO recommend a 600' minimum spacing between U-turn locations and 100' minimum spacing from a conflicting left -turn. Signalized [�]Non-Signalized 600' U-Turn Intersection Intersection 71 Separation TA �•,, 1L Packet Pg. 480 9.1.a 4. Identify Limits of Left -Turn & Through Queues 244th St SW to 238th St SW Midblock U-turns are not allowed where they conflict with left -turn lane or through movement queues to avoid blocking signal queues. -Signalised [�] Nan -Signalised El 600' U-Turn Lett -Turn, U-Turn, Intersection Intersection Separation or Through Queue .._ Lem MF-300' Left Turn Queues - 355'Through Queue` ` a (p Packet Pg. 481 5. Identify Potential Zones for Midblock Turns 244th St SW to 238th St SW Potential midblock left -turns and/or U-turns may be allowed in the yellow areas shown. 355'Through Queue .. ........................ 01A OA 15. (P J S Signalized F__ Non -Signalized 6W'U-Turn Left -Turn, U-Turn, Potential Midblock Intersection _] Intersection Separation or Through Queue Lj Zone Packet Pg. 482 9.1.a 6. Analyze Crash History in Potential Midblock Zones 244th St SW to 238th bt SW I = Injury Signalized Intersection Left -turns and U-turns are not allowed where there is significant crash history. SR Crashes No Crashes _. V WE -.__ -� - --- .- - - -.. -L l 355 6rCeft Turn Queues 'Through Queue �- NB Crash es 1 Rear End (Plj •\ \ \ \ ,` 1 Crash w Tra Fhc Island {NIA PI = Possible Injury Nan-Signallmd Intersection NI = No Injury NB = Northbound SB = Southbound SW U-Turn Separation Loft -Turn, U-Turn, or Through Queue Potential Midblock Zone Packet Pg. 483 9.1.a 7. Locate Midblock Left -Turn and U-Turns 244th St SW to 238th St SW SB & NB: No midblock turns are allowed inside the SR 104 interchange. SR Creshea 1---------'— i ! No Cmghes i 4 y i = r NB Crashes 1 Rear End (P Ij Crash wTraffic Island {NIA I- l = Injury PI = Possible Injury NI = No Injury Signalized L Non-Signallzed SW U-Turn Intersection Intersection Separation Ab leaTurn Tu Qu eue� — — 6r 355' Through Queue---'- .. ,,,o��. �•. \ ate`\ tp \(P NS = Northbound Lott -Turn, U-Turn, or Through Queue SB = Southbound Potential Midblock Zone Packet Pg. 484 9.1.a 2381" St SW to 234t" St SW SB and NB: No midblock turns are feasible in this section. Intersection spacing is approximately 600'. I = Injury Signalized Intersection 455' Through Zlueue Y � it 'heft Turn Oue�e u - Sim_ W C] -1LDtp ,1iP�1 •!,` �� y 1 PI = Possible Injury NI = No Injury Nan -Signalized Intersection SW U-Turn Separation 1 y n3Hii IuTo 611 1 v K C! ASS ry� TRAIIPRtAN RA LM PARI 1�. � •1 5 1►(P NB = Northbound Lett -Turn, U-Turn, or Through Queue SB = Southbound Potential Midblock Zone - LISE o Packet Pg. 485 9.1.a 234t" St SW t0 228t" St SW SB: A midblock left -turn and U-turn was added. NB: Mid -block location conflicts with the new HAWK signal unless shifted south to high -volume CHC driveway. To conform to the 600' minimum spacing between U-turns, only left -turns will be allowed at this midblock opening. 913 Cmahea SS Crashes 2 Emeting At An Angle (PI) 1 Rear End (PI) 4 From Opposite or Same I]irection 3 Ftom Oppoalts or Same I]imetlon (2 NI, 1 PI, 1 I) 11 NI, 2 Pia 1 Side Swipe (PI) \ 1 Srde Swipe (Nj �� \ T vaovoseo Hnuxc racnn� ,s +I , 0 y\. NB Creshee t ,jA \ \ 2 Entering At An Angie (i NI, t PI) � SAP i From Oppos49e w Same Urecx64n {NQ i f I = Injury PI = Possible Injury NI = No Injury Signalized Non -Signalized SW' U-Turn 16 Intersection E:1 Intersection Separation NB = Northbound 15p' Lefl TurnLefl Turn Ou e -325' 1,060' Through Queue 4-- It 1 Left -Turn, U-Turn, or Through Queue SB = Southbound Potential Midblock Zone Packet Pg. 486 228th St SW to 224th St SW SB and NB: Left -turns are currently prohibited at 76th Ave W by a raised median. Other midblock openings are not feasible. $19 rras I EnII At AngM (HI11 80' h_T;1ough 'queu. 4--325' Left Turn. -Queue-----*— w 1 '4-300' Left Turn Qiieu—e- 1,320'ThroughThrough Queue - — -- — -- — -- T. -- - -- ,IAII.H1-1L\ LEX]SnNG RAISED MILD IAN I = injury P1 = Possible Injury NI = No Injury NB = Northbound Signalized L Non -Signalized SW'U-Turn Left -Turn, U-Turn Intersection Intersection Separation or Through Queue SB = Southbound Potential Midblock Zone KER0'SA:. A Packet Pg. 487 216th St SW to 212th St SW SB: A midblock left -turn and U-turn was added. NB: No midblock turns is feasible because it would conflict with the SB through queue at 216th and because of the high crash volumes. W —Cfssh- 7 From