The URL can be used to link to this page

02/09/2001 City Council Retreat,j�:l[�IYS'+'� '�,: r .l-'.n .Th• � rT•. .r�{:Tl'!';y,Y{�T *'^":i, ,R�r�y�+J�'�t '. 1•�1 � ' r )70 TIME 1 — 2 p.m. 2 — 3 p.m. 3 — 3:15 p.m. 3:15 - 4:30 p.m. 4:30 — 5:00 p.m. _ 5:00 — 5:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT AGENDA February 9 and 10, 2001 Great Room City Hall 121 !th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 FRIDAY, FEB. 9, 2001, AGENDA PRESENTER How to Build and Fund a City (exercise to set priorities) (Req. by Mayor Mayor Haakensor11,1 Haakenson and Council President Earling.) Status Report of Medic 7 Dissolution (Req. by Councilmember Davis Mayor Haakenson and Mayor Haakenson.) Chief Tom Tomberg Break Financing Options for City's Infrastructure Needs (Req. by Council Mayor Haakenson President Earling.) Peggy Hetzler Procedure for Approval of Budget Adjustments (Req. by Peggy Hetzler Councilmember Petso.) Councilmembers' Role and Duties (Req. by Councilmember Miller.) Scott Snyder Dinner at Brusseau's TIME SATURDAY, FEB. 10, 2001, AGENDA 8:30 — 9:30 a.m. Issues Regarding Sno-Isle Vote and Long -Term Funding Implications (Req. by Councilmember Davis and Mayor Haakenson.) 9:30 — 10:00 a.m. Financial Policies/Practices Regarding Reserve Levels and Debt Service Funds (Req. by Councilmember Petso.) 10:00 — 10:45 a.m. Presentation on History of Tree Cutting for View Improvement (Req. by Council President Earling and Mayor Haakenson.) 10:45 - 11:00 a.m. Break 11:00 — 11:45 a.m. Update on Bulkhead and Walkway Project (Req. by Mayor Haakenson.) 11:45 a.m. — 12:15 p.m. Review of Investment Activity Report (Councilmember Petso.) 12:15 —1:15 p.m. LUNCH (Boxed Lunches) 1:15 — 2:00 p.m. Review of Process and Policy for Assembling Council Packets and Potential for Paperless Packets (Req. by Councilmember Davis.) 2:00 — 2:45 p.m. Discussion of 2001 Labor Contracts (Req. by Mayor Haakenson.) 2:45 — 3:30 p-m General Questions and Wrap-up 2-2aa PRESENTER Mayor Haakenson Peggy Hetzler Peggy Hetzler Arvilla Ohlde Duane Bowman Arvilla Ohlde Peggy Hetzler Councilmember Qavis Sandy Chase Mayor Haakens06: Peggy Hetzler Brent Hunter how to BUILD & FUND 0 CITY presen tation by F' K Mayor 14aakenson February 9, 2001 0 City Council Retreat Starting a City from Scratch 1. Form of Government - Mayor -Council or City Manager/Council? If Mayor - Council, should the City Council have an administrator and what would be his/her role with respect to department diirectors? 2. Organizational Structure - Hierarchical with a few large departments or flatter with many departments? 3. Council Structure - Committees vs. work sessions? Elect by district or at - large? 4. Strategic Planning System - i.e., goal -setting process, not just for the organization, but for how the city wants to change or grow. 5. Mission Statements, Goals, Vision Statements, how current are they? 6. Budgeting - One-year vs. two year? Financial policies. 7. Capital Program - Priorities, Needs/Wants, Budget, etc.? 8. Contract Services vs. Providing Services In-house? Is the alternative of partnering with other governments for services such as police, fire, court, dispatch, streets, parks maintenance, recreation programs, legal services, jail service, engineering, solid waste, code administration, human resources, fleet, accounting, billing, management information systems, etc. desirable? 9. What are the most important services a.City should deliver? 10. What services should each department deliver? 11. Service philosophy? 12. Internet - what services can be integrated into internet technology from the beginning. 13. Private Utilities - Should the city provide electric, cable TV, or internet services? (ex: Tacoma & Click). 14. Assumptions - What to do with special purpose districts? 15. Physical Facilities - Lease vs. buy - one large facility vs. campus vs. remote locations. 16. Compensation System - Step increases & COLAs vs. performance based pay? 17. Citizen Involvement - boards/commissions, volunteer programs, public information programs, etc., what should a city offer? 18. Human Services System - In house delivery of human services vs. contracts. How much to spend? v c 0�1 L 44 Z O to W V H GC W T!1 f a �1 Ol v 0 V Government Services Street System Development and Maintenance Park Development and Maintenance Recreation Programs Legal Services Jail Service Engineering Recycling Water Cable Permitting - Bldg, Planning, Police Code Enforcement Police Fire Court Services Dispatch Library Human Resources Human Services Fleet Maintenance Accounting/Finance Management Information Systems Business License City Clerk Functions Sewer Treatment Plant / Maintenance Storm Water Management Waste Disposal MEMORANDUM •,7C. 1 g9V Date: January 29, 2001 To: City Council � 1 From: Mayor Haakenson Subject: Status Report on Medic Seven Dissolution As you are aware, the Medic Seven Board voted late last year to study the possible dissolution of the Medic Seven program as we currently know it. A subcommittee was formed to look at the assets and liabilities of the organization, as well as any legal obstacles that could arise from the interlocal agreement. That group has met several times and resolved most of their questions. Dissolution requires a unanimous vote from the Board to be accomplished. The City of Lynnwood has made it clear that they will not support this proposal. In response to their stance, we have taken a look at other alternatives. The original proposal for dissolution was based on the assumption that Mountlake Terrace would pull out of the Medic Seven consortium for 2002. The possibility existed that Brier, which contracts with Terrace, would leave Medic Seven as well. If both cities were to leave, there would be a $400,000 gap in the Medic Seven budget that would have to be filled. If they did indeed leave, the cities left in the consortium would be Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Woodway (on a contract with Edmonds.) The question then becomes, why would we keep such an organization in place for the benefit of two cities (and one on a contract)? And if we did, Woodway has the same vote as Edmonds or Lynnwood on all matters even though their dollar contribution is minimal at best. Policy issues become nebulous as one city tries to direct policy in another. The original dissolution proposal was that the 16 paramedics be split into two groups of eight, and each would become members of the Edmonds or Lynnwood Fire Departments. The structure of the Medic Seven governing Board would go away, and the medics would report to the two Fire Chiefs respectively. The medics would provide the same service with the same employees, and the only difference would be the patch on their shirts. The City of Lynnwood opposed this plan as well. Another option discussed was to sell off the assets of the organization and leave it as a shell with no employees, thereby bypassing the unanimous vote clause. This was determined not to be a viable option according to the Board's attorney because it was too close to actual dissolution in nature. One member city consistently has maintained that Mountlake Terrace would never leave the Medic Seven consortium, and therefore we were wasting our time discussing what would happen if they left. On the other hand, I have consistently told the Board that it has a responsibility to plan for the future and to be prepared for any eventuality. City of Edmonds cry Office of the Mayor In the last several weeks, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County Fire District 1 have held two joint press conferences announcing their plans for a working relationship to provide Mountlake Terrace with fire suppression service as well as paramedic service beginning in 2002. It is clear that Terrace intends to give notice of withdrawal from Medic Seven no later than June 30, 2001, with an effective date of December 31, 2001. At our latest subcommittee meeting the first week in January, the Board directed a group led by Chief Tomberg to sit down together and work out the operational issues that seem to be keeping the City of Lynnwood from participating in an agreement. This group consists of labor leaders, fire department personnel, and Medic Seven employees. The elected officials chose to stay out of the group with the notable exception of two Lynnwood City Councilmembers. This group has met several times and is making extraordinary progress. A citizen has suggested that the Medic Seven organization can stay in place even with the withdrawals of Mountlake Terrace and Brier. As I mentioned earlier, the remaining cities would then have to either pick up the added costs to the program, or the other choice would be to lay off paramedics (due to a reduced call load). If you lay off paramedics, you would have to reduce the second full-time car to a 12-hour car. That then leaves one paramedic rig to cover Lynnwood, Edmonds, and Woodway during a 12-hour period every day. Scheduling is difficult at best with a reduced number of paramedics, and history tells us that overtime will increase. As a Council, you have to decide if this is a reduction in service that you can live with. Where do we go from here? If and when the Medic Seven Board makes a recommendation to split the paramedics into two groups, it will ultimately fall into the laps of the city councils for decision -making. Attached are Chief Tomberg's thoughts on this issue as well. C:\Mayor01\RetreatMemo-Medic Seven.doc -S EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: January 29, 2001 To: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmemberss From: Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief i 1 Subject: Status Report on Medic 7 Dissolution This memo will address four topics: Medic 7 Dissolution, Edmonds tentative budget to prepare for that eventuality, available revenues, and current and future needs if dissolution occurs. Medic 7 Dissolution In his memo, Mayor Haakenson describes the status of the Medic 7 dissolution in the context of two independent working groups. Snohomish County Fire District 1, Mountlake Terrace/Brier appear to be moving inexorably toward an exit, while Edmonds and Lynnwood are making contingency plans to continue providing seamless Paramedic services to its citizens based on shared core values important to both cities. Although premature to make pronouncements about ALS delivery in the post-MLT/Brier era, talks within both groups have been positive. The Edmonds -Lynnwood working group continues to meet and plan while awaiting the MLT/Brier announcement that they intend to exit Medic 7. If the announcement arrives at the last minute (6/30/01), six months remain to decide outstanding items unresolved by the working group. Tentative Expenditure_ Detail With the invaluable assistance of Accountant Scott James, the enclosed Expenditure Detail is submitted as a working estimate of costs for your consideration. The detail displays a tentative working budget for 2001-2004 utilizing: Eight, unnamed randomly selected Medic 7 Paramedics. • Actual FY01 Medic 7 budget figures. Current Edmonds IAFF Union Local 1828 collective labor agreement benefits the eight would be employed under. • Estimated administrative costs. ■ Estimated operational costs. ■ Estimated training costs. Estimated vehicle replacement costs. The Narrative for each line item describes the estimated expenditure and the methodology used to calculate the cost. OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: Medic 7 Dissolution January 29, 2001 Page 2 Revenues Available The 2001 revenue stream identified below is available to support the cost of ALS service by the Fire Department: Amount Description 732,871 Edmonds 2001 Medic 7 participant contribution 200,000 Contingency Fund, 27% of current contribution 25,266 Woodway 2001 Medic 7 participant contribution 6,822 27% increase in Woodway contribution (estimate) 80,347 FY01 Fire District 1 payment to Medic 7 for ALS service in Esperance 1,045,306 Total (estimated) ESTIMATED FY01 COSTS WITH EIGHT PARAMEDICS 906,058 FY01 ESTIMATED REVENUE AVAILABLE 1,045,306 Current and Future Needs It will be difficult to operate an ALS delivery system with eight Paramedics due to the restricted overtime hiring pool. The Fire Department makes three recommendations: Hire one entry level Firefighter -Paramedic to even the shifts with additional first year estimated costs of 60,000 bringing the total of Paramedics to nine. ESTIMATED COSTS WITH NINTH PARAMEDIC 9661058 • Fill the current A -shift vacancy with a Paramedic -Firefighter at an additional expense of 7,000 bringing the total of Paramedics to ten. ESTIMATED COSTS INCLUDING TENTH PARAMEDIC 973,058 Hire two additional entry level Paramedic -Firefighters at sometime in the future bringing the total of Paramedics to 12. Enclosure PLEASE TURN THE PAGE Fire Services General Fund Expenditure Detail Dept. 510 Account 2001 2002 2003 2004 Number Description Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated PARAMEDIC ADMINISTRATION 11 Salaries* $53,661 $56,344 $59,161 $62,119 23 Benefits* 10,220 10,731 11,268 11,831 41 Professional Services* 19,350 20,318 21,333 22,400 46 Insurance* 14,996 15,746 16,533 17,360 51 Intergovernmental Services* 20,347 21,364 22,433 23,554 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $� �� 7a I1.24,5Q"�, $�_3Q,71$ M7..?_S74 PARAMEDIC OPERATIONS 11 Salaries $527,426 $550,837 $575,439 $596,703 12 Overtime 27,736 28,860 30,041 30,874 23 Benefits 126,238 134,284 142,852 151,658 24 Uniforms* 6,048 6,350 6,668 7,001 31 Medical Supplies* 37,166 39,024 40,976 43,024 31 Operating Supplies* 5,800 6,090 6,395 6,714 42 Communications* 3,000 3,150 3,308 3,473 49 Miscellaneous* 1,870 1,964 2,062 2,165 92 Fuel* 840 882 926 972 98 Interfund Rental* 7,590 7,970 8,368 8,786 TOTAL OPERATIONS $742,714 1772,41 17 =1-371- *Assumes a 5.00% increase each year. Narrative A^MI NISTRATIVE COST CENTER Salaries It is essential to have ALS oversight either within the Department or available on a contract basis. One-half time salary for Medical Service Administrator Ayrs (74,556) and one-half of % time Administrative Assistant Susan Ligor (32,766). Ayrs is contracted to serve as the Edmonds Fire Department EMS Program Manager. Ligor serves as program support. Benefits One-half PERS employer retirement contribution, deferred compensation contribution based on 3% of 2001 salary, and employer contributions for medical, dental, vision, Medicare, and Labor and Industry coverage (20,059). Professional Services One-half costs of Medical Control Physician salary (38,700). Insurance Insurance premium for equipment, vehicle and acts/omissions coverage paid to WCIA. The insurance premium is figured at .29/100 of replacement value; however, we have no way of knowing what Medic 7 assets, if any, will come to Edmonds. Consequently, the proposed Medic 7 FY01 amount is used. Intergovernmental Sere_ Ices Edmonds payment for Medic 7 dispatch services. Recommended amount based on 38.6% (85,995) ALS usage in Edmonds identified in August 18 memo from Director Perry to Mayor Haakenson and confirmed by Perry on 9/6/00. PARAMEDIC OPERATIONS Salaries ry of 8 personnel ($503,232), Holiday Buyback ($24,194) Overtime Shift overtime for relief of personnel staff shortages. Benefits Medical, retirement, state workers, life insurance. Uniforms Uniforms purchases and rentals. Medical Supplies One-third of 60% of 104,400 as EFD portion (1/3 of 62,640 = 20,880) plus 39% of remaining 40% based on Medic 7 usage in Edmonds (.39 x 41,760 = 16,286). Operating Supplies One-half the cost (11,600) of providing office and operating supplies for all Medic 7 personnel, computer paper, toner, business cards, binders and batteries. Communications Estimate for 800 MHz radio leases, cell phones, pagers, reprogramming, and service (10,890). Miscellaneous Memberships and certification licenses for eight Paramedics (3,304). Fuel Medic Unit fuel costs. Estimates provided by Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer 1/25/01 based on 1999 and 2000 costs of the two busiest Aid Units allocated at 10% of total Fleet Maintenance costs (remaining 90% allocated to parts, service and labor above). Interfund Re airs Medic unit parts, service and labor will be provided by Edmonds Fleet Maintenance. Estimates provided by Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer on 1/25/01 based on 1999 and 2000 average costs of the two busiest Aid Units allocated at 90% of total Fleet Maintenance costs (remaining 10% allocated to fuel below). Fire Services General Fund Expenditure Detail Dept, 510 Account 2001 2002 2003 2004 Number Description Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated TRAINING 12 Overtime* 19,240 20,202 21,212 22,273 23 Benefits* 2,620 2,751 2,889 3,033 43 Travel* 840 882 926 972 49 Miscellaneous* 1,870 1,964 2,062 2,165 TOTAL TRAINING $24,570 $25,799 $27,088 $28.443 GENERAL FUND SUBTOTAL =6.858 $922,712 =4.849 7 7 *Assumes a 5.00% increase each year ACCUMULATIVE RESERVE FIREWEDICAL AID VEHICLES - FUND 005 Vehicle Replacement* $19,200 120,160 $21,168 *Assumes a 5.00% increase each year. 22 226 Narrative %Al NING COST CENTER Overtime One-half the cost of covering employee training while off duty or hiring replacement personnel for those training on duty (38,480). Benefits Approximate amounts shown. Covers LEOFF retirement, contribution to Labor & Industries and MEBT for those earning training overtime. Computed at 11.95% (LEOFF II @ 4.3%, MEBT @ 7.65%) x overtime (21,848). Travel One-half of mileage reimbursement at 32.5 cents per mile (250), and housing/meals while attending training classes (1,750). Miscellaneous One-half cost for tuition, conference/seminars, and registrations (6,125), printing and binding training materials (6,000), and professional publications and training tapes (2,220). 005 Fund Medic Unit Replacement Cost It is anticipated EFD will receive one of the two first -line Medic units. There will be an added cost to the Aid and Engine Replacement Fund (005) for a replacement ALS Medic unit based on a six -year life span (110,000 / 72 months = 19,200 annually). Estimates provided by Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer on 1/25/01. Financing Options for High Priority Capital and Infrastructure Needs City Council Retreat February 9, 2001 Overview During 2000, City staff made numerous presentations to the Long -Range Financial Task Force, the Finance Committee and the City Council regarding capital and infrastructure needs. These needs include repairs to the Francis Anderson Center, street overlays, sidewalks, library building, sewer meter rehabilitation and fire station signals. The Long Range Financial Task Force instructed staff to present information to the full Council regarding the option of a voted bond issue to address funding higher priority needs. At the conclusion of the presentation, Council directed staff to explore various funding options for debt service including the State Public Works Trust Fund Loan Program. During the 2001 budget process, the Council authorized $45,000 in annual debt service assuming a bond issue of $500,000 for the Francis Anderson Center wiring project. This is the only infrastructure project that was addressed for 2001. During the last few months, a series of new opportunities have developed presenting methods and strategies to fund financing of a greater number of infrastructure/capital needs. These opportunities include: ■ The Supreme Court invalidated Initiative 695 during the fall of 2000. The City may now issue councilmanic bonds that do not require a public vote. ■ Interest rates are dropping based on action by the Federal Reserve. An ongoing stable revenue source has increased sufficiently to allow the City to fund debt service for the life of the outstanding bonds. The City now has a window of opportunity to issue debt to address the longstanding backlog of needs. No new initiatives are pending that would require a public vote to issue limited tax general obligation bonds and interest rates are at the most attractive level in recent years. Perhaps the most important new opportunity presents itself in the form of the increased electrical utility tax. In the past, the City has been stymied by the lack of acceptable new revenue sources to enact to address unmet needs. These revenue sources have included a transport fee and a business and occupation tax that have always been unacceptable to the majority of the Council. Identified Needs City staff including representatives from Parks, Engineering, Public Works and Finance have identified the most crucial needs facing the City's infrastructure. These include: Project Estimated Cost Francis Anderson Center $1,425,000 Fire Station Signals 300,000 Street Overlays 750,000 Sewer Meter Rehabilitation Project 500,000 Sidewalk Repair 600,000 Library Roof 600,000 Total $4,175,000 Detailed information regarding each of these projects is included with this memo. Attachment 1 is an itemization of projects, a calculation of annual debt service assuming 20-year financing and a listing of revenue sources available for debt service. Revenue Sources In addition to the electrical utility tax discussed above, a number of other revenue sources are available to partially fund the debt service. Attachment 1 identifies the following sources: Funding Source Estimated Amount Electrical Utility Tax $260 000 2001 Bud eted Debt Service for Francis Anderson 45,000 First'/4% Real Estate Excise Tax 55,000 Dedicated funding from the Treatment Plant Fund 44,000 Total available for Debt Service $404,000 The projects listed on Attachment 1 total $4,175,000. Financing for these projects has been calculated in two ways: 1) councilmanic limited tax general obligation bonds (6% over 20 years) resulting in annual debt service of approximately $364,000 and 2) Public Works Trust Fund financing for street overlays, fire station signals and sidewalk repairs (2% over 20 years) and the remaining projects through LTGOS resulting in total debt service of $316,000. The revenue sources identified above can be allocated in a number of different ways to accomplish the annual debt payment. Exhibit 2 is a five year forecast of Fund 126 (first '/4% REET) reflecting the impact of financing $55,000 in debt service for the library roof. Staff will be prepared to present information regarding each proposed project at the Council Retreat. ATTACHMENT 1 cn w O O O O O O c oc O cT V- Q co t 0 r O w N cn N qT M N 6bi M 69 69 R E r V! W �. c m O LL o J t9 '0 c U) a Li 06 7 U O (A O L o a,c/5 E W J N Y O O C (n a) LO ti p m0 � ,-. m > C L i- D O 4 y} CL LL to F- o a T .. O c w w o o c o Z d .0 a O o N m w o— - a. W' N p c d `: " fn M co a 0� •N O O c C oo .Fu (0 0 0 d c O �— a) 7 > CO ca _ ca 7 .. (0 j 7 C 7 0 C C r+ (� U a)V a) L Wh-LLNi- Q QQH �O LL n U L N > •E U cn 0 O �- a Q �' (ten O O O O O O O O O O O O O (n ((n a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y ip) O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O J cn Ln 0 0 0 0 LO ui 0 0 0 0 o LO 3 o ° a) LO rl- A ) M N O0.Y ) C r p T T v N = C O C Go ++ 7 c O : W w � D LO O N E U _) E c — » "L' L 'an)3 '� O c a) m O > cn m U w a E c O a1 Z L C (6 a) C a) O U) C c a) m m a) L a) c a) = F a) O a) c O +O+ U L V O) m O O E O ?i a N O (�D L C L c (a .c O J d c d U a) * c co in 4) ai w m >, 3 a) O O CL �' W IA .c J O p d 70 —ua)j O aD N n > E-0 OL — (tea .. > a O O O L a) C O O (u :. c O �+ Q. c w � (n a. (3 a� a� 3 0 ° (�° 3 E m (� (LQ � a) �_ p (n o c� o U U LL LL (n LL 65 U) (n J H x 2 � C 4�-- c ,. ATTACHMENT ti ti o r` CD a] O r p CDti 0 lC) O CD M O N LC) 00 M 0 0 � p 0 �i CO CD N tip 2 000 � L w co O' ti O ti O O O O O t`I ti O O O O O O O O �7•, M,. M 0) It co U') O U) 00' N U Cf) CD OccO�OOOOcc O (.0 C(6 ) 00 00 O r- CO CD cfl r" M U7 O ti N N 0. 00000 000000 O O N 0ccOO(0 0000000 N O Q) t O U) O O UO O O N U) ti N 00 O U M M O O O M 0 0 ti 00 LO r- O.0 M 0000LO CD CD NM Cal O CO co O Cfl co O O It O O L ^ r N N M CD 0 CD CD CD 0 CD O� 0~l O N N � 0 O LO (D It p O; O N N IliU5 0 N M p E 0i o0 N O co N U) It M N +' CO ti c- U7 Y C0 69) LU a) L co �- N _0 a) L LI ` _02 �' N O �_ }' J O� m � -p LLI a) an 0W a) a) aO OO O -c a i.� a) a)E cno pV > U a) Oa) a)> � U`° 0 N L-CL a) �O �— - m ccn �- Q' � �+ (n fn W _ U)_ LL1 > U c M c U W U LL LL o' C Q co I— J -j 0 0 I— LLI p Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 1, 2001 Peggy Hetzler Administrative Services Director Noel Miller t Q,L Public Irks Dire ector Major Building Capital Project Funding Needs for 2001-2004 As we discussed this week, I have listed projects that the City Council should consider funding if they wish to proceed with issuing bonds. The greatest need is for projects related to the aging Frances Anderson Center building. These unfunded projects are listed in priority of need. Item Estimated Cost Electrical & Lighting Replacement $1,055,000 Window Replacement $ 175,000 Seismic Reinforcement $ 90,000 Plumbing Piping Replacement $ ` 50,000 Stairwell Enclosure $ 30,000 Restroom Remodel $ 25,000 Total $1,425,000 I realize this is a large figure. However, it should be noted that an estimated total replacement cost of the Frances Anderson Center is in the range of $12 million to $15 million. This is based on the Edmonds School District recent experience in replacing their school buildings. The other project shown in the 116 Building Maintenance Fund is $150,000 for a fire sprinkler system for the City Hall building. Technically, this is not a required project because this building was built prior to building codes requiring sprinkler systems. However, it may be advisable to do so in order to limit overall damage to the building in the case of a fire. NM/Ik Wordata\Admin\Funding Needs 2001-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Fire Dept. Signal ESTIMATED COST: Improvements I $150,000 (Year 2001- SR 1041 232nd) $150,000 (Year 2002- Fire Station 16) Estimated Grants- $0 to$250,000 Local Match $ 50,000 to $300,000 LEGEND PRIWRY RESPONSE.. R SE(YJND RESPONSE AREA % '�5Tf1 E aL0 11TE RESPONSE ROUTE All "eTH.LL.TERNrTE Lt RESPTN15E RDUTE ECISTINO RESPONSE ROUTE V w 7? FlRE STATION 16 t N ,IMTO SOME RRE STATION 20 rrace PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install emergency traffic signal at the intersection of SR-104 and 232nd At SW and at the proposed new Fire Station #16 on 196th Street. The City has applied for grants on these two projects and grant funding could be up to $250,000 of the $300,000 total if successful. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The response time for Emergency Response Teams will be greatly improved by installing a traffic signal on SR 104. The signal will be designed and installed so that it can be controlled by Emergency vehicles. It is estimated that the existing alternate route at 228th Street and SR-104 adds 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the response time, and the alternate route at 236th Street adds 2 minutes and 20 seconds when compared to 232nd. For the same reason a signal at 196th Street for the new Proposed Fire Station is warranted. R:\en<(r5.danielle\capproj\summary sheet\2001FireDeptSignal.doc FEB Op---, ' 01 12 : 40FM EU IKII DS WWT PL*IT P . 2/ 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJI--CT NAME' Rehab Meter A & E ESTIMATED COST: $10,000 - Fund 412 $350,000 - Fund 414 FLOW FLOW I .�owiry C 4AL LAT10N .._Jpr 2URN, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new flow metering station to replace the existing Meter A station, rehabilitate Meter E station, and demolish the old Ballinger Pump Station building. PROJEC—r BENEFIT/ RATIONAt.E: Various flcwmeter stations exist in the collection system to measure the sewage now from the agencies that send flow to the Edmonds WWTP for treatment. Both Meter Station A and E need to be rehabilitated due to corrosion and erosion. Meter A should not be rebuilt in place, for a number of engineering reasons, and will be relocated elsewhere. Rehabilitating Meter E in place is feasible. The old Ballinger Pump Station building needs to be demolished for liability and contractual reasons. SCHEDULE: 2001 �— COST BREAKDOWN l COST _ Engineering 8 Administration $61 Construction $2� Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 2, 2001 Peggy Hetzler Administrative Services Director Noel MillerE� � {��— Public Wo ks i ecto r Addition Unfunded Capital Projects Downtown Sidewalks & Street Trees As you are aware, Public Works has an ongoing program to repair and maintain the city's sidewalks. The sidewalks in or near the downtown area of Edmonds require numerous repairs each year due to age\condition and the ever-increasing size of the street trees. In the not to distant future, I believe the city should consider replacing block sections of sidewalk and certain street trees to reduce the trip and fall liability issues as well enhance the look of the downtown area. In consulting with the Engineering Division and local concrete contractors, the city should consider budgeting $600,000 for replacing major portions of the downtown sidewalks. Attached is a list outlining the extent of the work. NM/Ik Cc: Dave Gebert, P.E., City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Enclosure WordataWdminWddition Unfunded Projects } O z W z z W 2 W U Q J IL ,L Y J W (n z O H Z O i a a) M aD L O w j O U 00 0 cu 3 a� 0 z Ii ' CD _ LL � 00 N N m N O Z U LU ` O N LO LO N LO r N N LO LO LO N N O 0 0 M LO 0 0 00 00 '-:T 00 O f O 1(D r q- 00 O N r LLB cM eM 0 0 0 f- r r IT (p (D M M N O N I- (D I r I� O) :TM r 0 T-O N N't M M 0 M Il- LO r M I- N M M (D O O N U') �- I M` O � r r r CO r r r N T- N N r r r N IN M d co (D U') I LO 00 LO f,- 00 00 E LO LO Ln 00 co 00 U) f�- r- U.) U') 00 I- CO ti U.) . m (D � H i M M t M M LO O O M O N O U() V- O r� CO T N 1(D = M O N N M LO M f- N O r CM 00 00 104 N LC) r U) (D N 'a' LO LO (D N 1 00 i t N r M (D N r r r C14 LO r g r r CY) r r N r r M NCD z 111 J i4 C jj� [ i N cn I i I I L � I L.L L � � L L L L � � Q) � •C (0 N � , �• f- ❑ I (D I LO I'T M CV fl- (D LO _ V. M N 2 M C 0 to w 1 i O C LL 00 ❑ i (D LO 'T M 00 I I` (D U[) M ❑ M N O a) W I 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 U) U) Ln to `m �0 W m m`m m m m m m m m m m m I�'I W ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) a) a) a) () () a) a) (D (D a) a) a) cn (D u) 0 v 'o o v_ o 'O a) a) a) Lnn- (n Ln Ln cn N N to N Ln N > Q > Q > Q N L L L L L L L L L L L L () ]:� •C '1` 7 7 3 7 7 7 'D E O O O O O O O O O O O O C C C I (U C C• C C C C U) U) N U) , Ln Ln N N N ! O C;) Y m ! m O Q. Y_ +>+ (o U O C a] cn m � � a C g Q) m E U L O � I 7 w U ui aa)i C Im c fo E : T (n U7 i M 1 T r M f` U') (D U) 00 N U-) 0 C) I-- O T N N N N (D T N NM V' (o N � � Dewi I {'T 0 0 10 O I U') O I U) O O O Il- f- O (D N O C) C) 10 O O O (D IN 1I- 00 !M I co N (D O I N Q) T (D U) T N O I- � CO CO CO � T � PLO N 00 (O T 'IT 'IT'cr CO (o "T U') ' � I O M r U) T N Co in 00 00 f� N (o N 00 a) N (D N co N N N U) N C) N to r O N N r I IT N N N V' N N N r- lM 0 01 1 1-- O 1 O I O 1 O C:). U-) 10 to O i 0 CDI- ti co co co U') 0 0 0 C) 0 0 co (D co 0 1+ ON O M: (D T T N O r T 0 CD f� CO T U) N 100 (o N f� 00 ti L0 '� 6') (o ti m N (o In T N T U) v- (D D) N co 00 N U) U) U) T 1 r I T CV N 1 CN V- U) N N N T r Cf T T N N N N N N r IZ I! EW IJ I I�I?I j ii f cn E a) N' aI C O �, C O a,i a ` a) 7 IO c 1LI �i� c m .E cB a m m .S m co m r2 a m f iN. M C 1U)1(o 1�i i��MN fn � Q �,��0 Q1� m • +� cn fA � !! C O C O .r a-' C C O C O +J C C O a) C 1 L 172 m olco m m cn m a (o _=;�c:,l=l lU-iU) NIM;� �I (ol ►o M N 0 QI� ❑ice Q I I ! I ! M I� -2 vaa-o-6-a� I— j 1 ' I a) a) a) I a) m to —cn to N —cn co to — cn — to N N N N -P-' a) W a) a) a) a) a o a v_ ; a a l: 11 a } VI in PAP — v, — N — fA — N PAP I W v) o , cn rn I tw I cn N to to 1'y Q) m a) a) 3 a) 3 N 3 a) 3 a) a) a) a) 3 N>> ln > (A(�cA rn(�(�(��Zcn O o,o O O o O O O O O m O m O m O a) a) a) a) m I I c c c c c C' C C C cn C v) C cn C cn C rn C > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q o a C ..cm .cm ..ccc .Cm .c(a .cm w = w � w L w = a C m { cm c C G C G cm G C C cm c In In U) U) Ln In U) U7 In w cn 02/05;2001 17:29 4258227595 WEIHENHULI 4 A55UL- rF+uc uc W F. T H E R I -I 0 t. l A N 1) February 5, 2001 0101-17a City of Edmonds 121-5'h Ave N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn- Michael Linn, PE Ref: Plaza Deck Evaluation Report Edmonds Library City of Edmonds Greetings, A S S O C 1 A T H S 1' S tel: 425-771-0220 fax: 425-771-0221 At the request of Michael Linn, this writer visually inspected the plaza deck areas and areas beneath the plaza on January 17 and January 24, 2001. The purpose of the inspections was to assist in evaluating options for repair or replacement of the waterproofing on the plaza deck. Items of Understanding The building was constructed during the early 1980's. Original plans dated 6/5/81 (Arai/Jackson Architects) were made available for review. We understand leakage has been ongoing for the last 10 years. Leakage locations reported to this writer included the east/west beam over the reference section, the NE entry, and an area in the children's section, which does not appear to be under the plaza area. Reportedly, the City of Edmonds has water tested the leakage areas with no success. They also re -waterproofed the planter at the SE corner of the 2°d story; above the reference and entry leak locations, in 1997. At that time new metal coping was installed on the tops of planter walls, and new reglets were installed at the exterior building wall of the planter. We also understand there were no surface drains on the plaza from original construction, and the city has retrofitted two of the drains from single -stage (under the topping slab) to dual -stage drains (drainage both at and under the topping slab). The plans show the plaza deck to consist of 12" Spandeck, 2" concrete topping slab, ion, and ther sod in planters, or waterproofing membrane, rigid walking surfaces. The L l ns also show the waterproofing extends and concrete under interior topping slab at walking s F planter walls. 13.104 N.F,. 85th Street • P.O. Box 816 • Kirkland, WA 98083-0816 425-822-8397 • FAX 425-822-7595 02/05/2001 17:29 4258227555 WtIHLNMULI a w�SUU. r,"u` Plaza Deck Evaluation Report Edmonds Library City of Edmonds Observations Page 2 February S, 2001 The plaza consists of approximately 20,000 square feet of planters, grass areas, and concrete walking surfaces, which covers both parking and heated interior space. The waterproofing membrane was evaluated on January 24, 2001 in two locations, below the topping slab in the central plaza, and below a grass area at the SW. The City of Edmonds removed topping slab and soil to access the membrane. The topping slab was also removed at a third location at the west side of the plaza where the slab had settled. The assembly under the grass area (Test Cut 01) consisted of 12-13" of soil, filter fabric, 3 layers of extruded polystyrene insulation measuring approximately 9.75", and waterproofing membrane. As there was at least 1" of standing water on the membrane, a sample was not taken at this location. The assembly under the topping slab in the central plaza (Test Cut #2) consisted of 3 5" topping slab, 2" gravel, filter fabric, 3" extruded polystyrene insulation, waterproofing membrane and concrete structural slab (or topping slab on Spandeck). The waterproofing membrane appears to be the original specified membrane, Toch/Carboline Thio-Deck, which is a modified rubber urethane. The sample removed measured approximately 50 dry mils, which is the specified thickness. There were large water -filled blisters under the membrane at the edges -of the insulation. The sample removed had pinholes and was not well adhered to the concrete deck. The area at the west end of the plaza (Test Cut #3 to evaluate cause of settlement) consisted of crushed gravel and concrete under the topping slab. This area appeared to been previously repaired. The crushed gravel was not removed, but it appeared that it was not compacted prior to replacing the topping slab, which may be the cause of the settling observed at this location Discussion We were asked to help identify the cause of water entry and provide options for repair and/or replacement of the assembly, along with approximate costs. Costs provided are not guaranteed, as Wetherholt and Associates, PS is not a contractor bidding on the work. Firm costs can be obtained from appropriate contractors. Water entry into the building appears to be a result of moisture under the waterproofing membrane. Moisture entry could have been caused by moisture retained in the concrete substrate from construction. Also, rocks and/or dirt could have been present on the concrete during construction and waterproofing. Both problems can cause pinholes through the waterproofing membrane and decrease bonding strength. 02/05/2001 17:29 4258227595 WETHERHULI & A55UU- ri-+ur_ u14 Plaza Deck Evaluation Report F'dmonds Library City of Edmonds Page 3 Fehruary S, 2001 Considering that the plaza serves as a roof over the main library and the membrane is buried below a concrete topping slab or soil, the membrane selected for installation was reasonable at the time of construction. However, in today's market place we would not suggest this type of membrane. The membrane is of minimal thickness, applied in one coat, and is not reinforced A better option would be a reinforced membrane, which decreases the chance of pinholing and better withstands movement and cracking of the concrete. Of course proper substrate preparation and cleaning is essential in the application of any waterproofing membrane. The best option for repair would be complete removal of the overburden, replacement of the existing membrane, and reinstallation of new or existing overburden. Oction one: Complete removal of all soil, topping slab, planter walls, insulation, and existing membrane down to the structural slab. 2. Installation of a new membrane, A Hot rubberized asphalt, such as American Hydrotech 6125 FR, which is a polyester fleece embedded between two layers of hot rubberized asphalt for a total thickness of 215 mils. 10 mil polyethylene slipsheet is applied in the still warm top layer, followed by protection board, insulation (reinstall existing if possible), and drainage mat. B. Prefabricated neoprene rubber modified asphalt sheets applied in cold adhesive, such as Laurenco 2 Ply 101 System. The system consists of 2 - 50 mil sheets adhered in cold adhesive at a rate of 3 gallons per 100 sf, and an 1/8" asphalt protection board adhered to the 2nd ply. Insulation and drainage mat would be installed over the membrane. 3. Installation of new planter walls over the new membrane with application of damproofing on the interior surfaces of the planter walls to reduce efflorescence through the planter walls. 4 Install dual -stage cast iron drains at all drain locations and cleanouts on all planter drains Install new dual -stage drains in the field of the plaza. 5 Installation of new topping slab or pavers on pedestals. Install new soil and plants in planter areas. Cost: $28-30/sf, or $560,000 - $600,000 based on the 20,000 square foot estimate. 02/ 05 / 2001 17: 29 4258227�D _ Wt I Mt—N-IUL I m -HOc. VJ j Plaza Deck Evaluation Report Edmonds Library City of Edmonds Another option would include partial removal of the overburden. Option Two; Page 4 February S, 2001 Removal of the soil, insulation, and membrane, as well as appropriate areas of concrete topping slab, insulation, and membrane at drains and transitions. The coping caps would also be removed in order to apply membrane under them. 2. Installation of concrete walls at transitions around drains and planter areas. 3 Installation of a continuous traffic bearing membrane over the topping slab, planter walls, and under the soil at planter areas The membrane would consist of a polyester reinforced fabric embedded between two layers of resin, such as Kemperol. Insulation, drainage mat, and soil would be applied over the membrane at planter areas. The membrane would be exposed at plaza areas and would require a topcoat. Cost: Similar to the cost listed for Option One. Generally the installation cost of Kemperol is around $20 per square foot. In this application, the cost would increase due to the addition of overburden removal, detailing at drains, added concrete at drains, and traffic surfacing on the plaza. This option is not recommended as there would be no cost savings and the potential for trapped moisture to continue leaking and/or blister the membrane is high. If vents were installed to help control membrane blistering, they would probably not be aesthetically pleasing, and could be a tripping hazard, Contractors available for -the options discussed above can be provided if requested. Photographs taken during the site visits have been included for your review along with this report. We trust the above discussion will be helpful. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Resp fu lly,, Donald A. Davis Field Engineer Wetherholt and Associates, P.S. Enclosures: Photographs Reviewed by, ym d C. Wetherholt, RE CPRC Con lting Engineer/Roofing Consultant, President etherhOlt and Associates, P.S. Please note that this inspection is provided at the request of Michael Linn, whom we understand represents the City of Edmonds. No liability, warranty of merchantability, or guarantee of roof or membrane service life is accepted or implied. Wetherholt and Associates, P,S. is a neutral consulting engineering/roofing consulting firm specializing in resolving building and roof related problems. CS1FVALUAT10N\EDMC`NDS L19nARY DOC City of Edmonds Council Retreat Procedures for Budget Adjustments February 10, 2001 In accordance with State law, the City of Edmonds adopts its annual budget prior to the beginning of its fiscal year. A series of procedures and deadlines are established under RCW 35.33 (Attachment 1) that dictate the timing of the preparation and submission of the preliminary budget as well as the adoption of the final budget. Councilmember Lora Petso has raised a number of questions regarding spending authority after the adoption of the budget. This memo will address each question. Transfers and Overspending 1. What spending can be authorized without Council consent? Section 35.33.121 "Funds — Limitations on Expenditures — Transfers" addresses this question. In essence this section states that the expenditure of city funds shall be limited to the amount appropriated for each fund in the budget without regard to the individual items contained therein. Another way of paraphrasing this section is that the General Fund and other City funds are adopted at the total fund level; not by department or expenditure category. To facilitate accountability, City departments are given departmental budgets or "spending allotments" to carry out their programs. Overspending of a particular expenditure category is allowed as long as the total departmental expenditures do not exceed the departmental budget. This practice is designed to provide a measure of control over departmental fiscal operations. Under state law, however, overspending can be allowed as long as the total fund remains within its adopted budget. As an example, salary savings within Development Services can legally be used to offset unbudgeted overtime within the Police Department. 2. What transfers can be made without Council consent? Section 35.33.121 states that transfers between individual appropriations within any one fund may be made during the current fiscal year by the order of the city's chief administrative officer subject to such regulations, if any, as may be imposed by the city legislative body. Transfers may be made within the same fund regardless of the various offices, departments or divisions of the city which may be affected. The City Council of Edmonds has not adopted any policies to restrict the authority of the City's chief administrative officer to authorize transfers. The notes to the City's audited annual financial statements reflect the City's current practice regarding transfers and revisions (see Attachment 2). 2. What overspending, if any, is allowed? Attachment 3 is a copy of the ordinance that enacted the City's 2001 budget. Page VII of the ordinance reflects the individual City funds that are adopted at the total fund level in accordance with State law. Legally, overspending at the department level is allowed. In practice, departments are held responsible for managing within their approved departmental budget and only the Mayor is authorized to approve overspending. This issue is also addressed under question 1 above. Supplemental Appropriations Unlike internal fund transfers, supplemental appropriations do increase the total budget within a fund and require Council approval. Each year in June and December, City staff prepares an omnibus budget ordinance to approve supplemental appropriations that the Council has authorized throughout the course of the year. Supplemental appropriations often take the form of authorizing additional expenditures based on the receipt of unanticipated revenues. A supplemental appropriation is also required whenever the Council approves an expenditure from the Council contingency fund. Attachment 4 is a copy of the ordinance that approved the December amendments to the 2000 Budget. Budgets in Cities Over 300,000 ATTACHMENT I35.32A.090 35.32A.090 Budget mandatory —-Other expenditures void —Liability of public officials —Penalty. There shall be no orders, authorizations, allowances, contracts or payments made or attempted to be made in excess of the expenditure allowances authorized in the final budget as adopted or modified as provided in this chapter, and any such attempted excess expenditure shall be void and shall never be the foundation of a claim against the city. Any public official authorizing, auditing, allowing, or paying any claims or demands against the city in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be jointly and severally liable to the city in person and upon their official bonds to the extent of any payments upon such claims or demands. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter, in addition to any other liability or penalty provided therefor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [ 1967 c 7 § 11.] 35.32A.900 Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the budget act for cities over three hundred thousand population. [1967 c 7 § 2.] 35.32A.910 Severability-1967 c 7. If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, is not affected. [1967 c 7 § 12.1 Chapter 35.33 BUDGETS IN SECOND AND THIRD CLASS CITIES, TOWNS, AND FIRST CLASS CITIES UNDER 300,000 Sections 35.33.011 Definitions. 35.33.020 Applicability of chapter. 35.33.031 Budget estimates. 35.33.041 Budget estimates —Classification and segregation. 35.33.051 Budget —Preliminary. 35.33.055 Budget —Preliminary —Filing --Copies. 35.33.057 Budget message —Hearings. 35.33.061 Budget —Notice of hearing on final. 35.33.071 Budget —Final —Hearing. 35.33.075 Budget —Final —Adoption —Appropriations. 35.33.081 Emergency expenditures—Nondebatable emergencies. 35.33.091 Emergency expenditures —Other emergencies —Hearing. 35.31101 Emergency warrants. 35.33.106 Registered warrants —Payment. 35.33.107 Adjustment of wages, hours and conditions of employment. 35.33.111 Forms —Accounting —Supervision by state. 35.33.121 Funds —Limitations on expenditures —Transfers. 35.33.123 Administration, oversight, or supervision of utility — Reimbursement from utility budget authorized. 35.33.125 Liabilities incurred in excess of budget. 35.33.131 Funds received from sale of bonds and warrants — Expenditure program. 35.33.135 Revenue estimates —Amount to be raised by ad valorem 35.33.141 taxes. Report of expenditures and liabilities against budget appro- 35'33.145 priations. Contingency fund —Creation —Purpose —Support —Lapse. 35.33.147 Contingency fund —Withdrawals. 35.33.151 Unexpended appropriations. 35.33.170 Violations and penalties. Budgets expenditures for streets: RCW 35.76.060. leases with or without option to purchase, budget to provide for payment of rentals: RCW 35.42.220. Limitations upon indebtedness: State Constitution Art. 8 .§ 6 (Amendment 27), Art. 7 9 2 (Amendments 55, 59), chapter 39.36 RCW, RCW 84.52.050. 35.33.011 Definitions. Unless the context clearly indi- cates otherwise, the following words as used in this chapter shall have the meaning herein prescribed: (1) "Clerk" as used in this chapter includes the officer performing the functions of a finance or budget director, comptroller, auditor, or by whatever title he may be known in any city or town. (2) "Department" as used in this chapter includes each office, division, service, system or institution of the city or town for which no other statutory or charter provision is made for budgeting and accounting procedures or controls. (3) "Legislative body" as used in this chapter includes council, commission or any other group of officials serving as the legislative body of a city or town. (4) "Chief administrative officer" as used in this chapter includes the mayor of cities or towns having a mayor -council form of government, the commissioners in cities or towns having a commission form of government, the city manager, or any other city or town official designated by the charter or ordinances of such city or town under the plan of govern- ment governing the same, or the budget or finance officer designated by the mayor, manager or commissioners, to perform the functions, or portions thereof, contemplated by this chapter. (5) "Fiscal year" as used in this chapter means that fiscal period set by the city or town pursuant to authority given under RCW 1.16.030. (6) "Fund", as used in this chapter and "funds" where clearly used to indicate the plural of "fund", shall mean the budgeting or accounting entity authorized to provide a sum of money for specified activities or purposes. (7) "Funds" as used in this chapter where not used to indicate the plural of "fund" shall mean money in hand or available for expenditure or payment of a debt or obligation. (8) Except as otherwise defined herein, municipal accounting terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning prescribed by the state auditor pursuant to RCW 43.09.200. [1981 c 40 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 1.1 35.33.020 Applicability of chapter. The provisions of this chapter apply to all cities of the first class that have a population of less than three hundred thousand, to all cities of the second class, and to all towns, except those cities and towns that have adopted an ordinance under RCW 35.34.040 providing for a biennial budget. [t997 c 361 § 14: 1985 c 175 § 4; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 2; 1965 c 7 § 35.33.020. Prior: 1923 c 158 § 8; RRS § 9000-8.] 35.33.031 Budget estimates. On or before the second Monday of the fourth month prior to the beginning of the city's or town's next fiscal vear, or at such other time as the city or town may provide by ordinance or charter, the clerk shall notify in writing the head of each department of a city or town to file with the clerk within fourteen days of the (2000 Ed.) [Title 35 RCW—page 1291 35.31.011 receipt of such notification, detailed estimates of the proba- ble revenue from sources other than ad valorem taxation and of all expenditures required by his or her department for the ensuing fiscal year. The notice shall be accompanied by the proper forms provided by the clerk, prepared in accordance with the requirements and classification established by the state auditor. The clerk shall prepare the estimates for interest and debt redemption requirements and all other estimates, the preparation of which falls properly within the duties of his or her office. The chief administrative officers of the city or town shall submit to the clerk detailed esti- mates of all expenditures proposed to be financed from the proceeds of bonds or warrants not yet authorized, together with a statement of the proposed method of financing them. In the absence or disability of the official or person regularly in charge of a department, the duties herein required shall devolve upon the person next in charge of such department. [1995 c 301 § 39; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 3.1 35.33.041 Budget estimates —Classification and segregation. All estimates of receipts and expenditures for the ensuing year shall be fully detailed in the annual budget and shall be classified and segregated according to a stan- dard classification of accounts to be adopted and prescribed by the state auditor after consultation with the Washington finance officers association, the association of Washington cities and the association of Washington city managers. [1995 c 301 § 40; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 4.1 35.33.055 Budget —Preliminary —Filing —Copies. The chief administrative officer shall prepare the preliminary budget in detail, making any revisions or additions to the reports of the department heads deemed advisable by such chief administrative officer and at least sixty days before the beginning of the city's or town's next fiscal year he shall file it with the clerk as the recommendation of the chief adminis- trative officer for the final budget. The clerk shall provide a sufficient number of copies of such preliminary budget and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefor and have them available for distribution not later than six weeks before the beginning of the city's or town's next fiscal year. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 6.] 35,33.051 Budget —Preliminary. Can or before the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of a city or town or at such other time as the city or town may provide by ordinance or charter, the clerk or other person designated by the charter, by ordi- nances. or by the chief administrative officer of the city or town shall submit to the chief administrative officer a proposed preliminary budget which shall set forth the complete financial program of the city or town for the ensuing fiscal year, showing the expenditure program requested by each department and the sources of revenue by which each such program is proposed to be financed, The revenue section shall set forth in comparative and tabular form for each fund the actual receipts for the last completed fiscal year, the estimated receipts for the current fiscal year and the estimated receipts for the ensuing fiscal year, which shall include the amount to be raised from ad valorem taxes and unencumbered fund balances estimated to be available at the close of the current fiscal year. The expenditure section shall set forth in comparative and tabular form for each fund and every department operating within each fund the actual expenditures for the last completed fiscal year, the appropriations for the current fiscal year and the estimated expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year. The salary or salary range for each office, position or job classification shall be set forth separately together with the title or position designation thereof: PROVIDED, That salaries may be set out in total amounts under each department if a detailed schedule of such salaries and positions be attached to and made a part of the budget document. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 5.] [Title 35 RCW—page 130] 35.33.057 Budget message —Hearings. In every city or town a budget message prepared by or under the direction of the city's or town's chief administrative officer shall be submitted as a part of the preliminary budget to the city's or town's legislative body at least sixty days before the begin- ning of the city's or town's next fiscal year and shall contain the following: (1) An explanation of the budget document; (2) An outline of the recommended financial policies and programs of the city for the ensuing fiscal year; (3) A statement of the relation of the recommended appropriation to such policies and programs; (4) A statement of the reason for salient changes from the previous year in appropriation and revenue items; (5) An explanation for any recommended major changes in financial policy. Prior to the final hearing on the budget, the legislative body or a committee thereof, shall schedule hearings on the budget or parts thereof, and may require the presence .of department heads to give information regarding estimates and programs. t1969 ex,s. c 95 § 7.1 35.33.061 Budget —Notice of hearing on final. Immediately following the filing of the preliminary budget with the clerk, the clerk shall publish a notice once each week for two consecutive weeks stating that the preliminary budget for the ensuing fiscal year has been filed with the clerk; that a copy thereof will be furnished to any taxpayer who will call at the clerk's office therefor and that the legislative body of the city or town will meet on or before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year for the purpose of fixing the final budget, designating the date, time and place of the legislative budget meeting and that any taxpayer may appear thereat and be heard for or against any part of the budget. The publication of the notice shall be made in the official newspaper of the city or town. (1985 c 469 § 27; 1973 c 67 § 2; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 8.1 35.33.071 Budget -Final -Hearing. The council shall meet on the day fixed by RCW 35.33,061 for the purpose of fixing the final budget of the city or town at the time and place designated in the notice thereof. Any taxpayer may appear and be heard for or against any part of the budget. The hearing may be continued from day to day but not later than the twenty-fifth day prior to commence- (2000 Ed.) Budgets in Second and Third Class Cities, Towns, and First Class Cities Under 300,000 35.33.071 ment of the city's or town's fiscal year. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 9.] 35.33.075 Budget —Final —Adoption — Appropriations. Following conclusion of the hearing, and prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the legislative body shall make such adjustments and changes as it .deems necessary or proper and after determining the allowance in each item, department, classification and fund, and shall by ordinance, adopt the budget in its final form and content. Appropriations shall be limited to the total estimated revenues contained therein including the amount to be raised by ad valorem taxes and the unencumbered fund balances estimated to be available at the close of the current fiscal year. Such ordinances may adopt the final budget by reference: PROVIDED, That the ordinance adopting such budget shall set forth in summary form the totals of estimat- ed revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate totals for all such funds combined. A complete copy of the final budget as adopted shall be transmitted to the association of Washington cities. [1995 c 301 § 41; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 10.1 35.33.081 Emergency expenditures—Ni ondebatable emergencies. Upon the happening of any emergency caused by violence of nature, casualty, riot, insurrection, war, or other unanticipated occurrence requiring the immediate preservation of order or public health. or for the restoration to a condition of usefulness of any public property which has been damaged or destroyed by accident, or for public relief from calamity, or in settlement of approved claims For personal injuries or property damages, or to meet mandatory expenditures required by laws enacted since the last annual budget was adopted, or to cover expenses incident to pre- paring for or establishing a new forth of government authorized or assumed after adoption of the current budget. including any expenses incident to selection of additional or new officials required thereby. or incident to employee recruitment at any time, the city or town legislative body, upon the adoption of an ordinance. by the vote of one more than the majority of ail members of the legislative body, stating the facts constituting the emergency and the estimated amount required to meet it, may make the expenditures therefor without notice or hearing. [ 1969 ex.s. c 95 § l L.] 35.33.091 Emergency expenditures —Other emer- gencies —Hearing. If a public emergency which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of filing the preliminary budget requires the expenditure of money not provided for in the annual budget, and if it is not one of the emergencies specifically enumerated in RCW 35.33.081, the city or town legislative body before allowing any expendi- ture therefor shall adopt an ordinance stating the facts constituting the emergency and the estimated amount required to meet it and declaring that an emergency exists. Such ordinance shall not be voted on until five days have elapsed after its introduction, and for passage shall require the vote of one more than the majority of all mem- bers of the legislative body of the city or town. Any taxpayer may appear at the meeting at which the emergency ordinance is to be voted on and be heard for or against the adoption thereof. [ I969 ex.s. c 95 § 12.1 35.33.101 Emergency warrants. All expenditures for emergency purposes as provided in this chapter shall be paid by warrants from any available money in the fund properly chargeable with such expenditures. If, at any time, there is insufficient money on hand in a fund with which to pay such warrants as presented, the warrants shall be registered, bear interest and be called in the same manner as other registered warrants as prescribed in RCW 35.33.111. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 13.1 Warrants —Interest rate —Payment: RCW 35.21.320. 35.33.106 Registered warrants —Payment. In adopting the final budget for any fiscal year, the legislative body shall appropriate from estimated revenue sources available, a sufficient amount to pay the principal and interest on all outstanding registered warrants issued since the adoption of the last preceding budget except those issued and identified as revenue warrants and except those for which an appropriation previously has been made: PRO- VIDED, That no portion of the revenues which are restricted in use by law may be appropriated for the redemption of warrants issued against a utility or other special purpose fund of a self-supporting nature: PROVIDED FURTHER, That all or any portion of the city's or town's outstanding registered warrants may be funded into bonds in any manner authorized by law. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 1.4.1 35.33.107 AdjustRt nt of wages, hours and condi- tions of employment. Notwithstanding the appropriations for any salary, or salary range of any employee or employ- ces adopted in a final budget, the legislative body of any city or town may, by ordinance, change the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of any or all of its appointive employees if sufficient funds are available for appropriation to such purposes. [1969 ex.s. a 95 § 15.] 35.33.111 Forms —Accounting —Supervision by state. The state auditor is empowered to make and install the forms and classifications required by this chapter to define what expenditures are chargeable to each budget class and to establish the accounting and cost systems necessary to secure accurate budget information. [1995 c 301 § 42; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 16.] 35.33.121 Funds —Limitations on expenditures — Transfers. The expenditures as classified and itemized in the final budget shall constitute the city's or town's appropri- ations for the ensuing fiscal year. Unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. and subject to further limitations imposed by ordinance of the city or town, the expenditure of city or town funds or the incurring of current liabilities on behalf of the city or town shall he limited to the following: (1) The total amount appropriated for each fund in the budget for the current fiscal year, without regard to the individual items contained therein. except that this Iimitation [Title 35 RCW-page 1311 JJ.JJ.11l Title 35 RCW: Cities and Towns shall not apply to wage adjustments authorized by RCW 35.33.107; and (2) The unexpended appropriation balances of a preced- ing budget which may be carried forward from prior fiscal years pursuant to RCW 35.33.151; and (3) Funds received from the sale of bonds or warrants which have been duly authorized according to law; and (4) Funds received in excess of estimated revenues during the current fiscal year, when authorized by an ordinance amending the original budget; and (5) Expenditures required for emergencies, as authorized in RCW 35.33.081 and 35.33.091. Transfers between individual appropriations within any one fund may be trade during the current fiscal year by order of the city's or town's chief administrative officer subject to such regulations, if any, as may be imposed by the city or town legislative body. Notwithstanding the provi- sions of RCW 43.09.210 or of any statute to the contrary, transfers, as herein authorized. may be made within the same fund regardless of the various offices, departments or divisions of the city or town which may be affected. The city or town Iegislative body, upon a finding that it is to the best interests of the city or town to decrease, revoke or recall all or any portion of the total appropriations provided for any one fund, may, by ordinance, approved by the vote of one more than the majority of all members thereof. stating the facts and findings for doing so, decrease, revoke or recall all or any portion of an unexpended fund balance, and by said ordinance, or a subsequent ordinance adopted by a like majority, the moneys thus released may be reappropriated for another purpose or purposes, without limitation to department, division or fund, unless the use of such moneys is otherwise restricted by law, charter, or ordinance. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 17.] 35.33.123 Administration, oversight, or supervision of utility —Reimbursement from utility budget autho- rized. Whenever any city or town apportions a percentage of the city manager's, administrator's, or supervisor's time, or the time of other management or general government staff, for administration, oversight, or supervision of a utility operated by the city or town, or to provide services to the utility, the utility budget may identify such services and budget for reimbursement of the city's or town's current ex- pense fund for the value of such services. [1991 c 152 § 1.] 35.33.125 Liabilities incurred in excess of budget. Liabilities incurred by any officer or employee of the city or town in excess of any budget appropriations shall not be a liability of the city or town. The clerk shall issue no warrant and the city or town legislative body or other authorized person shall approve no claim for an expenditure in excess of the total amount appropriated for any individual fund, except upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or for emergencies as provided in this chapter. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 18.1 35.33.131 Funds received from sale of bonds and warrants —Expenditure program. Moneys received from the sale of bonds or warrants shall be used for no other purpose than that for which they were issued and no expen- diture shall be made for that purpose until the bonds have been duly authorized. If any unexpended fund balance remains from the proceeds realized from the bonds or warrants after the accomplishment of the purpose for which they were issued it shall be used for the redemption of such bond or warrant indebtedness. Where a budget contains an expenditure program to be financed from a bond issue to he authorized thereafter, no such expenditure shall be made or incurred until after the bonds have been duly authorized, [I969 ex.s. c 95 § 19.] 35.33.135 Revenue estimates —Amount to be raised by ad valorem taxes. At a time fixed by the city's or town's .ordinance or city charter, not later than the first Monday in October of each year, the chief administrative officer shall provide the city's or town's legislative body with current information on estimates of revenues from all sources as adopted in the budget for the current year, together with estimates submitted by the clerk under RCW 35.33.051. The city's or town's legislative body and the city's or town's administrative officer or his designated representative shall consider the city's or town's total anticipated financial requirements for the ensuing fiscal year, and the legislative body shall determine and fix by ordinance the amount to be raised by ad valorem taxes. Upon adoption of the ordinance fixing the amount of ad valorem taxes to be levied, the clerk shall certify the same to the board of county con ntissioners as required by RCW 84.52.020. [1969 ex,s. c 95 § 20.] 35.33.141 Report of expenditures and liabilities against budget appropriations. At such intervals as may be required by city charter or city or town ordinance, however, being not less than quarterly, the clerk shall submit to the city's or town's legislative body and chief administra- tive officer a report showing the expenditures and liabilities against each separate budget appropriation incurred during the preceding reporting period and like information for the whole of the current fiscal year to the first day of the current reporting period together with the unexpended balance of each appropriation. The report shall also show the receipts from all sources. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 21.] 35.33.145 Contingency fbnd---Creation—Purpose-- Support—Lapse. Every city or town may create and maintain a contingency fund to provide moneys with which to meet any municipal expense, the necessity or extent of which could not have been foreseen or reasonably evaluated at the time of adopting the annual budget, or from which to provide moneys for those emergencies described in RCW 35.33.081 and 35.33.091. Such fund may be supported by a budget appropriation from any tax or other revenue source not restricted in use by law, or also may be supported by a transfer from other unexpended or decreased funds made available by ordinance as set forth in RCW 35.33.121: PROVIDED, That the total amount accumulated in such fund at any time shall not exceed the equivalent of thirty-seven and one-half cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation of property within the city or town at such time. Any moneys in the contingency fund at the end of the fiscal year shall not lapse except upon reappropriation by the council to [Title 35 RCW-page 1321 (2000 ECL) Budgets in Second and Third Class Cities, Towns, and First Class Cities Under 300,000 35.33.145 another fund in the adoption of a subsequent budget. [1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 21; 1969 ex.s. c 95 § 22.] Severability—Effective dates—Construction-1973 1st exs. c 195: See notes following RCW 84.52,043. 35.33.147 Contingency fund —Withdrawals. No money shall be withdrawn from the contingency fund except by transfer to the appropriate operating fund authorized by a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the city or town, adopted by a majority vote of the entire legislative body, clearly stating the facts constituting the reason for the withdrawal or the emergency as the case may be, specifying the fund to which the withdrawn money shall be transferred. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 23.] 35.33.151 Unexpended appropriations. All appropri- ations in any current operating fund shall lapse at the end of each fiscal year: PROVIDED, That this shall not prevent payments in the following year upon uncompleted programs or improvements in progress or on orders subsequently filled or claims subsequently billed for the purchase of material, equipment and supplies or for personal or contractual services not completed or furnished by the end of the fiscal year, all of which have been properly budgeted and contract- ed for prior to the close of such fiscal year but furnished or completed in due course thereafter. All appropriations in a special fund authorized by ordinance or by state law to be used only for the purpose or purposes therein specified, including any cumulative reserve funds lawfully established in specific or general terms for any municipal purpose or purposes, or a contingency fund as authorized by RCW 35.33.145, shall not lapse, but shall be carried forward from year to year until fully expended or the purpose has been accomplished or abandoned, without ne- cessity of reappropriation. The accounts for budgetary control for each fiscal year shall be kept open for twenty days after the close of such fiscal year for the purpose of paying and recording claims for indebtedness incurred during such fiscal year; any claim presented after the twentieth day following the close of the fiscal year shall be paid from appropriations lawfully provided for the ensuing period, including those made available by provisions of this section, and shall be recorded in the accounts for the ensuing fiscal year. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 24.] 35.33.170 Violations and penalties. Upon the conviction of any city or town official, department head or other city or town employee of knowingly failing, or refusing, without just cause, to perform any duty imposed upon such officer or employee by this chapter, or city charter or city or town ordinance, in connection with the giving of notice, the preparing and filing of estimates of revenues or expenditures or other information required for preparing a budget report in the time and manner required, or of knowingly making expenditures in excess of budget appropriations, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be lined not more than five hundred dollars for each separate violation. [1969 ex.s. c 95 § 25.] Chapter 35.34 BIENNIAL BUDGETS Sections 35.34.010 Legislative intent. 35.34.020 Application of chapter. 35.34.030 Definitions. 35.34.040 Biennial budget authorized —Limitations. 35.34.050 Budget estimates —Submittal. 35.34.060 Budget estimates —Classification and segregation. 35.34.070 Proposed preliminary budget. 35.34.080 Preliminary budget. 35.34.090 Budget message —Hearings. 35.34.100 Budget —Notice of hearing. 35.34.110 Budget —Hearing. 35.34.120 Budget —Adoption. 35.34.130 Budget —Mid -biennial review and modification. 35.34.140 Emergency expenditures—Nondebatable emergencies. 35.34.150 Emergency expenditures —Other emergencies —Hearing. 35.34.160 Emergency expenditures —Warrants —Payment. 35.34.170 Registered warrants —Payment. 35.34.180 Adjustment of wages, hours, and conditions of employment. 35.34.190 Forms —Accounting —Supervision by state. 35.34.200 Funds —Limitations on expenditures —Transfers and adjust- ments. 35.34.205 Administration, oversight, or supervision of utility — Reimbursement from utility budget authorized. 35.34.210 Liabilities incurred in excess of budget. 35.34.220 Funds received from sales of bonds and warrants — Expenditures. 35.34.230 Revenue estimates —Amount to be raised by ad valorem taxes. 35.34.240 Funds —Quarterly report of status. 35.34.250 Contingency fund —Creation. 35.34.260 Contingency fund —Withdrawals. 35.34.270 Unexpended appropriations. 35.34.280 Violations and penalties. 35.34.010 Legislative intent. The legislature hereby recognizes that the development and adoption of a budget by a city or town is a lengthy and intense process designed to provide adequate opportunities for public input and sufficient time for deliberation and enactment by the legislative authority. The legislature also recognizes that there are limited amounts of time available and that time committed for budgetary action reduces opportunities for deliberating other issues. It is, therefore, the intent of the legislature to authorize cities and towns to establish by ordinance a biennial budget and to provide the means for modification of such budget. This chapter and chapter 35A.34 RCW shall be known as the municipal biennial budget act. [1985 c 175 § 1.] 35.34.020 Application of chapter. This chapter applies to all cities of the first and second classes and to all towns, that have by ordinance adopted this chapter authoriz- ing the adoption of a fiscal biennium budget. [1997 c 361 § 15; 1985 c 175 § 5.1 35.34.030 Definitions. Unless the context clearly indi- cates otherwise, the definitions in this section apply through- out this chapter. (1) "Clerk" includes the officer performing the functions of a finance or budget director, comptroller, auditor, or by whatever title the officer may be known in any city or town. However, for cities over three hundred thousand. "clerk" (2000 Ed.) [Title 35 RCW—page 1331 CITY OF EDMONDS ATTACHMENT 2 Notes to Financial Statements Year Ended December 31, 199 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund — account for long-term care and maintenance of the City cemetery. Expendable Trust and Agency Funds — account for the collection of private and public funds limited to specific uses. Pension and nonexpendable trust funds are accounted for in essentially the same manner as proprietary funds. Expendable trust funds are accounted for in essentially the same manner as governmental funds. Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not measure results of operations. Account Groups Account Groups establish accounting control over the City's general fixed assets and general long-term debt. The City uses the following account groups: General Fixed Assets — accounts for all City fixed assets, other than those accounted for in proprietary funds. General Long -Term Debt — accounts for the City's long-term debt, except the debt accounted for in proprietary funds. Comparative Data To help understand changes in the City's financial position and operations, prior year comparative total data is presented in the accompanying financial statements. Comparative data is not presented by fund type, however, in order to keep the statements easily understood. Total Columns on Combined Statements Combined statements include total columns to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position, operations results, or cash flows reporting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The data is also not comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations are not made in the aggregation of these data. Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to recognition of revenues and expenditures or expenses in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Modified Accrual The modified accrual accounting method is followed in all government funds, expendable trust, and agency funds. This method records revenues when susceptible to accrual, i.e., both measurable and available (available meaning collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay current liabilities). Specific major revenue sources subject to accrual are discussed below. The portion of year-end property tax receivables received in January and February for the prior year's levy are recorded as revenue. The remaining balance is not normally expected to be collected within 60 days after the current period, so it is reported as deferred revenue. Revenues from cost reimbursement grants are considered earned and therefore available when the expenditure is incurred, in accordance with NCGA Statement 2. Because they generally are not measurable until received, revenue sources not considered to meet the measurable and available criteria for revenue recognition include licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, and other miscellaneous revenues. Under the modified accrual basis, expenditures are recorded when the fund liability is incurred, except for principal and interest on general long-term debt, which are recorded when due. Fixed asset purchases out of government funds are treated as expenditures during the year incurred and the asset is capitalized in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. Long-term liabilities, including vacation pay not currently due and payable, are accounted for in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group, except for long-term liabilities accounted for in the proprietary funds. Accrual The accrual basis of accounting is used for proprietary funds, non -expendable, and pension trust funds. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred„ Combined Water/Sewer/Drainage Utility revenues are based on service rates authorized by the City Council and collected via monthly customer billings. Earned but unbilled revenues at year end are accrued and reported in the financial statements. Fixed asset purchases are capitalized, and long-term liabilities are accounted for in the appropriate funds. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting The City of Edmonds budgets its funds in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A.33. In compliance with the code, annual appropriated budgets are adopted for General, Special Revenue, and Capital Projects Funds. The budget process steps are: 1) prior to November 1, the Mayor submits a proposed budget to the City Council. It is based on Council -established priorities and estimates provided by City departments during the preceding months, and balanced with revenue estimates made by the Mayor; 2) the City Council conducts public hearings on the proposed budget in November and December; 3) the Council makes its adjustments to the proposed budget and adopts by ordinance a final balanced budget no later than December 31; 4) the final operating budget as adopted is 17 P: Reports: CA FR:99CAFR:No test m CITY OF EDMONDS (Votes to Financial Statements Year Ended December 39 1999 published and distributed by February of the next year. Limited copies of the budget book are available to the public. Transfers or revisions within funds are allowed, but only the City Council can increase or decrease a fund's annual budget, which is done by City ordinance. Amounts presented in the basic financial statements include original amounts after all transfers and adjustments are approved by the City Council. Annual appropriated budgets are adopted at the fund level. Subsidiary revenue and expenditure ledgers are used to compare budgeted amounts with actual revenues and expenditures. As a management control device, subsidiary ledgers monitor expenditures for individual functions and activities by object class. Unexpended appropriations lapse at the fiscal year-end. Budgetary accounts are integrated in fund ledgers for all budgeted funds, but financial statements include budget comparisons for annually -budgeted government funds only. The budgetary basis is substantially the same as the accounting basis in all governmental fund types. Proprietary and Trust Fund budgets are "management budgets" and are not legally required to be reported. Debt service for general obligations is budgeted within the General Fund. Encumbrances The City's accounting system provides for encumbrances; however, this feature was not used during 1999. Assets Liabilities and Funs! E ui Cash and Equity in Pooled Investments The City's investments in the State's Local Government Investment Pool are reported as equity in pooled investments on the Combined Balance Sheet. For the Statement of Cash Flows, all proprietary fund types and similar trust funds consider highly -liquid investments (including restricted assets) with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Investments The City of Edmonds invests all short-term cash surpluses. An Investment Suspense Fund accounts for residual investments and earnings are allocated to various funds based on average monthly cash balances. Investments are also held separately by several funds with interest earned directly for the benefit of each fund. Investments are reported on financial statements at fair value. Washington State statutes allow the City to hold investments consisting of federal government obligations, repurchase agreements, prime banker's acceptances, and time certificates of deposit issued by Washington State depositories that participate in the Washington State Public Depository Protection Pool (PDPP). The PDPP is a multiple of financial institutions' collateral pool administered by the Washington Public Deposit Protection Commission. Additional deposit and investment information is presented in Note 3. Inventories Inventories reported in proprietary funds are valued at average cost, which approximates market value. Government funds use the first in/first out method, and inventory items are recorded as expenditures when consumed instead of when purchased. A physical, year- end inventory is taken of all items. Property Taxes Receivable The County Treasurer collects annual property taxes levied in the county for all taxing authorities. Taxes are levied on January 1 for property value listed as of May 31 The County Assessor establishes assessed values at 100 percent of fair market value. All property is re-evaluated every four years. Property taxes levied by the County Assessor and collected by the County Treasurer become a lien on the first day of the levy year and may be paid in two equal payments if the total exceeds $10. The first half is due on April 30 and the balance is due October 31. Delinquent taxes bear interest at 12 percent and are subject to additional penalties if not paid as scheduled. At year end, property taxes are recorded as a receivable, with the portion not expected to be collected within 60 days offset by a deferred revenue. During the year, property tax revenues are recognized when cash is received. The tax rate for general City operations is limited to $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. State law also provides that the City's operating levy may not exceed 106 percent of the largest single levy of the past three years. The State Constitution provides that the total of all taxes upon real and personal property by the State and all taxing entities, including the City, shall not in any year exceed one percent ($10 per thousand dollars) of the true and fair monetary value of such property, This limitation may be exceeded with voter approval of 60 percent at an election in which the total vote exceeds 40 percent of the votes cast at the preceding general election. In 1999, the City's general tax levy was $2.212 per $1,000 on a total assessed valuation of $2,841,059,132. In addition, there was a special levy of $.50 for Emergency Medical Services and $.272 for the 1996 Public Safety 18 P:Reports: CAFR:99CAFR:Notes2 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO.3336 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY REVENUE REPORTS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of 2001, the City Clerk submitted to the Mayor the estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2001, filed the said revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as recommendation for the final budget, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a pubic hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law, and WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs, and WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on October 24, 2000 which was on or before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for or against any part of said budget, and ME WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The final budget for the fiscal year 2001, a copy of which has been and now is on file with the office of the City Clerk, by this reference is hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full and said final budget shall be and the same is hereby adopted in full. Section 2. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Administrative Services Director is authorized to include year-end cash balances in the final budget as determined at the close of the fiscal year. Sg&tion 3. A complete copy of the final budget for 2001, as adopted, together with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 4. The Mayor or his designee is hereby requested and required as a condition of approval of the 2001 budget and future annual budgets to prepare monthly a report for the City Council detailing monthly revenue receipts and the effect, if any, on annual revenue projections approved in the annual budget. This report shall conform to the City Council designated format established in 1994. -2- e do . This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect January 1, 2001. APPROVED: MA OR, Y HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: -de e4-'� CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF nCI ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITYk&TORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 11/24/2000 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 11/28/2000 PUBLISHED: 12/04/2000 EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/01/2001 ORDINANCE NO. 3336 -3- EXHIBIT A BUDGET SUMMARY 2001 2001 2001 FUND FUND BEGINNING + REVENUE - EXPENDITURES = ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 General Fund $2,308,360 $22,121,950 $23,229,190 $1,201,120 002 Cumulative Reserve/Gen. Fund 250,000 12,000 12,000 250,000 005 Fire Apparatus Reserve Fund 379,000 164,000 472,800 70,200 006 Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 1,459,000 135,000 0 1,594,000 007 Criminal Justice Activity Fund 408,300 576,890 497,690 487,500 008 Travel/Training & Equipment Fund 3,600 209,080 209,080 3,600 009 LEOFF-Medical Insurance Reserve Fund 218,000 13,500 0 231,500 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 65,550 47,670 61,760 51,460 111 Street Fund 208,160 930,880 1,071,270 67,770 112 Combined Street Const./Imprv. Fund 1,755,030 1,554,500 2,142,380 1,167,150 113 Multimodal Transportation Fund 4,840 136,660 141,500 0 114 Street Beautification Fund 12,600 800 3,000 10,400 115 Underground Wiring Fund 90 0 0 90 116 Building Maintenance Fund 101,000 101,000 194,000 8,000 117 Municipal Arts Fund 55,580 60,010 55,860 59,730 118 Memorial Street Tree Fund 13,320 1,200 1,000 13,520 119 Council Contingency Fund 791,970 200,000 136,600 855,370 '20 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 36,800 69,200 68,900 37,100 21 Employee Parking Permit Fund 33,500 9,500 1,000 42,000 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 9,050 2,320 4,000 7,370 123 Tourism Arts Comm. Promotional Fund 27,310 16,800 Y 28,900 15,210 124 Off Street Parking Fund 130,000 10,000 4,000 136,000 125 Park Acquisition/Improvement Fund 1,230,700 1,680,000 2,856,000 54,700 126 Special Capital Fund 633,440 753,560 411,280 975,720 127 Gift Catalog Fund 89,900 27,100 18,000 99,000 130 Cemetery Improvement Fund 305,580 152,000 434,330 23,250 131 Fire Donations Fund 10,200 500 500 10,200 325 Capital Improvement Fund 1,599,000 20,000 1,558,000 61,000 326 Public Safety Building Construction Fund 1,570,580 834,000 2,404,580 0 411 Combined Utility Operation Fund 1,957,240 9,773,980 11,139,680 591,540 412 Combined Utility Const./Imprv. Fund 1,458,000 1,070,000 1,966,000 562,000 413 Combined Utility Bond Reserve Fund 1,723,870 1,514,680 1,498,070 1,740,480 414 Capital Improvements Reserve 1,616,830 380,510 590,000 1,407,340 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,836,140 1,248,000 1,157,150 1,926,990 520 Self -Insurance Medical Fund 20,000 0 20,000 0 610 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 449,700 28,500 0 478,200 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 462,200 41,000 62,000 441,200 621 Special Library Fund 8,910 460 200 9,170 623 Sister City Commission Fund 9,380 25.700 27,020 8.060 TOTALS $23,252,730 $43,922,950 $52,477,740 $14,697,940 VII P:\BU0GET\EXPENSE\2000\0rd3336 Exhibit A -As SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3336 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 28th day of November, 2000, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3336. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY REVENUE REPORTS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 29`h day of November, 2000. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, I 4 COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, )r The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says F; PRY' F I - principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper a t e ultya monde,•. ton On thr:281h Day of November, 2000. the City Counoll of the City al Edmands,.passed Ordinance No Published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, 3338- A•aumrrlary of the content of said ordinance; wnslstInggol the title, provides as Follows: AN•ORDIN NGE OF THE CITY OF- EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO' THE - Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of 13UMET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY i,, 200i1- PROVIDING FOR M014THLY REVENUE REPORTS ANO FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. = lation in said County and State; that said newspaper The full lem of this Ordinance will be.ma0ed upon request. DATED this 29th day of November, 2.QW. CITY CLERK, SANDRA=S. CHASE roved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior BUDGET SUMMARY EXHIBIT'W,. -iomish County and that the notice.. ...... ...... ............... 2001 r„ FUND FUND BEGINNING +REVENUE -EXPENDITURES= ENDING ry of Ordinance #3336.•___•••_...... •__-••••,•.••..•...••••. .............................. No, DESCRIPTION CASH CASH : ........... 00 aneral rund ,30a,35 .121.950 $23.229,190 S1110i,no 002 Cumulalive Reserve/ Gen, Fund 250,000 12,000 •r2,000 25o;okf of Edmonds 005 Fire . I Fund ❑paratus Reserve................................................................... 379,000 164.000 472,800 70;200: 006 Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 1,459,000 135,000 0 1,594;D60: 007 Criminal Justice................................................................................. ACSivily Fund 408,300 576,890 497,690 487.500.. 008 Travel/Training & y of which is hereunto attached, was published in said Evvut meal Fund 3,600 209,080 209,080 3,606"- oos Resew Fund l insurance o er and not in supplement form, in the regular and Reserve Fund 218,000 13,500• 0 231,500 p pp 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 65,550 47670 61.760. 51460 111 Street Fund 208,160 930:880 1,071.270 97:77V of said paper on the following days and times, namely: 112. Cam111ned SimaL ConstJ ", Imprv. Fund-1,755,030 1,554;500 2.142.380 1.167,150.- 113: Muldmodal Transponalton Fund 4,940 136,660 :, 141.500 a- ber 4 2 114 re at Beautilical[on Fund 12,600 800 :�, 3,000 10,400i; , - .000 . ....... .................. .................................................. 11 F lorgroune Wiring Fund. 90 0 0 90• 11 .dingMaintenancaFund 101,000 101,000 194;000 8,000k- 11 i nicipal Arta Fund 55,580 80,Q10 55,860- 58.730- 11E Memarlal SUM Tree Fund 13.32Q 1,200 .1;ow 13.520-t,..:.......-- .............................. 118 Council Conlingency Fund 797:870 2D0,000 138;600 855;370`---------- *-•-•-•--•.-.----••-•--�•- - 120 1-totelfMD101 Tax Fund 38,800 69,200 88;900 37,100 121 Employee Parking Permit - - nCWSpap was re _ 1 rly distrtb tied to its subscribers 1 Fund 33,500 9,500 1.000 42,000. 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 9:050 2:320 4.000 7.370 said period. 123 Tourism Arts Comm. PromoWal Fund 27,310 16,800 28.900 15,21V 124 O1r Street Parking Fund 130,000 10.000 4,000. 13%000- 125 Park Acquisition) - _ _ � . ......... ..................................... Improvement Fund 1,230,700 1.680,000 2,858,0W 94.700 .............. Principal Clerk 126 Special Capital Fund 633,440 753,560 411,280 975:720t. 127 Gift Catalog Fund 89,900 27,100 18,000 99;000: 130 Cemetery Improvement - Fire 310,200 1sz,500 g34,5W 23,2N''- Subscribed and sworn to before me this..............4th 131 Fire Danalipns.Fufld 10,200 500 SQQ 10;2 ............................ 325 Capital Improvement Fund 1,599,000 20,000 1,558,000 (molxi- 326 Public Safety Building ConslruClionFund 1,570,580 834,000. 2.40458Q ?aQi1 D e c e be-C'+ 20. 00 411 Combined UtHity Operallan tl....... .. ..... ................................... Fund 1,957,240 9,773.980 1 t,139.680 591.540;,k 412 Combined UtiIity Constl lmprv.. Fund 1,458,000 1,070.000 1,968.000 562.000L / 413 Combined Utility Bond - --Y� ...... .. :.. _ 4 .[-.-.......L...................................... Capital Improvements 1,723,870 1,514,500 1,498,070 1,740;g8011 Notary $,�T! �C F the State of Washington, 414 Reserve - f Reserve 1,616,830 380,510 590,0W 1,407,3W.. �: h Count 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,836,140 1,248,000 1.157,150 1,928;88Q TeSid1 a `NSe i rr y' 520 Self-lnsurenCemedical ► tl ¢` r Fund 20.000 0 20,000 0 : p� fQ 610 Cemetery Maintenance TAAY Fund 449.700 28.500 0 478,200. to 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 462.200 44.000 62,000 441,200�: 621 Siei.Library Fund B.910 460 200 9,170 N 523 FundSrFarCily Cammission 9.380 25.700 �27.oao s:osn� - :.� PUBLIC TOTALS $23,252,730 $43,922,950 $52.477,740 S14,897,94pr t.�! published: December4, 2000. ��r' a %• 19 •2a��ti Offi SASH;; :►`• ECG DEC 0 7 2000 8-2- 1 EDMONDS OIT y (.%t.EMK ATTACHMENT 4 0006.030.003A WSS/gjz '06/00 ORDINANCE NO.3341 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3284 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, it has been a practice to consolidate these actions into a mid -year ordinance and a year-end ordinance, instead of adopting an ordinance each time the City Council takes action; NOW, iEREFORE, FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS Section I. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3284 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2000 is hereby amended to reflect the following changes: A. General Fund #001 — Increase Interfund Transfer revenues from the Council Contingency Fund #119 by $43,370, from the Criminal Justice Fund #007 by $121,000 and by $7,500 from the City Enterprise Fund #128. Increase Fire Training revenues by $12,430 and Parks and Recreation Program revenues by $25,000, increase Utility Tax revenues by $251,500 and increase Sales Tax Revenues by $327,500: 1. V — Increase appropriations by $23,370 for Salaries and Benefits due to the L5 and Mayor Salary ordinances. 2. N=_-Departmental Division — Increase appropriations for Interfund Transfers to the Council Contingency Fund #119 by $300,000 for Contingency Reserves, by $150,000 to the Medical Self - Insurance Fund #520 for residual medical claims, by $20,000 for Network Upgrade and by $107,500 for Library Services. (W SS460637. DOC;1 /00006900000/) -1- 3.ligg Department — Increase appropriations by $29,000 for the purchase of the PRISim firearms training system and by $60,000 for Salaries and $61,000 for Overtime due to unbudgeted salaries and overtime. 4. i e e rtm t — Increase appropriations by $6,430 for Overtime for fire training class instructor and by $6,000 for unfunded portion of B Fund/vehicle replacement. 5. P t' — Increase appropriations by $25,000 for Professional Services. B. Fire Apparatus Reserve Fund #005 — Increase appropriations and decrease Ending Cash by $22,000 for Ladder Truck Small Equipment and Supplies. C. C-fiminal Justice Fund # 07 — Increase appropriations by $121,000 for Interfund Transfers to the General Fund 9001 and by $40,000 for the purchase of the PRISim firearms training system. Decrease Ending Cash by $161,000 for said transfers and purchase. D. Enforcement Fund + 04 — Increase appropriations and decrease Ending Cash by $30,000 for the purchase of the PRISim firearms training system E. ciI nt' i - Increase Interfund Transfer revenue from the General Fund #001 by $300,000. Increase Interfund Transfers to the Combined Utility Fund #411 by $1,100 and to the Public Safety Building Construction Fund #326 by $58,000 and by $43,370 to the General Fund. Increase Ending Cash by $205,530 for said transfers. F. 1 vee Parking Permit Fund #121 — Increase appropriations and decrease Ending Cash by $200 for Supplies of parking permits and signs. G. i t u — Increase appropriations by $7,500 for Interfund Transfer to the General Fund #001 to eliminate this fund. Decrease Ending Cash by $7,500 for said transfer. H. PubIic Safetv Bufldingegnstruction — Increase Interfund Transfer revenues from the Council Contingency Fund #119 by $58,000 and increase appropriations for Equipment by $58,000. I. Cumbincd Utility Fund 9411 — Increase Meter Water Sales by $182,440 and Interfund Transfer revenues from the Council Contingency Fund #119 by $1,100. Increase appropriations for Water Purchase for Resale by $182,440 and Salaries and Benefits by $1,100 due to the L5 Salary ordinance. J. Equipment Rental Fund #511 — Increase appropriations and decrease Ending Cash by $40,000 for Fuel Purchased due to higher fuel costs. K. —Medical Self-In5urance Fund 2 — Increase Interfund Transfer revenues from the General Fund 4001 and appropriations by $150,000 for Benefit payments. L. F — Increase appropriations and decrease Ending Cash by $30,640 for the Pension and Benefits retiree retroactive pay adjustments. M. Special Library Fund #621 — Increase appropriations and decrease Ending Cash by $150 for Professional Services. ( W SS460637.DOC;1 /00006.900000/) -2- Segtion 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVE : MAYOR GARS AAKENS ON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : '-f. t a�- ��. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF TH T TT Y: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 12/08/2000 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 12/12/2000 PUBLISHED: 12/ 17/2000 EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/22/2000 ORDINANCE NO. 3341 { WSS460637.DOC;1 /00006.900000/ } -3- ti 1 EXHIBIT A BUDGET SUMMARY 2000 2000 2000 FUND FUND BEGINNING + REVENUE - EXPENDITURES= ENDING DESCRIPTION CASH _ _ CASH 001 General Fund $1,528,700 $21,754,390 $22,563,280 $719,810 002 Cumulative Reserve/Gen. Fund 236,350 0 0 236,350 005 Fire Apparatus Reserve 517,200 131,000 282,320 365,880 006 Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 1,333,900 150,000 0 1,483,900 007 Criminal Justice Activity Fund 343,100 510,740 686,540 167,300 008 Travel/Training & Equipment Fund 3,800 146,620 146,620 3,800 009 LEOFF-Medical'Insurance Reserve Fund 204,500 10,000 0 214,500 019 Community Request Grants Fund 0 0 0 0 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 50,350 47,670 87,350 10,670 111 Street Fund 346,850 914,720 1,087,940 173,630 112 Combined Street Const./Imprv. Fund 2,059,500 757,000 2,005,120 811,380 113 Multimodal Transportation Fund 48,680 516,310 535,000 29,990 114 Street Beautification Fund 11,850 500 0 12,350 115 Underground Wiring Fund 90 0 0 90 116 Building Maintenance Fund 218,800 58,040 202,040 74,800 117 Municipal Arts Fund 134,000 60,990 145,070 49,920 118 Memorial Street Tree Fund 12,650 1,000 1,000 12,650 119 Council Contingency Fund 121,250 600,000 151,800 569,450 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 39,600 61,240 69,500 31,340 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 24,950 4,500 700 28,750 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 10,050 5,000 5,000 10,050 123 Tourism Arts Comm. Promotional Fund 21,200 17,100 24,050 14,250 124 Off Street Parking Fund 124,100 38,000 93,600 68,500 125 Park Acquisition/Improvement Fund 1,356,800 743,000 1,485,500 614,300 126 Special Capital Fund 490,750 730,000 559,560 661,190 127 Gift Catalog Fund 95,550 22,250 19,000 98,800 128 City Enterprise Fund 7,500 0 7,500 0 130 Cemetery Improvement Fund 267,850 137,800 340,920 64,730 325 Capital Improvement Fund 2,708,260 81,250 2,678,000 111,510 326 Public Safety Building Construction Fund 2,744,400 1,113,480 3,322,840 535,040 411 Combined Utility Operation Fund 2,528,000 9,669,420 10,311,830 1,885,590 412 Combined Utility Const./Imprv. Fund 1,429,200 1,105,000 1,846,000 688,200 413 Combined Utility Bond Reserve Fund 1,734,500 1,614,980 1,625,610 1,723,870 414 Capital Improvements Reserve 1,322,000 658,000 665,000 1,315,000 511 Equipment Rental Fund 2,066,400 802,000 1,075,920 1,792,480 520 Self -Insurance Medical Fund 387,700 1,938,960 1,895,200 431,460 610 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 409,100 26,300 0 435,400 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 517,650 52,000 59,640 510,010 621 Special Library Fund 8,750 390 150 8,990 623 Sister City Commission Fund 10,350 26,650 312200 5,800 TOTALS $25.476,230 $44,506,300 $54,010,800 $15,971,730 VII PASUDGETEXPENSM200MEWaOa As SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3341 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 12th day of December, 2000, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3341. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3284 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 13th day of December, 2000. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE { WSS460637. DOC;1 /00006.900000/} -4- f �� Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, rs COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. On the 12th day of December, 2000;.itte City;Council of Iha,Cityot Edmonds, passed Ordinence No. 1341- A-sutnmary of the content o1•saki dWinance..conelsen Of the lltla;.provides as follows: tMOA6lNAryCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON,. AM ENDING.ORD]NANCE NO: 284 - AS A -RESULT OF. UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS ANO-EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS. :LINOS. AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME. EFFECTIVE. The lull text of this Ordinance will be mailad upon request. DATED this 13th day, of December, 2000. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S CHASE EXHIBIT A BUDGET SUMMARY, 20130 FUND FUND BEGINNING -REVENUE - EXPENDITURES - ENDING being first duly sworn on oath deposes arid, says pal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper Ihed in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, hington. that said newspaper is a newspaper of I in said County and State; that said newspaper 3 as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior ih County and that the notice ....................................... 002 Cumulailve Aeserval Gun - Fund 236;350 0 0 236,350 005-. Fire Apparatus Reserve 517.200 131,000 � 282,320 385,680 rdinanc e j. 006 argen�y Financial ................'-----• ..................... Reserve Fund t,333,940 150,000 0 1,483,900 007 Criminal Aki&N-e AC tyiy Fund 343,100 510,740 686,540 167,300 008 TraveV I raining iS ................................ ... ....................... .......:.............................. EEQFF meru 3AW 146,620 146,620 3,800 009 MedicaFunldinsuranCe Reserve Fund 2011.500 10,000 0 214,500 ads 019 COm�munily Request Grants ... ....................... . ........................................... Fun 0 0 0 0 104 Drug Enromament Fund S0,350 47,670 87,350 10.670 which is hereunto attached, was published in said 111 Streel Fund 346,850 914,720 1.087,940 173.630 112 Combined Street Const l rand not in supplement form, in the regular and 113 Imprv. Fund MUlllmddal Tranapbnaubn Fund 2,059,500 48,660 757.000 516,310 2.005,120, . 535,000 a,1;380 E9:990 laid paper on the following days and times, namely: 114 Street 9eaulilication Fund 11.859 500 0 12,360 115 Underground Wiring Fund 110 0 0 9o- 116 Budding Maintenance Fund 218,600 58;040 202.040 .74,600 117 Municipal AAS Fund 134.000 60;990 145.070 49;920 118 Memorial SireetTree Fund 12.650 1,000 %,000 12.SW .. 0_0..... '9 Council Contingency Fund 121.250 600,000 151;8m -569.450 0 Ho168Motei Tax Fund 39.6W 61,240 6%500 31.340 21 Employee Parking Permit Fund 24.959 4,500 700 28,750........................................I..............:... 12.2 Youth Scho[arsh[p Fund 10.050 5;000 51000 10,wo 123. Tdunsm ArisComm. Promotional Fund 21,200 17,100 24,050 14,280 124 125 Off Street Parking Fund P"AcqulaitkW 124.100 38,000 93.600 68.600 'd period, improvement 1.490,750 730:000 1.559.560 126 l Fund Special Capl[alFund 490,750 730,000 559,560 881,}g0 661.120 127 Gift Catalog Fund 95,550 22,250 19,000 98.800 f 126 City Enterpnae Fund 7,500 0 7,500 0 130 Cemetery rmpravement Fund 267.650 137,B00 340,920 64,730 325 Capital Improvement -Fund 2,708,260 81,250 2,678,0W 111,510 326 "Ilc Sal". Building Construction Fund 2,744.400 1.113,4110 3,322,840 535.040 411 Combined Utility Operation scribed Fund 2,523,000 91669;420 10.31.1law 1,885,590 412 Combined Utility Censll Imprv. Fund 1,428,200 1.105,000 1.846.000 688.200 413 Cd nPaud il8lity Bond Reserve Fund 1,734,500 1,614,980 1.625,610 1,723,870 ., 414 Capital Improvements - - KNoo'tgaki Reserve Io322;000 658,000 666,000 1.315,000 511 Equtpmenl Rental Fund 2.066.400• 802,000 tr075,920 1,792.400 520 Self -Insurance Medical Fund 387,700 1,938,960 1,695.200 431460 was to its subscribers Principal Clerk and sworn to before me this.lAft............... 610 Cemetery Maintenance residing at Everett, Fund 409,100 26,300 0 435.400 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 517,650 52,000 0 510,010 621 Special Library Fund 8,750 390 150 S;NO 623 Sister City Commission 10,350 26.650;; 31,200 5:800 Fund TOTALS -$26.476,230 $44,506,300 $54,010,800 $15,971.730 Published: December 17. 2000. - I ......... .......... 2000.... Washington, ►oti�4 'r JJ✓ r NOTARY >n�; PUBLIC o.•;�ZZ RECEIVE" DEC 2 0rsu0 B-2-1 EDMONDS CITY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS COUNCIL RETREAT DUTIES OF COUNCILMEMBERS, CODES OF ETHICS AND A VALUE STATEMENT I. BASIC LEGAL CONSTRAINTS. State statute only roughly sketches the duties and obligations of councilmembers. A. The powers and duties of the City Council include all legislative power available in any class of city. RCW 35A.12.190. Exhibit A The City Council is the legislative body of the city, empowered to define the policy of the city through the enactment of ordinances and resolutions. B. In its actions, the City Council and its members are bound by conflict of interest principles — basically, do not profit from your office. Chapter 42.23 RCW outlines a Code of Ethics for municipal officers respecting contract interests. 