Opposhe or Same Directlon (5 PI, 1 N1, 11) 5 Rear -End (4 NI, 1 Involving a Pedestrian) 3 Entering at an Angle (1 PI, 1 NI, 1 1) "I IjEVILLAGF COMWINF� 'k TFXAi 0 MAGIC TOYUTA - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -------- I,M, hro-ughQueu lie o -*---300'Leff Turn Queue 400' Left Turn Queue - Queue — -- — -- 470'Through Queue — ;A 1PN5 Crashes 2 From Opposite or Same 01wItIon (1 P1, 1 1) 2 Rear -End (1) I Side Swipe (PI) Injury P1 Possible Injury HI = No Injury NB z Northbound SB = Southbound Signalized L__] Non -Signalized 600'U-Turn Left -Turn, U-Turn Potential Midblock Intersection Intersection Separation or Through Queue Zone Packet Pg. 488 9.1.a U North of 212th St SW 0 3 m SB and NB: No midblock turns are feasible in this section. 0 0 r M N _ R • s a+ .IA-K`N THE OOX y% KII f':ikI :Y°-� ...' > aii41't; a� Through queue extent � �,3�" ThlrOu Queue beyond project limits. 400' Left Turn Queue � CA,' I O k ; A oA O I = Injury PI = Possible Injury NI = No Injury NB = Northbound SB = Southbound r c Signalized Non -Signalized t3OO' U-Turn Loft -Turn, U-Turn, Potential Mldblock n Intersection Intersection Separation or Through Queue Zone a r m E CM Packet Pg. 489 10.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/16/2021 Council Committee Minutes Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A. For information only. Narrative The Council committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: PPW020921 PSPP020921 FCO20921 Packet Pg. 490 10.1.a PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING February 9, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Councilmember Laura Johnson Councilmember Luke Distelhorst CALL TO ORDER Staff Participating Virtually Phil Williams, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Shannon Burley, Dep. Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passev. Citv Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online PPW Committee meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Councilmember Distelhorst. The agenda was reordered to prioritize the most time sensitive items. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Youth Commission Ordinance Amendment Ms. Burley explained Youth Commission meetings are currently held on the same day and time as Diversity Commission meetings. Several members of the Youth Commission, Diversity Commission, Councilmembers requested Youth Commission meetings be moved from the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays to the 2,d and 4th Wednesdays. The Youth Commission has express support for the change. Action: Forward to Consent Agenda. 2. Public Hospital District No. 2 Grant ILA - LEAP Councilmember Distelhorst said he has a relative involved with the Public Hospital District so he will not participate in the discussion. Ms. Feser explained this is an ILA with Public Hospital District No. 2 (Verdant) to accept a $30,000 grant to assist with the Learning Enhancement and Activities Program (LEAP) that began in October 2020. The cost of the program was covered via federal CARES Act funds through December; a majority of the participants were scholarship, averaging approximately 29 kids/week. LEAP continued in January and February using funds in the Recreation budget allocated for programming. Verdant agreed to support 50% of the program costs for January and February. The program has been very successful with great feedback from parents and families and it has employed a few young adults. She recommended forwarding the ILA to Consent for approval. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the work by staff and for Verdant's support. Action: Forward to Consent Agenda. 4. ILA with City of Lynnwood for the 76th Ave Overlay Project Mr. English explained this is an ILA with Lynnwood for an upcoming project on 76th between 196th & Olympic View Drive. Lynnwood owns the eastern half of the street and Edmonds owns the western half. In 2018 staff coordinated with Lynnwood to submit a grant application for Edmonds' share of the repaving. Lynnwood will pay their portion with local funds. The $645,000 federal grant through ICC will fund part of the design phase and construction. The ILA sets the terms for working with Lynnwood on Packet Pg. 491 10.1.a 02/09/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2 the design in 2021 and construction in 2022. A brief discussion followed regarding design elements of the project. Action: Forward to February 16t" Consent Agenda 5. Old Public Works Zoning Change Consideration Mr. Williams explained 60% of the building has been leased to the Driftwood Player and the Arts Festival Foundation since 1992 and those leases have been renewed serval times. In reviewing a proposal by Driftwood Players to move some of the functions from the Driftwood Players Playhouse to the old Public Works building, it was discovered the old Public Works building is zoned Public and there is a zoning conflict with the usage of the building for non-public use. The City Attorney recommended an Interim Zoning Ordinance which would allow for new short term leases to be signed with current tenants while the City works to implement a longer term solution to the zoning conflict. Discussion followed regarding staff who will work on this, ability to extend the interim ordinance for six months if the planning work is not completed in the first six months, the Planning Board's review timeline and importance of the City continuing to own the land in the event the treatment plant needed to be expanded in the future. Action: Forward to February 16t" Consent Agenda 7. Presentation of a Pedestrian/Utility Easement along 80th Ave W adjacent to 18227 80th Ave W Mr. English explained this easement is associated with 2-lot short plat on 80t" north of 184t" Street that will build frontage improvements that include mailboxes and a fire hydrant. The 24-foot easement is required to allow the sidewalk to go around the mailboxes and hydrant. Discussion followed regarding the limited amount of sidewalks on 80t" and grants staff has applied for in the past for sidewalks on 80t" Action: February 16t" Consent Agenda. 8. WWTP Staffing Change — WWTP Supervisor Mr. Williams explained in 2020 budget, staff proposed an organizational change which included an increase of 1 FTE. In that request and a subsequent request to City Council a new position called Chief Operator was approved. In 2020, the WWTP lost 3 State Certified Group III Operators and to date have not attracted qualified staff to fill these vacant positions which has adversely impacted the ability to staff the WWTP. An applicant for another WWTP position who has significant experience in wastewater treatment expressed interest in the Supervisor position. Mayor Nelson authorized him to seek approval to change from filling the Chief Operator position to filling the Supervisor position. He described the difficulty hiring WWTP staff, competition in the industry, WWTP operators that intend to retire this year and laws related to shift operators. Discussion followed regrading support for placing this request on the agenda for full Council for action, the treatment plant being a unique industry, the need to be competitive, and the time it takes to train staff. Action: Schedule on agenda for full Council for action. 6. HBB Contract for Gateway Sign Design as part of the Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project Mr. English explained the original scope of the design contract with SCJ for the Highway 99 corridor improvements included design of the gateway signs. Following discussions with SCJ, and preliminary discussions with the task force that is comprised of business owners, a Councilmember, and a Planning Board member, it was agreed to do a more focused RFQ to select a firm with a history with streetscape, Packet Pg. 492 10.1.a 02/09/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3 landscape signage features. HBB and SCJ both submitted statements of qualifications and staff selected HBB based on their extensive experience and qualifications related to visioning and development of gateway signs. The total fee of $133,000 includes a $12,000 management reserve and $11,000 for work during the construction phase. Mr. Williams reiterated the need for public involvement, involving stakeholders and the right process. Frances Chapin, who has been involved with signage and banners on Highway 99, will participate. The gateway signs on Highway 99 do not have to mimic the themes of signage downtown, but will highlight the different districts/neighborhoods. Discussion followed regarding equitable language and time of day access for community workshops, making the Highway 99 community a priority, concern with the cost but recognizing the public's interest in the SR 104 signage, recognition that Highway 99 deserves the same level of attention as SR 104, the need to acquire ROW to