1. Generally, no Councilmember can be beneficially interested directly or indirectly in contracts made with the City. However, there are many exceptions: $200/month. a. Furnishing of utilities. b. Designation of public depositories. C. Publication of legal notices. d. Employment and unskilled day laborer wages not exceeding e. Publicly bid contracts through a Councilmember's business which do not exceed $18,000 in a calendar year [the City must keep a list]. f. If any of these exceptions apply, a municipal officer may not vote regarding the approval of the contract. 2. Section 42.23.070 also defines certain other prohibited acts. Violations of Chapter 42.23 RCW are criminal acts. a. A municipal officer may not use his position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others. b. A councilmember may not accept a gift, gratuity or compensation from any source other than the municipality for matters related to the service. C. A councilmember may not accept employment or engage in a business professional activity that might reasonably expect or require him to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of his position. d. No councilmember may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer's position, or use it for his personal gain and/or benefit. C. Public disclosure filings. In addition, Title 42.17. RCW requires annual public disclosure filings. D. Edmonds requires that PDC filings also be filed with the City and has adopted provisions parallel to Chapter 42.23 RCW as ECC Chapter 1.14. (see Exhibit B) II. MANY MATTERS ARE LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS' DISCRETION. A. Recusal under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. While legal counsel can advise and the City Council has the ability to censure its members in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, only a councilmember can decide whether or not to step down under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. B. Similarly, only the voters may determine whether to remove a councilmember — the City Council has no ability to remove one of its members nor to prohibit that member from voting during its term of office. C. Chapter 29.82 RCW defines recall. Basically, the wrongful conduct or improper performance of a required "duty" of office or an unlawful act can result in recall. A number of cities have therefore adopted Codes of Ethics which provide more detail regarding a councilmember's duties. Attached for your review are: 1. City of Chelan, Exhibit C 2. City of Renton, Exhibit D 3. City of Tacoma, Exhibit E 4. City of Seattle, Exhibit F III. VALUE STATEMENTS. In reality, the difficulties of proof, the ponderous nature of legal remedies and the gray area in the statutory powers of the Mayor and City Council emphasize the need for collegiality and cooperation. A the heart of value statements is the question of what, as the Council and as Councilmembers, are your core values. A. Common courtesy and mutual respect. B. Collegiality and fair debate. C. Honoring your duty to the City and its citizens over any special interest. D. A commitment to debate fully and fairly, vote and then move on. E. Adhering to and respecting the majority will of the City Council. { WSS465250.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 42.17.940 Title 42 RCW: Public Officers and Agencies each hereby repealed. [1973 c 1 § 50 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972)] 42.17.945 Construction-1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 112. The provisions of this 1976 amendatory act are intended to be remedial and shall be liberally construed, and nothing in this 1976 amendatory act shall be construed to limit the power of the commission under any other provision of chapter 42.17 RCW. [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 112 § 15.] 42.17.950 Captions. Section captions and part headings used in this act do not constitute any part of the law. [1993 c 2 § 34 (Initiative Measure No. 134, approved November 3, 1992).] 42.17.955 Short title-1993 c 2. This act may be known and cited as the Fair Campaign Practices Act. [1993 c 2 § 36 (Initiative Measure No. 134, approved November 3, 1992).] 42.17.960 Effective date-1995 c 397. Sections 1 through 32, 34, and 37 of this act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1995. (1995 c 397 § 35.] 42.17.961 Captions-1995 c 397. Captions as used in chapter 397, Laws of 1995 constitute no part of the law. [1995 c 397 § 37.] 42.17.962 Severability-1995 c 397. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. [1995 c 397 § 38.] Chapter 42.20 MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Sections 42.20.020 Powers may not be delegated for profit. 42.20.030 Intrusion into and refusal to surrender public office. 42.20.040 False report. 42.20.050 Public officer making false certificate. 42.20.060 Falsely auditing and paying claims. 42.20.070 Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer. 42.20.080 Other violations by officers. 42.20.090 Misappropriation, etc., by treasurer. 42,20.100 Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor. 42-20.110 Improper conduct by certain justices. Bidding offenses: Chapter 9.18 RCW. Bribery or corrupt solicitation prohibited: State Constitution Art. 2 § 30. Cities optional municipal code, council-manager plan, forfeiture of office for misconduct: RCW 35A.13.020. optional municipal code, mayor -council plan, forfeiture of office for misconduct: RCW 35A.12.060. Cities and towns, commission form, misconduct of officers and employees: RCW 35.17.150. County commissioners, misconduct relating to inventories: RCW 36.32.220. County officers, misconduct: RCW 36.18.160, 36.18.170. County sheriff, misconduct: RCW 36.28.140. County treasurer, suspension for misconduct: RCW 36.29.090. Election officials, misconduct: Chapter 29.85 RCW. Flood control district officers, interest in contracts prohibited: RCW 86.09.286. Forfeiture of office upon conviction of felony or malfeasance: RCW R92.120. Free transportation for public officers prohibited: State Constitution Art. 2 § 39, Art. 12 § 20. Impersonating public officer: RCW 9A.60.040. Juries, misconduct of public officers concerning: Chapter 9.51 RCW. Militia, misconduct: Chapter 38.32 RCW. Official misconduct: RCW 9A.80.010. Penitentiary employees, misconduct: RCW 72.01.060. Private use of public funds, penalty: State Constitution Art. 11 § 14. School funds, failure to turnover: RCW 28A.635.070. School officials disclosing examination questions: RCW 28A.635.040. grafting: RCW 28A.635.050- School teachers failure to display flag: RCW 28A.230.140. failure to enforce rules: RCW 28A.405.060. revocation or suspension of certificate or permit to teach —investigation by superintendent of public instruction —mandatory revocation for crimes against children: RCW 28A.410.090. State and judicial officers, impeachment: State Constitution Art. 5. State treasurer, embezzlement: RCW 43.08.140. Subversive activities, disqualification from holding public office: RCW 9.81.040. Utilities and transportation commission members and employees, interest in regulated companies prohibited: RCW 80.01.020. 42.20.020 Powers may not be delegated for profit. Every public officer who, for any reward, consideration or gratuity paid or agreed to be paid, shall, directly or indirect- ly, grant to another the right or authority to discharge any function of his office, or permit another to perform any of his duties, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [1909 c 249 § 83; RRS § 2335.] Reviser's note: Caption for 1909 c 249 § 83 reads as follows: "Sec. 83. Grant of Official Powers." 42.20.030 Intrusion into and refusal to surrender public office. Every person who shall falsely personate or represent any public officer, or who shall wilfully intrude himself into a public office to which he has not been duly elected or appointed, or who shall wilfully exercise any of the functions or perform any of the duties of such Ulcer, without having duly qualified therefor, as required by law, or who, having been an executive or administrative officer, shall wilfully exercise any of the functions of his office after his right to do so has ceased, or wrongfully refuse to surrender the official seal or any books or papers appertain- ing to such office, upon the demand of his lawful successor, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [1909 c 249 § 84; RRS § 2336.1 Impersonating a public officer: RCW 9A.60.040. Quo warranto: Chapter 7.56 RCW. 42.20.040 False report. Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in [Title 42 RCW—page 52] (2000 Ed.) Misconduct of Public Officers 42.20.040 any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [1909 c 249 § 98; RRS § 2350.] 42.26.050 Public officer making false certificate. Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [1909 c 249 § 128; RRS § 2380.] 42.20.060 Falsely auditing and paying claims. Every public officer, or person holding or discharging the duties of any public office or place of trust under the state or in any county, town or city, a part of whose duty it is to audit, allow or pay, or take part in auditing, allowing or paying, claims or dernands upon the state or such county, town or city, who shall knowingly audit, allow or pay, or, directly or indirectly, consent to or in any way connive at the auditing, allowance or payment of any claim or demand against the state or such county, town or city, which is false or fraudulent or contains any charge, item or -claim which is false or fraudulent, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [1909 c 249 § 129; RRS § 2381.1 42.20.070 Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer. Every public officer, and every other person receiving money on behalf or for or on account of the people of the state or of any department of the state government or of any bureau or fund created by law in which the people are directly or indirectly interested, or for or on account of any county, city, town, or any school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district, who: (1) Shall appropriate to his or her own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law, any money so received by him or her as such officer or other- wise; or (2) Shall knowingly keep any false account, or make any false entry or erasure in any account, of or relating to any money so received by him or her; or (3) Shall fraudulently alter, falsify, conceal, destroy or obliterate any such account; or (4) Shall willfully omit or refuse to pay over to the state, its officer or agent authorized by law to receive the same, or to such county, city, town, or such school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district or to the proper officer or authority empowered to demand and receive the same, any money received by him or her as such officer when it is a duty imposed upon him or her by law to pay over and account for the same, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than fifteen yeats. [ 1992 c 7 § 37; 1909 c 249 § 317; RRS § 2569. Prior: Code 1881 § 890; 1873 p 202 § 92; 1854 p 91 § 83.] 42.20.090 Other violations by officers. Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall wilfully disobey any provision of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.. [1909 c 249 § 318; RRS § 2570.1 42.20.090 Misappropriation, etc., by treasurer. Every state, county, city, or town treasurer who willfully misappropriates any moneys, funds, or securities received by or deposited with him or her as such treasurer, or who shall be guilty of any other malfeasance or willful neglect of duty in his or her office, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional Facility for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars. [1992 c 7 § 38; 1909 c 249 § 319; RRS § 2571] County treasurer, suspension for misconduct: RCW 36,29.090. State treasurer, embezzlement: RCW 43.08.140. 42.20.100 Failure of duty by puhlic officer a misdemeanor. Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public mist or employment, their wilful neglect to perform such duty, ex- cept where otherwise specially provided for., shall be a misdemeanor. [1909 c 249 § 16; RRS § 2268. Prior: Code 1881 § 889; 1854 p 90 § 82.1 Official misconduct by public servant: RCW 9A.80.010. 42.20.110 Improper conduct by certain justices. It shall be a misdemeanor for any judge or justice of any court not of record, during the hearing of any cause or proceeding therein, to address any person in his presence in unfit, unseemly or improper language. [1911 c 115 § 1; RRS § 2696-1.] Chapter 42.23 CODE OF ETHICS FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICERS — CONTRACT INTERESTS Sections 42.23.010 Declaration of purpose. 42.23.020 Definitions. 42.23.030 Interest in contracts prohibited —Exceptions. 42.23.040 Remote interests. 42.23.050 Prohibited contracts void —Penalties for violation of chapter. 42,23,060 Local charter controls chapter. 42.23.070 Prohibited acts. Cities, free passes, services prohibited: RCW 35.17.150. County officers, general provisions: Chapter 36.16 RCW. Ethics in public service act: Chapter 42.52 RCW. Public employment, civil service: Title 41 RCW. State officers, general provisions: Chapter 43.01 RCW. 42,23.010 Declaration of purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to revise and make uniform the laws of this state concerning the transaction of business by municipal officers, as defined in chapter 268, Laws of 1961, in conflict with the proper performance of their duties in the public interest; and to promote the efficiency of local government by prohibiting certain instances and areas of conflict while at the same time sanctioning, under sufficient controls, certain other instances and areas of conflict wherein the private interest of the municipal officer is deemed to be only remote, to the end that, without sacrificing necessary public responsibility and enforceability in areas of significant (2M Ed.) [Title 42 RCW—page 531 42.23.010 Title 42 RCW: Public Officers and Agencies and clearly conflicting interests, the selection of municipal officers may be made from a wider group of responsible citizens of the communities which they are called upon to serve. [1961 c 268 § 2.] 42.23.020 Definitions. For the purpose of chapter 268, Laws of 1961: (1) "Municipality" shall include all counties, cities, towns, districts, and other municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations organized under the Iaws of the state of Washington; (2) "Municipal officer" and "officer" shall each include all elected and appointed officers of a municipality, together with all deputies and assistants of such an officer, and all persons exercising or undertaking to exercise any of the powers or functions of a municipal officer; (3) "Contract" shall include any contract, sale, lease or purchase; (4) "Contracting party" shall include any person, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, or other business entity which is a party to a contract with a munici- pality. [1961 c 268 § 3.] 42.23.030 Interest in contracts prohibited — Exceptions. No municipal officer shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of such officer, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, ally compensation, gratuity or reward .in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein. This section shall not apply in the following cases: (1) The furnishing of electrical, water or other utility services by a municipality engaged in the business of furnishing such services, at the same rates and on the same terms as are available to the public generally; (2) The designation of public depositaries for municipal funds; (3) The publication of legal notices required by law to be published by any municipality, upon competitive bidding or at rates not higher than prescribed by law for members of the general public; (4) The designation of a school director as clerk or as both clerk and purchasing agent of a school district; (5) The employment of any person by a municipality for unskilled day labor at wages not exceeding two hundred dollars in any calendar month. The exception provided in this subsection does not apply to a county with a population of one hundred twenty-five thousand or more, a city with a population of more than one thousand five hundred, an irrigation district encompassing more than fifty thousand acres, or a first class school district; (6)(a) The letting of any other contract in which the total amount received under the contract or contracts by the municipal officer or the municipal officer's business does not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars in any calendar month. (b) However, in the: case of a particular officer of a second class city or town, or a noncharter optional code city, or a member of any county fair board in a county which has not established a county purchasing department pursuant to RCW 36.32.240, the total amount of such contract or contracts authorized in this subsection (6) may exceed one thousand five hundred dollars in any calendar month but shall not exceed eighteen thousand dollars in any calendar year. (c) The exceptions provided in this subsection (6) do not apply to a sale or ]ease by the municipality as the seller or lessor. The exceptions provided in this subsection (6) also do not apply to the letting of any contract by a county with a population of one hundred twenty-five thousand or more, a city with a population of ten thousand or more, or an irrigation district encompassing more than fifty thousand acres. (d) The municipality shall maintain a list of all contracts that are awarded under this subsection (6). The list must be made available for public inspection and copying; (7) The leasing by a port district as lessor of port district property to a municipal officer or to a contracting party in which a municipal officer may be beneficially interested, if in addition to all other legal requirements, a board of three disinterested appraisers and the superior court in the county where the property is situated finds that all terms and conditions of such lease are fair to the port district and are in the public interest. The appraisers must be appointed from members of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers by the presiding judge of the superior court; (8) The letting of any employment contract for the driving of a school bus in a second class school district if the terms of such contract are commensurate with the pay plan or collective bargaining agreement operating in the dis- trict; (9) The letting of any employment contract to the spouse of an officer of a school district, when such contract is solely for employment as a substitute teacher for the school district. This exception applies only if the terms of the contract are commensurate with the pay plan or collec- tive bargaining agreement applicable to alI district employees and the board of directors has found, Consistent with the written policy under RCW 28A.330.240, that there is a short- age of substitute teachers in the school district; (10) The letting of any employment contract to the spouse of an officer of a school district if the spouse was under contract as a certificated or classified employee with the school district before the date in which the officer assumes office and the terms of the contract are commensu- rate with the pay plan or collective bargaining agreement operating in -the district. However, in a second class school district that has less than two hundred full-time equivalent students enrolled at the start of the school year as defined in RCW 28A.150.040, the spouse is not required to be under contract as a certificated or classified employee before the date on which the officer assumes office; (11) The authorization, approval, or ratification of any employment contract with the spouse of a public hospital district commissioner if: (a) The spouse was employed by the public hospital district before the date the commissioner was initially elected; (b) the terms of the contract are commensurate with the pay plan or collective bargaining [Title 42 RCW-page 541 (2000 Ed.) Code _of Ethics for Municipal Officers —Contract Interests 42.23.030 agreement operating in the district for similar employees; (c) the interest of the commissioner is disclosed to the board of commissioners and noted in the official minutes or similar records of the public hospital district prior to the letting or continuation of the contract; and (d) and the commissioner does not vote on the authorization, approval, or ratification of the contract or any conditions in the contract. A municipal officer may not vote in the authorization, approval, or ratification of a contract in which he or she is beneficially interested even though one of the exemptions allowing the awarding of such a contract applies. The in- terest of the municipal officer must be disclosed to the governing - body of the municipality and noted in the official minutes or similar records'of the municipality before the formation, of the contract. [1999 c 261 § 2; 1997 c 98 § 1; 1996 c 246 § 1. Prior: 1994 c 81 § 77; 1994 c 20 § 1; 1993 c 308 § 1; 1991 c 363 § 120; 1990 c 33 § 573; 1989 c 263 § 1; 1983 1st ex.s. c 44 § 1; prior: 1980 c 39 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 4 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 242 § 1; 1961 c 268 § 4.] Findings—Intent-1999 c 261: "The legislature finds that: (1) The current statutes pertaining to municipal officers' beneficial interest in contracts are quite confusing and have resulted in some inadvertent violations of the law. (2) The dollar thresholds for many of the exemptions have not been changed in over thirty-five years, and the restrictions apply to the total amount of the contract instead of the portion of the contract that pertains to the business operated by the municipal officer. (3) Tbt confusion existing over these current statutes discourages some municipalities from accessing some efficiencies available to them. Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to clarify the statutes pertaining to municipal officers and contracts and to enact reasonable protections against inappropriate conflicts of interest." [1999 c 261 § 1.1 Purpose —Captions not law-1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180, Purpose —Statutory references—Severability-1990 c 33: See RCW 28A.900.100 through 28A.900.102. Severability-1989 c 263: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1989 c 263 § 3.1 Sevef'8tbility-1980 c 39. "If any provision of this amendatory act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circum- stances is not affected." [1980 c 39 § 3.] 42.23.040 Remote interests. A municipal officer is not interested in a contract, within the meaning of RCW 42.23.030, if the officer has only a remote interest in the contract and the extent of the interest is disclosed to the governing body of the municipality of which the officer is an officer and noted in the official minutes or similar records of the municipality prior to the formation of the contract, and thereafter the governing body authorizes, approves, or ratifies the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote or votes of the officer having the remote interest. As used in ibis section "remote interest" means: (1) That of a nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corpora- tion; (2) That of an employee or agent of a contracting party where the compensation of such employee or agent consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; (3) That of a landlord or tenant of a contracting party; (4) That of a holder of less than one percent of the shares of a corporation or cooperative which is a contracting party. None of the provisions of this section are applicable to any officer interested in a contract, even if the officer's interest is only remote, if the officer influences or attempts to influence any other officer of the municipality of which he or she is an officer to enter into the contract. [ 1999 c 261 §3; 1961c268§5.1 Findings—Intent-1999 c 261: See note following RCW 42.23.030. 42.23.050 Prohibited contracts void —Penalties for violation of chapter. Any contract made in violation of the provisions of this chapter is void and the performance thereof, in full or in part, by a contracting party shall not be the basis of any claim against the. municipality. Any officer violating the provisions of this chapter is liable to the municipality of which he or she is an officer for a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars, in addition to such other civil or criminal_ liability or penalty as may otherwise be imposed upon the officer by law. In addition to all other penalties, civil or criminal, the violation by any officer of the provisions of this chapter may be grounds for forfeiture of his or her office. 11999 c 261 § 4; 1961 c 268 § 6.] Findings—Intent-1999 c 261: See note following RCW 42.23.030. 42.23.060 Local charter controls chapter. If any provision of this chapter conflicts with any provision of a city or county charter, or with any provision of a city -county charter, the charter shall control if it contains stricter requirements than this chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall be considered as minimum standards to be enforced by municipalities. [1999 c 261 § 5; 1961 c 268 § 16.] Findings—Intent-1999 c 261: See note following RCW 42.23,030. 42.23.070 Prohibited acts. (1) No municipal officer may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others. (2) No municipal officer may, directly or indirectly, give or receive or agree to receive any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity from a source except the employing municipality, for a matter connected with or related to the officer's services as such an officer unless otherwise provided for by law. (3) No municipal officer may accept employment or engage in business or professional activity that the officer might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose con- fidential information acquired by reason of his or her official position. (4) No municipal officer may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer's position, nor may the officer otherwise use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit. [1994 c 154 § 121.1 Parts and captions not law —Effective date—Severability-1994 c 154: See RCW 42.52.902, 42.52.904, and 42.52.905, (2000 Ed.) [Title 42 RCW—page 551 Document Page 1 of 4 Title 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL C_ha,pte_r_2._60 CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM 260,..080 Enforcement_ by_ civil acti_on__-._Le_gal counsel. 2.60.080 Enforcement by civil action - Legal counsel. It shall be the duty of the commission to begin and conduct all civil suits which may be necessary for the proper enforcement of this chapter and of the rules of the commission. The commission shall be represented in such suits by the city attorney, or his/her designee, but the commission may in any case be represented by special counsel appointed by it. (Ord. 982 § 2 (part), 1994). 2.60.090 Deceptive practices, false marks, etc., prohibited. No commissioner or any other person, shall, by him/herself or in cooperation with one or more persons, defeat, deceive, or obstruct any person in respect of his/her right to examination or registration according to the rules and regulations of this chapter, or falsely mark, grade, estimate or report upon the examination or proper standing of any person examined, registered or certified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, or aid in so doing or making any false representation concerning the same, or concerning the person examined, or furnish any person any special or secret information for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects or chances of any person so examined, registered or certified, or to be examined, registered or certified or persuade any other person, or permit or aid in any manner any other person to impersonate him/her, in connection with any examination or registration of application or request to be examined or registered. (Ord. 982 § 2 (part), 1994). 2.60.100 Penalty - Jurisdiction. Any person who shall wilfully violate any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment in jail for not longer than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 982 § 2 (part), 1994). 2.60.110 Applicability. The examination and eligibility provisions of this chapter and establishment of positions covered by civil service by the provisions of this chapter shall be effective for all appointments made after the effective date of this chapter. (Ord. 982 § 2 (part), 1994). Chapter 2.62 CODE OF ETHICS Sections: 2.62.010 Declaration of policy. 2.62.020 Definitions. 2.62.030 Use of public property. 2.62.040 Conflict of interest. 2.62.050 Adoption of RCW by reference - Exceptions. 2.62.060 Penalties. 2.62.010 Declaration of policy. This chapter is enacted to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct which shall govern the performance of city elected and appointed officials and employees in the conduct of city business and to prevent potential conflicts of interest. (Ord. 927 §1 (part), 1991). 2.62.020 Definitions. Terms as used in this chapter, unless additional meaning clearly appears from the content, shall have the following meanings: A. "Elected official" means the members of the city council and the mayor of the city. B. "Appointed official" means any person appointed to a position on a city board or commission. .../om_isapi. dl1?clientID=112023 &advquery=Code%20of%o20Ethics%20&hitsperheading=on&in 1 /23/01 Document Page 2 of 4 C. "Employee" means any person holding a regularly compensated position of employment with the city, but does not include members of the city council, the mayor, and appointed persons who serve on city boards and commissions. D. "Official" means all elected officials, appointed officials, and employees of the city. E. "Interest" means direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a city official as a result of a contract or transaction which is or may be the subject of an official act or action by or with the city except for such contracts or transactions which confer similar benefits to all other persons and/or property similarly situated. For the purposes of this chapter, an official is deemed to have an interest in the affairs of: 1. Any person of the official's immediate family; 2. Any business entity in which the city official is an officer, director, or employee; 3. Any business entity in which the stock of or legal or beneficial ownership of, in excess of five percent of the total stock or total legal and beneficial ownership, is controlled or owned directly or indirectly by the city official; 4. Any person or business entity with whom a contractual relationship exists with the city official; provided that, a contractual obligation of less than $500, or a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business or a contract for a commercial retail sale shall not be deemed to create an interest in violation of this chapter. F. "Contract" shall include any contract, sale, lease, or purchase. G. "Immediate family" includes spouses, parents, children, sisters, brothers, and any person related by blood to the city official and living in the same household as the city official. (Ord. 927 § 1 (part), 1991). 2.62.030 Use of public property. No city official shall request or permit the use of city owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit. Use is to be restricted to such services as are available to the public generally, for the authorized conduct of official business, and for such purposes and under such conditions as are directed by the city administrator. (Ord. 927 §1 (part), 1991). 2.62.040 Conflict of interest. No city official shall engage in any act which is in conflict with, or creates an appearance of conflict with, the performance of official duties. A city official is deemed to have a conflict of interest if the official: A. Solicits, accepts, or seeks anything of economic value as a gift, gratuity, or favor from any person, firm or corporation involved in a contract or transaction which is or may be the subject of official action of the city; provided, that the prohibition against gifts or favors shall not apply to: 1. Attendance of an official at a hosted meal or reception when it is provided in conjunction with a meeting related to the conduct of city business or where attendance by the official as a city representative is appropriate; 2. Any gift which would have been offered or given to the official if he or she were not an official; or 3. Any gift that is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value; B. Participates in his or her capacity as a city official in the making of a contract in which he or she has a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, or performs in regard to such a contract any function requiring the exercise of discretion on behalf of the city; C. Influences the city's selection of, or its conduct of business with, a corporation, person, or firm having business with the city if the official has an interest in or with the corporation, person, or firm; D. Engages in, accepts private employment from or renders services for private interest when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties; E. Appears on behalf of a private person other than his or her self or an immediate family member or except as a witness under subpoena, before any regulatory governmental agency or court of law in an action or proceeding to which the city or a city official in an official capacity is a party, or accepts a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a specific action by the city; F. Discloses or uses without legal authorization, confidential information concerning the property or affairs of the city to advance a private interest with respect to any contract or transaction which is or may be the subject of official action of the city; G. Has a financial or personal interest in any legislation coming before the city council and participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the city council unless the official discloses on the record of the council the nature and extent of such interest. (Ord. 927 § 1 (part), 1991). 2.62.050 Adoption of RCW by reference - Exceptions. .../om_isapi.dll?clientID=112023&advquer}rCode%20of%20Ethics%20&hitsperheading=on&i 1/23/01 Document Page 3 of 4 RCW Sections 42.23.030 and 42.23.040 as the same exist now or may be hereafter amended are hereby adopted by reference and the provisions of these statutes shall apply to the conduct of all city officials. The exceptions and remote interests as set forth in these statutes shall be exceptions to the provisions of Section 2.62.040. (Ord. 927 § 1 (part), 1991). 2.62.060 Penalties. A. The violation or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter is declared to be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 9.01.050 of the Chelan Municipal Code. B. Any employee whose conduct is determined by the city administrator to be in violation of this chapter may be subject to disciplinary action including termination. C. Any appointed official who violates or fails to comply with any provisions of this chapter may be discharged by the appointing authority. D. Any elected official who violates or fails to comply with any provisions of this chapter may forfeit his or her elected office. E. Any contract or transaction which is the subject of an official act or action of the city in which there is an interest prohibited by this chapter or which involves the violation of a provision of this chapter shall be voidable at the option of the city. (Ord. 927 §1 (part), 1991). Chapter 2.64 COMMUNITY POLICE ADVISORY BOARD Sections: 2.64.010 Board established. 2.64.020 Composition of board. 2.64.030 Appointment - Terms. 2.64.040 Compensation. 2.64.050 Duties of the board. 2.64.060 Meetings and procedure. 2.64.010 Board established. There is hereby established for the city a citizens advisory board to be known as the "community police advisory board." (Ord. 972 § 1 (part), 1993). 2.64.020 Composition of board. The board shall consist of seven members who shall meet the following qualifications: A. Three at -large members (at least two shall be city residents); B. Two members shall be owners or managers of businesses located within the city (business members); C. One member shall be a representative from the Chelan School District (school district member); and D. One member shall be a student at Chelan High School (student member). (Ord. 1096 § 1, 1998: Ord. 1030 § 1, 1996; Ord. 972 § 1 (part), 1993). 2.64.030 Appointment - Terms. A. All board members shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. All appointments and reappointments to a board position shall be in writing and signed by the mayor. B. The initial board terms shall be staggered as follows: 1. Position One shall be the student member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1994; 2. Position Two shall be an at large member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1994; 3. Position Three shall be an at large member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1994; 4. Position Four shall be a business member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1995; 5. Position Five shall be an at large member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1995; 6. Position Six shall be a business member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1996; 7. Position Seven shall be a school district member position and shall be appointed for a term expiring June 30, 1996. C. All subsequent appointments, except for vacancies, shall be four year terms, with the exception of the student member (Position One) which shall serve one year terms, provided, that members shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and confirmed. .../om_isapi.dll?clientlD=112023&advquery=Code%20of%20Ethics%20&hitsperheading=on&i 1/23/01 Document Page 1 of 3 Title I Administrative CHAPTER 6 CODE OF ETHICS_ 1-6-1 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE: 1-6-1 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE: It is hereby recognized and established that high moral and ethical standards among City officials are vital and essential to provide unbiased, open and honest conduct within all phases and levels of government; that a code of ethics is a helpful aid in guiding City officials and to eliminate actual conflicts of interest in public office and to improve and elevate standards of public service so as to promote and strengthen the confidence, faith and trust of the people of the City of Renton in their local government. 1-6-2 DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this Ordinance: CANDIDATE: Any individual who declares himself to be a candidate for an elective office and who, if elected thereto, would meet the definition of a public official hereinabove set forth. COMPENSATION: Anything of economic value, however designated, which is paid, loaned, advanced, granted, transferred, or to be paid, loaned, advanced, granted or transferred for or in consideration of personal services to any person. CONTRACT: Includes any contract or agreement, sale, lease, purchase, or any combination of the foregoing. CONTRACTING PARTY: Any person, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, whether for profit or otherwise or other business entity which is a party to a contract with a municipality. PUBLIC OFFICIAL: All of the elected City officials, together with all appointed officers including their deputies and assistants of such an officer who determine or are authorized to determine policy making decisions within their respective department or office, including appointive members of all municipal boards, commissions and agencies and whose appointment has been made by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. (Ord. 2586, 9-28-70) 1-6-3 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE OF CANDIDATE: A. Primary Election: Every candidate for nomination at a primary election within the City shall, no later than the tenth day of the first month after the holding of such primary election at which he/she is a candidate, file an itemized statement in' writing, duly sworn to as to its correctness, with the City Clerk setting forth each sum of money and item of value, or any consideration whatever, contributed, paid, advanced, promised or rendered to him/her or furnished or given to others for the benefit of such candidate and with his/her knowledge or acquiescence for the purpose of securing or influencing, or in any way affecting his/her nomination to said office. Such statement shall set forth, in detail the sums or other considerations so paid to him/her, together with the name and address of the donor, and such statement shall also set forth the nature, kind and character of the expense for which such sums were expended separately, including the name and address of the payee and the purpose for each disbursement. Such statement shall likewise include any sum or other consideration as hereinabove stated, promised but not yet paid or received. In the event any such payments, services or other item of value are made to other persons on behalf of or for the benefit of such candidate, then any such information, when ascertainable, shall be furnished to such candidate and be included in any such statement or report. Cash contributions, services or anything else of value amounting to twenty five dollars ($25.00) or less are exempt from the provision of this Section in requiring the reporting of such individual contributions or services; provided, however, that every such candidate shall report the full and total amount of all contributions, services or anything else of value contributed or paid to him/her or on his/her behalf, whether such individual amount is twenty five dollars, ($25.00) or less or in excess thereof. The filing of a duplicate copy of the completed public disclosure form with the City Clerk, as required by the State of Washington, will satisfy the requirements of this subsection, B. General Election: The provisions of the immediately preceding paragraph governing primary elections shall likewise apply to any general election within the City and every such candidate, whether he/she is successful or not, shall file such statement or report as hereinabove set forth, and such filing to be made no later than the tenth day of the first month after the holding of such general election at which he/she is a candidate. Each such candidate is further required to file supplementary statements containing in equal detail any additional contributions of whatever type or nature in excess of twenty five dollars ($25.00), including but not limiting it to, proceeds from any fund raising dinners, meetings, parties or like arrangements, whether conducted prior or subsequent to any such election, and such supplemental statements to be filed not later than ninety (90) days after such general election, htt... /om isapi.dll?clientID=112041&infobase=renton.nfo&jump=1-6-1&softpage=Document4 1/23/01 Document Page 2 of 3 Each such statement as hereinabove defined when so filed shall immediately be subject to the inspection and examination of any elector and shall be and become a part of the public records of the City of Renton. Any violation of this subsection shall be and constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as hereinafter set forth. The filing of a duplicate copy of the completed public disclosure form with the City Clerk, as required by the State of Washington, will satisfy the requirements of this subsection. (Ord. 4315, 6-10-91) 1-6-4 ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS: No public official shall receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly, anything of economic value as a gift, gratuity, or favor, from any person if such public official has reason to believe the donor would not grant or give such gift, gratuity, or favor, but for such public official's office or position within the City of Renton. No public official shall receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, whether directly or indirectly, anything of economic value as a gift, gratuity, or favor, from any person or from any officer or director of such person if such public official has reason to believe such person: A. Has, or is seeking to obtain contractual or other business or financial relationship with the City of Renton; or B. Conducts operations or activities which are regulated by the City Council, its committees or any board or commission of the City of Renton; or C. Has interests which may be substantially affected by such public official's performance or nonperformance of his or her official duty. 1-6-5 INTEREST IN CONTRACTS PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS: No public official shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through, or under the supervision or direction of such public official, in whole or in substantial part, or which may be made for the benefit of his office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein. The foregoing shall not apply to the exceptions specified in RCW 42.23.030 which are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. Remote Interest: A public official shall not be deemed to be interested in a contract as specified in the immediately preceding paragraph if he has only a remote interest in the contract and if the fact and extent of such interest is disclosed to the governing body of the City of Renton of which he is a member and noted in the official minutes or similar records of the City prior to the consummation of the contract, and thereafter the governing body authorizes, approves or ratifies the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote or votes of the public official having a remote interest therein. As used in this Section "remote interest" means: A. That of a nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation; B. That of an employee or agent of contracting party where the compensation of such employee or agent consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; C. That of the landlord or tenant of a contracting party; D. That of a holder of less than one percent (1%) of the shares of a corporation or cooperative which is a contracting party. None of the provisions of this Section shall be applicable to any public official interested in a contract, though his interest be only remote as hereinabove defined, who influences or attempts to influence, any other public official of the City of which he is an officer to enter into such contract. Any contract made in violation of the above provisions shall be void and as otherwise provided in RCW 42.23.050 and the provisions thereof being expressly incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 1-6-6 INCOMPATIBLE SERVICE; CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: No elected public official shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for any person or engage in any business or professional activity when such employment, service or activity is incompatible with the proper and faithful discharge of his official duties as such elected official, or when it would require or induce him to disclose confidential information acquired by him by reason of his official position. No such official shall disclose confidential information gained by reason of his official position, nor shall he otherwise use such information for his personal gain or benefit. 1-6-7 PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTERESTS: Every elected public official who has a financial or other private or personal interest in any ordinance, resolution, contract, proceeding, or other action pending before the City Council or any of its committees, shall promptly disclose such interest at the first public meeting when such matter is being considered by the City Council, on the records of the official Council minutes, the nature and extent of such personal or private interest and same shall be incorporated in the official minutes of the City Council proceedings. Such disclosure shall include, but not be limited to, the following information which shall be submitted in writing by such Councilman, swom to under penalty of perjury, to -wit: htt ... /om isapi.dll?clientID=112041&infobase=renton.nfo&jump=1-6-1&softpage=Document4 1/23/01 Document Page 3 of 3 A. The name and address of any private business corporation, firm or enterprise affected by such councilmanic action of which the Councilman or other elected public official is or has been during the preceding twelve (12) months a shareholder, bond holder, secured creditor, partner, joint entrepreneur or sole proprietor, whenever the total value of his individual or undivided legal and equitable financial interest therein is and at any time during the preceding twelve (12) months has been in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00). B. The name of any such private business or corporation, firm or enterprise of which such elected public official or his relatives are or have been during the preceding twelve (12) months as officer, director, partner, attorney, agent, or employee, who, for services rendered during such preceding twelve (12) months or to be rendered in any such capacity, has received or has been promised compensation in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00). C. Every office or directorship held by such elected public official or his spouse in any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or like business enterprise, which conducts its business activities within the boundaries of the Renton School District and which is subject to any regulation or control by the City of Renton, and from which such elected public official has received compensation or has been promised compensation during the preceding twelve (12) month period in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00), or services; or any other thing of value in excess of said amount. D. A list containing a correct legal description of any and all real property located within the City limits of Renton in which any such elected public official has any interest whatsoever, as owner, purchaser, optionee, optionor, or any other proprietary interest, acquired during the preceding twelve (12) month period whenever such proprietary interest is in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00). This subsection shall not apply to the residence home of such official. The foregoing provisions shall not apply to policies of life insurance issued to such public official or his spouse or members of his family, accounts in any commercial bank, savings and loan association or credit unions, or similar financial institutions subject to regulation by the State of Washington or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction thereover. Any such elected public official who is disqualified by reason of such personal, private or similar conflict of interest in any matter as hereinabove defined, shall, after having made the required disclosure as herein set forth, remove himself from his customary seat during such debate and, by permission of the presiding officer, leave the Council chamber until such time as the matter at hand, from which such public official has been disqualified, has been disposed of in the regular course of business. 1-6-8 FALSE CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT: Any person who shall file with or report to the Board of Ethics a charge of misconduct on the part of any public official or other person encompassed within the definition of this Ordinance, knowing such charge to be false or to have been recklessly made without any reasonable attempt to determine relevant facts and circumstances, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as hereinafter set forth. 1-6-9 PENALTY: Any person who wilfully, knowingly and intentionally violates any provisions of this Ordinance, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or be committed to jail for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days, or be penalized by both such fine and imprisonment; in addition to the foregoing, any public official found guilty of any violation of this Ordinance shall forfeit any right to his office, whether elective or appointive, as may be determined by the court at the time sentence is imposed upon such public official. (Ord. 2586, 9-28-70) CHAPTER 7 REPRESENTATIVES TO LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES SECTION: 1-7-1: Legislative Service Necessary 1-7-2: City Employees Designated 1-7-3: Duty, Authority Of Representative 1-7-4: Compensation Of Representative 1-7-5: Expenditures From City Funds 0 htt ... /om_isapi.dll?clientID=112041 &infobase=renton.nfo&jump=1-6-1 &softpage=Document4 1/23/01 ■ x Em I I ., ��4 -- , Chapter 1.46 CODE OF ETHICS Sections: 1.46.010 Purpose. 1.46.020 Definitions. 1.46.030 Ethical standards and prohibited practices enumerated. 1.46.035 Certain personnel actions exempt. 1.46.040 Responsibilities of the City Manager or Director of Utilities. 1.46.050 Enforcement procedures. 1.46.055 Frivolous complaints. 1,46.060 Actions of Hearing Examiner - Other sanctions preserved. 1.46.070 Penalties for violation. 1.46.080 Miscellaneous administrative provisions. 1.46.090 Severability. 1.46.100 Financial disclosure. 