install the sign on the north end, and coordination with WSDOT on the sign at the south end. Action: Forward to February 16th Consent Agenda 3. Update on the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project (Stage 2) Mr. Hauss reviewed: • Introduction to Stage 2 Project o Highway 99: Corridor with serious safety concerns • Project limits - 244th St SW to 2101" St SW • Crossing 3 lanes of traffic from 2-way left turn lane o Conflict points before and after access management • Proposed improvements o Raised Landscaped Median along entire corridor with mid -block left turn pockets o High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Signal o (2) Gateway signs on each end of project limits • Existing cross sections & cross sections proposed at raised and low medians and at left turn pockets • Access controlled median to be landscaped and hardscaped • Summary of left- and U-turn locations (by type) • Access control benefits • Similar access controlled state routes • Proposed HAWK Signal (-600' north of 234' St SW) • HAWK Signal details • Property owner impacts • Gateway signs - approximate locations (not designed at this time) • Project schedule • Upcoming meetings/public outreach Questions and discussion followed regarding support for access control, public outreach especially to businesses in various languages, learning from Shoreline's process, pockets of landscape median, median providing traffic calming, improvements helping to justify lowering the speed limit, prioritizing pedestrian safety at 22411 and 238', raised medians discouraging mid -block pedestrian crossings, and the process and timeline for determining whether to reduce the speed limit. Action: Presentation to full Council on February 16th 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Packet Pg. 493 10.1.b PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONNEL & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING February 9, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Staff Participating Virtually Councilmember Kristiana Johnson (Chair) Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev./Comm. Serv. Dir. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Shannon Burley, Dep. Parks, Rec, & Cultural Serv. Dir. Guests Participating Virtually Robert Boruchowitz CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online PSPP Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Social Worker Job Description Review/Approval Mr. Doherty explained the Council approved $500,000 in the 2021 budget for a Human Services Program which includes funding for new social worker position. The PSPP Committee reviewed and provided input on the draft job description at last month's meeting. He reviewed revisions to the job description based on the committee's input related to Essential Functions and Responsibilities and Required Licenses and Certifications. Questions and discussion followed regarding the required licenses to refer into placement, Koenig's recommendation that the City's social worker have the necessary licensure to refer to programs, input HR sought on the job description from subject matter experts, the social worker operating in a network of partners, preference to hire a licensed clinical social worker, pay scale for the social worker position, preference that the candidate selected has the required licenses when hired, whether the position would be in-house or a contracted position, Lynnwood hiring Compass Health to provide social worker services, providing enough flexibility to look at all a candidate's qualifications, and requirement for a position to be in the budget in order to hire someone. Councilmember K. Johnson requested a list of what each of the four social worker levels can and cannot do be included when this is presented to Council, Action: Forward to full Council. 2. Conflict Counsel Compensation Review Ms. Neill Hoyson explained conflict counsel are individual attorneys that the City contracts with for public defense when there is a conflict with the Snohomish County Public Defender handling the public defense. Bob Boruchowitz is retained by the City to assess public defense services. He has completed an analysis of the compensation provided to the City's conflict counsel attorneys and is providing recommendations for changes in compensation. Mr. Boruchowitz reviewed: • Conflict Panel Counsel Packet Pg. 494 10.1.b 02/09/21 PSPP Committee Minutes, Page 2 o Take cases when the primary contract defender, Snohomish County Public Defender, has a conflict of interest. o All of their clients are poor and face possible jail time as well as fines and fees. o Their clients often have significant mental illness. o Their clients are disproportionately of color. • Recommendation o Increase trial counsel payment from $50 per hour to $65 per hour for 2021, and $85 per hour o in 2022, and $125 per hour in 2023. o Increase appellate counsel payment from $55 per hour to $65 per hour, and $85 per hour in 2022, and $125 per hour in 2023. o Through 2022, these still would be at least $168 to $178 per hour lower than what the City pays its other lawyers. • Examples of private sector payments • Amounts the City pays for other lawyer work • Provisions in the prosecutor contract in addition to base monthly fees • Unfairness and disproportionality in the fees • RALJ appeals in 2019 and 2020 • Cost in 2021 if the hourly rate was increased to $65 • Likelihood Edmonds will have trouble attracting experienced and able lawyers if the compensation is not increased. Discussion followed regarding the percentage of clients who are persons of color, the percentage of each year's increase, how long the $55 rate has existed, justification for increasing the rate to $125/hour now, support for paying conflict counsel the same as public defense attorneys, and support for the proposed phased increase. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested eliminating the slide comparing the pay to the Recreation Coordinator in the presentation to Council. Action: Forward to full Council for presentation 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 5:42 p.m. Packet Pg. 495 10.1.c FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING February 9, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Staff Participating Virtually Councilmember Vivian Olson Dave Turley, Finance Director Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Phil Williams, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Shannon Burley, Dep. Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Councilmember Buckshnis. Council Reimbursement Request for $337.90 was added as Agenda Item 5. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 2. Close Fund 617, Firemen's Pension Fund Mr. Turley explained state pension plans for police and firefighters began in 1970; police and firefighters who retired before 1970 were not covered by a pension but were provided retirement benefits which were paid from the General Fund and funds provided by the state via a tax on fire insurance premiums. For accounting purposes, the funds from the state were treated as revenue for Fund 617. The state auditor recently changed this and stated the fire tax can be spent on anything so it is General Fund money. A budget amendment in April will move funds from Fund 617 into the General Fund. Action: Forward to Consent Agenda and budget amendment in April Edmonds Solar Cooperative Proposed Asset Purchase Mr. Williams provided background on the Edmonds Solar Cooperative (ESC) that obtained funding (tax credits) to build and operate the solar project on the Frances Anderson Center roof via a lease with the City. At that time, to qualify for the tax credits, the panels had to be purchased from businesses in Washington. There was only one panel manufacturer in Washington Those panels have not held up well over the 10 years; the initial 23 kW capacity is now down to 9.6 kW. The ESC has offered to sell the system to the City for $5,000. His research found a new 9.6 kW system would cost $26,000-$28,000 and a 10-year old system (assuming a lifespan of 25 years) would cost about $17,000-$18,000. The City is the likely successor to the system. The funding will come from capital renewal funding in the Facilities Department. Discussion followed regarding the contract releasing everyone who purchased a "Sun Slice." Action: Confer with Council President regarding scheduling 3. Preliminary December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report Mr. Turley highlighted: • Finished year surprisingly well Packet Pg. 496 02/09/21 Finance Committee Minutes, 10.1.c e2 • Report is very similar to last month • Sales tax 1.6% less than 2109 • Intergovernmental revenue up due to CARES funds • Other revenue categories lower than 2019, but not much lower • General Fund expenditures $44M, 12% under budget • General Fund spent 88% of annual budget • Special revenue funds 66% of budget • REET budget = $1.4M for each, revenues = $1.7M • January REET $300,000 over 2020 Questions and discussion followed regarding a Puget Sound Business Journal article regarding a Seattle company that relocated to Edmonds, amount in the Fireman's Pension Fund, investment interest, sources of sales tax revenue, potential new CARES Act funding, and all categories of sales tax higher in 2020 than 2019 except restaurants and bars, hotel/motel and healthcare. Action: Presentation to full Council 4. 