1.46.010 Purpose. A. The City of Tacoma finds that the proper operation of democratic representative government requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people; that government decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the government structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. Accordingly, the purpose of this chapter (henceforth referred to as the "Code of Ethics") is to establish ethical standards for the avoidance on such conflicts of interest, or appearance of conflicts of interest, as: the use of office or employment for private gain, the granting and exchange of favored treatment to persons, businesses, or organizations, and the conduct of activities by such officials and employees which may engender opportunities for private advancement or gain or for avoidance of private detriment or loss. It is further the purpose of the Code of Ethics to delineate ethical standards for all persons, both in and out of government, in order to aid them in avoiding situations of conduct which may give rise to an appearance of impropriety, even when no actual impropriety has occurred. B. The City of Tacoma finds that the proper operation of democratic representative government will not be adversely affected by certain employees and officers having remote interests in contracts; that Tacoma Municipal Code remote interests are not the direct or indirect interests now prohibited under the Charter; that having such a remote interest shall not work a forfeiture of office of the officer or employee or void the contract; and that any appearance -of -fairness problem can be cured by the officer's abstention from any vote or decision concerning the matter, or an employee's lack of participation in the matter, Further, it is the purpose and intent of this chapter to conform with State law and to revise and make. uniform the laws of this City concerning the transaction of business by municipal officers and employees, as defined in this chapter, in conflict with the proper performance of their duties in the public interest; and to promote the efficiency of local government by prohibiting certain instances and areas of conflict while at the same time sanctioning, under sufficient controls, certain other instances and areas of conflict wherein the private interest of the municipal officer or employee is deemed to be only remote, to the end that, without sacrificing necessary public responsibility and enforceability in areas of significant and clearly conflicting interests, the selection of municipal officers and employees may be made from a wider group of responsible citizens of the communities which they are called upon to serve. C. In adopting this Code, the Council fully expects and intends that City of Tacoma personnel will affirmatively utilize the standards of conduct set forth in this Code of Ethics to shield the City of Tacoma and its citizens from those unprincipled persons, be they in or out of government, who would otherwise attempt to subvert governmental processes and decision -making to their own private desires and ends. D. It is the intention of the City Council that this chapter be liberally construed to establish its purpose of protecting the public against decisions which are affected by undue influence, conflicts of interest, or any other violation of this Code of Ethics. (Ord. 25385 § 1; passed Oct. 26, 1993: Ord. 22842 § l; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, have the following meanings: A. "Anything of value" includes, without limitation, a gift, loan, political contribution, award, or promise of future employment or personal benefit. B, "Appointee" means all City personnel except elected officials. 1-209 (Revised 912000) OMce Systemsrt r� Tacoma Municipal Code C. "Business" means any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self-employed individual, consultant, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust, or any legal entity organized for profit. D. "Business with which he or she is associated" means: 1. Any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, employee other than salaried, or holder of stock worth one percent or more at a fair market value; or 2. Any business which is a client or customer of the person. E. "City personnel" means City employees or City officials. F. "Compensation" means payment in any form for real or personal property or services of any kind, unless the context requires a narrower meaning. G. "Confidential information" means information exempt from public inspection and copying pursuant to RCW 42.17.310 and other applicable laws. H. "De minimis" means small, slight, or trifling I. "Elected official" means any person elected at a general or special election to any City office and any person who is appointed to fill an elective City office. J. "Gift" means a voluntary transfer of real or personal property of any kind or the voluntary rendition of services of any kind without consideration of equal or greater value, but not including: 1. Any informational material transferred for the purpose of informing the recipient about matters pertaining to official City business, the nature of which is not to benefit the recipient; 2. Any symbolic presentation, the nature of which is not to financially benefit the recipient; 3. Any reasonable hosting, including travel expenses, entertainment, meals, or refreshments furnished in connection with appearances, ceremonies, and occasions reasonably relating to official City business, where otherwise permitted by law; 4. Any honorarium as defined herein; or 5. Relatively inexpensive items of personal property, such as a box of candy or a bouquet of flowers, which are clearly being given as a simple act of human kindness, thoughtfulness, and appreciation. K. "Governmental agency" means any department, office, commission, council, board, administration, or other establishment in the administrative or legislative branch of City government over which City government may lawfully exercise its jurisdiction. L. "Hearing Examiner" shall mean the duly appointed and qualified Hearing Examiner or Deputy Examiner of the City of Tacoma, or in the alternative, an individual not a regular employee of the City, who shall possess qualifications comparable to those required of the Hearing Examiner and Deputy Examiner pursuant to Chapter 1.23 of the Official Code of the City of Tacoma, and shall be retained by the City to swear witnesses, take testimony, and make appropriate determinations as to whether or not violations of this chapter have been made and to issue orders and recommendations in conformity therewith. M. "Honorarium" means reimbursement for expenses in connection with speeches, lectures, etc., that could not reasonably be construed as given to influence the conduct of the official with relation to official matters. N. "Immediate family" means spouses, dependents, anyone residing in the person's household, and anyone within the third degree of consanguinity of the person or the person's spouse; e.g., within three degrees of relationship by blood or marriage. O. "Person" means any individual, business, contractor, receiving agency, joint agency, union, committee, club, or other entity, however constituted, organized, or designated, including, without limitation, any political, educational, religious or charitable association or group. P. "City employee" means any individual who is the legal incumbent in a position in the classified service, either temporary or permanent, or who is on authorized leave of absence from such position, or who is responsible for taking or recommending official action of a nonministerial nature with regard to: 1. Contracting or procurement; 2. Administering or monitoring grants or subsidies; 3. Planning or zoning; 4. Inspecting, licensing, regulating, or auditing any person; (Revised 912000) 1-210 OIBce Systemsa 5, Any other activity where the official action has an economic impact of greater than a de minimus nature on the interests of any person. Volunteers and temporary and permanent part-time employees shall be considered City employees solely for the purpose of this Ethics Code. Q. "City official" means any person in the unclassified service of the City, as defined in the City Charter, Section 6.1, or who otherwise exercises the power of the City. R. "Receiving agency" means any agency, corporation, or group receiving funds from the City of Tacoma for a specific program or operation. S. "Contractor" means any individual, corporation, or company bound by an agreement to provide goods or services to the City of Tacoma. T. "Joint agency" means any legal entity created by the City of Tacoma and another jurisdiction to provide goods or services to the City of Tacoma. U. "Remote interest" means: 1. That of a nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation; 2. That of an employee or agent of a contracting party where the compensation of such employee or agent consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; 3. That of a landlord or tenant of a contracting party; 4. That of a holder of less than one percent of the shares of a corporation or cooperative which is a contracting party; and 5. That of a holder of less than five percent of a City of Tacoma public bond issue or securities. V. "Transcript" shall mean the verbatim electronic recording of proceedings. (Ord. 25480 § 1; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 25385 § 2; passed Oct. 26, 1993 Ord. 24734 § 1; passed Oct. 2, 1990: Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.030 Ethical standards and prohibited practices enumerated. In order to avoid becoming involved or implicated in a conflict of interest or impropriety or, just as important, an appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety, all City personnel and all persons shall obey the following prohibitions: A. No City personnel shall, except for compensation as provided by law, use his or her office or any confidential information received thereby for any Tacoma Municipal Code private purpose, including, without limitation: commercial purposes, financial gain, present or future employment or gain for himself or herself, a member of his or her immediate family, or business with which he or she is associated. B. 1. No person shall offer or give anything of value to City personnel, members of their immediate family, or business with which they are associated, or to any candidate for elected City office, member of his or her immediate family, or business with which he is associated, based on any agreement, understanding, or implication that the vote or official action of any City personnel or any candidate for elected City office would be influenced or determined thereby. 2. No City personnel or candidate for elected City office shall solicit or accept anything of value based on any agreement, understanding, or implication that the vote or official action of any City personnel or any candidate for elected City office would be influenced or determined thereby. C. No City personnel, in their relationships with any person, shall use the power or authority of their office or position, nor shall any candidate for elected City office use the prospect of office in a manner intended to induce or coerce another person to provide, directly or indirectly, anything of value which will accrue to the private advantage, benefit, or economic gain of the official, employee, or any other person. As used in this subsection, the term "private advantage, benefit, or economic gain" shall mean advantage, benefit, or economic gain distinct from that of the general public or not resulting naturally from lawful and proper performance of duties. D. No City personnel shall use their official influence to assist any person for compensation, other than compensation as provided by law, before a governmental body, public official, or public employee. E. No City personnel shall render or agree to render any personal, nonofficial services in connection with the acquisition by any governmental body of an interest in real or personal property. F. No City personnel shall: 1. Share in any way in the compensation or in anything of value received by another person in respect to any transaction in which City personnel are prohibited from engaging. 1-211 (Revised 912000) Omce systemstl Tacoma Municipal Code 2. Accept anything of value, other than compensation provided by law, for rendering the services for which he or she is compensated. G. No former City personnel shall: 1. Within two years after his or her employment has ceased or term ended, knowingly act as agent, consultant, or attorney for anyone other than the City in connection with any particular matter in which the City is a party, if the employee participated personally and substantially in that particular matter while so employed. 2. Since subsection 1 above is a restriction upon subsequent employment, the terms "particular matter" and "participated personally and substantially" are to be strictly construed. The term "particular matter" is restricted to mean any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, or arrest involving a specific party or parties and which has a substantial impact upon the parties and/or the City. The term "participated personally and substantially" is restricted to mean a greater than minimal involvement by way of participation as a public official, public employee, or City personnel through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, investigation, or rendering advice, and by reason thereof, acquired information, special knowledge, or other specific advantages not generally available to the general public or experts in the field. H. No City personnel shall: 1. Use, request, or permit the use of City motor vehicles, equipment, materials, or property, except in the conduct of official business. 2. Use, request, or permit the use of City employee services except in the conduct of official business. 1. No person and no City personnel shall engage in or aid and abet any act of reprisal against any person as a consequence of that person's having made a report of violation; provided, that this shall not prohibit the exercise of lawful remedies available to such person to redress wrongs. J. No person and no City personnel shall intentionally commit or allow any breach of confidentiality as required by this Code of Ethics in connection with any report or investigation of a violation. K. No person and no City personnel shall knowingly and intentionally induce or coerce or attempt to induce or coerce anyone to violate any provision of this Code of Ethics. L. No person and no City personnel shall knowingly file a false charge or report of violation of this Code of Ethics with the City Clerk, City Manager, or Director of Utilities. For purposes of this subsection, every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a false statement. M. No City personnel shall intentionally engage in any act, in addition to those listed above, which is in conflict with the performance of his or her official duties. N. Unless otherwise provided by law: 1. No person and no City personnel shall serve as a member of a nonelected governmental body, committee, or subcommittee, or an advisory board or committee, in which he or she shall have a financial interest, either personal or through a member of his or her immediate family or a business with which he or she is associated, other than an interest of a de minimis nature or an interest which is not distinct from that of the general public, in matters subject to the jurisdiction of the body, committee, or subcommittee, or matters upon which the advisory board or committee renders advice. 2. City personnel, other than officers elected by the people and persons appointed to fill vacancies in elective offices or persons who would not be City personnel except by virtue of their appointment to boards and commissions, shall serve on such nonelected governmental bodies, committees, or subcommittees only as staff advisors and not as voting members, unless otherwise provided by law. O. A City officer or employee shall not be deemed to be directly or indirectly interested in a contract, within the meaning of Section 6.6 of the Charter of the City of Tacoma, if that officer or employee has only a remote interest in the contract, sale, lease, or purchase with or for the use of the City, and if the fact and extent of such interest is disclosed to the City Council or board or commission of the City of Tacoma and noted in the official minutes or similar records of the City prior to the formation of the contract, sale, lease or purchase, and, thereafter, the City Council or board or commission of the City of Tacoma authorizes, approves, or ratifies the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose. If the officer having the remote interest is a member of City Council, or board or commission of the City of Tacoma, such action shall (Revised 912000) 1-212 Odice systemsa be taken without counting the vote or votes of the officer having the remote interest. None of the provisions of this section shall be applicable to any officer or employee interested in a contract, though the interest be only remote, who influences or attempts to influence any other officer or employee of the City of Tacoma. No officer or employee of the City shall transact any business or exercise any functions or responsibilities in his or her official capacity with any entity of which he or she is an officer, agent, employee, or member, or in which he or she owns an interest. An officer's or employee's contract involving the City's furnishing of electrical, water or other utility services at the same rates and on the same terms as are available to the public generally shall not be a beneficial interest in a contract as prohibited by Section 6.6 of the Charter. (Ord. 25480 § 2; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 25385 § 3; passed Oct. 26, 1993: Ord. 24734 § 2; passed Oct. 2, 1990: Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.035 Certain personnel actions exempt. Except with respect to disciplinary action initiated pursuant to the provisions of subsection 1.46.040B of this Code, this chapter does not apply to personnel action which is subject to: A. The jurisdiction of the Civil Service Board; B. Grievance procedures adopted as a result of a collective bargaining agreement; C. The jurisdiction of another administrative tribunal, board, or commission of the City, State, or Federal government; or D. The exercise of management rights specifically retained in a collective bargaining agreement. (Ord. 25480 § 3; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 25385 § 4; passed Oct. 26, 1993: Ord. 24734 § 3; passed Oct. 2, 1990.) 1.46.040 Responsibilities of the City Manager or Director of Utilities. A. There is hereby delegated to the City Manager or Director of Utilities, the responsibility set forth in Section 1.46.050 relating to enforcement procedures. Once such allegation or complaint has been filed with the office of the City Cleric and notice of such filing has been transmitted to the City Manager for matters concerning City government, or the Director of Utilities for matters concerning the Department of Public Utilities, whichever may be appropriate, which notice shall not set forth any names or details Tacoma Municipal Code concerning the complaint, then the City Manager or the Director of Utilities shall designate and appoint an individual to handle an investigation in those cases or instances involving persons and City personnel, other than regular City employees. B, In all instances of complaints or reports of allegations of impropriety involving City employees as defined by this chapter, the reports shall be referred to the City Manager or Director of Utilities, as may be appropriate, for a proper investigation and appropriate disciplinary action consistent with the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of the City of Tacoma involving City personnel. (Ord. 25480 § 4; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.050 Enforcement procedures. A. Any person who has knowledge of a violation of this Code of Ethics committed by any person other than an employee of the City of Tacoma subject to the jurisdiction of the City Manager or Director of Utilities, may make a signed written report of the same to the City Clerk. The fact that a report has been received, the contents of the report, and the identity of the person making the report shall remain confidential until such time as the City Manager or Director of Utilities, after receipt of notice as provided herein, has referred the same to an individual (hereinafter "Investigative Designee") for an initial threshold determination that probable cause exists to believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics has occurred. B. Upon receipt of a report, the Investigative Designee, without benefit of subpoenas or sworn testimony, shall make such preliminary investigation as he or she deems appropriate to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a violation of the Code of Ethics has occurred. If the Investigative Designee is satisfied that probable cause does exist, he or she shall refer the matter to the proper authorities for criminal prosecution, if conduct constitutes a criminal offense. Additionally, the Investigative Designee shall present the matter to the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing, represented by the City Attorney or the City Attorney's designee, to pursue any other remedies provided by this chapter. C. If the Investigative Designee should determine probable cause does not exist, he or she shall communicate his or her decision in writing to the person who made the initial report. 1-213 (Revised 912000) Office Syste=n Tacoma Municipal Code D. Should the Investigative Designee present the matter to the Hearing Examiner, the Investigative Designee shall notify, in writing, the person who made the report and the person complained against, of the public hearing which will be held to determine if a violation has occurred. The person complained against shall have the right to file a written answer to the charge and to appear at the hearing with or without legal counsel, submit testimony, be fully heard, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. E. Hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner shall be informal, meaning that the Hearing Examiner shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity. The person complained against may be represented by legal counsel and/or by his or her bargaining representative, and may present and cross-examine witnesses and give evidence before the Hearing Examiner. The case in support of the Investigative Designee's findings of probable cause shall be presented at the hearing by the City Attorney or the City Attorney's designee; provided, however, that the complaining party may retain independent counsel and submit testimony and be fully heard. The Hearing Examiner may call witnesses on his or her own motion and compel the production of books, records, papers, or other evidence needed by the parties. To that end, the Hearing Examiner shall issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum at the request of the Hearing Examiner, Investigative Designee or the person complained against. All testimony shall be under oath administered by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner may adjourn his or her hearing from time to time in order to allow for the orderly presentation of evidence. Upon motion made by the person complained against or upon the City's motion, the Hearing Examiner may temporarily stay or permanently suspend the hearing when, in his or her informed discretion, the manifest needs of justice and fairness will be better served thereby. The Hearing Examiner shall prepare an official record of the hearing, including all testimony, which shall be recorded manually or by mechanical device, and exhibits; provided, that the Hearing Examiner shall not be required to transcribe such records unless presented with a request accompanied by payment of the cost of transcription. F. Within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, make and fully record in his permanent records, findings of fact, conclusions of law, determination of a recommended disposition, and his or her order. A copy of the findings, conclusions, recommended disposition, and order shall be forwarded by certified mail to the person who made the initial report and to the person complained against at addresses as given by both persons to the Hearing Examiner. An additional copy of the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and order shall be forwarded to the Investigative Designee, the City Attorney or the City Attorney's designee, and the person(s) responsible for acting on the recommendations. G. Any person found, by final written order of the Hearing Examiner, to be in violation of this Code of Ethics may seek review of the Hearing Examiner's order and any other decision based upon that order in the following manner: 1. Civil Penalty. If the Hearing Examiner orders the person to pay a civil penalty, the person may appeal in the form of a trial de novo in the Tacoma Municipal Court, which shall hear the case according to the Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CRLJ) and applicable local rules of the Tacoma Municipal Court. This appeal shall be taken by filing in the Tacoma Municipal Court a notice of appeal within 14 days of the Hearing Examiner's order. The person filing the appeal shall also, within the same 14 days, serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the Hearing Examiner, the Investigative Designee, the City Attorney, or his or her designee, and file an acknowledgment or affidavit of service in the Tacoma Municipal Court. 2. Cease and Desist. If the Hearing Examiner orders a person to cease and desist violating this chapter, the person may seek a writ of review from the Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW. 3. Public Disclosure. If the Hearing Examiner orders a person to file any documents or papers required by this chapter, the person may seek a writ of review from the Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW. 4. Discipline. If the Hearing Examiner recommends either discipline or removal from office for a City official and the discipline or removal actually occurs, the City official may seek whatever remedies exist at law or in equity. 5, Debarment. If the Hearing Examiner recommends that the person be excluded from bidding on public contracts and the exclusion actually occurs, the person may seek whatever remedies exist at law or in equity. (Revised 912000) 1-214 OMce Systemsa 6. Termination of Contract. If the Hearing Examiner recommends that the person's contract with the City be terminated and the contract is actually terminated, the person may seek whatever remedies exist at law or in equity. H. Either the City Manager or the Director of Utilities may refer any complaint against a City employee to an individual for processing substantially in accordance with the provisions of this section in lieu of conducting his or her own investigation, in those instances wherein he or she may determine the action complained of does not warrant disciplinary proceedings under the Charter and ordinances of the City of Tacoma. (Ord. 25480 § 5; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.055 Frivolous complaints. A. The Hearing Examiner may, at the request of a party or sua sponte, make a finding that a complaint brought pursuant to this Ethics Code and investigated in accordance with Section 1.46.050 is frivolous and without merit. B. If the Hearing Examiner makes a finding under Section 1.46.055.A above that a complaint has been brought which is frivolous and without merit, the person making such a complaint shall be liable to the City for the cost of the Investigative Designee's investigation and the Hearing Examiner's hearing, and if the complainant is a City employee, he or she may also be subject to disciplinary action. (Ord. 25480 § 6; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 24734 § 4; passed Oct. 2, 1990.) 1.46.060 Actions of Hearing Examiner - Other sanctions preserved. A. Whenever the Hearing Examiner determines that a person or a member of City personnel has knowingly violated any provision of this Code of Ethics, the Hearing Examiner may issue an order to the violator to comply with any or all of the following requirements: 1. To cease and desist violation of this chapter; 2. To file any reports or other documents or information required by this chapter; 3. To require the violator to pay to the City a civil penalty of $250.00. B. Whenever the Hearing Examiner determines that a person or a member of City personnel excluding members of the City Council has knowingly violated any provision of this Code of Ethics, the Hearing Tacoma Municipal Code Examiner may also recommend that one or all of the following actions be taken by the appropriate City officials: 1. That the person, only if he or she is also a member of the unclassified service, as defined by City Charter Section 6. 1, be disciplined or removed from his or her position; 2. That the person's contract which is the subject of the Code of Ethics violation be terminated only if such contract gave notice of termination in the event of a Code of Ethics violation; and 3. That the person be excluded from bidding on City contracts for a period of up to five years. C. Violators may be subject to other liabilities to the extent that their conduct violates other provisions of the law, including, without limitation, RCW 9A.68.010 - 9A.68.050 (Bribery and Corrupt Influence) and RCW 9A.80.010 (Abuse of Office), and to such extent criminal penalties shall be imposed in accordance with State law. D. Any sanction imposed under this chapter is in addition to and not in lieu of any other penalty or sanction which may be imposed according to law or equity, including removal or recall from office, employee disciplinary action, or injunctive relief to insure that any violation of this chapter ceases and desists and/or that any statement or other information required by this Code of Ethics is filed. (Ord. 25480 § 7; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.070 Penalties for violation. A. Any person or City personnel who knowingly violates any provision of subsections A through O of Section 1.46,030 hereof shall pay to the City a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00, in addition to such other civil or criminal liability or penalty as may otherwise be imposed upon him or her by law. B. A knowing violation of any provision of subsections A through O of Section 1.46.030 hereof also constitutes a breach of any contract which so provides. Such a breach is cause for termination of the contracts. C. A knowing violation of any provision of subsections A through O of Section 1.46.030 hereof is cause for discipline or removal from any appointed City position, excluding positions of City Council members. Such discipline or removal shall occur only after notice and hearing as provided by law. The predisciplinary procedure set forth in 1-215 (Revised 912000) Once Sysremsa Tacoma Municipal Code Section 1.24.955 shall be followed .for permanent employees in the Classified City Service. D. A knowing violation of any provision of subsections A through O of Section 1.46.030 hereof is cause for excluding the person from bidding on City contracts for a period of up to five years. E. Any violations of subsections A through O of Section 1.46.030 hereof must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ord. 25480 § 8; passed May 3, 1994: Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.080 Miscellaneous administrative provisions. A. It shall be the responsibility of all officials to give this Code of Ethics the widest possible written dissemination among City personnel to ensure that all public employees become aware of its contents. B. The City Council may appoint a task force of citizens to review the Code of Ethics, as necessary, for recommended changes to improve the Code. (Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.090 Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this chapter, it being hereby expressly declared that this chapter and each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. (Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) 1.46.100 Financial disclosure. All persons presently required to file reports under the public disclosure law of the State of Washington shall, upon assuming any City office or position, file with the City Clerk a true and correct copy of the completed report required to be filed under said State law. (Ord. 22842 § 1; passed Dec. 28, 1982.) Chapter 1.48 PROCUREMENT PROGRAM FOR RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS Sections; 1.48.010 Purpose. 1.48.020 Definitions. 1.48.030 Goals and procedures to maximize use of recycled paper products, 1.48.040 Minimum content and composition standards. 1.48.050 Adjustments to bid price for evaluation of individual products meeting minimum content and composition standards. 1.48.060 Annual report. 1.48.070 Responsibilities and reporting requirements of City departments. 1.48.080 Exemptions. 1.48.090 Severability. 1.48.010 Purpose. In order to stimulate the demand for and development of markets for recycled paper and paper products, the City of Tacoma establishes purchasing requirements for paper and paper products by City departments as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 24831 § 1; passed Feb. 5, 1991.) 1.48.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this chapter: A. "Contractor" means any person, group of persons, association, partnership, corporation, or other type of business entity which has a contract with the City of Tacoma or which serves in a subcontracting capacity with an entity having a contract with the City of Tacoma for the provision of goods and/or services. B. "Department" shall refer to any department as defined by City ordinance or other applicable law and shall include all City agencies not associated with a department. These agencies shall similarly discharge those duties this chapter requires of departments. C. "Director" means the director of a City department or his/her designee. D, "Post -consumer paper material" means recovered paper materials of those products generated by a business or consumer which have served their intended end uses and which have been separated or (Revised 912000) 1-216 Olrce systemsa Seattle Municipal Code -- Selected Docs Page 1 of 1 Ud 1 d"L 2.aef def hie hie �' ■ Search Terms: " : 2=1 : 1="4.16"$.HEAD.: " Documents: 1 - 11 of 11 Seattle Municipal Code REF Section 1 3.64.050 TeMorary participants. TJ 2 Chapter Table of Contents 3 4.16.010 Code of Ethics. 4 4.16.020 Purpos_e... 5 4.16.030 Definitions. 6 4.16.070 Prohibited conduct. 7 4.16.075 Prohibited conductaft_er_leav_ing_City. 8 4.16.080 Statements of financial interests. 9 4.16.090 Complaints, investigations, hearings, and enforcement. 10 4.16.100 Action on violation. 11 4 .16 .105 Emp_loyee._,_appea,l of _fine NE910 ,..deFae1 abc hie hie ./nph-brs. exe?s 1=4.16%24&s2=&S 3=&Sect4=AND&1=20&Sect 1=IMAGE&S ect3=PLURON811231O 1 Page 1 of 1 hie 3.h eFf heRMWOH90 Seattle Municipal Code In ormation retrieved January 23, 2001 3: 49 PM SMC 4.16.010 Code of Ethics. This chapter shall be known as the "Code of Ethics" and may be cited as such. (Ord. 109950 Section 1(part), 1981: Ord. 1OBB82 Section 4.16.010, 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5 70 7, or by e-mail at clerk@ci. seattle. wa. us) rXIE9 Bali,, 'I", ie LM hie &hie H http://clerk.ei.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=3&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 1 hie Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: 50 PM SMC 4.16.020 Purpose. A. The City finds that the proper operation of democratic representative government requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people; that government decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this chapter to establish ethical standards of conduct for all officers and employees of the City, whether elected or appointed, paid or unpaid; to set forth those acts that are incompatible with such standards; to require disclosure by such officers and employees of private financial or other interests in matters affecting the City; and to provide effective means for enforcement thereof. This chapter is not to be construed so as to impair the ability of City officers and employees to participate in ceremonial, representational, or informational functions in the pursuit of their official duties. B. This chapter shall be liberally construed in favor of protecting the public's interest in full disclosure of conflicts of interest and promoting ethical standards of conduct for City officers and employees. C. This Code shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the maxim that "De minimis non curat lex" and to allow inadvertent minor violations to be corrected and cured with- out full hearing in conformance with the spirit and purpose of this Code. (Ord. 115548 Section 1, 1991; Ord. 109950 Section 1(part), 1981: Ord. 108882 Section 4.16.0200 , 1960.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) ® � dh pe[ 23i...dhbhIt,L [VIP 'EF � I http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&Y=4&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 2 ab( I ]dt.[ bt hie S.hiej ve EEO ad 0 IM [a �EH�m Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved .Ianuary 23, 2001 3: 50 PM SMC 4.16.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated. A. "Administrator" means the Executive Director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. B. "Assist" shall have the meaning set forth at RCW 42.18.050. C. "Board of Ethics" or "Board" or "Commission" means the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission established by Section 3.70.010. D. "City agency" means every department, office, board, commission, or committee of the City, or any subdivision thereof, but excludes public corporations and ad hoc advisory committees. E. "City officer or employee" means every individual elected or appointed to an office or position of employment in any City agency, whether such individual is paid or unpaid. For purposes of Sections 4.16.090 ED G and 4.16.100 0 B only, "City employee" also includes every individual who was a City employee at the time of the act or omission that is alleged to have violated this chapter, even though he or she is not a City employee at the time of the hearing or appeal provided under those subsections. F. "Immediate family" means: 1. A spouse or domestic partner as contemplated by Sections 4.30.0100 -- 4.30.020 FE1; 2. Any dependent parent, parent -in-law, child or son-in-law or daughter-in-law; or 3. Any parent, parent -in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in- law, sibling, uncle, aunt, cousin, niece or nephew residing in the household of the City officer or employee. G. "Person" means individual, association, corporation, or other legal entity. H. "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. (Ord. 118735 Sections 1, 2, 1997; Ord. 116377 Section 4, 1992; Ord. 116005 Section 8, 1991: Ord. 115552 Section 1, 1991; Ord. 109950 Section 1(part), 1981: Ord. 108882 Section 4.16.030 , 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is http://clerk.ei.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=4..../code1.htm&r=5&Sect6=HITOFF&f-- 1/23/01 Page 2 of 2 provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) 8,55 H [11 hia REIM hi�a 79EEIEII�IEI http://clerk.ci.scattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=4..../code1.htm&r=5&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 3 ® ® hie &h ell �k of FRII� L:�' � � �■ � �' Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: SO PM SMC 4.16.070 Prohibited conduct. No current City officer or employee shall: 1. Disqualification From Acting On City Business. a. Engage in any transaction or activity, which is, or would to a reasonable person appear to be, in conflict with or incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties, or which impairs, or would to a reasonable person appear to impair, the officer's or employee's independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties and fail to disqualify him or herself from official action in those instances where the conflict occurs; b. Have a financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, personally or through a member of his or her immediate family, in any matter upon which the officer or employee is required to act in the discharge of his or her official duties, and fail to disqualify himself or herself from acting or participating; C. Fail to disqualify himself or herself from acting on any transaction which involves the City and any person who is, or at any time within the preceding twelve (12) month period has been a private client of his or hers, or of his or her firm or partnership; d. Have a financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, personally or through a member of his or her immediate family, in any contract or transaction to which the City or any City agency may be a party, and fails to disclose such interest to the appropriate City authority prior to the formation of the contract or the time the City or City agency enters into the transaction; provided, that this paragraph shall not apply to any contract awarded through the public bid process in accordance with applicable law. 2. Improper Use Of Official Position. a. Use his or her official position for a purpose that is, or would to a reasonable person appear to be primarily for the private benefit of the officer or employee, rather than primarily for the benefit of the City; or to achieve a private gain or an exemption from duty or responsibility for the officer or employee or any other person; b. Use or permit the use of any person, funds, or property under his or her official control, direction, or custody, or of any City funds or City property, for a purpose which is, or to a reasonable person would appear to be, for other than a City purpose; pro- vided, that nothing shall prevent the private use of City property which is available on equal terms to the public generally (such as the use of library books or tennis courts), the use of City property in accord-ance with municipal policy for the conduct of http://clerk.ci.scattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=4..../codel.htm&r=6&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 2 of 3 official City business (such as the use of a City automobile), if in fact the property is used appropriately; or the use of City property for participation of the City or its officials in activi- ties of associations of governments or governmental officials; C. Except in the course of official duties, assist any person in any City transaction where such City officer or employee's assistance is, or to a reasonable person would appear to be, en- hanced by that officer or employee's position with the City; provided that this subsection 4.16.070 0 Alc shall not apply to: any officer or employee appearing on his or her own behalf or representing himself or herself as to any matter in which he or she has a proprietary interest, if not otherwise prohibited by ordinance; d. Regardless of prior disclosure thereof, have a financial interest, direct or indirect, personally or through a member of his or her immediate family, in a business entity doing or seeking to do business with the City, and influence or attempt to influence the selection of, or the conduct of business with, such business entity by the City. 3. Accept Gifts or Loans. a. Solicit or receive any retainer, gift, loan, entertainment, favor, or other thing of monetary value from any person or entity where the retainer, gift, loan, entertainment, favor, or other thing of monetary value has been solicited, or received or given or, to a reasonable person, would appear to have been solicited, received or given with intent to give or obtain special consid- eration or influence as to any action by such officer or employee in his or her official capacity; provided, that nothing shall prohibit contributions which are solicited or received and report- ed in accordance with applicable law. 4. Disclose Privileged Information. a. Disclose or use any privileged or proprietary information gained by reason of his or her official position for a purpose which is for other than a City purpose; provided, that nothing shall prohibit the disclosure or use of information which is a matter of public knowledge, or which is available to the public on request. 5. Hold Financial or Beneficial Interest in City Transaction. a. Regardless of prior disclosure thereof hold or acquire a beneficial interest, direct or indirect, personally or through a member of his or her immediate family, in any contract which, in whole or in part, is, or which may be, made by, through, or under the supervision of such officer or employee or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office; or accept, directly or indi- rectly, any compensation, gratuity, or reward in connection with such contract from any other person or entity beneficially interested therein, in violation of Chapter 42.23 RCW; b. Regardless of prior disclosure thereof, be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract or transaction which may be made by, through or under the supervision of such officer, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensa- tion, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract or transaction from any other person beneficially interested therein. http://clerlc.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=6&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 3 of 3 This subsection shall not apply to the furnishing of electrical, water, other utility services or other services by the City at the same rates and on the same terms as are available to the public generally. (Ord. 116377 Section 5, 1992; Ord. 115548 Section 2, 1991; Ord. 109950 Section 1 (part), 1981: Ord. 108882 Section 14.16.070, 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) aE.i i ktj [ a,, 3.?hi e he NEDIN F MEIIEIIiIEI http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=6&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 1 gFl Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: 50 PM SMC 4.16.075 Prohibited conduct after leaving City. A. No former officer or employee shall disclose or use any privileged or proprietary information gained by reason of his/her City employment unless the information is a matter of public knowledge or is available to the public on request; B. No former officer or employee shall, during the period of one (1) year after leaving City Office or employment: 1. Assist any person in proceedings involving the agency of the City with which he/she was previously employed, or on a matter in which he or she was officially involved, participated or acted in the course of duty; 2. Represent any person as an advocate in any matter in which the former officer or employee was officially involved while a City officer or employee; 3. Participate as a competitor in any competitive selection process for, a City contract in which he or she assisted the City in determining the project or work to be done or the process to be used. C. A City officer, who contracts with a former City officer or employee for expert or consultant services within one (1) year of the latter's leaving City office or employment, shall promptly inform the Administrator about the agreement. D. The prohibitions of Sections 4.16.0750 Bl and 4.16.075 21 B2 shall not apply to former employees acting on behalf of a governmental agency unless such assistance or representation is adverse to the interest of the City. (Ord. 116377 Section 6, 1992: Ord. 115548 Section 3, 1991.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) ®� INa '4hie http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=7&Sect6=HITOFF&f-- 1/23/01 Page 1 of 3 L E M R:1.5E E": e�a 41j �I Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: 51 PM SMC 4.16.080 Statements of financial interests. A. Officers and Employees Subject to RCW 42.17.240. Every officer or employee of the City subject to the reporting requirements of RCW 42.17.240 shall file a duplicate copy of the report required to be filed under SMC Section 2.04.165� with the Ethics and Elections Commission (the Commission) at the same time the original report is required to be filed with the Public Disclosure Commission. B. Officers and Employees Not Subject to RCW 42.17.240 -- Reporting Person -- Reporting Requirement. 1. The Commission shall adopt by rule a list of the City officers and employees, identified by job title, pocket number, position description, or other means that provide adequate speci- ficity, who shall file a statement of financial interests with the Commission. The list may be amended by rule from time to time, and shall include: (a) every head of a City department and every divi- sion manager reporting directly to the head of a City department; (b) every Assistant City Attorney; (c) each Deputy Mayor and each other member of the Mayor's staff with authority to direct the expenditure of City resources; (d) the City Clerk, City Auditor, and every employee in the City Auditor's office who conducts or supervises the conduct of audits; (e) employees identified by department heads as having had decision -making authority over the preceding one (1) year period for (i) the purchase of goods or (ii) the purchase of equipment or (iii) the negotiation of contracts or (iv) the execution of contracts, the purchases or contracts having a total value of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more; (f) each employee who supervises, directly or through others, an employee listed pursuant to subsection Ble of this sec- tion; and (g) every member of a City committee, City board, or City commission, that administers, interprets or executes City ordinances, whether a member is paid or unpaid. Each head of a City department shall identify the employees within that department fitting the categories in this subsection in accordance with procedures adopted by the Commission. 2. Each person listed or described on the then -current list of the Commission adopted under this section and each person taking on the duties or assuming the position of such a person (a re- porting person) shall file a statement of financial interests within two (2) weeks of employment or appointment; and in addition, after January 1st and before April 15th of each year. The statement shall be for the preceding calendar year. 3. Each statement of financial interests filed under this section shall provide complete information with respect to the reporting person and each member of the immediate family of the reporting person. 4. Each statement of financial interests filed under this http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=8&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 2 of 3 section shall be sworn as to its truth and accuracy. C. Officers and Employees Not Subject to RCW 42.17.240 -- Contents of the Statement of Financial Interests Required by Section 4.16.080 B. 1. Every head or listed division manager of a City department, every Assistant City Attorney, the employees designated in subsection Bic of this section in the Office of the Mayor and the employees designated in subsections Bid, e, and f of this section shall file with the Commission the information required in subsections C3a -- d of this section. 2. Every member of a City committee, City board, or City commission, that administers, interprets or executes City laws, whether a member is paid or unpaid, shall file with the Commission the information required in subsections C3a -- c of this section. In addition, every member of the Landmarks Preservation Board and every member of a special review district shall file with the Commission the information required in subsections C3a -- d of this section. 3. The financial interests statement shall contain the following information: a. The name and address of each person engaged in any transaction or activity with the City, excluding the purchase of utilities, from whom the reporting person, or a member of the reporting person.'s immediate family, has received compensation in any form of a total value of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) or more, excluding campaign contributions reported in accordance with applicable law, and the name of each City agency involved in the transaction or activity, if known; b. The name and address of each person engaging in any transaction or activity with the City, excluding the purchase of utilities, in which the reporting person or a member of the reporting person's immediate family held a direct financial interest with a value of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500) or more; provided that policies of insurance and amounts on deposit in accounts with banks, savings and loan associations or credit unions shall not constitute a direct financial interest within the meaning of this section, and the name of each involved City agency, if known; C. If a reporting person or a member of his or her immediate family holds a position in an entity engaged in any transaction with the City, the name of the person holding office and the title of office, directorship, or trusteeship held. The reporting person shall include the name and address of the entity and, if known, the name of each City agency with which the entity was involved. The reporting person may exclude an entity whose only transactions with the City consist of the purchase of utilities. d. A list, including either addresses or legal descriptions of all real property in the City in which the reporting person or a member of the reporting person's immediate family held a direct financial interest; and if the facilities and properties of a City agency which employs the reporting person extend beyond the City limits, the list shall include all real property located within the county or counties within which such City agency has property or facilities, except that a member of a special review district need only report as to property within the district. No property shall be identified on the statement as being the home or personal http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=8&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 3 of 3 residence of the reporting person. D. Officers and Employees Not Subject to RCW 42.17.240 -- Suspension or Modification of Reporting Requirements. After hearing, the Commission may by order suspend or modify a reporting requirement in a particular case if it finds that literal appli- cation of the requirement would cause a manifestly unreasonable hardship and that such suspension or modification will not frustrate the purposes of this chapter. (Ord. 119442 Section 3, 1999; Ord. 117056 Section 1, 1994: Ord. 109950 Section 1 (part), 1981: Ord. 108882 Section 4.16.080 Z , 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) ® ® -It-r hef &hi lmz [ �� MLAY O�� http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=8&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 3 def 2.def dEf hie 3,hiE hie RMWEHI�]E Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: Sl PM SMC 4.16.090 Complaints, investigations, hearings, and enforcement. In addition to the powers of the Commission and its Executive Director under SMC Sections 3.70.1000 and 3.70.1600 to initiate an investigation, an investigation may also be initiated by filing a complaint. A. Any person may file a complaint alleging a violation of this chapter. If such complaint is filed by a member of the Commission, he or she is then disqualified from participating in any pro- ceedings that may arise from the complaint. B. The complaint shall be in writing and shall be signed by the complainant. The written complaint shall state the nature of the alleged violation(s), the date(s), time and place of each occur- rence, and name of the person(s) alleged to have violated this chapter. The complaint shall be filed with the Executive Director. The complainant shall provide the Executive Director with all available documentation or other evidence to demonstrate a reason for believing that a violation has occurred. C. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of a complaint, the Executive Director shall conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether a complaint, on its face, alleges facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of Chapter 4.16. At the request of the Executive Director, the Commission may, for good cause shown, extend the time for completion of the preliminary investigation. If the Commission determines that the preliminary investigation must be completed in less than thirty (30) days in order to avoid prejudice or irreparable harm to the person alleged to have violated this chapter, the Commission shall order the Executive Director to complete the preliminary investigation in a shorter period of time, and the Executive Director shall comply. D. If the Executive Director determines, after investigation, that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, or determines that the violation was inadvertent and minor, the Executive Director shall dismiss the complaint. If the Executive Director does so dismiss the complaint, he or she shall do so in writing, setting forth the facts and the provisions of law upon which the dismissal is based, and shall provide a copy of the written dismissal to the complainant, to the person named in the complaint as the alleged violator and to the Commission. E. If, after investigation, the Executive Director has reason to believe that a material violation of Chapter 4.16 has occurred, the Executive Director shall initiate an enforcement proceeding by issuing to the alleged violator a charging document which includes the provisions of Chapter 4.16 allegedly violated and the conduct that constitutes the violation(s), and shall issue a copy of the charging document to the Commission and schedule a hearing before the Commission. No hearing shall be scheduled, however, while an http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=4..../code1.htm&r=9&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 2 of 3 Executive Director's recommendation for a settlement is awaiting action by the Commission. F. The Commission shall commence a hearing within thirty (30) days from the date that the Executive Director schedules the hearing. The Commission shall issue a written determination stat- ing whether the chapter has been violated and setting forth the facts and the provisions of law upon which this determination is based. A copy of said determination shall be delivered to the complainant, if any, to the person charged with the violation and, where appropri- ate, to the person's superior. G. All hearings hereunder shall be conducted as "contested case" hearings under the Administrative Code, Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 3.02 (Ordinance 102228) and the Commission's rules and regulations. All hearings under this section shall be open to the public unless closed upon the request of the City employee who is the subject of the charges being heard, except that all hearings on charges against (1) City officials elected by the public, (2) the Deputy Mayor, if any, (3) heads of departments and Executive Department offices, (4) members of boards and commissions, and (5) those City employees who are represented by a labor union that, on the date the charges were filed, had not reached written agreement with the City concerning closing hearings on request, shall be open to the public. Regardless of whether the hearing was closed, if the Commission determines this chapter was violated, the charges, all recordings or transcripts of hearings that were made by the Commission, and the Commission's written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be made public. H. If the Commission determines that a City officer or employee has violated the provisions of this chapter, the Commission may recommend that the officer or employee be subject to disciplinary action. In addition to any other penalty herein or otherwise provided by law, a violation shall be cause for suspension, discharge, or removal from office, or such other disciplinary action as may, by the appropriate City authority, be deemed neces- sary and proper, and consistent with personnel ordinances and rules. A written report of the disciplinary action taken as a result of the Commission recommendation shall be made by the appropriate City authority to the Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the Commission's recommendation; provided, that this section shall not derogate from employee rights under any collective bargaining agreement or City personnel ordinance, or rules promulgated thereunto. If the appropriate City authority determines that the written report of disciplinary action taken as a result of the Commission recommendation required in the section cannot be made to the Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the Commission's recommenda- tion, because of procedures prescribed under any collective bargaining agreement, personnel ordinance, or rule promulgated thereunto, the appropriate City authority shall so report to the Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the Commission's recommendation, stating the date on which the written report of disciplinary action taken will be submitted to the Commission. If the violation involves prohibited conduct of a former officer or employee, the Commission may recommend to the administering City authority that no contract be made or that the contract be terminated and that proceedings be begun anew in order to prevent injury to the City or to avoid an unfair advantage accruing to a competitor by reason of the violation. Upon receipt of the written report of the disciplinary action taken, or in the http://clerk.ei.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=4..../code1.htm&x=9&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 3 of 3 event no report is received, the Commission shall review such matter and make such further recommendation as may be appropriate. (Ord. 118735 Section 3, 1997: Ord. 116377 Section 7, 1992; Ord. 115548 Section 4, 1991: Ord. 109950 Section 1(part), 1981: Ord. 108882 Section 4.16.090� , 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) IN12 hie &hie hie http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=4..../codel.htm&r=9&Sect6=HIT0FF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 1 ® ® ftlit'-;ri.a0rIHHDWEHI�10 2.d�F 3.n}e Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: 51 PM, SMC 4.16.100 Action on violation. The Commission may take one (1) or more of the following actions for violation of any provision of Chapter 4.16: A. Recommend prosecution or other remedy to the appropriate authorities; B. Impose a monetary fine of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation or three (3) times the economic value of any thing sought or received in violation of Chapter 4.16, whichever is greater; C. Require reimbursement for damages of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) sustained by the City that were caused by the violation and were not recovered by the City; D. Require costs, including reasonable investigative costs, that do not exceed the amount of any monetary fine; E. Recommend to the Mayor and the appropriate agency that they request the City Attorney to bring an action to cancel or rescind the result of action taken by the violator, upon a Commission finding that: 1. The violation has substantially influenced the City action, and 2. Interests of the City require cancellation or rescission. Each act that violates one or more provisions of Chapter 4.16 may constitute a separate violation. Violation may be proven by a pre- ponderance of evidence, and need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ord. 120118 Section 1, 2000: Ord. 118735 Section 4, 1997: Ord. 109950 Section 1 (part), 1961: Ord. 108882 Section 4.16.100 ED , 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) rM ED[ W abl &h a We http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=.../codel.htm&r=10&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 2 NEDIRabf S.dh[®�lr^'}�►,• !] 3.hi2 hiE Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: SI PM SMC 4.16.105 Employee appeal of fine. A. Except as provided in subsection F of this section, if the Commission imposes a monetary fine for violation of any provision of this chapter, the City employee on whom the fine is imposed may appeal the fine, on the Commission's record, to the Seattle Municipal Court. The Seattle Municipal Court shall uphold the Commission's decision if it determines the Commission's decision was not for any arbitrary, capricious, or illegal reason, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the Commission's record. Otherwise, the Court shall modify, reverst, or remand the matter to the Commission, as the Court deems appropriate. B. In order to appeal a monetary fine imposed under this chapter by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, the City employee on whom the fine is imposed must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Municipal Court, serve it upon The City of Seattle, and deliver a copy to the Executive Director of the Commission, all within twenty (20) days after the date of the Commission's decision. In order to file the notice of appeal, the City employee must pay to the Clerk of -the Municipal Court a filing fee in the amount set by statute or court rule for a civil action filed in the District Courts. The filing fee and the costs of preparing the record of the proceedings of the Commission may be taxed as costs against the nonprevailing party, as the Municipal Court may direct, but each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. The notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall include the mailing address and, if different, the street address where papers may be served on the appellant. The notice of appeal shall contain, in separate numbered paragraphs, statements of the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or aspects of the fine on which the appellant seeks review, the basis for the appeal, and a brief statement of the relief requested. The appellant shall attach a copy of the written decision of the Commission being appealed. C. Within thirty (30) days after the notice of appeal has been properly filed, served, and a copy delivered to the Executive Director, the appellant shall provide the Executive Director with a record of proceedings, which the Executive Director shall, if it complies with this subsection, promptly file with the Municipal Court so as to present the issues raised for review. Upon payment of the costs of copying, the Executive Director shall provide the appellant a copy of the relevant papers and exhibits, which shall be included in the record. The record shall also include a transcript of those portions of the testimony that are designed by the appellant or by the Executive Director, who shall each designate what they believe necessary to resolve disputed issues. The appellant at his or her expense shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval, if accurate, the transcript of the designated portions of the testimony, prepared by a certified court reporter. The typed transcript, when certified as accurate by the Executive Director, shall constitute the record for review of the portion so transcribed. If all or a designated part of a tape recording is not audible, the Executive Director may prepare http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=.../code1.htm&r=11&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 2 of 2 and certify a summary of that portion of the testimony in the pro- ceedings based on his or her notes and memory. Where the Executive Director and the appellant agree that the testimony or facts are not in dispute, they may jointly prepare a narrative report of some or all of the evidence or a summary of some or all of the testimony in order to reduce the amount of material transcribed and to make a more compact record. D. Except where inconsistent with this section, the procedural rules of the Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CRLJs), as they may be amended from time to time, shall govern procedure related to the appeal in the Municipal Court, but no new evidence may be submitted to or taken by the Municipal Court. E. The Municipal Court shall appoint a judge pro tempore to hear appeals by employees of the Municipal Court unless both the City employee and the Executive Director agree that a regular Municipal Court judge may hear the case. F. This section shall not apply to (1) City officials elected by the public, (2) the Deputy Mayor, if any, (3) heads of departments and Executive Department offices, (4) members of boards and commissions, and (5) those City employees who are represented by a labor union that, on the date the charges were filed had not reached written agreement with the City regarding the appeal to Municipal Court of monetary fines imposed by the Commission. Persons for whom an appeal to Seattle Municipal Court is not authorized by this section may seek review of a monetary fine imposed by the Commission in King County Superior Court as provided in state law. (Ord. 120118 , Section 2, 2000: Ord. 118735 Section 4, 1997: Ord. 109950 Section 1 (part), 1981: Ord. 198882 Section 4.16.100, 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) abil Eil d� 1b.1 I "", do 10 HI 1�1 ED http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=.../codel.htm&r=11&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 Page 1 of 2 ®© O�dl,5,ULdbE ME]B]Nr �f D Seattle Municipal Code Information retrieved January 23, 2001 3: 41 PM SMC 4.16.105 Employee appeal of fine. A. Except as provided in subsection F of this section, if the Commission imposes a monetary fine for violation of any provision of this chapter, the City employee on whom the fine is imposed may appeal the fine, on the Commission's record, to the Seattle Municipal Court. The Seattle Municipal Court shall uphold the Commission's decision if it determines the Commission's decision was not for any arbitrary, capricious, or illegal reason, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the Commission's record. Otherwise, the Court shall modify, reverse, or remand the matter to the Commission, as the Court deems appropriate. B. In order to appeal a monetary fine imposed under this chapter by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, the City employee on whom the fine is imposed must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Municipal Court, serve it upon The City of Seattle, and deliver a copy to the Executive Director of the Commission, all within twenty (20) days after the date of the Commission's decision. In order to file the notice of appeal, the City employee must pay to the Clerk of the Municipal Court a filing fee in the amount set by statute or court rule for a civil action filed in the District Courts. The filing fee and the costs of preparing the record of the proceedings of the Commission may be taxed as costs against the nonprevailing party, as the Municipal Court may direct, but each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. The notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall include the mailing address and, if different, the street address where papers may be served on the appellant. The notice of appeal shall contain, in separate numbered paragraphs, statements of the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or aspects of the fine on which the appellant seeks review, the basis for the appeal, and a brief statement of the relief requested. The appellant shall attach a copy of the written decision of the Commission being appealed. C. Within thirty (30) days after the notice of appeal has been properly filed, served, and a copy delivered to the Executive Director, the appellant shall provide the Executive Director with a record of proceedings, which the Executive Director shall, if it complies with this subsection, promptly file with the Municipal Court so as to present the issues raised for review. Upon payment of the costs of copying, the Executive Director shall provide the appellant a copy of the relevant papers and exhibits, which shall be included in the record. The record shall also include a transcript of those portions of the testimony that are designed by the appellant or by the Executive Director, who shall each designate what they believe necessary to resolve disputed issues. The appellant at his or her expense shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval, if accurate, the transcript of the designated portions of the testimony, prepared by a certified court reporter. The typed transcript, when certified as accurate by the Executive Director, shall constitute the record for review of the portion so transcribed. If all or a designated part of a tape recording is not audible, the Executive Director may prepare http://clerk.ci.scattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=.../code1.htm&Y=11&Sect6=HITOFF&f-- 1/23/01 Page 2 of 2 and certify a summary of that portion of the testimony in the pro- ceedings based on his or her notes and memory. Where the Executive Director and the appellant agree that the testimony or facts are not in dispute, they may jointly prepare a narrative report of some or all of the evidence or a summary of some or all of the testimony in order to reduce the amount of material transcribed and to make a more compact record. D. Except where inconsistent with this section, the procedural rules of the Civil Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CRLJs), as they may be amended from time to time, shall govern procedure related to the appeal in the Municipal Court, but no new evidence may be submitted to or taken by the Municipal Court. E. The Municipal Court shall appoint a judge pro tempore to hear appeals by employees of the Municipal Court unless both the City employee and the Executive Director agree that a regular Municipal Court judge may hear the case. F. This section shall not apply to (1) City officials elected by the public, (2) the Deputy Mayor, if any, (3) heads of departments and Executive Department offices, (4) members of boards and commissions, and (5) those City employees who are represented by a labor union that, on the date the charges were filed had not reached written agreement with the City regarding the appeal to Municipal Court of monetary fines imposed by the Commission. Persons for whom an appeal to Seattle Municipal Court is not authorized by this section may seek review of a monetary fine imposed by the Commission in King County Superior Court as provided in state law. (Ord. 120118 , Section 2, 2000: Ord. 118735 Section 4, 1997: Ord. 109950 Section 1 (part), 1981. Ord. 198882 Section 4.16.100, 1980.) Link to Recent ordinances passed since 9131100 which may amend this section. (Note: this feature is provided as an aid to users, but is not guaranteed to provide comprehensive information about related recent ordinances. For more information, contact the Seattle City Clerk's Office at 206-684- 5707, or by e-mail at clerk@ci.seattle.wa.us) 6[D[ She hefEll®7 �� [j] http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/scripts/nph-brs.exe?sl=.../codel.htm&r=11&Sect6=HITOFF&f= 1/23/01 t.� MEMORANDUM rnC. 189v Date: January 3 P, 2001 To: City Council From: Mayor Haakenson Subjects Council committees I'd like to share with you a concern that I have wrestled with for some time now, especially over this past year. It has to do with the purpose and effectiveness of the Council's internal committees; those being the Finance, Community/Development Services, and Public Safety. It seems that this topic is like many City issues, it surfaces every five years or so. In March of 1995, Community Services Director Paul Mar wrote a memo to the Council on improving the committee work meeting system. His report was based on staff observations since 1993. He categorized his input into three areas: the role of the committees, setting committee agendas, and actual conduct of business during committee nights. In February of 1996 during the City Council retreat, Mayor Fahey took up the topic again. It was especially timely since there were three new Councilmembers at that -time, including myself. At that retreat, the Council had a good discussion about the three committees and actually created two new ones, the Comprehensive Human Resources Committee and the Long -Range Financial- Task Force. I would like to look at two areas of concern. First, what is the role of the committee structure, and second, should we continue with this system? 1.) What is the role of the Council committees? As Mr. Mar said in his memo, "time is a scarce resource." Your time is valuable and so is staff time. How can we maximize Council's time in order to give you the most knowledge on a wide range of issues while keeping meeting time to a minimum? Committee nights were created to encourage a free exchange of ideas between staff and Councilmembers in an informal setting, to permit Councilmembers to gain the broadest knowledge in the shortest timeframe, and to reduce or eliminate the need to repeat the discussion to all Councilmembers. In the last year, I have noticed a change in the role of the committees. It seems that very little decision - making is taking place that results in a recommended action to the full Council. What we frequently have seen is either aTecommendation to repeat the presentation to the full Council —which costs staff time and results in needless duplication —or a recommendation to send an item to the consent agenda where it gets "pulled," and staff, once again; has to make the same.presentation. This practice is not cost-effective. , City. of Edmonds C9 Office of the Mayor i You need to determine what the role of these committees should be. Do items that are already approved in the budget need -to be,debated at committee and then again at full Council? Do you have faith in your fellow Councilmembers to make decisions on your behalf, or should every item be presented to the full Council? These questions get down to the fundamental question of "What is your role as a Councilmember?" Are you a policy maker, or is your job to question how every penny in the City is spent? I can't answer these -_questions for you, only you can do that. 2.) Should we continue with the current committee system? I ask you to determine how you want the committee system to work for you. Used correctly, it is a valuable tool for all of us. If we are going to continue to use it the way we have this past year, I would suggest that you do away with it and just have an additional Council meeting monthly to listen to staff presentations and allow the full Council to make its decision. As I mentioned, during the 1996 retreat we created a new committee called the Long -Range Financial Task --Force. It consisted of the three committee chairs of the internal committees. Their goal was to bring back to Council long-term, financial goals and a plan for implementation of those goals. As time has passed, so has the makeup and role of this committee. During the retreat, I would -ask that you take a long look at this committee and its function. Staff and I believe that we, as a City, don't put enough focus on long-range planning. We get bogged down 11 in day-to-day details. What are our long-range plans for roads maintenance? What about building maintenance? Or facilities replacement such as the Frances Anderson Center? Should we have a community facilities plan that deals with performing arts centers, swimming pools, or convention centers? Most importantly, what do the citizens want in the future? Should we do -a citywide questionnaire of residents? - Additional topics of discussion could include "How do we reduce this City's reliance on property taxes as a revenue source?" Should we come up with a plan that will increase economic development in town, which will increase sales -tax revenue? Should we consider user fees for services as other cities have done? If we continue along the path'we currently are on of reducing taxes, badmouthing development as an evil action, insisting that building heights should never change, refusing to charge for services rendered, and vetoing any new revenue source that comes along, we will find ourselves in dire straits. i These are questions that need answers. We have a responsibility as elected officials to plan for the future. We all will be judged by what the future brings, not by the fact that we questioned a minor expense from a warrants register or voted "no" on a property -tax increase. As elected officials, we.need to have a vision for the future. This role belongs to all of us. I would like to suggest that we -rename the Long --Range Financial Task Force by removing the word "financial" and create a new mission for it as well. This committee wouldconsist of two Councilmembers, the Mayor, the Finance Director, the Community Services Director, and five citizens at large appointed by the Mayor. Their mission would be to address the City's long-term needs and reportto the Council on a quarterly basis. I would ask that the citizens be appointed to one- and two-year terms so as to keep some continuity. This would be an ongoing committee, Please allow for some time to discuss this idea. C:\Mayor0l\RetreatMemo-Committees.doc City of Edmonds Council Retreat Issues Regarding Sno-Isle Annexation and Long -Term Funding Implications February 10, 2001 Overview In 2000, the State Legislature eliminated Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes and Sales Tax Equalization resulting in an ongoing revenue loss to the City of Edmonds of approximately $1.4 million. Since this action, City staff and the Council have explored ways to provide long term stabilization for the City's General Fund. A major consideration during the past year's discussions and presentations has focused on alternatives for providing ongoing funding for the Edmonds Library. These alternatives included levying a special City tax (levy lid lift) to fund the current contract with the Sno-Isle Regional Library System and annexing into the Sno-Isle System. On January 2, 2001, the City Council voted to place the issue regarding annexation into the Sno-Isle Library System before the voters at a special election on May 15, 2001. This action was based in part on the recommendation of the Edmonds Library Board. City staff is proceeding with the necessary steps to ensure that the ballot issue is authorized for the May special election. These steps involve negotiating an annexation agreement with Sno-Isle. One component under negotiation is a potential Sno-Isle contribution to the replacement of the Edmonds Library roof. A roofing consultant hired by the City has estimated the replacement cost at $600,000. Financial Impact to City The Sno-Isle contract for 2001 is $1,030,000. For 2002, the cost is estimated to increase to $1,080,000. Unless a method is found to fund the library contract by means other than existing General Fund revenue sources, the City of Edmonds will likely face a deficit cash position by 2003. Numerous five-year projection scenarios have been prepared for the Council during the last year. These scenarios have included certain assumptions regarding annual expenditure/revenue growth as well as future property tax increases. These assumptions have been presented to the Council who has informally accepted the assumptions as reasonable bases for forecasting future events. Revenues are projected to increase annually at a 4% rate; expenditures are projected to increase annually at 5%; property taxes are projected to require 3% increases. Attachment 1 is an updated five-year forecast based on the assumptions described above. Revenues have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the increased electrical utility tax revenue. Expenditures have been adjusted to reflect increased electrical costs and the ongoing payment of the library contract from the General Fund. The projected impact of these adjustments is a deficit cash position of $200,000 for 2003 and a budget deficit of over $1.2 millhon for 2004. At the January Finance Committee meeting, Councilmember Orvis requested a scenario that reflected reducing the City's property tax levy to offset the increased tax imposed on Edmonds citizens by passage of the annexation into Sno-Isle. This reduction would be accomplished through the use of increased utility tax revenue as well as reducing $200,000 from the 2002 budget and limiting future expenditure growth to 4%. This scenario is included as Attachment 2. The calculations based on Councilmember Orvis's assumptions yield a balanced budget and a cash surplus of $1.4 million in 2005. Attachment 3 is a schedule of actual expenditure growth in the General Fund for the past ten years. The average rate of increase during that period is over 8%. Per capita growth is calculated on this attachment to reflect years in which annexations occurred. For 2001, the adopted budget shows an increase of 4% over the 2000 estimated expenditures. This percentage increase appears in line with Councilmember Orvis's suggestion for future growth; however, the actual rate of growth for 2001 for status quo service levels is 7%. The City paid the final installment on the Library building in 2000 and eliminated $330,000 in annual debt service for 2001. This event is the key factor in limiting 2001 growth to 4%. The City will not be paying off any additional debt payments within the next five years. Attachment 4 is a revised version of Councilmember Orvis's scenario. Utility tax increases are included as well as the property tax reduction. The expenditure reduction of $200,000 in 2002 is not included. Annual expenditure growth is calculated at 5%. The City's cash balance reaches a deficit position in 2003. Long term forecasts are inherently imprecise. They are meant to indicate a future trend rather than to suggest any degree of detailed reliability. Past performance is a major indicator used to project future performance. The past history of the General Fund does not tend to support the viability of limiting future expenditure increases to 4%. In the 2000 budget, approximately $1 million was eliminated from the budget. This action has placed the City in a better position to strive for 5% annual expenditure growth. However, this growth factor is also highly conservative and may not be attainable if status quo service levels are maintained. Councilmember Orvis requested information regarding the factors that drive annual expenditure increases within the General Fund. The questions and answers are shown on Attachment 5. ATTACHMENT 1 +-p O U C� a d I O O O } N (fl CA a N N rl_ co V O M_ C Q N O- L Ws CO co L (D i' N I N N Irl m co co O O cli M M (A m O CO q, r 06 c- c- C4 w CO I- M O O O m O � r N � O T w cc L 1 1 W 0 D N Lo N a` IN N 0 a rn T M CD r p 0 O >- N 00 00 N � N N M N - — � a COO 0) L Q O - >- N 000 O Q N I N v (a a = y U N .� L � L ai '= o c c � ( w �a �a U) C H H J J Z T N M coop N � ti (D - O T N O N u7 LO N 0 0 (O r ti r N O a CD v m CO N T N CO r N cl O C6 Oo O ti tI M N H i o a W s 0 y V W I� 0 U w N u�u .N O �L ..O a. O �+ C O N *r O N a � � C O x c x r O 7@cv CL CL E O m E CL r N o N Q M N Q .t ti r T (D O 0 cD r T O lii LO ti w N � �0o�� o O � N � L L r T a N N N I- ti CD .a COD 17 L L w M M LO I` (D ++ V L- e a 0 N 00 U-) (D w to r- O cO N 4) N p CD U-) r O O p >- N T (L N N N CD 00 d a O N p N C'M cM a N N � 0') N OM 04 p N ti IL N N -a � rn a L CD rn r ai O .a >- N 11, co Q N N �4 a� 0Iwci 0 o rn � >- N to 1 00 co O Q N N i O �O O E Lo CD W — CD G CD a O U C� 04 co 00 O v w LO 1- O cli ci N It LO Co W O M r N O --- 0 N O w 0 <0 N m O O Cy r r Qj 00 co to N o Q O O ai r` CO T C7 N c ti LO m N r N co L c O C x W +.. •.6, O I+ C ❑ 0' w U U C d d LO CD rl- co ATTACHMENT 2 Y O O r L V L :a x O O ❑ N a C 'o N r Y � N CD CD 0 N 'a C G) o� � N M �_ O m 6. = C) N Q� N � N � 0 � v p G� M C�'^C^,, O A, L ^ •A` A+ L W U � / x d O ~ Qa v N a OF- x M L d ❑, N i C Q�o xx W 0 U E ❑ ❑. L a+ �, C ai i 0 O c �+ C x� aaM�aW� ATTACHMENT 3 e O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O e d W N N N m m W O n O O n n W W -0M M d W d N O O m W d r N It W It O N 0 O O O N M O O N O W O m r O r N O N N N d M N O N N M O M M M M N d d m d N m r f` M W W O r N N N r m N N M ' m d h M M m W m N W N N N N O N V N N r N N Q � N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O e O o W W O M N W M O M W d W O � O m W N W W O N O u9 O O W ti m ti O -,tO O O O W m m O O W O r O d M N r O M h t0 O N N p o 10 N W m r a0 10 m N N O m d h M M N N N n d M N tD 4 M E p M n d m t` m d M M d W N r r M r Ih N n N O r O M N M N M W W N -ItM _ p N N N N' r N W tq O r d W m N m W W N N r m m m N n N d O O M 10 r m N d M W O co N N O N O d d d M n n O O W N n N W m ' m O N W O N f0 m M M r r M O O m m � W M N M M 00 N N t, N N W O 7 m ti W m ao m of O T M W d m N m O N O N N r M m u m r` O N 1` N M m N N N N m N d r {+I N O M O M n W f` W m N O m W t--O N h M W M M a O e r N d O W m m m W M W m N N n M ^ d d O r t w M N n M m O N O O m r � W W W O W m m v O N W A W m w N a7 N N M N Ln O N O tD N m M N N N7 N N t• d N W m 7 m V m W at O d IT N t- W {`•I N m M r M m W N M N O r W M d d N M r N d O d N m f M W m M N M N m N W N CO N W O t` d O O d W W o O e N M M co W m W M n O N N Of r W O N M N � r W M l0 W r O N r 1� O M h r WV N m N d N M OR Cl W N Ih M 0 d O 0 A m N W O m r m d m W m W m O n W N N O O N d W t, O r d M M W 10 N N N m N M N N N W W O m m r M U m N M M M W N N r d t- m N co d d d N N N N m d W N O M O O O N N m d W o o e O O n W t` W W h o•I h N O n N N M O m O W W d t"7 O O d M N r N d N Ln W W W O N of W N lh d M d 7 W d d O d m N N m W W N N m tD O M m t0 tD N N O N r W Lo N co N co W W N m m N M m U m m W m M W m W M N M W r M N W O N O N O r W d O N m N M r m M M d W W M r Q r a0 N r W d m W m O N N O d m m m N O O W O W N M M W M W o O e N O M N M 1` M W N It W m m W W at W d m It M t0 m N O m M M O r O d N t%� M O O N O W 'd' lf! O N m It m 1l d N N Il W m M W It 7 N W N m {h O N O le W N m O m O h d m W d W N t- O m (,1 m N N d N O W W M M N O m N N M n m W W M O r M a r Ir r r ui N h O M N O N m O d M N d d N M O O n M m W N o O e r 10 W W a M 'ttD O W h O co M n N N o W N N I, d t0 N t'I N N NW N m tr M N N M N m m W r m M W N O N M r d d 7 N N W It N m M N m N N r- N r n M m O of m (7 m co N N N cmo r r Omf r r N N uWY n O d N W N M m a c tD W ` �a n W cq m N O O N N co d m co W � W W O O h W M d m N O a m O a O t- N 0 n M n N M M d W m m m 1 W r N M m d W m N M O W d d m N m N N N N ID m d m A N h W O m c W M N W W M M O N In V C4 N t7 r N N W m t r M W M 06 (n m m d m N d W N N N r m r W r N N t0 N M O m t+1 N N m M M U N N L Lo W N A r- Lo r Lo Ln L O N n r cm N O W V Om1 N m r w O IN W h M W t`d•: r M 1MD O h W r W N d m d W M N N N d m n M �. N r O M n W m N W a N d M V m m d m O W M t-M V O m M � d N N r N h O m N m N r M m M M N NC, to m M U N r w N r N r r m N 1 K c�i w A v W En 10 C I G o+ W d E N E awi G m C N y E 7 a0. y1 U Y O 0 L all > > ?a. ° A c o E u Z a u o a1 c c U 41 `w 7 O U v E_ E v c o w c m c w c E w c X w c A A w z to v O W W L (Q X A > N C 7 7 E O q V N W N A 7 tJ W O W O o o w N O m m cn IL (n a U a 5 7 w i F m to a a a s u d H c L. N V f T M d N N d N d M d N d co d t` d m d to N N N W d W h m N m U ,^ o r N N M M M AlTACHMEN T I I� I` t, O co M .O e- f-- 1` CD O w O T �+ L 0 0 M M ct � LO M CD O i' N CA O ti O wLn co co r r a.N N N CCD D� cOO� 0 0 0 a� rn a) C O o CU d 0 0N5 T- CM 0 v p i' N CD LO Lf) 00 N O a N N N 'a c-D C14cc ONco O O O C Q m N q" M M CND N L N N N a CD O O G O h IT � o W) a - a (U d Q) CDCD O N O T 00 � co i' a N N N CIA O O o O O O LO CF) O ' r N M L 07 P-7 Co T 0 (� >- N I'llCM m w COY] III, N M C6 c T Q IN N N .a d Q. O rn L O >- N 000 N a O :IZ I N N 0 CD o to m wti N 0 o ti Ln m N 1- N N CD I` 00 1 O O r N L :.i N L C /� if CD _ O E` L O c N Y r- CD O c M � � C > LL NCD cI �_ C O — U O L G) U•� �O O > x C = }' x ~ d L Q. i O L Q Q � Lu E Q. a = L = Qa.cM�QJ ATTACHMENT City of Edmonds City Council Retreat Summary of Information Requested by Councilmember Dave Orvis February 10, 2001 1. Can we break down in some clear way, the reason we need 5% yearly expenditure increases? • Annual expenditure increases over the past ten years have averaged 8.8%. • Salaries, Overtime and Benefits, comprising 68% of the General Fund budget, have increased at an average rate of 8.4%. Salaries and benefits are set by contract for represented employees. • Intergovernmental expenditures in the amount of $2.4 million (10% of General Fund Budget) are fixed by contract or are otherwise uncontrollable by the City. • Interfund transfers to the Street Fund have been reduced over the past two years and are still inadequate to address the backlog of sidewalk, bikepath and overlay projects ($1 million). • Of the total General Fund Budget, approximately 15% or $3.6 million could be considered controllable. Limiting inflationary growth to 4% annually would generate $36,000 in savings. 2. Can we get a breakbown of the big one time expenditures this year? Were they incorporated into the projections and can they be used to reduce expenditures in 2002 by 1 %? ■ Approximately $200,000 of one time only expenditures were approved in the 2001 budget. This amount has been eliminated from the 5 year forecast for 2002. See Attachment for details. 3. If we use the existing surplus, how much can we cut and still balance in 2005 with a 3 % property tax increase? ■ Attachment 2 represents the scenario requested by Councilmember Orvis. Using his assumptions, the budget would be in balance in 2005 with a surplus of $1.4 million. • Attachment 3 represents the scenario requested by Councilmember Orvis with the exception of the annual expenditure growth rate. This scenario assumes a 5% rate. In this forecast, the reduced property tax levy would generate a deficit for the General Fund in 2003. City of Edmonds Summary of Significant Items Contained within 2001 Budget Fire Department Training Officer Overtime $ 41,040 Fire Replacement Fund Transfer 50,000 Building Vehicle* 19,000 Building Maintenance Debt Service 45,000 Paramedic Funding in Fire Department 200,000 Medic 7 Contract Increase 14,000 Sno-Isle Contract Increase 149,000 Public Defender Services 153000 Increased Litigation Fees 20,000 Technology Projects* 101,100 Civil Service and Labor Negotiations Costs* 3100 Endangered Species Act Costs 95,000 Parks Maintenance Vehicle* 30,000 Parks/Recreation Baseline Adjustments 58,180 Suppression/EMS Baseline Adjustments 81,460 Police Patrol Body Armor; Misc. Equipment 19,920 Police Traffic Motorcycle; Software* 10,140 Police Baseline Ad ustments 11,970 Police Equipment* 9,460 Street Fund Transfer 200,000 Total One Time Only Expenditures $201,300 Total Addl Exp enditures for 2001 1 $1,201,870 Discussion Regarding City Reserve Accounts/Policies City Council Retreat February 10, 2001 The City of Edmonds maintains a number of reserve accounts designated for specific purposes. Emergency Reserve Fund In 1987, the Edmonds City Council authorized the creation of an Emergency Reserve Fund primarily in response to the curtailment of federal revenue sharing funds. The reserve was initially established at $100,000. In 1993, Ordinance No. 2912 was authorized by the Council to expand the use of the Emergency Reserve Fund to cover a wide variety of reasons other than the decline in federal revenue sharing. A copy of Ordinance No. 2912 is attached. Telephone utility tax revenues and interest earnings are the revenue sources for the Emergency Reserve. There is no Council approved policy regarding the balance to be maintained in the fund; however, an informal policy has been in practice for a number of years that establishes a target balance of five percent of General Fund expenditures. For 2000, the reserve balance based on this policy calculates to $1.1 million. The actual balance at the end of 2000 is $1,459,000. Council Contingency Reserve The City has also established a Council Contingency Fund to provide for unanticipated expenditures of a non -recurring nature or to meet unexpected small increases in service delivery costs. RCW 35.33.145 provides the authority for this fund and limits the fund balance to $.375/1000 of assessed valuation. For 2001, the fund balance in the Contingency Fund is $991,970. This balance includes a transfer of $750,000 from the General Fund in 2000 to provide for final distributions from the now defunct Medical/Dental Self - Insurance Fund, a back contribution to the Municipal Employees Benefit Trust and legal costs associated with the public safety complex. Cumulative Reserve for General Fund In 1979, the City Council established a Cumulative Reserve Fund for General Fund Expenditures through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2107. The purpose of this fund is to provide an operating reserve to meet the City's financial obligations of the General Fund when expenditures exceed revenues received due to delays involved in the collection of revenues. The Ordinance establishes the reserve balance at $250,000. Interest earnings in excess of the required balance are transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Equipment Repair and Replacement Reserve Fund City Code Chapter 3.05 established the City's equipment rental fund to be used as a reserve account to fund repairs, replacement and purchases of City vehicles with the exception of Fire Department pumpers and aid cars. For 2001, the beginning cash balance in the reserve account is $1.8 million. Special Cumulative Reserve Fund — Emergency Aid Car City Code Section 3.09.010 established the City's Emergency Aid Car Reserve Fund. The purpose of the fund is to accumulate funds for the replacement of existing fire suppression and medical aid vehicles. The major revenue source is the EMS property tax. The General Fund also transfers money into the fund to build adequate fund levels based on the Council approved replacement program. The cash balance at the beginning of 2001 is $370,000. Combined Utility Bond Reserve Fund The Combined Utility Bond Reserve Fund was established to reserve funds to cover the 1992 water/sewer refunding bond, 1993 water/sewer refunding bond and 1998 water/sewer bond issue payments. Funds are transferred from water and sewer operations to pay principal and interest. The 2000 ending cash balance of $1.7 million reflects the fully funded bond reserve requirements for all outstanding revenue bonds. Capital Improvements Reserve The Capital Improvements Reserve Fund was established as provided in the Agreement for Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Services among the City of Edmonds, the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water and Sewer District and Shoreline Wastewater Management District. The minimum balance agreed to among the participants is $500,000. The intent of the fund is to handle future capital improvements and major repairs not included within the regular maintenance and operation costs. 0006.030.002 WSS/are 12/10/92 rev: 01/20/93 ORDINANCE NO. 2912 A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REDEFINING AND BROADENING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City maintains an Emergency Reserve Fund in its budget process; WHEREAS, the City Council in designating the original purposes for this Fund looked primarily to declines in federal revenue sharing; WHEREAS, the maintenance of an Emergency Reserve Fund is a fundamentally sound accounting practice which should be continued; WHEREAS, the City Council foresees ,that emergency reserves are necessary for a wide variety of reasons other than declines in federal revenue sharing, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby states as its policy, purpose and intent that the Emergency Reserve Fund has been established to handle unanticipated emergencies with which the City may be confronted including, but not limited to declines in federal or other revenue, unanticipated emergency costs and emergency liabilities. WW5223.1/0006.030.002 - 1 - Section 2. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: �' .r "ii� ,c. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: 4T CLERK, ONDA J. MARCH APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY _aS� L- FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: January 20, 1993 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: January 19, 1993 PUBLISHED: January 31, 1993 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1993 ORDINANCE NO. 2912 WS835729 AIOMMOM — 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 2107 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS AND THE TRANSFER OF MONIES BETWEEN FUNDS IN THE MUNICIPAL BUDGET AND CREATING A NEW FUND NO. 002 TO BE ENTITLED "CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND FOR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES"; SETTING FORTH THE PURPOSES THEREFOR; AND TRANSFERRING $200,000 FROM THE LID GUARANTY FUND NO. 613 TO THE CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND FOR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FUND NO. 002. WHEREAS, during the course of the City's fiscal year expenditures generally exceed revenues for the first 6 months of the year, and WHEREAS, sound fiscal planning and fiscal management require that the City have an operating cash reserve to cover a portion of the City's expenditures until sufficient revenues are received, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to establish such a fund which shall be used solely to meet the financial obligations of the City's General Fund when, during the course of a year, expenditures exceed revenues received due to the delays involved in the collection of said revenues, and WHEREAS, at such time as revenues received exceed expenditures such excess revenues shall be placed in the Cumula- tive Reserve Fund for General Fund Expenditures, and WHEREAS, the State legislature during 1979, and after adoption by the City of its 1979 Budget, authorized cities to transfer funds from the Local Improvement District Guarantee ac Fund to the General Fund under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, the City intends to transfer the $200,000 from the LID Guaranty Fund No. 613 to the newly created Cumulative Reserve Fund for General Fund Expenditures Fund No. 002, and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.54.095 the Finance Director has certified that after said transfer, the City of Edmonds LID Guaranty Fund No. 613 will have sufficient funds currently on hand to meet all valid outstanding obligations of said Fund and all other obligations of the Fund reasonably expected to be incurred in the near future and that the net cash of said LID Guaranty Fund is in an amount which is equal to or exceeds 10% of the net outstanding obligations guaranteed by such Fund, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. There is hereby created a special fund to be entitled "Cumulative Reserve Fund for General.Fund Expenditures No. 002". The purpose of said fund is to provide an operating reserve to meet the City's financial obligations of the General Fund when expenditures exceed revenues received. Section 2. The transfers from said Cumulative Reserve Fund for General Fund Expenditures No. 002 shall be made to the General Fund by the City Council by resolution. Each such resolu- tion shall provide for and authorize the Finance Director to repay the transfer at such time as collected revenues will permit the same. Section 3. The Finance Director is authorized to invest and reinvest the balance of said Cumulative Reserve Fund for General IW-C Fund Expenditures No. 002, the proceeds of which shall be main- tained in the Fund; provided, however, at such time as the balance of said Fund exceeds $250,000, all such monies in excess of said figure may be transferred by the City Council and appropriated for expenditure without the necessity of reimbursement to this cash reserve fund. Provided further, the City Council, may by ordinance, reduce the minimum balance to be maintained in this cash reserve fund and appropriate such monies for expenditure as they shall so direct. Section 4. The sum of $200,000 is hereby transferred from the LID Guaranty Fund No. 613 to the Cumulative Reserve Fund for General Expenditures No. 002 to be used in the manner as pro- vided hereinabove. Section 5. The Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to take the necessary steps to effectuate the pro- visions of this Ordinance. Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication by posting as provided by law. APPROVED: % MAYOR, H. H. HARRISON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, IRENE nRNEY MORAN APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE,.-0HE CITY ATTORNEY: BY A—�- FILED TH THE CITY CLERK: December 14, 1979 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 18, 1979 POSTED: December 19, 1979 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1979 —3— AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDINANCE STATE OF WASHINGTON } ) ss: COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } IRENE VARNEY MORAN being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that —she is over the age of eighteen (18) years and is competent to testify as to the matter stated herein. On the 19 day of December 197 9 , affiant posted true and correct copies of the attached Ordinance No. 2107, passed by the City Council on the 18 December day of , 1979 , at the three official posting places for City notices which are the public bulletin boards at the following locations: Edmonds Civic Center 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmonds Public Library Civic Center 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmond Branch of the United States Post Office 201 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 DATED this 19 day of December , 197 9. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of L,,' 19 7-2. N'ota y Public in and for the State of Wa h'ngton, residing at �r��_a / CITY OF EDMONDS Reserve Policies 1. The city will establish a council contingency reserve to provide for unanticipated expenditures of a nonrecurring nature, or to meet unexpected small increases in service delivery costs. This reserve will be maintained at least one- half percent of the operating fund, but must not exceed thirty- seven and one-half cents per one thousand of assessed property value, according to R.C.W. 35.33.145. 2. The city will -establish equipment reserve funds for the purpose of operating, maintaining, and replacing vehicles. - With the exception of fire and emergency aid vehicles, rental rates will be established and reviewed annually to cover the aforementioned. Operating and maintenance costs of fire and emergency aid vehicles will be budgeted and paid from the general operating fund; likewise, replacement funds will be appropriated annually for replacement. Edmonds City Code 3.05.040 such time as repayment has been made. [Ord. 2188 § 1, 19801. 3.04.070 Purposes of travel expense advance. A travel expense advance shall be consid- ered as having been made to a city official or employee to be expended as an agent of the city and for the city's purposes only, and spe- cifically to defray necessary cost in the perfor- mance of official duties. No such advance shall be considered as a personal loan to such offi- cial or employee and any expenditure thereof, other than for official business purposes, shall be considered a misappropriation of public funds. [Ord. 2188 § 1, 1980]. 3.04.080 Credit cards. In accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.09.285 as the same exists or is hereafter amended authorizing political subdivisions to use credit cards for official government busi- ness, the finance director is hereby authorized to obtain credit cards from the city's designated official bank with an individual per -card limit of $2,000 and an aggregate credit limit on all cards of $50,000. The mayor and her designee, the finance director, shall establish rules and procedures regarding the use of credit cards by city employees for costs associated with offi- cial city business. [Ord. 3276 § 1, 1999; Ord. 3165 § 1, 1997; Ord. 3085 § 2, 1996]. 3.04.090 Rules authorized. The finance director is authorized to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the opera- tion and management of the advance travel expense revolving fund and to prepare appro- priate forms for transactions involving such fund. [Ord. 3085 § 2, 1996; Ord. 2188 § 1, 1980. Formerly 3.04.080]. Chapter 3.05 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND Sections: 3.05.010 Created and established. 3.05.020 Administration. 3.05.030 Transfer of departments. 3.05.040 Placement of money. 3.05.050 Use of the fund. 3.05.060 Disposition of sale proceeds and purchases. 3.05.070 Rental charges — Schedule. 3.05.080 Accounts and records. 3.05.100 Manner of withdrawals and expenditures. 3.05.110 Retention of monies. 3.05.010 Created and established. There is hereby created and established a special fund to be known and designated as the "equipment rental fund", to be used as a revolving fund to be expended for salaries, wages, and operations required for the repair, replacement, purchase, and operation of equip- ment, and for the purchase of equipment, materials and supplies to be used in the admin- istration and operation of the fund. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 1111 § 1, 1965]. 3.05.020 Administration. The equipment rental fund shall be adminis- tered by the administrative services director under the direction of the mayor. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 1111 § 2, 1965]. 3.05.030 Transfer of departments. All equipment of all offices and departments of the city of Edmonds, except the fire depart- ment pumpers and aid cars shall be transferred to the equipment rental fund, without charge. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 11 11 § 3, 1965]. 3.05.040 Placement of money. Money may be placed in the fund from time to time by the Edmonds city council_ [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. l 1 1 1 § 4, 1965]. 3-7 (Revised 11/99) 3.05.050 3.05.050 Use of the fund. The city of Edmonds shall purchase and sell all equipment, except for the fire department pumpers and aid cars, by the use of such fund, subject to the laws governing the purchase and sale of property. Such equipment shall be rented for the use of the various offices and departments of the city and may be rented by the city to other governmental agencies. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 1111 § 5, 1965]. 3.05.060 Disposition of sale proceeds and purchases. The proceeds received by the city from the sale or rental of such equipment shall be placed in the equipment rental fund, and the purchase price of any such equipment or rental pay- ments made by the city shall be made from monies available in the fund. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 1111 § 6, 1965]. 3.05.070 Rental charges — Schedule. There shall be paid monthly into the equip- ment rental fund out of the monies available to the department using any such equipment, which has not been purchased by that depart- ment for its own use and out of its own funds, reasonable rental charges fixed by the city council of the city of Edmonds by approval of a schedule submitted at regular meetings of the city council by the administrative services director, which schedule shall be sufficient to cover the maintenance, operation and replace- ment of said equipment as set forth in ECC 3.05.010 herein, and which shall be revised from time to time to maintain the schedule so as to reflect the current and foreseeable needs of the equipment rental fund. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 1111 § 7, 19651. 3.05.080 Accounts and records. There shall be kept, by those directed by the administrative services director, such books, accounts and records as are necessary to con- trol and report the financial operations of the equipment rental fund, and shall further subdi- (Revised 11/99) 3-8 vide the cash account thereof into two sepa- rately designated accounts as follows: A. Account "A", which shall be the "cur- rent operating account" into which shall be placed those portions of the charges made to the various departments or offices of the city of Edmonds, in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.05.070 hereof, which are specifically billed to provide sufficient monies to pay the salaries and wages, materials, overhead and other costs necessary to operate and maintain all property rented thereto. There shall also be placed into Account "A" monies which may from time to time be specifically available thereto by action of the city council. B. Account "B", which shall be the "equip- ment reserve account" into which shall be placed those portions of the charges made to the various departments or offices of the city, in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.05.070 thereof, which are specifically billed to provide sufficient monies, having first taken into consideration the necessary operating and maintenance costs billed under the preceding subsection A, to pay the costs of purchasing new equipment and replacing used equipment as required to carry out "the purpose of the equipment rental fund. There shall also be placed in the Account "B" monies which are derived from the direct sale of any equipment or other capital assets of the fund and any mon- ies made specifically available thereto by action of the city council. [Ord. 2568, 1986; Ord. 1111 § 8, 1965]. 3.05.100 Manner of withdrawals and expenditures. Any withdrawals or expenditures from the equipment rental fund shall be made only in the following manner: A. Expenditures from Account "A" shall be made only upon duly approved payrolls and Edmonds City Code 3.07.010 vouchers of the city of Edmonds for the pur- poses hereinbefore ascribed to said account. B. Expenditures from Account "B" shall be made only upon duly approved vouchers of the city for the purposes hereinbefore ascribed to said account. [Ord. 1111 § 10, 1965]. 3.05.110 Retention of monies. All monies in the equipment rental fund shall be retained there from year to year and shall not be transferred to any other fund or expended for any other purpose. [Ord. 1111 § 11, 1965]. Chapter 3.07 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CONTINGENCY FUND Sections: 3.07.010 Criminal investigations fund. 3.07.010 Criminal investigations fund. There is created a revolving contingency fund to provide monies for the purpose of sur- veillance, prevention and investigation of vio- lations of law, including the illicit sale, distri- bution and use of narcotics, dangerous drugs or controlled substances. Expenditures from the fund shall be upon request of the chief or assis- tant chief of the Edmonds police department, subject to the approval of the mayor, for the purposes set forth herein. This fund shall be a revolving fund in an amount not to exceed $5,000 and shall be funded by transfer from available funds by the city finance director sub- ject to the approval of the mayor. [Ord. 2739 § 1, 1989; Ord. 2356, 1983; Ord. 2172 § 2, 1980; Ord. 1618, 1972]. 3-9 (Revised 11/00) r -: 3.08.010 Chapter 3.08 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND Sections: 3.08.010 Fund created. 3.08.020 Purposes — Expenditures. 3.08.030 Unexpended funds. 3.08.010 Fund created. There is hereby created and established a special fund to be known as the "drug enforce- ment fund" into which (1) all monies and pro- ceeds from the sale of property seized during drug investigations and forfeited pursuant to RCW 69.50.505 and all other applicable state and federal laws; and (2) all monies received by the city pursuant to a court order prescrib- ing that such monies be used for drug enforce- ment shall be deposited after amounts are deducted in accordance with state and federal laws. [Ord. 2739 § 2, 1989] 3.08.020 Purposes — Expenditures. This fund has been established for the pur- pose of accumulating funds for drug enforce- ment needs, drug awareness educational purposes and the purchase, lease and mainte- nance of equipment and other items necessary for drug enforcement by the Edmonds police department. The monies deposited in the drug enforcement fund shall be expended only for such purposes and for no other purpose when appropriated by the city council. 3.08.030 Unexpended funds. Any unexpended funds remaining in the drug enforcement fund at the end of any bud- get year shall not be transferred to the general fund or otherwise lapse, rather said unex- pended funds shall be carried forward from year to year until expended for the purposes set forth in ECC 3.08.020. [Ord. 2677, 1988]. Chapter 3.09 CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND FOR FIRE APPARATUS Sections: 3.09.010 Special cumulative reserve fund, fire apparatus. 3.09.010 Special cumulative reserve fund, fire apparatus. A. There is created a special cumulative reserve fund, fire apparatus, to provide monies for the maintenance, operation and acquiring of apparatus used within the city and to further provide for the training of personnel perform- ing emergency aid services in aid of the opera- tion of such fire apparatus. B. Into such fund shall be paid all monies presently in the custody or control of the Edmonds Firefighters Association which have been received by them as donations by virtue of the services performed in connection with the operation of the emergency aid cars and other fire apparatus. Further, all such monies transferred to the fund by the city or donations from whatever source paid to the city or any agency connected or affiliated with the city in any way, and intended to be a donation arising out of the use of the emergency aid car or fire apparatus, or for the purpose of the continued maintenance, operation or improvement of such type of emergency vehicle services, together with the training of personnel in con- nection with the use thereof, by the city of Edmonds, shall be held and utilized as pro- vided below. C. Expenditures from the fund shall be solely for the purposes enunciated herein and for no other purposes. All monies in the fund shall be retained there from year to year and shall not be transferred to any other fund or expended for any other purpose. [Ord. 3326 § 1, 2000]. (Revised 11/00) 3-10 MEMORANDUM Date: February 9 & 10, 2001 To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council From: Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Directori�� Subject: Presentation on History of Tree Cutting for View Improvement - City Council Retreat 2001 Historically, this has been an important topic in the context of city policy for the Edmonds City Council. The City Council's question is whether the City should change the current City policy and allow the cutting of trees in parks and on public property in order to benefit the views of adjacent private property owners. This memo summarizes the discussions and decisions that have been discussed and decided by the City Council over the past years. History of policy decisions: • 11/21/78 Establishing Policy for Tree Trimming or removal on Public Profor View (passage on 11/28/78) Exhibit #1 & #2 • - 11/21/79 Review of Property at 7h & Elm Exhibit #3 • Planning Board Agenda discussion on the following dates: 8/24/88 Discussion re ardin Tree cutting policy and clearing perinits:10/12/88 Discussion with City Attorney Regarding view blockage, 11/23/88 Discussion on Tree Cutting on Public Lands Final Discussion on Potential resolution of tree cutting lssues; Proposed new chapter to the Edmonds Community Development code regulating land clearing and tree cutting within the Ci1y of Edmonds. Exhibits #4 A, A C, D & E • 10/28/88 Hedge Decision Exhibit #5 • 3/6/90 HeariLiZ on Planning Board Recommendation Regarding Proposed Ordinance amending ECDC Relating to Land Clearing & Tree Cuttin Exhibit #6 A; 5/15/90 Second He_ grin Exhibit #6 B; 6/26/90 Continuation Exhibit 6 C; 8/28/90 Continuation.Exhibit 6 D. ■ 9/19/90 Ci Council Continued Council Deliberation following second hearing on Plannin Board Recommendation on Portion of Pro osed Amendment to CDC Regarding Revised Definition of hedges Exhibit 7 • 10/16/90 Third Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amending CDC relating to land clearing and tree cuttin& Exhibit #8A; 11/5/90 Proposed Ordinance 2804 Adding new chapter 18.45 to CDC relating to land clearing and tree cutting, Exhibit #8B • 8/22/95 City Council Minutes regarding Discussion with Residents of the Mariner Plaza Building Regardft Trees and Shrubs Owned by the CijX of Edmonds Exhibit #9 • 9/12/95 Community Services Committee Meeting Discussion Regarding Trees and Shrubs Owned by the QX of Edmonds Near the Mariner Plaza Buildft Exhibit #10 • 10/10/95 City Council Agenda and Minutes Review of Policy Regarding Trees Exhibit #11; 11/28/95 Continued Discussion of Tree Policy Issue Exhibit #12 12/5/95 Authorization for staff to maintain the SR 104 Mini Park Shore Pine at 25' in Height Exhibit #13 City of Edmonds ed Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Current policy ordinances and resolutions: • Resolution 418 Exhibit #14 A Resolution 418 was established by City Council to set the guidelines for city staff to deal with the maintenance of threes in public areas. I have included an analysis (Exhibit #14 B) prepared by Pat Harris, former Parks Maintenance Manager. The analysis relates to the issues that have been discussed in the past and are relative today. Over the years, the City Council has revisited the issue of establishing a waiver or variance from the current resolution and have concluded after a deliberate consideration that if the goal is to preserve and protect trees in parks and public areas, Resolution 418 needs to be retained. • Ordinance 1952: Created in 1977; Regulating the Planting, Maintenance and Removal of trees in public streets, parks, and other city -owned property Exhibit #1 S (Note this ordinance may have been incorporated as apart of recodification of ECDC) • Adopted Street Tree Plan Exhibit #16 • CDC Chapter 18.85 Regarding Street Trees (public areas) Exhibit #17 A; CDC Chapter 18.45 Relates to Land Clearing and Tree Cutting in private development Exhibit #17 B Issues past and present: • Practice of Topping Trees Exhibit #18 It is widely regarded within the horticultural and arborcultural community that tree topping is probably the worst method of pruning trees. Tree topping weakens the tree, provides an environment for disease and insect infestation, and ultimately can and will kill the tree. Thinning to create views for citizens would be opening a Pandora's box that would never close again. If you accommodate one person, you would have to accommodate all parties. • Costs associated with removal of public trees Exhibit from Pat Harris #19 The City should receive full cost compensation of the trees removed based on the timber market value of the species; the city should collect the costs associated with the cutting of the tree; and finally the city needs to collect tree replacement and labor costs. • September 7,1995 Memo to City Council Community Services Committee from City Attorney regarding Potential Chan es to Existing Processes to Accommodate Waivers to the Current Tree Cutting Policies Exhibit #20 ■ List of various past requests for tree removal on park property. Exhibit #21 Staff recommendation: The City's primary concern is to the ongoing forest management program which is managed to insure that our actions enhance the preservation of healthy trees, and that on -going tree maintenance will increase the health of our existing trees, not damage them. The City has recognized publicly owned parks and property as being special places requiring a greater degree of protection and preservation than other lands. Trees are one of the most basic elements of parks and public areas, and must be treated with a high degree of care befitting a limited natural resource. Therefore it is staffs recommendation that the policy be retained that opposes the cutting of safe and healthy trees for the purpose of outside view enhancement. 30 1 November 21, 1978 - continued Council became involved, and where was the line drawn between maintenance and development. He fel this appeared to be development. Councilman Gould observed that this/DRAINAGEBLEMS rty is not designate as a park but as open space. He said he is extremely interested in oace, greenbelts, a environmentally sensitive areas, and he felt property designated as oace should get different treatment from property designated as a park. He also notethe record s ed there was a resident who asked that the trees be topped, and that res's request had to be considered. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN THAT NOT G BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY EXCEPT TO RESEED THE AREA BULLDOZED AND IDENTIFY TINAGE BLEMS EXISTING AND RECTIFY THEM. Mr. LaTourelle said rye grass could be plas emporarysolution until the blackberries come back, and that would hold down ti uring the springrains. Councilman Herb inquired as to how Water/Sewer funds could beed for developingthis property. City Attorney John Wallace responded thatyou can jushe expenditurebecause it is Water/Sewer property and the improvement would upgrad operty. Councilman Clement said he would vote against the motion because he felt it Id come back on the agenda again because of complaints of people on the other side and be se of dumping there. M.A.A. Charles Dibble said there had been complaints several month o from citizens because of the dumping there. He said the site was inspected and it was tided something should be done. He said the City has too much property to maintain now, a f they don't want maintenance there, the City is willing not to maintain it. A ROLL CALL E WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEN NAUGHTEN, HERB, AND NORDQUIST VOTING YES, AND WIT NCILMEN CLEMENT, GOULD, AND CARNS VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED he Council's discussion was reopened. Councilman Nordquist commented that if'there ' o barricade across the top of the property people will be dumping there. Mr. LaTourel recommended a bollard and post barricade be constructed which would deny access to a obiles but would allow a mower to get through. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY CILMAN HERB, THAT THE ELM ST. RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE ACCEPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING RSTANDINGS: THERE WILL BE NO MORE DEVELOPMENT THAN IS PRESENTED ON THE PLAN; THE JUNIPE OUND COVER WOULD BE THE EXTERIOR OF THE LANDSCAPING AND WOULD EXTEND NO FARTHER THAN 50' TO THE NORTHERN DIRECTION OF THE PROPERTY; AND ALL VEGETATION OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT R ILL BE LEFT AS IT IS. It was clarified that the motion would cause the area to be seede d maintained and that the posts for the barricade were a part of the plan. THE MOTION C D. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT THEN MOVED THAT THE NATURAL DRAINAGE OCCURRING THROUGH THE PROPERTY TH AND ELM BE REVIEWED AND A REPORT MADE TO THE COUNCIL AT THE JANUARY 9, 1979 MEETING. CILMAN NAUGHTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Clement was concerned as how large a project could be undertaken before the Council became involved. He said if the ighbors had not objected the Council never would have known about this situation. Mr. LaTourel Commented that it was the concern of the neighbors for the trees that brought this.inci forward, not the property maintenance, and he noted further that the people on Map'rle S re asking that the trees be cut. A short recess was announced, after which COUNCILMAN CLEME VED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT AT THE JANUARY 30, 1979 MEETING THERE BE A REV OF WHAT MAKES A POLICY DECISION AS TYPIFIED BY THE TYPE OF SITUATION EXPERIENCED WITH 7TH AND ELM ST. PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED. yESTABLISHING POLICY FOR TREE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL ON PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR VIEW Public Works Director Leif Larson reported that a petition had been received from residents in the vicinity of 1Oth Ave. and Dayton St., requesting topping or clearing of trees for view on public property. A number of other calls or inquiries also had been received regarding the clearing of trees for view. Mr. Larson said the Public Works Department had been operating for a number of years with the policy of removing trees on City property or public right-of-way for the following reasons only: (1) The tree presents a safety or sight distance hazard; (2) The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility system or heaves roadway or sidewalks; or (3) The tree is damaged or diseased. Mr. Larson felt this policy was somewhat in Conformance with Section 207 of the Policy Plan as modified in August 197E which was intended for new development and states that "The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soil . . Trees that are diseased, damaged or unstable should be removed." He said further that the only reference to view is in Ordinance 1952 which states that the Director of PubIic Works in drafting a Street Tree Plan shall consider the visual effect of trees on sight lines and views; and the policy -onremoval of or topping of trees for view had not been addressed directly anywhere. He recommended that a policy be formulated and that any action on the petition received be based on that policy. Mayor Pro tem Carns then read for the Council a notation to Mr. Larson from the Mayor, which stated the Mayor's policy: "My policy is to accommodate the public all we can. If this involves removal of alders or other unsightly trees, then they will be removed. If a bank stability exists, then alders should be cut off without removal of the stumps." Councilman Clement stated that he did not think the City should top trees to protect other peoples' views. He said this was not always his feeling, but he had come around to this. He noted that trees two miles away from his residence and much lower were beginning to encroach on his view, and he could not expect those people to top their trees for him. Councilman Herb commented that it would be great If every view could be protected, but that simply was not possible. COUNCILMAN HERB THEN MDVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE POLICY FOLLOWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS OEPARTMENT AS STATED IN THE THREE REASONS ONLY FOR REMOVING TREES SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION INCORPORATING THE POLICY. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND, FOR DISCUSSION. Councilman Clement stated that the Mayor has a specific policy and if Councilman Herb's motion were passed and the Mayor then chose not to follow that policy but to continue following the policy he had indicated to Mr. Larson, then the Council would have no ability to change that. Therefore, he felt the Council's policy must be stated in a resolution. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. The resolution will be presented at the November 28, meeting. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meet was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. IRENE , Y r,,.. ��.� .._.._.. ... ... EX91101T 302 November 28, 1978 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by h1a Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined it a flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Katherine Allen Charles Dibb M.A.A. Mike Herb Phil Clement , Leif Lars Public Works Director John Nordquist John La relle, Community Devel. Dir. Ray Gould Iren rney Moran, City Clerk 'rosby, Tom Carns Li Admin. Services Dir. Larry Naughton Housler, Finance Director arlo Foster, Police Chief Jack Cooper, Fire Chief Fred Herzberg, City Engineer Jim Murphy, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Items (D) and (F) were removed from the sent Agenda. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO APPROVE THE BALAWCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent Agenda included the f owing: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of MinutVof November 21, 1978. (C) Authorization Street Use Permit - Sign for Main Street Optical Company. (E) Acceptant f work on pavement marking demonstration project by Paint -A -Line, and est ish 30-day retainage period. RATES FOR 1979 [Item (D) on Consent Agenda] Council aughten noted that there are several cars 10-12 years old with rates of $225 per month. ublic Works Director Leif. Larson explained the rates, noting that replacement funds are uded in the rates. He commented that accumulated funds for a particular vehicle mentioned MOTION: by uncilman Naughton had been used from the purchase of a police vehicle and funds were again ZUg accumulated to replace that particular vehicle. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY NCILMAN CLEMENT, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. I PROPOSED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TREE TRIMMING AND REMOVAL POLICY [Item (F) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Gould had asked that this be removed as the Council had received it only this evening and he had not as yet read it. After reading it he said he felt it conformed to the MOTION: policy established by the Council at last week's meeting. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO APPROVE ITEM (F) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, PASSING RESOLUTION 418. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. -- - --- - --- COUNCIL Coun lman Herb asked for an extension on the date of his report regarding Fruitdale-on-the- MOTION: Sound. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE FRUITDALE-ON-THE-SOUND REPORT X CHANGED FROM DECEMBER 12, 1978 TO JANUARY 2, 1979, MOTION CARRIED. Councilman su a- referred to a memorandum from the Finance Director regarding utility tax revenues. a he ggested the City's cash flow situation could be improved if these revenues were receive onthly instead of quarterly. He had discussed this with Ran Harper of the PUU who had indicated y would be willing to make the payments monthly. Councilman Carns felt it would be beneficial to d uss this with the other utility representatives. Finance Director Art Housler agreed that the c flow could be increased by a good amount and that could be invested and cur - MOTION: rently could earn 1 COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO INVITE REPRESENTA- TIVES FROM WASHINGTO ATURAL GAS. LIBERTY TV CABLE, GENERAL TELEPHONE, AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD #1 TO MEET WITH THE COUNC DECEMBER 12 TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTIMATING QUARTERLY UTILITY TAXES AND HAVING THEM P ON A MONTHLY BASIS. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughton reporte that he had received a copy of the Tukwila ordinance requiring smoke alarms in homes and Fire Chi Jack Cooper presently is analyzing it. In Tukwila it had resulted in a decrease in insurance costs. report will be forthcoming. MAYOR Mayor Harrison said a request had be ado that the City allocate funds in the amount of $10,000 for major repair and replacement costs r the Boys Club Building. The Staff recommendation was that the Council approve (1) expenditure In -Lieu Park Fund money not to exceed $10,000 for such costs (which were enumerated in a memoran and (2) the negotiation of a new one-year lease with the Boys Club providing that the Boys Club p all utilities and maintain and keep the premises in good Carnsrfeltrand that this shouldhbeCinvestigatbe ednfurther streuckingal and suchoaflargeirs and expenditure,aand hecomthat it mented are activityWasHeisaiddheswouldnprefer thatthat t efundsogoeto themSeniornCenterserving activities. CouncilmanNaughton more eXA I OJT r 300 November 21. 1979 - continued REVIEW OF CITY-WIDE MORATORIUM ON MULTIPLE CONSTR ITS Community Development Director John LaTourel said he was requesting that the moratorium be extended until the effective date of the amendment ordinance, and the City Attorney's recommendation was December 12. Counci n Gould asked that some plans be made regarding the RM-D zoning. Mr. LaTourelle said tha art of their ordinance review process will be a review of all the zoning classifications they hope to map in the RM-D with that. Councilman Gould felt there should be a definite ftment so that this matter doesn't slide, and Mr. LaTourelle said a schedule will be prepay for the December 12 meeting. The ordinance will be brought to MOTION: the Council on December 5. NCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE MORATORIUM ON MULTIPLE CO RUCTION OF OVER TEN UNITS BE EXTENDED UNTIL DECEMBER 12, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW OF PROPERTY AT 7TH AND ELM The Public Works Director reviewed in detail the history of problems regarding this property, going back to 1975. He displayed a proposed landscape plan for the south half of the property. Councilman Nordquist said he had distributed copies of minutes of previous discussions on this matter. The discussion was opened to the public. Shirley Dunphy of 1126 "B" Ave. read a petition from neighbors asking that the trees be retained on this property. The petition was> submitted to the Clerk and copies distributed to the Council. Joel DeLisa of 1137 7th Ave. S. . said they had asked about a year ago that the trees be trimmed but were told it could not be done so he felt they could not be trimmed now without cutting them down, and he did not want them cut. He said that because of work recently done on the property, clearing it of berry bushes and some trees, his property is being destroyed by water. His shrubs are dying because the water doesn't drain. He has part of his property landscaped to carry the water but the part that is planted with shrubs is being damaged. Kurt Dunphy of 1126 "B" Ave. said they want the trees retained because of the drainage and also because of the aesthetics of the trees. He said his family had moved into their house in July of this year and looking down the street it was totally green and they could not see Elm at all. They purchased the home partly because of those aesthetics. Then in October the bulldozers came in and now they can see Elm, the noise has increased, and the aesthetics are gone. Mr. Dunphy said it is not fair to remove his view of the trees to improve the other neighbors' view of the Sound. Dick Hill of 1242 Coronado P1. said he had lived in Edmonds all of his life and he could see that the trees are going fast and the green is disappearing. He said he did not think he was the only person who is alarmed about this and he said the Elm St. trees are important, but so are all of the other trees in Edmonds. Joel DeLisa commented that there are a lot of hard feelings about this property. He said they had talked to City Employees who said they were supposed to cut the trees by the creek and he asked that the Park Department personnel respond to that. Mayor Pro tem Carns advised him that those decisions would have been made by the Mayor and channeled down. Councilman Clement noted that the plan presented by the Public Works Director dealt with the south 120' of the property and showed all the existing trees standing. He asked if there was a plan that included removal of any trees on this property. Mr. Larson responded that there was not, that the only work order he had was based on this plan. He added that there was a policy statement made which did not go before the Council. Mrs. Dunphy said they believed the trees were going to be cut regardless of what the plan said, and that feeling was based on remarks made by City employees. John Claus of 1131 7th Ave. S. said they get one answer from one employee and another answer from another, and he would like to know what is the plan to keep water off his property.?/ Mayor Pro tem Carns responded that when this issue was finished the next item on the agenda would be the establishment of a tree trimming policy./ Kurt Dunphy said he did not think anything should be done with what is already there. Dorothy Kribs of 1159 7th Ave. S. said these trees were there long before any houses were built on the south side of Elm St., for which the tree cutting would provide view. Bob Highland of 114 7th Ave. S. said he has a 24'x 36' workshop about 250' from Elm St. and he never had any water problems until 1975 when the trees were cut. He said the water is gradually moving towards his workshop and is about 5'- 6' from it now. Mr. Larson explained that development of property to the east of 9th Ave. has increased the runoff in this area. He said all the water that used to come from this property originated from springs, but that no longer is the case. He said the City now has a drainage ordinance, but there was none at the time of that development. Mr. LaTourelle said he was Involved in the recommendations for the grassed areas on Elm St. He said Mr. Larson, Don Burton, and he had looked at the property on three different occasions, and after study had recommended that the blackberry bushes be cleared out to a depth no greater than 50'. He said he had been told that 50' was the extent to which the clearing had been done, but he had not seen the site. He said that was done to remove view obstruction and to help solve some litter problems, He said their recommendation for the balance of the property was then, and still is, that nothing be done with it. He said it is a lovely piece of property and he could see no address in 1964 when there was an earthquake, and the whole hill had come reason that anything should be done with it. Norm Ross of 1125 "B" Ave. said they were at that house taking the trees down, and there was a sea of mud. down next to his He was afraid the same thing would happen with the next earthquake. Mrs. Harold Shierman of 1161 7th Ave. S. said no one could get in there when it was covered with blackberries, and she was concerned now about easy accessibility to her property. The public portion of the discussion was closed. It was noted that the proposed landscape plan indicated a picnic table with a fire ring. Mr. Larson said that was a proposed neighborhood type of development that could be included, but not necessarily. Building and Grounds Superintendent Felix deMello said they plan to seed the area this spring and plant shrubs. He felt it would enhance the area, as opposed to blackberries. ')uncilman Clement observed that there appeared to be a difference of opinion of the Staff and .he neighbors as to haw far the cutting had gone, and the drawing indicated the landscaping area went on for about 80'. He asked what kind of expenditure had to be involved before the 9070M 3 Lewis said he was concerned that the site be developed ZAGREEMENT. e w i the other two existing office buildings. Mr. Bowman said it is the applicant's intent to developn a manner compatible with the existing office buildings. Mr. Bowman said thsite plan will be conducted by the Architectural Design Board. BOARD MEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. D. LEWIS, TO88 and R-4-88 SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REVIEW AS TO FORM AND USES AS NOTET. Mr. H. Lewis said that he supported the approval o hecontract rezone but was concerned that the Board is not taking steps to encourage the icant to blend the three properties together. He said he would like to see a sit an. Mr. Palmer said he made a site visit befo the meeting and looked at all three parcels. He said that it looked as though it would very difficult to place an access on the proposed property. Because of this, Mr. Pal said he is confident that the Architectural Design Board and the Engineering Department canjAndle the site plan approval. Mr. Bowman pointed out that th rchitectural Design Board, along with the Public Works Director, has every authorit ❑ either approve or disapprove of curb cut plans. MR. PALMER AMENDED HIS M ON TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD THAT THEY LOOK AT ALL EE SITES AS A COMBINED COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN AND SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ON SITE ANI)4eft5S POINTS ONTO 100TH AVENUE WEST. MR. D. LEWIS, THE SECONDER OF THE MOTION, AGREED TO,.JRE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION REGARDING TREE CUTTING POLICY AND CLEARING PERMITS Mr. Palmer reviewed the guidelines for participation in the public hearing with the audience. The following are his remarks: This is a complex and emotion -filled issue. It will be important for everyone in the room to remember that the Board is here to listen to everyone's opinions, experiences, and suggestions in an atmosphere that is respectful of the individual and promotes free expression. The Board is not here to pass judgement on individuals or their actions or to re -hear already decided issues, but rather to explore the depth and ramifications of the issue and focus on solutions. Outbursts will not be permitted. Before you speak, please take a moment to organize your thoughts. If everyone does this, we may be able to avoid unnecessary duplications. If you just wish to agree to disagree with a position already stated, you need only say, "I agree or disagree." If you have written documentation, photographs, or other evidence to present to the Board, please be prepared to turn over those materials to the Assistant City Planner, Mr. Bowman, so that they can be made an official part of the record. At the conclusion of the public hearing, it will be up to the Planning Board to decide if and/or how the issues should be dealt with. I do not expect that action beyond that will take place tonight. It may include the possibility of additional hearings on all or a portion of the issues. Each speaker must speak from the podium and begin with their name and address. These are official proceedings, there content is recorded, and a clear record must be maintained. There are 21 people signed up to speak. Ninety minutes has been set aside for the public hearing. That will give each speaker four minutes to speak. Transfer or reserving of time will not be permitted. If time remains after allthose who signed up to speak have spoken, then additional testimony may be taken. Persons not wishing to speak but who wish to have their names and addresses made a part of the record for the possibility of notification of future hearings on this issue, should also place their names on the sign up sheet. Mr. Bowman said that many of the individuals in the audience he recognizes from 1983 when the tree issue was discussed. Mr. Bowman explained that this discussion stems from a request from Mayor Naughten for the Board to look into the possibility of amending the City's policy for tree trimming and removal from public properties. Mr. Bowman read the current resolution stating the City's policy for tree trimming and removal from public properties. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES `AI' Page 3, August 24, 1988 4A( Mr. Bowman said that Mayor Naughten has asked the Board to review the existing policy and see if they can come up with a way for the City to allow some exceptions to the policy and some criteria and procedures for doing so. Mr. Bowman explained that there is not much the City can do about trees on private property at this time. The City has no requirements for a person to remove trees that are blocking another persons view. However, this issue has came up enough that staff requested that people be given the opportunity to express their concerns on trees located on private property. Mr. Bowman said there has been some cases involving developers of subdivisions where adjacent property owners have not been given proper notice and the developer has cleared the land before obtaining proper. approval. These individuals requested that the Board address this problem by recommending a policy for tree clearing. Mr. Bowman explained that the purpose of this meeting is to give those in the audience the opportunity to address these issues and any other issue they may have regarding trees. He encouraged people to come forward and let the Board know of their concerns. Cass Turnbull, 906 Northwest 87th, Seattle, is a Washington Certified Landscaper and Landscape gardening Instruction and a representative of Plant Amnesty, an organization of over 300 members whose goal is to promote the proper care of trees and shrubs. She .pointed out that this membership includes widely -respected authors, educators, and scientists. Ms. Turnbull presented five articles for the Board to review regarding the hazards of tree topping and some alternatives. Ms. Turnbull said that her organization pleaded with the Board that in their search for a difficult balance between scenic views with and without trees in the foreground, they expressly forbid tree topping as an alternative. She said that this practice is now recognized by those who know as the worst thing you can do to a tree --including cutting it down. She said that topping devalues the tree, both economically and aesthetically; creates rotting, publicly hazardous trees; and does not solve the problem of a tree obstructing a view, but instead encourages an even bushier, if weak and unsightly, tree top. Ms. Turnbull indicated that there are other options available, but such work should be done by professional arborists who have demonstrated a true understanding of tree biology. Ms. Turnbull urged the Board to carefully consider the criteria for removing public trees for the private view of a few and consider trees as a valuable buffer in the sprawling urban areas. She asked the Board to consider the view of a community with no large trees. The impact is stark and the City would be left with a strange feeling of empty crowdedness. Ms. Turnbull pointed out that the trees will be irreplaceable in this generation's lifetime. Deloris Curtis, 402 - 9th Avenue South, said she has little to say about the subject of City property. Her feelings is that if trees are in the lower portion of the City by the water, the trees should be removed if topping is not an alternative for the City to solve the problem. Ms. Curtis said she feels there are many different varieties of trees that could replace those trees that obstruct view that are equally useful as forest trees. Ms. Curtis inquired how a policy could be developed to regulate trees located on private property. She inquired who should start the development of a policy of this type. She said she has a beautiful view and she has not had any problems with her neighbors about trees obstructing her view. She said that her husband felt it was his responsibility, as a human being, to plant dwarf and small growing plants that would not block a neighbor's view. She said that if anything they have ever planted gets any taller than her house, they will remove it because they feel it is wrong to have an abundant view while taking away the view of another Suzanne Lindsay, 18916 Sound View Place, said that around her property are many old trees. She did not want these trees to be removed. Rather than removing the trees, a person should choose a view that will not be obstructed by trees. In her development there is a restriction that all trees must be deciduous and no higher than the roof top of the houses along the water front. Ms. Lindsay suggested that the City allow trees to be cut that obstruct the rights -of -way. Shc felt that selective cutting should be allowed on rights -of -way to prevent dangerous situations. She indicated she would like the City to develop a policy to take care of dangerous trees in public rights -of -way. Bertha Bernier, 740 Pine Street, agreed with the Ms. Curtis that it would be nice if people in the community would help out with other peoples' view. Ms. Bernier pointed out that along Pine Street, trees are growing out into the street. The walkers are having to walk out into PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 4, August 24, 1988 the street to get around the trees. She indicated that the street lights are even covered by trees. Paul Joslin, 16219 - 70th Place West, said he is speaking from the standpoint of clearing. He said that in his area, they had approximately 50 landowners sign a petition stating that they disagreed to the trees being removed from an area being developed. A major developer came into the area and began to clear. Mr. Joslin pointed out that these developers come into the area and develop the subdivision and leave. They do not live in the developments. It is the developer's interest to clear the forest to get as much as possible on the land. Mr. Joslin said the residents of North Meadowdale do not want this type of clearing. He pointed out that the Edmonds Community Development Code lays down numerous guidelines for developers to follow to maintain the rural landscaping. The problem is these guidelines are not enforced. He said that in his particular instance, not only were the trees removed, but the slope was cut away. Mr. Joslin said the developers violated the policies when grading for a sewer line. The City stopped the work but City needs more authority to tell a developer he cannot do certain things. Janice Joslin, 16219 - 70th Place West, pointed out that trees and wildlife have been in the area long before the developers arrived. The coastal lines are important for bird migration, wildlife, and watersheds. Ms. Joslin said she is concerned when developers disturb the habitat. She said she believed the.rules for multiply developed areas should lay out clearly that these trees need to be maintained for future enjoyment. Tree removal guidelines on public property should be maintained so others may enjoy the trees in the future. Ms. Joslin wanted to keep the forested areas. Marion Roy, 830 Alder Street, said she agrees with the Joslins. She said she has lived in Edmonds for nearly 40 years and has seen it change from a rural area to a City where construction has taken away so many trees that the City needs all of the existing trees. Ms. Roy said that even though trees block some people's view of the Sound, they have a beauty of their own. Ms. Roy expressed her desire to preserve the trees and not allow trimming of them on public property to preserve the view. Randall Dodd, 16323 - 71st Place West, said he called Mayor Naughten to ask about the City's policy for removing trees on public and private land. He said he is not an advocate of clear cutting the City, but the City should consider that one of the most valuable aspects of a home is view. He did not think it would behoove the City to let trees on public property destroy the view and decrease the amount of tax revenue to the City. Mr. Dodd said people need to be aware of the changing nature of the City. Thirty years ago Edmonds was a rural place, but it is not that way anymore. The City needs to be aware of the liability exposure if large trees are left standing. As more trees are removed, it becomes easier for large trees to fall when there is a heavy wind. Mr. Dodd said there are very few property owners with a view who would not be willing to foot the bill or meet the restrictions the City would set for removal of trees from public property. Mr. Dodd explained that he lives behind a person who let their trees grow 80 feet high and they block his view. This neighbor is now demanding that he pay $50,000 before he can even touch her trees. Mr. Dodd pointed out that people have lost a lot of property value in the past three years because of view blockage. Mr. Dodd said that people live in Edmonds for the view. Anything the Board can do to take care of the situation would be appreciated. Phil Coker, 1401 West Bertona, Apartment 8, Seattle, said he has been in the area for about five years. He is a gardener at the University of Washington. Mr. Coker said he can understand people wanting to maintain their view, but they need to think ahead into the s future. If they are not careful, they will all be looking at each others roof tops. Mr. Coker said he agreed with Ms. Turnbull that topping is a -horrible thing to do to a tree. He urged the Board to think ahead to the future because it takes a long time to grow a tree. Margaret Stalker, 958 Sprague Street, said there are too many forest trees blocking the view. She said that 30 years ago she had a panoramic view. Buford Stalker, 958 Sprague Street, said that they have been residents of Edmonds for 34 years and he was one of those unfortunate individuals that had 11 trees growing on the back of his property. He said that he removed part of those trees and topped others to allow the neighbors a view of the sound. Mr. Stalker said he agreed that topping is the wrong thing because at the present time, his view is blocked more by the topped trees. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 5, August 24, 1988 Mr. Stalker said he is for the removal of all forest trees in Edmonds because they block the view. He recommended that the City adopt a policy requiring every resident who has a forest tree on their property to remove it or pay a $100 fine. This fine could be directed toward payment for removal of the trees and could be used partly to replant the forest trees with something that is gutter height. Mr. Stalker also recommended that the City adopt a policy to prohibit anyone from planting a forest tree within the City limits because they create a problem when they get large and they are more expensive to remove when they are large. Mr. Stalker pointed out that the City does not have an ordinance at this time that protects the view. He feels that these fines would be drastic, but the lost of view is drastic, also. He said that in the past, they have gotten up in public hearings and expressed their views, but nothing was ever done. Frank Green, 1136 - 9th Avenue South, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 20 years. He bought his house because he had what he thought was an unobstructed view, and it was for 15 years or so. He said that he approached his neighbor to inquire if a tree could be removed or trimmed to help him retain his view. The neighbor refused to do so until the tree grew into the telephone wire. Then the neighbor told him that if he would pay for the removal; the tree could be removed. Mr. Green said he does not want an ordinance as drastic as that proposed by Mr. Stalker, but people down hill from view should be required to keep their trees at a certain height so views are not obstructed. Mr. Green said he keeps his trees trimmed to protect his neighbors view. George Law, 802 Main Street, said he has lived in his home since the late 1940s. He pointed out that 100 years ago everything was original growth and everything they see now is second growth that will continue to grow. Mr. Law said it seems inconsistent that the City can limit the height of an ornamental fence yet they cannot limit the height of a hedge or tree. He felt the views and safety hazards should be considered. There should be something done to take care of this problem. Karlen Karle, 1425 loth Place North, said that she has been at her present address for 10 years and has had some view. However, some of her view has been blocked by trees on public and private property. She said she was interested in a policy to partially pay for removal of trees on public property. She pointed out that she keeps her trees pruned in order to protect the view of the neighbors behind her. Ms. Karle asked the Board to consider facilitating a meeting to get people interested in protecting views together to discuss the problem. She said she would like to know who, in her area, would be interested in some kind of trimming or pruning policy. Gordon Smith, 829 Laurel Way, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 37 years and his family enjoys the City of Edmonds. Mr. Smith said he respects the people who want to preserve the trees and wildlife in the City. He, however, is more selfish. He said he bought a house that had a 180 degree view and today they have only a 70 to 80 degree view because of trees that have grown to a point that he no longer sees a ferry dock or boat harbor. Mr. Smith said he would like to see the City establish an ordinance where there are some restrictions placed upon homeowners as to the height limit for trees. Mr. Smith indicated. that the City presently has a height limit for structures and he would like to see the City take a position to help the residents that have a view. Walter Dastis, 7202 - 172nd Southwest, said that there has been considerable pros and cons and he doesn't relish the thoughts of what decisions will be made from what has been said this evening. Mr. Dastis said that he purchased view property in 1969. They had woods to the north and west and their view was through the trees. He said he would hate to have the City fine him so that someone else could have a view. If the trees were removed, they would be looking at the developments below them rather than the beautiful trees. Mr. Dastis suggested that the City should allow the trimming of scrub (Alder) trees that grow along the public property. These could be replanted with Oregon Grape or some other form of vegetation that Could grow along the banks but not block the view of people living In the vicinity. Mr. Dastis recommended that the Board came up with some sort of ordinance that woulc permit citizens to trim and cut down this type of scrub tree. If this could be accomplished, Mr. Dastis felt it would preserve both the beautiful trees and the view. Leonard Eide, 505 Pine Street, said that he is in the process of building in Edmonds. He said that it was not the trees that attracted him to Edmonds. If he wanted trees he would have purchased a home in Snohomish County in the middle of the trees at a much lower cost. Mr. Eid( felt that trees have an aesthetic value and look beautiful, but they do not need to grow to th( "heavens." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 6, August 24, 1988 Barbra Jepperson, said she previously lived at 704 Birch Street in Edmonds. She said she lost her parcel view and sold her house because of the blocked view. She said she is in the process of buying another home with a view in the City. She said that while living in the City, she had a neighbor who lost her view because she would not allow the neighbor below to put up a + large television antenna. Instead of an antenna, the neighbor planted cedars in a hedge like fashion to be vindictive. The trees ended up wrapping around the owner's water pipe and caused 1t to leak. Rather than remove the trees, this neighbor was so vindictive that he let the trees damage his water pipe. Ms. Jepperson said she would like to see an organization developed to discuss this problem because she loves the City of Edmonds. Randy Pfriem, 6923 - 163rd Place S.W., said he feels that too many trees are being cut down. He hoped that if an organization is formed to discuss trees being removed to protect views, that both sides would be present. Mr. Pfriem said he is against the removal of trees. Mr. Pfriem said that if the City does as some have mentioned, they could end up with a situation similar to Ballard. Mr. Pfriem said he supports the City's current policy for tree clearing on public property. He also stated that people should not be required to remove trees on private property. Mr. Pfriem pointed out that the development within the City is not the same in all areas. The flat ravines need the view, but in the Meadowdale area, tree removal would bring the property values down. Mr. Pfriem felt the City needed more control over clearing permits. He said that clearing in the Meadowdale area has created a lot of concern by neighbors and there needs to be some definite changes in the way clearing plans are submitted. Mr. Pfriem suggested that a developer be required to take an inventory of the trees to make sure that the clearing plans• are being followed as submitted. Mr. Palmer asked for clarification on the petition that was submitted to the Board. Mr. Joslin said that the time it took to obtain the signatures was four days prior to July 7, 1988. Bill Borgert, 751 Laurel Street, said he has lived in Edmonds for 35 years and has seen a lot of changes. He stated that he loves trees and feels they do a great deal to enhance the environment, but he objects to the trees blocking the view. He indicated that he has neighbors who have permitted some trimming of scrub trees to protect his view, but down the hill there are a lot of trees that, in a few years, will block a great deal of views. Mr. Borgert said he is in favor of the City having an ordinance to restrict the height of trees and not allow trees to block the view of the citizens. Mr. Borgert said that if there is anyone interested in getting together to see how they take care of this problem, he would like to organize the meeting. Kurt Dunphy, 1126 - B Avenue, said he has been at the previous meetings where view was discussed and he is comfortable with the policy as far as tree clearing on public land. He felt it would be a waste of the Board's time to hash it over again. View is not a right. View is something that a person has if they can afford to purchase it and, hopefully, maintain it. It is not something the City should enforce or help maintain. Mr. Dunphy pointed out that the City will be responsible for the problems created by tree removal. He felt the current resolution makes sense. It is not the City's job to make a policy to get rid of the trees to protect the views of some of the citizens. Private property owners should be allowed to do what they want with trees on their property. Mr. Dunphy said that he has two alder trees in his yard that are very beautiful. Mr. Dunphy indicated that he is in agreement with getting some control over what a developer is allowed to clear. Charles McMillen, 1020 Edmonds Street, said he has lived at his address for 31 years. When they moved to this home, they had 150 degree view of the sound. That is why they purchased the y" property. Since then, the trees have grown up and blocked their view. The trees that block their view are in City Park. Mr. McMillen said he does not envy the Board for having to try to come up with a policy that meets everybody's needs. Mr. McMillen pointed out that all areas have different characteristics that need different policies. The problems in his area are distinct to the area. Mr. McMillen said he would be happy to work with the City to remove trees. Mr. McMillen stated that to say one viewpoint was black and the other white is ridiculous. There must be a judgmental factor. Mr. McMillen said that after the last meeting, he felt the City was being vindictive by planting fir trees in Hummingbird Hill Park that are about to takf PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 7, August 24, 1988 O away a portion of his view. Mr. McMillen said the neighbors would have been happy to pay for a different type of tree to be planted in the park if money was the problem. Doug Clark, 4461 Woodlawn Park Avenue, Seattle, said he is an arborists in the area and he ` ti6 agrees with a lot of the things that have been said tonight. He stressed that he is against the use of tree topping to preserve views. Mr. Clark explained that there are various fungus infections living in the soil that the tree can cope with when healthy. When something is changed, the tree is unable to cope and dies. Mr. Clark said that, obviously, there are no clear cut answers for preserving the trees and views. He suggested the City do what a lot of other cities have done and hire a City arborists, and through that person, develop a tree program that would work out all the problems. Jeanie Anderson, 16727 - 74th Place West, said that she bought property in the City because she valued that privacy of her property. A lot of privacy was due to the amount of trees in the area. She stated that trees are valuable to her. A lot of what she considered to be valuable is lost to the development that is taking down trees in the area. She commented that the Board should keep in mind that the City covers a lot more area than that area that has a view of the Cascades, Olympics, or Sound. She said she considers her view to be the trees. Ms. Anderson said she supports the present City policy on tree trimming and removal and in those instances when it is necessary to remove or trim a tree on public property, she hoped the City would notify the citizens before doing so. She said it is a disturbing thing to see the tree you have enjoyed for so many years no longer there. She pointed out that she enjoys the view on public property as well. Ms. Anderson indicated that she felt the City did something the last time this issue was discussed. They recommended that the wise policy was to leave the the resolution as is. Ms. Anderson urged the Board to consider the citizens of Edmonds who do not have a view of the sound and consider the trees to be their view. Eva Lombardi, 22021 Woodway Park Road, said she is appalled at the people who just want to i• remove trees. She commented that one of the most important things to do for these people is to ' give them lessons on aesthetics. A view that is framed by trees gives a better view than just water. Ms. Lombardi pointed out that trees offer air conditioning to the City. If the trees were removed, the characteristics of the area will be removed. Without the forest trees, the City would not be the same. She stated that a person could live on Lake Michigan and have trees that are small. She feels that the City should do everything they can to preserve the trees. Jim Brennan, 221 - 8th Avenue South, said he bought a home that had a beautiful view which is rapidly deteriorating, and he hoped that some "Solomon" could figure out a way to make everybody happy on this issue. Mr. Brennan explained that he wrote to the City some years ago and pointed out to them that there is a hedge row of fir trees on Dayton Street that are growing about three to six feet per years. He said he received a letter back referring to the City ordinance on tree clearing and cutting on public property. Mr. Brennan said that two or three years ago, his wife took on the task of reminding the City that they hoped the City would be good neighbors and take care of these trees. The City Fy informed them that they did not plant these trees. Mr. Brennan pleaded with the Board to do something about the City's trees. Ruby Smith, 829 Laurel Way, stated that there are different areas of the whole issue that people are speaking about. She suggested that tree cutting regulations should be different in the bowl area than they are in the other areas of the City. Deloris Curtis gave a history of her property. She said that she originally owned a large portion of land and sold it off piece by piece: She said they moved to the area so that their children would have a place to play in a forested, rural area. She said that their property was used for play by many of the children in the neighborhood. Eventually, Ms. Curtis decided to sell the remaining forested area because of the hazards caused by school children using the vacant lot to try their first cigarette. Ms. Curtis said that many years ago, they were forced to remove trees for the safety of the family because some of the trees were knocked down by heavy winds. Ms. Curtis suggested that perhaps many of the problems expressed tonight could be handled by way of zoning designations that could address the different needs of areas that have a view of ( vY- the sound. Ms. Curtis did not feel that forest trees should remain on public property where there is view. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1 1 Page 8, August 24, 1988 Paul Joslin said that there is a difference and Edmonds is not one piece of land that should be looked at in the same fashion. The City should have different policies for the bowl area. Kurt Dunphy said that he lives in the bowl and he is dead set against cutting the trees. If, his and his neighbors trees were not there, he would have a fantastic view. If the policy is changed to allow private input into the removal of public trees, he proposed that parks not be included in that. Mr. Dunphy expressed his feeling that joint cooperation within communities to remove trees that block others views is a nice idea, but chances are it will not work. Tina Cohen, 8318 - 26th Northwest, Ballard, addressed the people who are concerned about their "7 view being obstructed. She invited people to come to Ballard to see what an unobstructed view means. Randy Pfriem pointed out that a park without trees is a parking lot and the City has enough parking lots. Mr. Pfriem did not feel the problem could be solved by a single decision. If people have a problem in their neighborhood, they can get the neighborhood organization together to solve the problem. If you can't get along with your neighbors, you should move. The public portion of the hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Board. MR. D. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. PHILLIPS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Phillips suggested that the Board attempt to put some "teeth" into the clearing permit policies. Mr. Palmer indicated that he has given this issue a great deal of thought and he suggested that the Board break the issue into sections to discuss. He suggested the following six sections: 1. Clearing permits 2. Publicly -owned, non -park land and rights -of -way 3. Publicly -owned park land 4. Private property 5. Private property subdivisions and PRDs 6. Private and public property landscape requirements imposed by the City through the Architectural Design Board. Mr. Palmer suggested that by breaking the issue into section, the Board may be able to identify issues that are solvable. Ms. Phillips said the only problem is that the Board will need to come up with a definition of view. Ms. Claussen said that she went through this the last time the view issue was discussed and that was the problem the Board experienced at that time. They have no definition for view. Ms. Claussen indicated that she would be willing to discuss the issue again, but she is not --- —. sure the Board will be able to come up with a solution that is satisfactory to the residents of Edmonds and the Court of Law. Ms. Claussen discussed that one persons.view may be the water where another person may consider the trees a part of his view. She reminded the Board of some citizens' desires to have the trees removed from City Park. Mr. Palmer said that the City Attorney informed him that the City is very strapped on doing anything on private lands. However, Mr. Palmer felt the Board should look at all areas, even though no regulations may come out of the discussion. At least maybe the Board can develop some general guidelines for the staff to use when informing the citizens of the City's positior Mr. Mathias expressed his desire that the policy not be changed. He felt that removing trees to protect a person's view could do more harm to the environment and other residents in the City. Ms. Phillips pointed out that there are views outside of the bowl area. She felt that if the Board is going to discuss views, they should look at the total City. _ PLANNING BOARD MINUTES A Page 9, August 24. 1988 G Ms. Phillips recommended that the Board discuss the policies regulating clearing permits first because there is clearing taking place all the time where developers are removing trees without approval. MR. H. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. PALMER, TO ACCEPT MR. PALMER'S SIX ITEMS OF DISCUSSION IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 1. CLEARING PERMITS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY SUBDIVISIONS AND PRDs 2. DISCUSSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF HIS POSITION ON "TAKING" REMAINS THE SAME AS IN 1985 3. PUBLIC OWNED PARK LAND 4. NON PARK AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDS 5. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS (JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD) MOTION CARRIED. The Board scheduled the following: September 28 - DISCUSSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING VIEW BLOCKAGE DISCUSSION ON CLEARING PERMITS (SUBDIVISIONS/PRO'S) October 12 - DISCUSSION OF VIEW OBSTRUCTION RELATED TO NEW STRUCTURES AND TREES November 23 - DISCUSSION ON TREE CUTTING POLICY FOR PUBLIC PARK LAND Mr. Palmer explained to the audience that the Board will hold a general discussion on each of the subcategories. If it is decided that the Board needs additional input, a public hearing will be scheduled. If there is a Code change or a recommendation to the Council, there will be a public hearing, also. Mr. Palmer suggested that if anyone has any studies or other hard knowledge regarding this issue, the Board would welcome this information. He informed the audience that this information should be given to staff as soon as possible so that the Board has time to review the materials. He gave an address for this information to be mailed. Mr. H. Lewis recommended that Mr. Bowman ask the City Engineer to review the information form Ms.Shippen and have a response for the Board on the Meeting of October 12. The Board could then decide whether to schedule the discussion on a future agenda. Mr. Bowman indicated that he would do this. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. PB82488 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 10, August 24. 1988 Charles McMillan, ION tdwends Street, said hr kas lived at his address for 21 years, *-an thty moved to this hose, they had 150 degree view of the sound. That is wry they pVrchasod the property. 5incr than, the tress have grown up and blocked their vim. The trees th.t bleak their view err in City Park. Mr. WAI113A isld ho does not envy the Surd for 1uving to try to come wp with a policy that meets evorybedy's needs. oak. "Man pointed out that all areas have dlfferdM charactaristiea that need difforont policies, ths'probler In hie Gros arm ilstlnct to the area. 11r, "Ulan sold he would bo happy to wart with the City to romero tares. M•. "Man ataud that to say one viewpoint was black and the other whits is ►Mcitle". lhero must be a judgmental factor. Mr. IIpflllen said that after the last meeting. hd felt the City was batng virdtctive by planting fir tars In Mrmeringbird Mill Fork that are abawt te tab O PLNNIMG BOARD MINUTES October 12, 1988 /LAINING BOARD MINUTES /age 7. August 21, 190 TMESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 24 APPROVAL The regular meetiay of the Edmonds Planning Hoard was called to o at ':Do P."- by Chairperson Jeff Palmer in the Plaza Meeting Anon of the fd.mnds beery Build 1ng. PRESENT ABSENT -F PRESENT Jeff Palmer, Chair Dean Mordquist Done Boon. Asst. City Plnr. Janet Phillips Scott Snyder. City Attorney Sharon Claussen Karin (byes, kocorder Hank Lewis Don Lewis Bill Mathias SLrifF AND PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS Ar ' Mr. Bourn explained th/If"4U draft definition for bed and breakfast establishments In the Surd's packets. the Board could review this definition at the end of the meeting. Interviewi the alte�ate the plannnihngBoard a than Informed the Oounthat the nccil MMeetingouncil lll"fully. thenAlternate vic4i,c7o-111be mw by the Board' DISCU'.IDK WITH CITY ATTORNEY RECARDIK TREES ABO YIE -OBSTRUCTION Mr. Palmer reminded the audience that none of the items on the Board's ..genda were advertised as public hearings. He said the Bard does not anticipate any public input at this time. Mr. Bowan said that this item $tang from the Surd's discussion reg4rdlr.7 tree trldmirrg and rler obstruction from a few weeks ago. Mr. Bowen explained that in February, 19%. there was a memorandum written by the City Attorney regarding this Issue. He said the mend was included in the Board's packets. Mr. Bowman said that Pb-. Snyder, the City Attarney. is present to discuss this awsdrandu and how the City can regulate trey netting on public and private properties and passible view ordinances. He said that Mr. Snyder vill answer the Board's qutsttons and update the Bard on any changes In case law since the 1985 memorandum. Mr. Snyder said that the only significant change slnee 1955 were the regulatory raking rases that the United States Supreme Court came out wlth in 1987 and INS. Me did not think tnese eases affect the ba.tom of his ream For two reasons. They reaffirm the basic princtple r• t police power regulation does exist and you an have takings for the public health, safety, and welfare that are not crow able 1n7uries. He said the age old example Is the fire In the tow where you Nye to dynamite some bees In the path of the fire in order to prevent lts spread• There are other techniques today. He said the Supreme Court did reaffirm that for valid pollct theeothereeasessrotedlINtyaestNettie Purprt pooses al1W wiOOPe ll nottsuipportmPolicelepowergtakinng aam nd shot typically Atithetie considerations It" else to camenzable factors Swat is you have to pay compensation for the tatt,gl, wr. Snyder nd[ked on the agenda that the Bard i,mped two Issues to9ethen'--Trees and view obsirvcttpn. He said M noted the: on+ of '-. .vrd's memea lumped the its ues together Under treeslnew structures. Mr. Snyder said he ,.s not knew how !he Beard would like to apprbarh It. The new structure Is "ally a different snimel than the trea Istue. With a structy" you ►lexibledeal revieww (or new constructionther vreMr. Snyder suggestkd thatheight there are definrlulyy thlrg a+ that could be accomplished with ordlnanca modiflNtions to give a greater degree of control sex eerier to the City to the construction of new homes on existing lots. With respect to trees, Mr. Snyder said the City only has so many choicesIs . He said she I,that outright ceed a certain height. aWith is t this type of he ooe that s regulation, Mr. eem theast nSnyderi pointed tout that sthe City mynot run O W. Palmer felt that there are certain trees that may not be appropriate In the parks and this would take care of those trees. He felt the City rods a safety belt for those tress that should be removed. Mr. H. Lewis falt that raqufrleg five pemesons on the hoard to spree to the •rmeval of a tree in pubIte part land to too strict. He fait that It should be rrviwtd by the ALB and the City tounctl and that Is arawgh mlev. f. Clawlen Ingatrod about the existing parts that have no master plan. but if fomoons wants to have a tree cut in ores of these parka? The board coatinved to dtaass W. Palur't proposal. W. Palmer said he felt that the Parks would be looked at differently than other PAM properties. He pointed or,t that nonpark public land vthl be difcufsed on a future agenda, 12 - 'r:� :fti3y��.w; •men: J. •ws i'�[i�;,� -tam_;. •' - -�� :.y •i;� ' tic,+�-Y� there Is view. PLANNING BOARD MIMUTES papa B, Augast 24. 190 Q 0 into the same problem the ULmh Legislature did two years ago Man they set a limit on the height of the gnat Salt Lake. It kept rising anyway. He painted out that trcas have a habit Of growing and the question becomes, 'What should you do when they e�rcatd the Might limitations,' MrSnyder explained that In order to prosecute and use conventlonai City tools to control the height of the trees, it would require the City to do somrthing slung the line of a tree inventory to seta base line for existing Levey and determine wbere they are and how high they are. if you are going to get into rvmdving existing trees, trees are property and the owners of the trees are entitled to Compensation for them. Mr. Snyder explained Out the problem with cnrpensation is that assuming that the rtmovml Of trees, lirlLation of the height, or trimming the trees Is sn.ething that the city would want to move forward with, the question bccunes whether or not it would be more Straight forward to 90 A"" and bite the bullet and be prepared to pay toepensatldn to set up local iLyro",aanL distr lets within view sensitive neighborhoods, assess the cost of ti±e Cutting and rc•bval .CTess the ne l ghborhood with sown kind of formula based upon view enhaeieement- Mr. Snyder said that whether the local improvement program iL volur.,ary or City imposed Is man issue that was revsewed by Mayor Mawghiten ■ few years ago. At that t1ac, the Clly was investigating a voluntary effort. The City visited neighborhoods set of the City drafted a view eas,lept Covenant that would run with tatli piece of property, could nelghborhoods obtaln enough signatures on those covenants to put affective limitations wltb$n neighborhoods. SecwWly, in those neighborhoods that have done what they tould do, would the nelghborloods be willing to proceed with sore kind of a nbighbonccod improvement district to pay for the cost of acquiring easements from thlpia who world out volunts rsly'grant thew. Mr. Snyder said this idea of voluntarily giving up your rights or paying for the rights is the Only Alternative that is not discussed in the memorandum from 198S, He said this is a sort of shot gun approach to the subject. Mr. Mathlas inquired if it is legal for the city to draft ordinances that would either permit or force the cutting down of trees on private property. Hr. Wder answered that It is legal if the City is willing to pay for them. Its. Clausen said that there is a formula used by the arborlsit of the United States that could be used to determine value for insurance purposes. She assumed this could also be used for this purrose. Mr. Snyder said there are a couple of alternatfvus which depend do Nov closely the Board wants the City involved in the process. He reminded the Scard that he mentioned earlier the Idea of setting up local neighborhood Improvement districts to acquire view casements. These easements Could be both public and private. Myc,.e prepert,;' owners could pay for private eastwnts and enforce ije themdelves. The City could acquire public easements and enfone their rights t hersel „es. He Bald these could be enforced by either a court action Or by a local Improvement distr •ct. You world acquire an easfl t to conAemnation which would permit the City to come onto the property and trim the trees. The cost of the tree trimming and the easeeent would to assessed back against all of the nomeauners in the neighborhood on some proportionate share based upon the amount of vork done and the benefit to each nnuse. Mr. Snyder Bald that with every project of this type, sine lee td a new street. there is probably sow benefit to the general public that the City would tit required to bear. He said the Same preeess ihrt Is vied when street and sidewalk ImproyCWnts are made would be used in bhl3 Instance, also. Mr. Snyder explained that this would be a special assessment levied Lgainst at properties individually based upon sloe foremla. The formula would be determtned through a public hearing. Mr. Snyder pointed out that with streets, It it not wcssarily the person that lives along the street that receives the mast benefit from the 1provements- He said that it this case in arulogy wauid be those within a defined view Corridor who receive the benefit of the view should pay a higher assessment than those without a view or perhaps to compensate those persons whose trees have been remaved and had some diminishment Of their property value. Mr• Snyder said Ihat all of these approaches depend upon the willingness of the majority of the nelghtorhood to go forward with this and to way nor It. Mr. Snyder said that he feels the problem with set height limit and reguiatlons, while the rc arc probably ways that theyH�oulidh set up, they have many practical mforceewnt problems cause of the way trees grew. at this tlae. the State Supreme Court IS hearing on aPpeal on a Case d1scusfing when trots hectare a hedge and whether, eonstltuttortally. defining a raw of trees at a hedge !s sufflclem to ,ring thew within polite powef regulation. The court of appeals had held that hedge was sufficient. II you said Wet peegle could Ism snta In a 16-foot high hedge and you allow your xr"s to grow, they can require you to Cut the. back - Mr. Snyder said the problem there, as with trees. Is establishing what height the trees were a - the date the ordinance was passed. That Is why he mentioned before that if the City is going PLANNING BOAR) MiGfTES Page 2, Octo.tr 12. 1988 0 Mid M. LEWIS IOVED, SECONDED BY INS. PMILLiPS, -NA 001M ADO THE DISCUSSION OF THE METHOD OF REc9G11121MG SERVICE CLt1B5' WI TIIIWIOMS TD TIF,1 IST OF TOPICS FOR THE ISB9 AGENDA. NOTION CARRIED WITH MR. D. LEWIS OPPOSING THE MOTION\d1scutti Mr. Palmer reminded the Board to review the tree cutic parks and be prepared to discuss this at the next meeting. Mr. Rouen reminded the Board that there will be a cof the Westgate Plan at the Noramber 9 meeting. The Board rearranged the December Ie agenda by movinthee n the sign code and the Highway 99 study to the 1909 all""". Mt. MORIWIST MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. PHILLiPS, TO AD9:l0 P.M. NOTION CARRIED. PB1026BB N though no raglilltl"f may Car out at the dlsasalae. At least aayae w wan a." w.v. tom general guideline, for the staff to via when imfemimg the a" N the Clt►'s Willie, Mr. tathiss expressed his Mire that the pmilq' net ha Champed, HI felt that rwrlq tondo to protect a person', view could do .are ham to Ue mmvliomnmt and ether rwlMaca 1m tb city. HS. Phillips pointod out that there are views rtside of the bowl Mesa. Sara felt teat if the Board Is going to discus, vim, they $$mid look at the total City. PLAIN iK WIND N11yTis Page p. Ampest 24. 1W O " x l ig to gel Into sow Sort of a art Wmtlu7 Standards (trtrt CAA be sa high) IM C1Cy rill Yrre to trees In the City that an Mntonfprmimg oeeensa the ar'd1eMu wowed �"' �•i sort out oil those Current OrdtDaxKtS an, to "Istiy strvct.rrs I - It not be Ipplitsble $n s Crialnml cc.rtcxt, as wort Zoning 1n this Cal* existing tress. He said that If a person has a trtt ISMS Is la flee 1,191, had r-,ur, ,.•' _'� ;�D7- e�'a�0� r, i and the City sa Cannot bare a trio exceedf le feet h1 the CI to.7d cfrula7 removeam=. ]n you y gh. City y , _� ., [ the tree but they wind have to pay for the tree. If .tree Ss 0 fret high the arrow has tk + obi lgat ton to alma In St vl thin City eta ndards. This a %I tow tl on of gra-04 tAt m9 or •• ri r; t.:ha'I root an loref.g rights that rico9nitr that exl Sting treand Sirwctsttes may mabe lntsinrd rless es r•"' outs%rr'+ S the City I vl l ling to pay the maul atory cos Ss of remortI a �~ 7'�t7 J Mr. Palmer said It 11 clear fro. *r. 5ny0er's aeeb 4Ad his reoarks at this retiy, that the Y•4'a`S v� x., City should net Ret tnto the COnIY'pt of regulating trl," On pat waif proprrtl' mod p4y1y co,o ensat1m. Ise said the City mould go bankrupt before they toot art of all the passible =':�;%';;' . jh!1:: - -r a'if �• r. '• cast in town. Mr. Palmer said he Is Interested it dt"wssing awbdirlstau Mad P7ar.ed heat, =�•- mlldential derelOpents (pW) Om property that is Doi yet dry loped. h4 is late ted 1. learning where the City% Peg 140A9 ability dies into play with tine drvriopmaes. •i y7 k i'�. Snyder said it Can [ire 1n a waarbrr of areti. ?It- said that " Of the arras In tie City that an rim sensitive arc also t"Ircnmawtally ienitivr. T►at 1s Lportaet In Me tlresauld _ +.c, N.%era" �:' G of the lots that the State rMtrormantal Protrctlw Agency SSM] mlew poans ►apacts. ,.•.,Sa.,�. ~ •-• towering the threshold doas5 frua four tots to a single lot In tIAD" eersrfrMISntally seesltlrr >-'�l'`F{'�[ areas. Basially. the City has the suit pro(*st. Mich allows the Ctry to cowslder THrS at a ��" �•� componfnt to the antbwc tnrlrW=0t. W. Sapdrr said that the suindivlsfos and Pm } e. �, prp[riin, btu wsr they art awry similar, also [Yrrrl`err 66f.a Plitt oral Private rltsrs. - ��s,�,��• g Mr. Snyder Bald that In I. iub71vision or PU rr+efss. May liultatl" placed en derelalm'"t as a 3 part of the M/subdivision realm grottos Is planed Oe the face Or the flat end became, the Y 061194tioe of the developer as cell as all parsoms Who perthasa the lot. IIr said this 1t r 'r.'y contained 1n their chain of title. This coull be In terms. types. T)w City comld Win view ,�, •.. S Sn which trees were ant to be plamtfd Or Itrucwrts Y.ilt. rims Cf t7' carld sensitive rorrlderSe[ -; s r } l. list City wsta►lleh pla.tlaq raarrlve"Its ❑risars to Pita bl lih torrtdon for rilcould M _ -'7 that Spectfy With soma detail thf kinds of tests and shrubs that CAM be planed- Tar most 1 i cowrr'rrrly tee that 1n the retire growth wmrt sMti. It. S'Aydtr reTrrrtd LO thesc City aT Trcw, - •. ;-4 I ArIlona. They require rasically drowght rrtisumt plaetim¢ as ed to l treft to dltcocr4ge the ale of water. A s1m-4law Sd•t Could he w' y rpp lied lwwlttfeg eye to tries teat here a restrlctfrr growth patters xd an Dot ply io 1.terfere with •{w . plantings viers. fir. Snyder Said that he p"ftr, the latter srggestiom sl.Ply became thti* trial Only •'. get to 4 cRrtAin height and won stir entoreieg in cvatr4r1 son to setting height IWHIs that r • tend ED le4d to disputes within the welgfrbonc�ads. Mr. Palmer trqulred what world be the IegeI reltylCtlaws m treis as far 47 low txpeasI" East - - restrictions could be. Sir. Snyder explained th4t the City has a lot more lati redo 10 teposlag arsthttIt consideration in ,tat prnons, again !Ant setback rtgnlrmest3• height regetrtaeets, wave all bm reriewd by the coverts in tilt state and a Y441 of - places.rnt of etr%Ktw`el others, Fe. Snyder said hr has 1,7t Se" any casts. patienlarly On this subject. 01b" the - - - ror-nd of Strpfvw court casts this ytte; bvt leis r1w is tkot t0At it" a autWrity. touch as Sel"01. light and air, etc, is very well estmbliamed in this roeo". . ph'. rlathias asked If the ordirancc vas In place wing q afar la area dtnloomeeC was strictly i "V14ted, would the City be In a politt" of Prs-trrvlaQ teaaa vita[ (I.e.- thoSf abort &" Surroundhng Sht new de lcgn nt) Mile out doly aaytshy aho.t jwnservatim of tier rest of the -_ views In tht city? Ik-. Snyder sold this ordIv&*ce .came be she osn-Step-at-a-ill app•'moth, He, said he recumnended 9-w years ago th.lt the City "I ft to WM&4 "m eesememis 'file they have the chance as Rath srbdl.lslon and NO that 1s asarp•td is one non b"d "err tat Cary �- does not have control over. , IF. Snyder explained th4i tour rt att :xoalrs sarea yew dit[iss whim Control fa irrfrety areas of Ow Cl ty, +she the, you are teikIy abort redIIt lots or tkI stiy codlt r oc t low. a. Say/rr slit that he had a conches with the 11004 tnClerdly war etrrattwrn 1n tie leant ti s.[rss hom 4S tam. .9 l tlr4t Is placed 0a the itrwctwrt 1s eo Np to the said that, Obvlou:ly, any ion1rtMmeant - arewrflat 1� Iftwet e.istl" hares as it as new const-r•wcttem 1f yew have a ttea hYlf realm prptets - ,• - •. � •� riquIred. Al l carw he.nt: v Id be "I red to fm ,Sweep ills r"It Froom. a. S. S r •.� pointed out that would "tail a rersw of all smis"Stfn1141 tyrewmnts of ra Slump airs are � M1.-• me reminded the Board of their efurasion last year r494rd 1" Went Peace LOOC of sweaIS" would be approo late Wort the ri+rlev is lrt_, . rt, rSAO-~ sold that Sr the Mal area. - 4- -- the nrrter of Pots is aria t5rrly tw Mad wt of .caw [faltrwCisen. we reit the Cit,r shmM Is prepa''ed, Blown slat long Iegislatlre history, to Yee hate to Say to tint tort-[ that the City Is- �.- willing to apply the tar reap l em.n'tS to "hltlxy homms hen their noodrt Or If they Are •ti•-_ ;._; :':•Yi`,- destrayid arm r-tbwllt a: they ere to ererr cowtrwct5en. Tme fia'p+sis u eltahtSah tsar Clty's - y"-_ -'•.4 - P ANIM Dow famm • � } _ Pogo 7. Octeber 12. ISM Z;�•�r. r rSl'r - y TIQ[ Ica on SUBJI T TO N]tpalER 23 eare4tPX rLAlNlfi BOND fomYTIM rl - The regular meting of tie Edo mda ►lamps/ Board Was n11N to order at 7:00 pea, by Chairperson Jeff Palmr le the Plaza Panting M of the Ednedg Library pe11d/ag. PRESEIfT All= sn P111113LItT . s �'li�i•'1 Jeff Palmer, Chair Heat Lwls Ivry low glad. Plarseg rameger -~= Janet Phillips Dtea fardplwNt Demme prwrm. Ant. City Monomer ,� •-' Sharon Clause" Karla taeye•s, @ccerder r •'• f • PLAMNING BOARD MiWTES :�'.,,.•:-� ... .' I Pape 30. August 24. 19M3 , ✓ .,'.: :: ti� _ •'r t ."' -. -• }. good faith In attacking the New problem and not merely attempting to deprive new persons :$_Y f .••111 ding homes of the same rigi.ts their neighbors have had In the past. Mr. Snyder said he is not pushing an Architectural Design Bard review, he Is merely saying and developers my sty •'':; re 'C's�;r; +�;"r`4r'�r'3-1, •YS"=.`:,:+''<< that the 1de: of a flexible iiew review would be a complicated process that this review will add A lot of expense to the permit process. ;a_�45,:_ - ER." -• - ..{:; Mr. Snyder felt the Board would need both A review 9racess and an appeal process In order W the taking requirements that the Supreme Court has imposed. That is, ihowtng that _ �"'._`',�,;:; %ti -- !':�' "•.•'- E'�'v: �Z;:=.:�;•i»��'�"'r meet recent the City has a valid regulatory perp0se palntlnq out that tAe impact to the home 1s n6 greater than SL need be to address the problem tAat home creates and 1t! Neel Smptct. The City would •,='+�:.{_:.;;� _ ., • rF^•;:': not br Prohibiting soerane from building on a lot, but trying to align the homes down the Mr. Snyder painted Out that thls 1s IS ' w_ :••'��.'!••.- hlllslde in order to preserve certain view corridors. p� at of adnlnlstrative work. Mr. Whist silo SIrL he w■s not trying to push one -1 Sde Or the Other. He pointed out that this is an important and sensitive issue.If anytAing Is to be done, there shclid be +gnat += �i`'f�9,.P viL,' - ;,`_;,,r deal of discussion before the Board gets anywhere near fdnln an drdir.ante• Mr. Snyder agreed try to dlvida out the issue -. •,,;.��:;; ;' . •---: 7f: and suggested "At i! the board would like to proceed, they s�Wld of structural pmhlea,S rerles the tm issue. Theta two Issues have very different }-3g a tomponenIS. The aesthetic object is the Same, but th■ tools at the CILy's disposal are rush 1n eetermfnlno the cost of being wrong in terns of eking, the 7. -•ie;.1. ; . ._,f Y different. Mr. Snyder said that pride of ■ lot verses the price of a tree are not really proportionate. ;•�;:•'.;A S. s Mr. Mathias said that a few years ago, the City put in in issue of A referenda process. Mr. for before City AgenelIs and representatives, y-f. ` Mathias inquired if -this issue were to lM so could It then be turned over to a referendum type Process for the citizens of the city to upon. decide upon. Ihe logldal approach, but 1t points aot cane of the flaws with 4sssx D f Mr, Snyder said that$ t been SO and referenda have bso lirSted '��.-i�`•- ,•s-"4'v3.^'�• - ■ referenoua to the state. The proper subject& of an that there are very few subjects which are avallable for an Issue of a- ' by the Sate courts referendum, Mr. Snyder said the mason he says that with some certainty, is that the zoning Once ■ ;Doing Code 4s - ..;.:�,•: ,y • • has been held to be an exercise of the- City Cauncll'S legislative power. enacted, any amendkien[ rcfleots back on that in enactment. Unless your inlzfative eMcte6 -- .:y• �.�yT,, Alt entire new zoning structure, the courts would hold that the amendment is + discntSonary the Lit Council ■nd is not SuS•jeCL SD SeStiaCSYe. Me.felt that any referendum an - _, rR , •_� �'.:.�' i�^•' atiloM1 of [his Issue would have the Same result. - _;-'rHi'.['4f,.;.•' Mr. Snyder said that amendments to the zoning code in general are not subject to ar. issue of a referendum. Mr. Palmer inquired about the doctrine that other City's use to Preserve h'storical trees. Mr. Palmer may be speaking of. M,. - Snyder said that there are two kinds of ordinances that Mr, Snyder said that the City has investigated and a citS;en WE the City several ordinance: from 1' the state of Cr,lif--T+la involvs••g h"toric trees. The problem the City could get Into 1s that protecting vftws falls 'nto the ancient lights doctrine. Preserving htstdrtc trees falls Into - another catenary. - - Mr. Snyder explained Ma[ the doctrhK of ancient lSghts Ss a doctrine that Is recognized in the State of California but not in the State of Washington. It basically holds that once a - property owner has established A certain flow of air to the property or light falling upon a significantly upon that passage of air Or light without City lot. a neignbor cannot infringe waking themselves subject to compensatr•a. The California Courts have taken this one L:rp that Is not only a Orlvaie right but a public right, also. They decided they •, further and said power rcguIatSon with respect to It. Mr, Snyder said this doctrine has - could exercise police never been recognized In the State of Washington. , Mr. Snyder said that the historic tree Type of ordinance similar to the.one to Timeron, certain size 1s a pu611resource rhos should ,' .- Califont a rla, Involves determining that tree of be protected and tP-n tread ng 1t In Much the saint way as historic buildings. �• Mr. Snyder said he would like to see one of the rrevieusly mentioned ardlmmotes rcrlered after rulings are rtqulring that a city's I ,, .. - •• the recent•su reme Court rulings. dasicatiy, these regulatory taking be closely tailored to a governmental purpose mod that there be only a i - - measurable taking. me said the reason he aeatiw+ed this In the context of the tree Is that. historic trees elsume that the tin has ■ „ - - - most of the Ordinances he has Yarn which establish value to the public 1n excess of that which IS does to the protmtrty owner. uh+e would you do 16t in which could not bvlTe around It. These -- .�•--^•;�• i• that tree were in the plodt Df a Swan you ordinances art much different than the historic preservatlon ardinances which tend to be much to be a 'it![k add C■T roe - .�7;:�,-• •..• ---jy-:!•.,'_;_;.;. •Stfferent than thehis tart( preservation ordinances. and [ends facade of structure within a historic - - - _: yet- (��'.�;. approach 1n which you are rrgvired to preserve the your ri�;•,'•; , pLAMMING BOARD MINUTES Page a. October 12. 1998 .•-.�•. ` �.``�•'+b; ��''•':'•-. _' _ ': '{ •.. «y • }�; >;"=..y.,,.i�;- •.• tow ��$ti'-{;,�,>�,n��. i Mr. Palmer said he felt that by prohibiting burning In urban area'. the tommnnlU' would be out tha t reed waste contributes signlficatl+ to .�. • er. Nr pointe trading one problem for an0shd the materials burled 1n landfills and that landfills are filling up quickly. If you art not �s.�•-�.:: E•- . .4•rk_. --.:'_ ' �� •..{..: �.: . • 07 it dots allowed to burn It. where g • ' MS. Phillips said that she and Ill. Block are pare of a small comnittea! that is looking Into tie a sidewalk along Korth MeadgWaie Read. She e c mittee is '- possibility of plating to extid idre 111sy Of looking at this particular sidewalk, best she felt thenr wy P on 76th Street tD Ikadowdale 6pch Road. She felt it weld be min LD +. i- also placing a sidewalk connect the park And Meadowdale Beach Reed. Ms. Block explained that when the prdposed vacatlon of right•of-way an North M(adowdale Rod iilble sidewalks 1n the , -- reoneof thwas sf that cai^mlttehe" woulde to studyythismpp"slb111 y. arear At n tithe Mayors Na uAs -..._. .._ ��_._,__ r_._r,,....r.etly upheld a staff decision riot •row of - Kt, Clausien Wilted out Ihat theta it cur rart yy a batln .suay wispp wnouc Ne ry •"• •v She sell It might Da a good Idea iar the Parkt Beard to cow up with some polltlef or Inpvl that would help In determining what parks, If any, a -re apPropprlat.a for a drainage basin. Mr. Bowsltn Indicated that LM Board Cow ld peace I. on the October 26 agenda when the bard will discuss the drainage basin study. Mr. Palmer suggested that he and Ms. Clausen get together to develop an example policy statement for dlscus:lon that evening. Mr. 0. Lewis Inquired who a policy statement would be directed to. Mr. Bowen answered that the policy statement would be used by the City Engineers. district, but Instde you will be given development credits to make it pare favorable to develop the Internal pert of the structure. when those ordinances first cape into, there was much more federal money and the Supreme Court rat much less strict In its taking review. Clty's exercised much broader authorlty. what they found was that the arsonists took over where the developer could not. Mr. Snyder said that In the last 15 years, the City govern'be governments have tried to come more Involved In the process and preserve the facade and architectural detail botlh by prohibition and by the granting of development stock credits. Mr. Palmer said It seen that other than straight City -Owned land and the City's ability to establish subdivision and PRO regulations, perhaps the third area In which the City has some control Is rights -of -way. Mr. Palmer Inquired If there were any special considerations on those parcels. Mr. Snyder said that it is not only the City -owned rights -of -way, but areas adjacent to tee rights 'way. tie explained that this involves tens that Are diseased or may endanger se rregerdlesssor of whorecular they yfffc existnback fromats. the the Street.tyThesCittyy trill propower h,yt vpoint epIY ng the east of removal. If the tree can be shown to be a hazard, it becomes a pollee pOsrer taking and not a coesensable taking. Mr, Snyder said that wlthfn tha.City's rights -Of -way, the City owns sloe rights -of -way and the fRR and hold easements over Others. Where the City holds an easement, the underlying fee is owned by the adjacent property orders. The City baslsally has an easement and the right to malntafn a road and utilities, But the property owner Actually owns the undarlylnqq tea Inttrest in the property. W. Snyder pointed Out that is an important distinction and it Is lateresting that there Is a recent case of a neighborhood apposing a vacation of a piece of proprrV in the awadowdale area. If the City Chaps the land and fee and it Is not festrl[ted to road purposes, the City has a wide variety of powers it tan exercise in terms of parks. playgrounds, etc. and dectsidns can be spade on purely Aesthetic basis. If the City Is operattng a street there and Wants to obtain an easement on the property far public PTIes, the purpose is to wil$Utn the much street. It mry Awe a greenbelt and shaded perking, but tit rltyas criterIA blip different foe rights -of -may owned in fct and City-dwne4 Verge ty y pu r f ghts oaf -way. Mr. Snyder explained that In many neighborhoods In the City, there are many platted, but unbuilt, streets that were dedicated a long time ago. Some of the trees that may be causing problems may be located within these unbuilt rights-nf-way. Ms. Phillips Clarified and asked Mr. Snyder i.` he had said that if the City goes to something like an ADD process, the City can require the review for all new construction to include remodels over a certain percentage of the value. She felt this would rake it fair to both the existing homeowners and the new construction. Mr. Snyder sold that the Board his been skipping Lack and forth hc!ween the Issue of trees and new stroetures. Me said he has been dlstussing trees because the Options arc limited. When tee Board gets into the discpnslon of new structures, there are a wide varieties of tools from the building code and the ADD approach for stricter and tighter controls. in that area Mr. Snyder said there are many legal tools and it really becomes a political bsloncinngg question 'Or the Board and the Council within Cartel& limitations. Mr. Snyder sold that the City'$ ordinance has been jpheld several times by the Snohomish Superior Court in terms Of its application of it general aesthetic standard through M comprehensive plan to the City review process far granting of a development Ierahlt. Mr. Snyder said, in addressing something that he and Mr. Palmer discussed before the meeting started, that sometimes citizens become confused when My read in the Comprehensive plan the stateaents regarding view preservation and its importance as a Criteria. The problem from a legal point of vier Is that the letter of the zoning code, that is the specific numerlcal requirements (bulk requiveoants), are strict standards which prevail over general considerations in the comprehensive plan. The COmmvnfty Development Code prevails Over the comprehensive plan. `he time when the Comprehensive plan comes into play is when the City is giving saw tort of discretionary review [a cOndittaaal use permit, variance] to determine Whether a permit should be granted. In the context Of granting a right not guaranteed by the tonirhp code, the City Is applying the general pal Icy cons I ocra ti On$. The bulk requirements ar• mandatory and the City has the absolute obligmtlen to isstm a permit if these requirements are met. it is only If there Is saw discretlaory request that the Cos+prthensive play tames Into play. Mr. Snyder said that in instances where a subdivision meets all of the bulk requirements but obstructs someone's view by the placement of the house, the current ordinance 1s not clear In how the comprehensive plan comes into affect. Mr. Snyder sold that zoning ordinances have in PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 5, October 12. 1988 Mr. Palmer inquired about visit would happen If the owner of parcel A Comm before the hard with a master plan that Is acceptable to the Board. but the Owner of parcel C. does not aorr•. Ms. Block explained that the other property owners will be twtlfled of the master planning prxess and will have every opportunity to participate. Mr. Palmer inquired what mould happen If the ew%r of parcel C sills after the master plan his been developed. Is there something Included In the title of the prdperty that would Inform the prospective buyer that there It A bindtpig master plan for his property. Mt. Cloussen said that would be the same AllA property OWrar in another zone. The prospective buyer has the resperd I b I I I ty to cheek On the xonlng of the property. Ms. Block said staff could check into the possibility of placing this requirement on the title of the property. _.,. •. . hl— with this in PBM tones. Mr. br,kf ll lM entlrr tommmml ly. Mr. Baron sold that the prow rtyy awmers In the trlanngqla want the uses allowed on the property to a rrry broad. Morrver, to the best Interval of the entire area, lM City should not allow a broel list of usos for that aret. Mr. Palmer stated that the purpose of im 'IBM tone is to limit the types of uses allured on the property, The Board discussed some of the restrictions that could be placed on the property through a Pa to limit the uses In the area. Ms. Clautsen said that ratner than limit the tone to certain uses, the Bard could place certain requirements on businesses to regulate those uses that are appropriate. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 2. September 14, 19M the past always peen subject to review criteria. The City his an Obligation to specify its regulation in detail, and where there is Ambigquuity, tit axbl qulty should be resolved in favor of the underlying property rights of the developer. In this context, III; I does not lend itself to regulation, there is to SEPA review required, and it is vtry difficult for the City to deny the building permit for aestfietic purposes. In a PRO vhere the whole Purpose is flexibility and the placement of homes throughout the development in order to capture views and minimize encrwche, nt into slope areas, the City has a lot more flexibility. Where there Is discretionary flexibility, the City Can apply the general policy provisions of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Palmer asked If, for those citizens who are interested In obtaining air and light pas+ages, It is best for them to pursue this with the goal of a deed restriction of some sort as being the most easily defendable In court and clear and precise. Mr. Snyder said that theft are varying ltrals of inrnlvewnt by the City and by the Fublic. Most people are familiar with [M height review restrictions from their Own subdivrtlon covenants that have been pelted on [hem valunearity by developers for several years to order to enhance the development of ttw4 Properly. Yherc there are private covenants, they are enforceable by private partlls and not by the City. Mr, Snyder said this is an issue that may came before the Bard in the future. These covenants can either be in the subdivision documents or neighbors can purchase Chose rights from each Other. Mr. Snyder said the next level up would be where those rights have a mixed public and private purpose. In other words. the Ctty As well as the let owner has an Interest. Those sorts of restrictions are typicelly set forth on the face of the plat as City requirmrosents. These can be either absolute in terns of numbers or description of types of plantings. in that case, if the City has a right, it can be enforced either by a private orWrly owner or by the City. Mr. Snyder explalned that the highest level would be where the rights that are protected would be protecting a public right. There are soar areas in the City in t:.e Meadowdale area where public streets are adjoining tracts of lend that will probably be developed tip the next 10 Or 15 years. Some of those sites may be very SkinlPtlble to the sort of stint end pocket park or viewing area where people can park there car, sit an benches, and >06tch the sunset. Those sort of by an IOdividuxlitotthe Citys coald or purehasedyby thethe Cityorlpriraf. [eserprpropertiescan be dedicated recorded, either an tit plat or in the form of A eovemant In the Wand records and all succeeding purchasers have notice of the requirements and are bound by them, Mr. Snyder mentioned that two years ago, Mayor Maughten asked him to look Into the idea of neighborhoods where there was a great deal of sentiment about doin:- something about view blockage, the City could draft covenants and the neighbors would circulate these covenants and obtain the signatures. The City or some private party would hold those covenants with the mgreerent that none would 4t recorded until all or a substantial portion of the neighborhood hod voluntarily put this together. Mr. Snyder pointed out this is a lot of wrk for t06r014. Mr. Snyder sold that another idea is the edncept of a local improvement district where the MYwould get 8o percent of the people in the neighborhood to go along with the plan. Mr, Snyder erpl11ned that the local improvement district process is a very technical process and Involves a series of hearings. There Is the potential of a court challenge because the City would be taking something from the people who would lose those tyres and the person- against wham the cosh of it would be assessed also have rights of appeal depending upon hw much they A- lt-1 lyd. Mr. Snyder said One mason ton tool Imp ereeent district idea is probably not via�ie 1s that the legal fees Invalved in the local Improvement district are very high. Mr. Snyder felt that what the Board has talked about earlier was trying to look at a process where neighborhoods, with some assistance from City staff, could put together some view districts themselves. One of the problems with getting the neighbor to do this 1s that trees grow and people hesitate to get started on a comprehensive plan to address views. Mr. Snyder said that his view i- that if the Bard wants to address view$, ho single ordinance Is going to do the trick. There is a large number of small st±ps. Me added that trees grow. but people move away. Over time, these oroblems can be addrer.ad, perhaps without taking. He suggested the following ideas: 1. A sustained neighborhood effort to establish a view corridor and people through good faith limiting their lands in the hupes that others will eventually do the same. 2. Thy City perhaps purchasing some view easements from view sensitive areas from City parks or parking areas. 1. Limiting hedges or trees In neighborhoods. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 6, October 12. 1988 O �O Referring to Page 9. last paragraph, Ms. Clawssen sug9ested that the second sentence be changed to read, -Elements of the plan would Include site analysis (including topography. natural features and vegetation), pedestrian and vehicular . . . Ms. Claussen also suggested that the ttard take Cott the words *The Planning Board recommends' that are found in the report. She felt this should be done to make the report ready to go before the Council. Ms. Black Indicated tha,. staff could do this. The Bard &good that these words should be rewyed and that the study should N prepared to be sent to the Cdancll along with a cover letter. Mr. 0. Lewis felt that a statement should be included in the cover letter saying that the triangle property was not the Only w6 rty the Bard conaldered for the PBN zoning. however. the Bard has decided that this is the unty pits Of property desirable for a PBM zoning classification. lira prupmrt/ u,n .i. , �• . ... ...r .. the request bred upon what the Comprehensive Ylan Map recoeww nor for toning. Mr. Me thin felt the property owners should be the ones to approach the City with a request for a reeane. Mr. Palmer pointed out that anyone should be able to use the Comprehensive /Ian Nap to determine how the City should be zoned. If the Comprehensive Plan is not accurate, why does the City even have It? Mr. Bowman felt that since the Board basically agrees that the zoningy should be changed and they are going through the study Prater,, the Board should make the Comprehensive Plan Indicate what they feel the area should be zoned. PLANA;NG BOARD MINUTES rage ]. September 14, 1988 O C� a. Adressing subdivisions as they Coale up. S. Being willing to establish views as a component of the environmental review process AM to i include some limited view ser.:itive areas as environmentally sensitive areas and looking at • that component. The reason SEPA becomes important is that is one way to get down to the single family home on one lot. In environmentally sensitive areas, SEPA review can be attached to the construction _- on one lot as opposed to the subdivision or development. f M•. Snyder pointed out that all of these have tests and can incrwse the costs of a singlefaally how. He `.elt that as the 8aard looks at the problem, nothing Is going to solve it. A plan with a number of cosWlonents at discussed tonight will not cure the problem, but if. long tes* solutions. you at to ochavost tbmay be t IIkeve aresbolot. ' City.he ofcompensation225years.It okingerm satut onsiSlwould The Ms. Claussen referred to the two alternatives of either forming the local Improvement district She inquired If there were any changes necessary to the Cade to l< or treating private Covenants. allow these W alternatives to hsppen new. Mr. Snyder said that there are no changes necessary. Mr. Snyder said the one thing the ewrd may want to do is request the Mayor to des) of staff authorize the creating of private covenants because it will Involve a great time. i Ms. Claussen said that maybe part of the effort should be an educational process and have a report that the public could refer to the options available. When someone calls, there would be a document available to explain the various options available to them. Ms. Claussen said that as far at the sUbdlY1016 rtV$rtments and codes requfrtng view studies' or torrlder protection plans, what kinds of action would the Board have to take to include this " in the review process. Hr. Snyder said that there urn We different answers. if the Board is distressing trees, native growth easements, or planting covenants, height restrictions on the trees would all fall easily within the curre'it City structures. If the Board Ii LalkSnq ahauL roving away from the set bulk requirements that the City has, as tong as the developer n the subdlviston was meeting those numbers, the developer has the right to develop. If the City is goingto fect thus* that to the srcquitsion code r Siooets. Ow SEPAProcs of these coulld be'ostabllishedaundericurrent SEIAr rements but would require a little different review Process. Ms. Claussen inquired if the Board wanted to get into grading and protection of the vegetation his of the City [ode is the breadth of the loophole tonight. Mr. Snyder said that observation that currently exists. He pointed out the situation that occurred a few years ago along Highway 99 in which a person cleared a lot prior to obtaining a building permit. Mr. Vowman pointed out that there was nothing the City could do legally to go after the person. Everything they did was legal. but it significantly altered the environment of the neighborhood. Mr. Palmer requested Mr. Snyder to give the Board an idea of a Progressively more severe penalty that could be applied in the event that a peewit was not sppplsed for or the Provisions Mr. Snyder said that there are severe l Criminal fines and the of that permit were Ignored. building Code allows the City to amend Its fine prevision at ill discretion and It is not Subject to review by the state building code council. Whatever number the Board has in mind would be legal. Mr. Snyder said that the tough pare Is setting a reasonable threshold. Most would agree the if a person is going to develop a five acre parcel, the City should be people able to regulate. However, telling a homeowner that he cannot go in on the vacant lot he awns next to his home and cut off the scrub in order to enhance his view is an entirely different situation. Mr. Snyder said he has had various discussions with People in the Mesdow&,,e are: because they are all very sensitive to City interference. On the other hand. that is an�srea where yov do not lust go in and use a herbicide and kill all of the bushes. The question Is, at what level de you set the regulation? One lot? Two lotil Should it be preparatory to the subdivision be a review process without regard to the size of the let? process? Should there permit Should then be environmentally sensitive areas where all Cutting and removal should be limited? I1ow'do you define ,mrdening and pruotng? Mr.. Snyder said that defining the terms It will be the heated issue. that will be used and the level in which they will attach cis. Claussen said that the other thing the City runs Into is that the Cade has a lot of less Creating specific goals and objectives and does not get down to the specific requlrcments. more specific requirements could help tighten some of the loopholes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page ?, October 12. 