2021 Carryforward Budget Amendment Mr. Turley highlighted carryforward budget amendments: • Unfreezing five park maintenance positions that were not included in the 2021 budget • Ebb Tide Litigation Professional Witness Fees, trial postponed due to COVID-19 • Portico sign fabricated in 2020, delivery delayed due to COVID-19 • Watershed Company's work on developing a Street Tree Plan delayed due to COVID-19 • Climate Goals Project - delayed due to COVID-19 • Climate Action Plan Update (ESA) - delayed due to COVID-19 • Climate Action Plan Public Engagement (Cascadia) - delayed due to COVID-19 • Code Research (BHC) • NR Employee Salary Study funds • City Park Walkway Pedestrian Safety Project • 2020 Traffic Calming Program • 2020 Guardrail Program • Phase 11 Waterline Replacement • Phase 10 Waterline Replacement • Swedish & 76th Waterline Replacement • NPDES Pro Software Purchase • Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station • Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 • Lake Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design Phase • WWTP Capital Carryforward • Cured In Place Pipe Sewer Rehab Phase 2 • Police patrol vehicle 525-POL replacement funds • Waterfront Redevelopment • Civic Center Playfield — funds not spent in 2020, expected to come in 2021 • 84th Ave. Overlay from 220th St. SW 212th St. SW • 2020 Pavement Preservation Program • Dayton Utility Replacement Project • 2019 Sewer Replacement (Phase 7) Questions and discussion followed regarding whether other positions will be unfrozen, incorrect street trees planted on Walnut, and COVID impacts that resulted in carryovers. N CD O N O U U_ c CD E U 2 a Packet Pg. 497 10.1.c 02/09/21 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3 Action: Forward to Consent Agenda 5. Council Reimbursement Request for $337.90 Councilmember Olson explained she brought this to the Administration's attention before the Police Chief appointment was made and referenced this court testimony. She requested the court testimony and was told the City did not have it; she thought the Council needed that document so she ordered it. There are differences of opinion regarding the regulations for reimbursement and she asked if the regulations in Section 2.25 needed to be changed. Mr. Taraday explained as written, the code puts the decision of what is a reimbursable expense in the hands of Council President subject only to the Council's discretion. If the Council wants more clarity and predictability regarding what expenses are reimbursable and not leave that up to one individual's discretion, the code needs to be revised. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the reason for denial. Mr. Taraday said there is no criteria in the code to guide that decision, it is entirely up to the Council President whether to grant or deny an expense. Mr. Turley forwarded him a policy that he had not seen before (it is not in the code) that provides examples of criteria, such as the general reimbursement policy of the Council reads as follows, "the City of Edmonds reimburses its employees and elected or appointed officials for reasonable expenses incurred conducting City business." Another portion of the policy reads, "providing the expenses are prudent and directly related to the individual's service on behalf of the City." Councilmember Olson asked what would be the basis for rejection if all those criteria were met. Mr. Taraday said there is a lot of subjectivity in that criteria so it was not a model reimbursement code and he was unsure that policy was binding on the Council President. Councilmember Buckshnis requested staff send that policy to her and Councilmember Olson Councilmember Buckshnis offered to assist Councilmember Olson with writing a memo. Action: Schedule for full Council in the future. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. N rn 0 N O U U- c aD E t v 2 Q Packet Pg. 498