1988 Mr. Palmer asked If the Board felt it would be appropriate to alive runcral hors as ■ conditional use In the UN zone. The Board concurred that funeral Cowes should be deleted from the list of prohibited uses and added to the list of conditional uses sn the RBN zone. Mr. Palmer noted that the report should indicate Mr. Allen at an alternate member of the Board. Mr. Palmer suggested that on Page a, second to the last paragraph, second to t4 last santence, be changed to read, '. pedestrian signal is too short In duration. This signal should be addressed.' Ms. Phillips Inquired about e posslbllity of a traffic light at Woodway High School. Staff indicated that is included 1nththe Capita] Improvement Projects list and is a top priority. —A ,w,e .11 of Studr Section S (maee 11 of study) be removed except the last nrressa, y. it the MOM I-) Lon IlPll iss I — 419, L. - I 1 , .u". .... ....... — .. _ -. , - propose a change to the Code lu allow this type of sign. Tom Snyder, 8204 - I82nd Place S.V., Indicated that he Is representing the Edwavwls Lions Club. Ile urged the Board to consider changing the Sign Code to silo. service club sigqns. He rev l owed many of the projects th• Lions Club has been responsible for In the City sod el sews.are. Mr. Snyder sold he hoped that the Board Is IS proud as he Is of the service clubs that are In the City and that the Board will take aetlou to change the Code to s how service fire to let the residents of Edmonds know about the clubs that serve tht commRnity. These publ le signs PLANNING BOARD MINISTES Page 4, September 14. 1988 � (1 Mr. Snyder fnforred the Bard that the ADD has standards for landscaping of coesrolal development that .hey arc hoping to lntar"st the City Council in adopting. There may be sore overlap there in terms of the subdivision process when the Board discusses which plantings that are and are not appropriate in the view sensitive areas. Ms. Claussen pointed out that there are trees that are irreplaceable. The old growth trees provide A lot of the character for many of the neighborhoods. Mr. Snyder said that 1n thinking about the view probltx, one thing that has Interested him is how that City defines view. Me said the Council discussed the Magnolia tree On Walnut S�,rrw"t- Obviously, them are people WOO have a vier of that Lrce to which the tre: is a view. from Inside the building, the tree blocks their view of something else. Ilow do you set up a structure to both define and weigh the benefits is another issue Ms. Claussen pointed out that the majority of Edatids is non waterfront view. Trees are as important to these people as the view of the water 1s for the others. Ar. Snyder said that if anyone is interested he has a large amount of materials available from the previous discussions of view. He said the Board is -micome to review this information. DISCUS51lIM 31t VZEW OBSTMaJOM RELATED TO NEW STRUCTURES,- TREES Mr. 6ewa9n said that he agreed with Mr. Snyder that trees should be an entirely different issue than nor structures. He said it is important to relate the abstract to the specific becsuse the courts have been very specific and in their review and interpretation the specifics In the Code govern the abstract. Mr. Bewesmn said that right now, lack of clearing permits is a glaring loophole in the Code. He suggested that the Bard needs to forge ahead with clearing permlt requirements and he said he Intends to have a draft proposal before the Bard at their November 9 meeting. W. Bowmen said that the rase that brought the regulations of new structures to bare Occurred 1n the bowl area. One developer built his Muse in a location $o as not to block the view of those behind him while a.otlkr developer built his horse giving no thought to the vlew of those behind hiat. M•. Bowman explained that In these cases the bulk and dimension requlmioenl5 in the Code prevail. The developer met all of the bulk moulrewfits fp the City had to lssue a building permit. M•. Bowan said there is currently no obligation for the property owner to address the view lssur as long ■s he meets all bf the bulk rcoulmments. If the dcveidper Is requesting a variance or a conditional use permit, then the view issue will be p+rt Of the review process. Mr. Bowman pointed out that if the City gets into regulations that are overcomolex, the City does not have the staff time to enforce the regulations of each Individual case. The City staff 1s not afraid to enforce the new regulations, but Mr. Bowan suggested that the Bard request additional staff persons if these additional regulations are approved. Mr. 6dsaman pointed out that when a person's view is taken Tway by a new structure, It creates a slgniflcant impact on the nmighborhood. The question Is, "How can the City regulate this?' Mr. Bdwain felt that this can be regulated, but if the City 1s going to address view obstruction, they must be more specific than the current code. Mr. 0. Lewis inquired about doing an overview of view sensitive property within the City. Mr. Bomen said that the Board is not necessarily doing an overview of the comprehensive plan. Mr. 0. Lewis said thrt 1f the City is going to regulate view sensitive areas, they wtll need tc place an overlay on .he view sensitive property which would place « rtain rrstrictims on that area. He said the overlay could point out what the City will be facing 20 or 30 years from na In the view sensitive areas. - Mr. 90 n said that in view sensitive areas, developers have learned frog their mistakes and are beginning to place private view protection cove rants in the newer developments. Mr. Bosnian pointed out that the biggest problem when dealing with view obstruction and new structures are'those lots that are available for redevelopment in the downtown area. Mr. D. Lewis asked If there is a requirement in the Code that requires a developer of a subdivision to have coverants placed othe property. Mr. Bowan said the,e is not, although n many o, the developers of subdivis l ons are placing coveanis on their properties. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 8, October 12. 1988 regardless of whether or not the property is developed. He explained that this would prohibit someone with a large developed lot from clearing ■ large portion of It. Mr. Bowman explained that the exemptions were developed to allow a person to do some changes to his landscaping. FWweve�, the staff wanted to be able to prohibit someone from clearing a large section of a large Dtece of pro pr rty. Mr. Allen felt that maybe they need two sections in the Cade. one to cover largeevelop dments and one to cover Individual residential property owners. Mr. 0. Lewis did not feet that dOing land clearing permits and tree cutting provisions hand in hand will be effective. Ms. Block sold it is the same problem. The questions Is, 'What should the degm of control be?' Ms. Block pointed out that is is not different to clear to. 6.000 square feet lots than to clear 12,009 square feet from a 20,000 square Teat lot. Mr. Parmor Indicated that the difference would be that one would have Oteelopamnt On It and the other would not. Ms. Claussen felt that clearino a large area with no devalapment could create drainage prcbleats, etc. _._ ... r.,..e ..... th.t 1r th.re 1, m tree that is falling down, etc., there Is nothing In + AEPAIR. II MILL BE R(IIOVED AT IH[ EAPENS( OF IHE SERVICE CLUB. 2. DIRECT STAFF TO DETERMINE IF LOCATIONS EXIST ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTY THAT MOULD BE PROPER m FOR SUCH SIGNS (ESPECIALLY SR IDA AND 196TH STREET). I- DIRECT STAFF TO DETERMINE IF IT IS PRACTICAL FROM A BUDGET AND/OR MAINTENANCE STANDPOINT FOR THC CITY TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE OR THE PROPERTY MOUND THE SIGN. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page S. Septemder 14, 1968 Mr. Palmer Inquired If there is a topographical map, clth lines at so -foot intervals, that could be provided to the Bard members. Ms. Claussen suggested that they need the map divided into five or ten -foot contours. Ms. Claussen said that there are a couple of classes at the University of Washington that do visual analysis. She wondered If the City would be Interested in obtaining their services In doing this sort of work for the City. Mr. Bemoan said tr+a City does have topographical maps available, but not in the size the Board Is seeking. Mr. Pry, n felt that most people who are familiar with the area can Identify the view sensitive areas. Ms. Phillips felt that there are some views of mountains that should also be addressed as well as water views. She also suggested that the Board look at new structures as well as remodels because ramblers can be changed into two story structures that blocl view. Mr. Bowmmen pointed out that whatever regulations the Board comes up with will have a significant Impact on the staff time. He felt that more staff would be necessary to enforce these additional regulations. Ms. Claussen said that staff Is being pushed right now in implementing the comprehensive plan. She suggested that the Board urge the Council to consider additional staff to enforce the current regulations as well as any new regulations that my come out of the discussions. The Board concurred that with any new regulations, they would also request Mare staff to enforce the regulations. REVIEW OF C1 ENGINEER RESPONSE TO TRMSPORTATTOM PLANNING Mr. Bowman ref d the Beard to the memorandum from Mr. Hahn, Community Services Director, regarding disco Ions that will take place on potential transportation related developments In the corridor are particularly the ferry transportation. Mr. Bowman remin the Board that Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, appeared before the Board in August requesting a sponse to her suggested options for transportation planning. Mr. Borman distrtbut Bowe copies of three differc.:t concept alternatives created by the Interoodal Transporta Terminal Study. Mr. Boman revl.wed the random and specifically pointed out that the CiLy Council has said that they are opposed to he second slip, widening the dock, overhead pedestrian Facilities, and the storage of buses the ferry terminal. Mr. Bomnxn pointed nut that there Is a meeting scheduled on October 2S wA h wiIT be attended by Duane Serentsoe, Secretary of Transportation; Admiral Parker, the Mayor; nclIrAmbers Herertch, Kasper, and Jacch; and Departmmot Staff. Also Invited to the melting ill be r-orefentative; from the Port, Community Transit. and Amtrak. Mr. Palmer rill all a attendinn this meeting. Mr. Bomman said the question re the City is, 'Now can they improve the transportation linkage at the terminal and hay tter bus, ferry, and pedestrian traffic?' Mr. Bo displayed an aerial P ograph that Ms. Shippen brought for the Board's review. Mr. H. Ledls inquired 1f any action ill be taken at the October 25 meeting or w111 1t be Just a discussion. Mr. Boron said that a intent of the October 25 meeting is to cone up with a comprehensive study of the transporta on Issues. There are some complex problems that need tc be resolved. Mr. Boren said that public hearings sh d be held before the City can make any official decisions or adopt an official positign. Thr immedlate issue for the City, -is how will they participate in this study. Mr. Palmer inquired If the Bard Is iatisfi with what has been outlined In the memorandum or Is the Board seeking to become more Involved Ms. Claussen said that If this is being look at as a comprehensive plan, It 1s Important to not- that the Edmond's comprehensive Plan has t been taken Into consideration. Natalie Shippen. 1022 Euclid, said that the I lit* Issue is how to participate 1n the study. Ms. Shippen felt that what the Mayor has resented to Admiral Parker is an invitation to get together with the Department of Transporta Ion and various other agencies to come up with a comprehensive study. She felt the way for nos to participate in the study Is to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 9, October 12. 1988 MR. PALMER MOVED, SECONDED RV MS. CLAUSSEN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL THE BOARD COMPLETES THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The Bard entertained discussion on limiting the number of trees that can be removed. Ms. Block suggested that they include a section In the Code that If significant trees are involved 1n the clearing, they most obtain a permit. 18.4S.040 Application for fecaitsJfx_M?timns A. a. Mr. Palmer recommended the follwlny change: .submitted with the application, along with crcdentlaIs. If applicable.' G. MS. Claussen prosed the following change: mA plot plan, drawn to scale (suggested scale - I' . so.r of the property depicting the following Items: b. Mr. Palmer felt the Board should set a time pericd because ht envlsioned sDreone coning in January for a clearing permit and .tuly vlth a plan to d.veloo. A time period should be eitmblished. Mr. Bvuun sai4 that staff wind Issue a Pe —it to clear based on the prewiso that the hovie will be shmped as tndicmted cn the slte plan. H.7 said It wpu14 not be Improper for the Cl ty to lock thew loto a time period for a binding site plan. Deyelopwnt .Rhin that tlwe period oust be puin..0 ,,. ,... --- - — last major storm caused S10,000 in damper to tat Part. He said mnie lost part is pare em current natural drainage system. hie said he believed then arm actuallyy drainage Ponds in Test Pak that an not being stud at this tsar. He pointed out that althoWh drainage may hot be a ' park use, the parks are already being used as such, Mr. Barnes said he was also concerned about Procedure a. Me said there stems to be concern by i the Bard because there wit no discussion with the committee when the dralnage studiet were - •.• Y being done. Although the studies did not affect Yost Park, it could have, end the Bard heard nothing about It.�;�ti„'ir�i*F+ Mr. Barnes asked the Board about the invitation extended by the comlttee far the Board to ,'jr•r;.'.';ic nti attend their meetings. Although this will not work out. Mr. Barns Inquired 1/ the bard moult ! ;-:'•;: .«Srr,.c�r� .^ PLANNING BOARD MINUTES -�ti= ;+c_�s`.�R ""• i.. Page 1, October 26. 19M E_~��Y't .. J � •r* ' I safety. He indicated that the insurance company also wantsthem fenced.Nr. Ba said that the hone shoe pits that have been developed recently in other parks outside sry have beam fenced. The Board continued to discuss other possibilities for creating a barrier provide safety • without actually placing a chain link farce in the park. ;, ..:. Ms. Claus&" pointed out that the Board It pTanning to "aappleto a plan of City Park Next She that it might be Deter I. wit to rafoutr horse shoe pits until the - . - year. suggested aestar Plan Is completed. Ns. CTaussen Inquired If it would be sWe to temporarily replace - the horse shoe ppIts until the master plan Is cnyleLed. Mr. s and Mr. Mils said that City. would be possible at a minimei cost to the W. H. Lawls 111qu1rad 1f the Iarse she pits ara well us Mr. Barnes said they an used frequently in the summer. Ha. Ciausten suggested that the Board r4l, nd tba horse shoe pits be taasporarily ralocetad with logs or other incxpmsive small be or that Is natural looking. At the conclusion of the master plan the pits say or not be upgraded or mr;vad. • - _ Hr. Barnes said there is the potential that EaEnnppgarkingllot Wacant to the play area can create He has looked aed iy lalvea by indicate gnt t and1erious tley feel tthecproobli a could belift. ahoular oaarkilact ullsrklIn order to do, this, the City would have pave tit parking lot arse. mr. Barnes lid %ated that there it uoney available for this t. The Board discussed this issue a idrd that the City should place dirsctloml arrows at the entrances of the lot and hold o on the pavaent until the caster plan is completed, Mr. Mte latter to the Councll requesting that the money that Hill% ro!"*Ewnded that the a is currently available for project he carried over to the next year. i Mr. Hills said that the g-range plan of the Public Works Division is to Raved t`mir buildf s to 212th St , He proposed that the Pas•ks Division more the Builds s and Grounds es' VP P to':n ?the Mr.all I%hmsre tPark proposed i thatation andiaihalf of land Board forward a letter to • to address this is POST _ARC VAL T Mr. Barnes td there is an informal walkway from the parking are to the tennis courts that is He explained that this area gets very muddy and vehicles have to travel on the not sKrao - walkw�3aid therm i3mon4y avallablr W pars the existing path. The Grounds Division is - waitfthe Board's 1ppreva} to do this pmjtct. The mbers felt this would be an improvement to the park. Mr. H. Lewis requested that the walk way tie into the parking stalls. Mr. Mills indicated that this could be 1swim W. Lewis also suggested that a bench be added next to the tennis courts, mr. Hills Inquired if the Board would be Interested in having the Grounds Supervisor attend a Plannfng Board meeting. the Bord indicated that trey would. DISCUSSION on TREE CMIW. ON PUBLIC LA 1}S OTHER TMAR P-XS W. B. tewls said that In reading -the Infonetion provlded by other jurisdiction regardino i emoval of treas from Public lands. it seas to aieke sense, but he Is concarnad about the referral of the issue to severel other bodies, other than the parts commission. He felt the Board should review whit they feel the City can afford as far as approvals end re lace. He felt that if the City adopts an ordinance similar to those received from other Jurisdictions, the bard will need to discuss staff114 end approval board: and other tosU in implrmnL Thg the new ardlnanee. Me felt the Board should discuss how the City wi11 appron or disapprove of .tree removal on public lands. Mr. Palmer felt that another consideration that needs to be discussr! is the City adopting street clearing plans. He felt the Board should considar the enviroi4antally sensitive areas wI ere the City needs to be very careful about removing trees. Mr. Palmer reminded the Board that in talking about PRD's and subdivisions, they glued about establishing view cervidor3 and the need for ■ study to develop three cerridor3. No felt the affects of Huse studles would play a lone role in the entire issue. The Board distussed who,. portions of land would be off►etad by the adoption of this ordinance. PLIL"INC BOARD MiWES Page f. November 23. 19N �. .41 , © O I THESE MINUTES SUSJECT TO JANUARY 2S APPROVAL PLANNING SWO MINUTES January 11, 1989 The regular meeting of the Edmonds Planning Bard was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jeff Palvrr In the Plata !Hating Room of the Edmonds Library Building. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT v Na Lou Block. Plan, s, Jeff Palmer. Chair !heron Clausen Mary ..•s' . .,..., __ Duane bowmen, As7t. C1tY Planar Mr. Bowman told that prlbr to when the Edmunds [awunikrr psrsldpeent Code W(X .4$ adopted, the city allowed attached dwelling units In single family W9. since 1961, the Ci lyy no longer allows this use. Mr. Goroo man fall Lhe Board should lk at that provision of the Cods a lit it closer now. He pointed out the developnant of weo0owda La 1411hts. The original plan 01 two torn houses of attached u,iks and clustering the "its on the top of the hill would ha+.e PLANNING HUD MINUTES Page e, October 26, 1988 O Ms. Claussen said she felt the Board should spend tica developing a review criteria to make sure it is neither too cumbersome or too lenient. Mr. H, tarts said that M 1s fairly wt:l convinced that tf,4 Bard cannot develop a set of crleen•Sa that ton be falrly end not arbllras•Ily adilnistored. He said they are talking about hundreds of thousands of trees that wxild be lncludsi 1n this ordinance. He said he 1t in support of removing tomb trees and diseased trap, sic. Other than that, he would Ilk* to see the trees remain. Ile felt that not only would then be a problem with IN cost of administering the ordinance, but It would alto be difficult to be fair. Ma. Ciausaen said she a"%. She felt that blackberry bushes, etc. should be allowed to be removed. She felt that maybe defining what a nuisance tree it wa'mld take tory of that problem. She inqufred if the bard felt 1t possible to define a nuisance tree. Mr. Palmer sold he does not see a problem 1n defining a nulunce tree and Mr. H. Lewis agreed, Mr. O. Lr113 inquired whethdr Mr. K111s feat then 1s a problem with tree 6uttlnyy on public lands other than parks, or if the Board just thinks there 1s a Probier. Mr. Mills sold there 1s a large number of people requesting trees to be removed or topimJ He said that if the City allows people to start removing or toppi0rtp the tries in tht north end of tha City, the land wl11 start sliding. The trees help stablllza the steep slope 1n this area. Mr. Palmer 1nqulred about the potslbillty of replanting a better variety of tree and rtaoving a less desirable trt 1. Hr. Mills said he allowed a resident to do ,lust that. He felt that 1n certain areas this could be a good solution, but the City needs to limit where treat can be cut or topped, ik said it would be difficult to administer on ordinance that allow% certain scrub trees to be reeorrd and would often get down to one pans opinion ovar another. Mr. Mills felt that It would be difficult designate cerUln treat as scrub. He said tt* current ordinance has been easy to administer fairly, but if the city puts 1n a section regarding scrub trees, it w111 be difficult for stiff to administer the code. Or. Mathias asked upon what basis -.toff has allowed the trees to be removed. He inquired If there are eurrently surf members who can make that decision without going through a hearing process. Ke Inquired on what authority Mr. Kills rakes the decision. Mr. Mills said that he is In charge of the public rights -Of ray, and that makes his responsible for everything on those rights -of -way. Mr. Barnes said that in regard to removing scrub trees and ting, the scrub trees are good for sell rttention. He said that almost without exception . �repiseement trees would have a much slower growth pattern, if you take out all of the scrub trees on a slope and replant with a tree with a slower growing rwt system, there will be problems with water and landslides. Mr. Nordquist asked If there was logic to putting a slower growing tree In anon git scro trees and malting for the root system to be established here" the scrub tree is removed. Hr, Barnes said if that were possible, 1t would make a dlfrerence. Mr. Mills said that 1f you arc dealing with a large area that would work, but if ybu are talking about removing one tree that would be difficult to do, Ms. elaussen sold that, generally, people who want to remove a tree, are not interested in replanting a tree that will grow just as big. They want to remove the tree for view purposes. Mr. Mills said that as far as he 1s aware, the City staff is comfortable with the policy as It currently is written. Mr. H. Lewis inquired if there were areas 1n the current Code repartting this lssur that Hr. Mills would like the Board to clear up. Mr. Mills said he would rather the Board state what could not be cut than what could be cut. He said he did not think that each tree that 1s removed should have to come before the Board for approval. He pointed out that there are appeal process for the applicant to follow If they do not like staff's decision. Mr. Mills explained that the current policy has been effective for him for the past 10 years and leaves the City some room for negotiation. Mr. D. Levis said that he felt Mr. Mills opinion of the current Code is different from what the -Plannlnyy Department staff has expressed. The Planning staff seems to went more direction and Mr. M111s likes the Cafe as is. Mr. Mills said that if he needs to, he obtains professional opinions as to whether a tree should be removed. Mr. 0. Lewis asked W. Kills what his opinion is of trees being pianeM in two foot areas alons public rights-cf-wey. Mr, lull. said the City it continuing to dd this because the City 11 1" favor or prowtsng trees. He said stiff is forced to place the trees in tall) arias because they are In the sidewalk area. Trees planted in these arias should be held down to iround the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page S. November 23. 1988 Ms. Block said she considered including a statement regarding the PBN zoning concept but felt that if this was Included In tho transmittal letter the letter would would get too vouch into the specifics of the Planning Study. Mr. Boon suggested that the best time to inform the Council of the Board's Intentions is when the study 1s discussed at the City Council Meeting. Ms. Block said that perhaps the Board could send a separate letter to the Council that would express the Board's Intentions regarding the PBN zoning concept. The Board discussed and decided that the transmittal letter should remain as is. They felt that If the Board Included too much Information about tht Planning Study In the transmittal Board letter, people may not read the entire study. The also felt the executive summary should remain as written. Ms. Block Inquired if the Board would Ilk* to have the entire packet, Including a sheet of the ,'Ecueaended Implementation measures, in their Sanuary 25 packets. She suggested that It my be halpfwl to the Bard members If they have the entire packet to review before the study 1s pmenled to the CduncI 1. The Board felt that having the entire packet, rt 1t will be sent to the Indlrrduml Council members, would be helpful. • i. ,YriJ ryN R- 111,1, leenrmed the Bard that the City will be using a photographic enlargement on the conlldered a nuisance Iraq. Mr. Darnel and Mr. Wo.ussen agreed rltn nr, down trot natural Park, the Alders should not be considered scrub trees• Mr. Down pointed out that in South county Park, the Alders contribute to the anbtance of the park. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page S, October 26. 19M O building Might. He did not feel the City should plant trees that will grow and block the Viers. Discussion continued regarding the they tress, etc., that have been plented along City streets, The Board and ttaff agreed that the variety of trees along som streets is poor. Mr. Mills sold that for the past elOt months staff his been discussing other types of trees that can be planted in atility strips. Mr. Palmer said that Otcember 14 is scheduled as a work session to put all of the Prevloea tree removal discussions together to create a plan as to how the Bard will proceed. the Bard continued to discuss the future procedure for completing this issue. Mr. Palmer said that iit addition to Mr. saran's tntarprataclon of the previous discussiom,_the Bard can also offer their interpretation of the pm1ou3i discussions. The Board discussed whether Additional Public hearings were nat)ssary before a concrete plan is dereToped. Ms. Claussen said she felt it would be more appropriate to get the Ideas down In writ%g and then held a public hearing. ilia reminder of the Bard agreed with this procedure. would IelpYProteett thtoned tVIM of peoplt StAve eInsw CitysbWuuseetthhey acre Payingrd lla �armootunts �t tests. Mr. Mathias felt the staff should contact Mr, Simpson and request hts�d.As on flown they can limit the height of trees and how existing trees can be grandfathered in. Mr. D. Lewis said he had eonterns that public property does not have the same regulations on it as privet+ Property. Ma said it wee unfeIr to alkt public property axampt from the requiretaents tan placed w1 private property. Mr. HAthias agreed that the regulttions should be the sae far both public and private proptrty. He felt It was unfair to the public to require a private property owner to rme0ve trees and not require the City to do tTw somm on public property. W. Palmer said he did not agree. 1k felt thgy are talking about devatoping a policy for dealing with public land. Phan the Board discussed private land, they agreed with the City Attorney Chet them 1s rery little the City can do on private property, except those lands that Art Included im PRO's subdTrisions, without paying a high prlte. Mr. Palaver agreed that the concept should apply to all lands, but the Board is discussing two different impacts. W. Palmer said that on private property. the Impact to the COS nity is nearly :aro. Unless you live nest to the private property owner. Me pointed out that public property has a greater impact on a larger number of people. Mr. D. Lewis pointed out that even though the Bard cannot take care of the problem today, they could possibly control the problem if there are some policies in place. Mr. Mills said that if the Bard decides to create a tree cutting policy, the Bard should Address the Issue of who Is going to pay for the removal. The Bard agreed that this is An important Issue. The Bard decided to go ahead with the December 14 work session to bring the previous discussions together. This will be Another closed 'work session to formulate a recommendation based upon previous discussion. The Board will present this recommendation at a public hearing in the future. Mr. ►41mer invited the public to return to the December 14 Westing and mentsoned that the Bard Is more then happy to review letters regarding this Issue. Me told the wdience to forward their correspondent to Mr. Bowman at the Planning Otpartawt. Mr. Bowman will distribute these letters to the Bard. There being no further business to come before the Bard. the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. P8112JDB PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 6. November 23. 19BB *Clearing Permits and Criteria -Ilov the permits should be implemented. -Penalties and when they should come Into Play- -How a clearing permit requirement would be used And adopted by the ADD. -Landscape Policy -Feedback from the ADD on the possibility of a menu of possible plantings. -Discussion regarding the ADD review of vegetation and building plans. Whet process and timetable Is used when reviewing these Plans- -What process does the ADa use while working out differences between what his been proposed and what is required In the Code. Mr. Palmer said since this joint meating is a rare occasion. he would like to have the opportunity At the end of the meeting for the AD6 to discuss any toptcs they toollaart important. ion.. Lam,. 11I 4. felteitt might 1-elworthwhilePto d scus%Nthese, issues with tMreAM if they JCS::W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 7, October 26, 19M AUDIENCE COMMENTS Rich STevett, ZLO27 Shell Valley Read, inwlred the Board was aware of the Snohomish County Equatle Resources Prot'ectlon Plan. Ile lkrd abw how this plan could be toted by the City of Edmonds. Mr. Slevttt pointed out ! the current City plan does not do ■ good job of protecting the wetlands in Edommndt. The ounty invested a lot of time and money Into development of this plan. The City dons have the money to put into a project such at this. He felt the City is similar !e Couaty and facing the same problems. He felt that It would beboove the city to loaf at the homlth County plan and compare it to the ECDC to evaluate It there are any aspects or County plan that the City could develop Into their own Code, Ms. ClaussM inquired where Copt Of the County plan an available. firm Boman said that Mr. Mahn has a Copy of the Plan, said that the plan Includes several sample ordinances that Could be used ant graphics for deftntng the wetland areas. Mr. BOswan sold he w111 try to incorporate some of this pTa Into the Board's Clearing permit discussion. Mr. Bowman 3ald the best. staff contact for thl issue would be Jerry Mouth. FINAL DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL RESMUTION Of' TREE CUTTING ISSUES Pa'. BOwmin gave a brief overview of the discussion by reviewing the aeaorandum he sent to the Board. W. Bowan explained that Mayor Naughton asked that the Board look into the possibility of developing some type of criteria for allowing trimming or cutting Of trees for view enhancement. The Board divided the discussion into five topics: 1. Clearing permits on private property involving subdivisions and PRD's 2. Discussion with the City Attorney regarding the 'taking' issue involving trees J. Tree cutting on public owned park lands k. Tree cutting on non -park and right-of-way lands. S. Private and public landscaping requirements. Mr. Sewwn said the Board asked that he surxrite the prrvleus discussions. He said that Mr. Palmer drafted a n-rarandum for the Board's review. Mr. 80+.ro said that what Mr. Palmer's mom cone Ins Is slmllar to what he would have written nteselr. Mr. Bowman reminded the BoarG of their discussion with the City Attorney. There is not such the City can do with trees on private property. Mr. Bowman said that the City Of Tadoma has been working on this sane Issue and has sent the City a draft of their study of view sensitive areas. This study concluded that regulations are not an appropriate way to govern vegetation on public or private property. Mr. Bowmen seid that the evidence that cane from the previous discussion on private property was that it would be almost Impassible to enforce regulations of this type and also that It would be costly. Mr. Bowman said that Tscom's study is directed toward trying to develop sane good neighbr 'wood policies and helping neighbors dlscuss their problems and work out a comeon solution. ar. Bowman sa I that the City Attorney also lndicatzd that It would be best for the private property owners to work out a solution to the tree/view problem. Mr. Bowman said that a new subdivision could place private restriction covenants on the properties. These, however, would not be enforced by the City. In regard to tree cutting on public property, Mr. Bowman did not feet the Board was leaning toward any arrdification to the current policy. He sold there are some things the Board could conslfer. One is the definition of a hedge. Mr. Bowan reminded the Sward of a case that came before the Mrering Examiner regarding the definition of a hedge. Mr. Bowean read the current definition of a hedge. Mr. Bowman said that the Board needs to decide what procedure they want to following to complete this discussion. If they recorernd some Code changes, a public hearing will be held to discuss -the changes. If the Beard feels that no changes are necessary, there 1s no requirement for them to if another public hearing. Mr. Bowan referr^J the Board to Mr. Palmer's memorandum and asked Mr. Palmer to review It with the Board and audience. Mr. Palmer said he attempted to look through all of the past meetings and discussions to come up with some direction. He said that there were varying ideas on ham each category should be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 2, December la, 19M Mr. Pe.loer said he would like to see some kind of formula to establish the maximum amow"t OMM land &At could be cleared on a lot based upon the sill of the lot. This method would not } discriminate against the owners of either large or small lots. ! Mr. Boron said that from the City's Italldpolnt, anst of the area In the RS6 tone district It developed. There are some waded ants ramaining. He titd he Could think of two situations F. where a person uslr.q Mr. Palmer's method could do same healthy woddlng. t Mr. Palmer said he still feels a percentage is a better gage. Mr suggattper ed that the proty owners be allowed a certain percentage Of their land to be cleared Wh year. Mr. Nordquist said that his lot Is In an mlvlrovenglly sensitive and wit" weedt and A creek. Me has two large aide" that are 70 rears old. They are starting to Polk a danger to . - .. ____. ___ ..,•, .1 .m remnw those two t 1 Sha'tald fha would Check Inlo lhat.� Ms.. [taustM %aid that the Pu"( Sowed Air Pol lvtlmn Cpatrol Apeacy it Mletny a Moring In ar eifdrt to abol till bwrning IN con}watt I" with land cloarhag In Wsh" aeM6 ohafwl tber� Om p rdblrml with pollvtlon. See iafd she dent Not hew the IPeclf lc feleletsan bwt fas asaod List I'll, lnrprmaq%" be 1*0 Id W. wlrn sae "Cot", Lhla lnformottM, the w111 forward it to each of the Board members. 1 1 1 1 0 4 handled. Mr. Palmer said he hoped his memorandum would be a good trial td be rated IN eettiav the di scusslon started. The Board decided that Mr. Palmer should review his mwmorandrm a section at a time and the Board would discuss each section before proceeding to the nest•• 1. Publicly owned park land. MS. Phi111ps suggested that the Board r!+ove the words 'aoe-04rk view t0hiaboaseffito grew the second to the last parlgraph- She felt that this Pa ee rt of the smteaems not me[msst"y since the Board is net Intemted In allowing trees to t. remolrit for private vier ewiancerwt. Ms. Claussen felt that the reason Tor including non -part vier eWmacseat Is to silo. the City to bon able to move or Iris trees that are obstructing the a public view that is a "IN interest to tor. park. etc. such as Overlook Park. The Board felt that since there has been no problem with this sectior of the Code 14 the past. they would leave It as Is. The Hoard discussed whether landscaping criteria 0,wld bs established for parks to prohibit the City from planting more large trees that will trtnWally baock mare views. Ms. Claussen said that the City could request the landscape designer to consider the fvbr^e impact of new plantings on view, but she did not want to limit idle parts to low Brad" triers. Mr. Bowman inquired what the harm is of developing a policy stotcMarat t►et statet that the city shall consider the impact of such vegetation to exi Meg vim-, corridor-s Se W City. Mr. Palmer felt that the problem would be the meaty different opinions of wsat is acceptable - The Impact to the public using the park should be considered over the Impact to the for people living behind the park. Ms. Phillips sold the Board could state that they wall Cdrtsldef replaciw3Tall trees�thesmal1 trees. She said that she would hate to see someone's view taken away by ty. lt th_ city should have someaing in the code to protect the views in the City. She felt that a statement saying that the City will not take away from the vitas that people save anw would be appropriate. Mr. Palmer said that this type of statement would say nr non than Is currently In the Code. if the parks are looked at on a one-on-one basis, the residents will lave Input on what bappeas on the public property. Ms. Claussen said that In the last lO year, the Board has not done such on master plans for Use parks. She said she assumed the Board vents or. active part in this process- That landscaping considerations would Come Out during the development df tlae master plea- She felt clew protection would be an automatic Consideration and does not need to be to a policy statement. Mr. D. Lewis asked if there is some kind of policy Its used by the public worts superintendent regarding the removal. The Board discussed who Is in c arge of deciding what trees can be planted in the City Parks. The Board pointed Out that alty chaopes in the landscaping of the park should coma before the Bard, WFwever. there Hs Not bee^ such change In the Past. The Board felt that one discussion for the retreat should be how active a role they oat to play as a Parks Bard. Mr. k an said the MB 1s sn charge of rvvtewing the fuproverents In the Parks. Mr, D- Lewis said ghat if this is the case, the previously discussed concern Is being taken con' 1f by the ADB. Mr - D. Loris suggested that the Bard eliminate the last two Paragraphs of his section recav-c he felt they were too negative. Mr. Pstmer said that by including the la.t to. Paragraph: he was trying to point wt the Sard's Intent for the covrlcil's review, Ms. Phillips said she also feels that the last two paragraphs should be removed. She suggested the possibility of including these two paragraphs in a cover letter to the Council. Ms. Claussen suggested that she first part of each section should inctwde the board's retoamendation ant the second part should be a statement Justifying the recouaaendations. She felt that maybe they could re. rd the last two paragraphs to make them more pw1i;%ve. The Board requested that staff reword these two paragraphs to take out the neg.•tive overtores- Pl11NIING ROAM MINUTES Page ]. December 14, 190 --.•-'�•.. war .°'�n - . d.•a . - _ _i'- ,.µ•me-: _ at [he 6agiming df the outing regerdlop trees. In the C4111 of a PBN r4lone feque sl. M1, Block tale that the std 11 Indlvlduall to help them neat the requlremapts of the PBN zone, TM ft rd Ms the option, then, f either accepting or denying the rdlonm request. Ms. Block lmdlcated that t would ask theoL1ty Attorney If there could be more flexibility in this prIClts. Mr. Bdtmmrk laid that the Idea of establishing a PBN zone classification It to give some encouragement for people to develop a sitter plan that meet$ the general raqulraments of the Lompr►hensive Plan. Mr. Palmer felt that the Bard needs more flexibility than Just accepting or denying the rtzoa request. Ha hit the Board should not get involved with planning the project but rather set some broad guidelines to be used In the development of the master plan. Ms. Borman Bald these broad guidelines would gently persuade property owners to work together. PLANNING SOW MINUTES Page 2, November 9, 1988 .FF MR. H. LEWIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. PHILLIPS. TO ACCEPT THE FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS OF THE DRAFT WITH A MODIFICATION TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH ELIMINATING THE NEGATIVE OVERTONES BY INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF INTENT. MOTION CARRIED. ,•. - Puhlicly owned non -park land and right-of-way ,-.�*�1;,;?•.-x:_; �,: -• ^ Mr. 0, Lewis Sng0l red If there have bee.. any Problems with the current code Over the Past few '' ^ years. Mr. Bowman said there have been some cases of trees getting into power lines. These •`+' "�a�' •- •' people were allowed to rtrove the trees and replace them with mature replaceskznt vegetation.• Mr. Bowman said that staff has not experienced a problem with requests Tor tree rtmmval 1n _ publicly owned non -park land and rights -of -way to obtain a better view. . _ - ' Ms. Claussen pointed out that Resolution 418. which limits the cutting of trees to those that -' are dead, dying, or creating a hazard, would take care of any problems that arise. Mr. Boron - said that 1f the Board agrees with Resolution 418, there Is no need to add a second part to the - existing Code because the public works-upervisor has the authority to make that decision. - •• j13 MS. CLAUSSEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. H. LEWD, TO CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT POLICY AND TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA FOUND IN RESOLUTION 41D. i - s Ms. Phillips Indicated that she 1s not thoroughly satisfied with the motion. She wanted to '• -, . find some way to allow people to limb trees for view. _ Mr. Palmer said that in looking at past discussions, this was the most difficult topic for the } Board to agree upon. He said it seemed that whenever the discussion centered around the ability to do what Ms. Phillips is describing, the Idea of establishing view corridors was discussed. " Mr. H. Lewis asked if there would be an appeal procedure if someone doles not like the staff decision. Mr. Bowmen said that any staff decision is appealable. Ie said that an appeal of a i ' staff determinatSrm to the Hearing Examiner would call for a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner would decide to either offfrm or overturn the staff's decision. The Hearing + Examiner's decision Is appealable to the City Council. M Mr. H. Lewis said that another alternative would be to go tirough a public notice process. , Staff would allow &•person to remove a tree after notices Puve been placed in the neighborhood for a set amount of time. He said he does not feel comforcdble with this method, either. Mr. Domain said the Bard could modify Resolution 418 by adding a staff decision/optional hearing. The problem with that Is the City only ritifies residents within 80 feet of the proposed removal. It could be the person living further up the hill that would have the most opposition to the tree removal. Mr. H. Lewis said he liked the policy the way it currently is. He likes leaving some flexibility to the public works supervisor. j - Mr. Mathias said he felt that the Bard should not make ex_eptlons for public rights -of -way. Mr. Mathias felt that the same regulations that are placed on private property owners should be placed on public property as well. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MS. PHILLIPS OPPOSED TO THE MOTION. J. Private and public land. _ Ms. Claussen felt that the last paragraph in this section should Include 4 sutement that SOME _- existing vegetation should remain. She felt this would a44rets the major trees an the property. i Ms. Claussen pointed out that sax of the park lands have underlying zoning restrictions. � Until the Board knows exactly which ones these are, she did not feel she could agree with this ? section. She felt it would be better to clarify this section by excluding the last paragraph and Including a statement regvlring the preservation of some of the existing trees. If a large multiple family complex is dcviloped, the developer should have to require a permit to ensure that some trees are kept even though the trees are higher than the structure. Ms. Claussen said she -hated to see only small trees planted and all the large ones removed. Mr. Palmer said the reason he did not approach this section from Ms. Claussen's angle was ' because the Roard indicated in previous discussions on clearing permits that the ADB should use this criteria in their own detefvdnations. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES•- -• _ - Page 4, Dece ber 14. 1988 - Mr. Bowman potnted out that the Andover case 1s not 1n an envirnnamntally sensitive art&. What •' • ' is to stop someone from clearing every tree from the lot and then coming in for a short - subdivision or building Permit. Mr. Bowman said that if the Bard feels this type of clearing is wrong and that the City should • - have some degree of control, they have got to implement some kind of clearing procedures. Mr. D. Lewis said If the property owner along 212th and Highway 99 had done construction Along with the clearing, there would not have been as much sensitivity with the neighbors. Ms. Block said that If the Bard only passes this draft for commercial and multiple family - zoning, they w111 be saying those are the only two zones where there art Any concerns on clearing. 1 ' .. -___. .•., . . - U1 nronerty should "t f Mr. Allen questioned whether a parking lot Is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods, The Soard declded that this cevld possible be a viable use for the property, but the would need n to ka tM actual dlnansions Of the flat portion of the lots to sae what could W laid out. TM1 pointed out that a buffer would have to be maintained between tha parking and the adjac@nt neighborhoods. Mr. Palmer asked how the Architectural Design Board (ADD) wovld becoat Involved In the matter plan of a PON zone. Ms. Block said that an AUD rsviw would be "Ovlred as part of the crItmaster plantris for the FBN first. followd byaone the i anningts (the Boardaw 412 who w111rmak4 a recthe oarndationtt �thevCityCouncil. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 1, November 9, 1988 V Ms. Phillips asked if the ADS can require + person to plant evergreens that will become large x at sopoint of time. She said she woatd hate to say that a person cannot plant large trees. she felt there should be some large trees in the City. Mr. Palmer said the intend of his draft is for the City to determine -,at the area should'look l Ike* and the impact on the neighborhoods in the future. This is an area where the City has some control over view blockage, and the City can make sure that they do not create a view, blockage. Ms. Phillips said she would hate to see new developments limited to 25-foot trees. Mr. Palmer pointed out that if the lot is not clear cut, this will not be a problae. Some large trees will rersatn on the property. Mr. Palmer said that he did not feel the Board would be eliminating Large trees in the City if they accepted his suggested change because most developamtnts coming before the ADS for approval already have some large vegetation on the lots. The AM would require them to maintain a certain portion of these large trees. Mr. H. Lewis said he did not feel that most developments would save many large trees. He pointed out that most new sltbdivisions clear cut the lots before developing. Mr. H. Lewis felt that this section is too general in nature. It helps protect the views of people overlooking downtown Edmonds. In some areas it Is to the coawv,nity's benefit to have trees that grow larger than the buildings (i.e.. Westgate and Highway 99). Ms. Claussen pointed up the roof tops. She felt that there are many in the community who consider the large treointed out that trees that are taller than the roof line ces to be an advantage to their view. The Board discussed the growingpattern of evergreen trees and ways that they could allow the planting of both large and small trees depending on the area. Mr. 8cwran said that the City is not going to make somebody keep a tree that is a possible hazard to the community. He felt this section needed to be reworked. Mr. H. Lewis Inquired who would be responsible for'enforcing the private covenants mentioned in the second to the last paragraph. He felt this statement would require a person to glue his neighbor view rights over his property. Mr. H. Lewis indicated that he 1s uncomfortable with this requirement. Mr. D. Lewis said he would like to see some discussion with the ADS to see if the two Boards can put together some Netter ideas. Mr. M. Lewis said ne is nuite confident that the ADB would be in support of developing a suggested planting list and breaking it down into different environments to nett the needs of view sensitive areas, etc. Mr. Bowman said the Board could schedule a meeting with the ADS to discuss this topic. Mr. D. Levels suggested that perhaps the ADS could assist the Board with clearing permits, also. Mr. Fa+aismn said that the staff administers the clearing permits. ADS reviews the vegetation and built ng plans for the site. The AC8, however, cmn mandate that certain trees be ma intalned. The Board directed Mr. Bo- ,.%n to schedule a joint meeting wl th the ADB on JanLary 25, 1989. The Board felt that the landscape requirements needed to be fine tuned to take into account the needs of the different areas within the City. 4. Private property. Mr. Palmer said that part of the problem with view an private property is that the options available to the public are not addressed. Many of the problems could be solved if the City made available some sample documents that have been us eC by others to obtain view corridors. He felt that informing the public of options for private action and assisting citizens in their quest to seek private resolution may prevent the City from becoming involved in these problems. Mr. Bowman said that the City already provides advice to property owners but, often, by the time he talks with the people, the 'bridges have been burned' and it is difficult to reach an agreement. Mr. Palmer said he feels it is important to inform the public about why the City does not get Involved in the removal of trees on private property for view purposes. Mr. H. Lewis said he would like to see a covenant prepared by the City and provided to the public to use when placir.g restrictions on their property. A - • :- it �.} PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . Page 5. December 14. 1988 .. - i Mr. Bowman pointed out that 20 years ago this issue would not have been a problem, but the City is now urbanizing. Ms. Block said that the value of the trees and their importance to the community Is becoming more and more apparent and for that reason, clearing of trees wherever they are located, should be a concern. Mr. Palmer said he can understand that 1! 1s a community -wide problem, but he gets tripped up in the application and in the degree of application. He has a hard time agreeing that 'ore and more rights of private n+operty owners should be given @way. He said he has concerns about the City getting Involved in telling individual property owners that trees on their property can no longer be enjoyed to their ,,:easure, lam said when ow you narrow down the scale, It becomes harder and harder to justify. Mr. Nordqulst felt that the percentage of clearing allowed should be limited to one percent of the land. Z9 s -e I � • a OSC7 . He�read the dellnillOn of a cannel which Includes vaterinarlsna with four or acre anima n as one lime. The Board daclded that the word rlrestmont' should be excluded from the 4101.1tln of a kennel to distinguish between a veterinary clinic and a kennel, The Board decided that a veterinary clinic should be listed as an allowed via In A IN tuna. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page /, November 9. 1968 t 0 o 1 Mr. Bewon said he is not opposed to doing this. This would demonstrate the City's good intent in trying to help the residents in solving their problems, Mr. Bowman suggested that if u.e City Provides a sample Covenant, the City should also recommend that the individual d1aCY7t the sample Leven Art with their lawyer. The Board recommended that staff find copies of current covenants to be made available to the public. Ms. Claussen said she agrees with the concept of this section, but she felt the section needed to be reworded. She suggested the following format: i 1. City's current policy. i 2. Justification and intent of the current Policy. 3. Recommendations of what the City can do to help the neighborhoods. 2' The Board requested that staff use the above format and reword this section. Mr. Scw.,n said he mould attempt to do this and present it to the Board at their Cecrrbtr 28 nt and ld draft reco. ndatt nsit hthe City Council. document that hsome of theBitemsewldtgont tthereCouncil i right away. 1 MR. PALMER PROPERTY, INOVED. SECONDED BY MS. CONCEPT. AWAITING THE FINNALEM, TO ACCEPT THE DRAFT FROM STAFF.PROPOSED SECTION MOTICN CARRIED.REGIIRDTNG PRIVATE PhillipsIn ence to suggestedethattion on new the Board work withions and the ADS atanned the January 25ameating.paxeits, Ms. Mr. Bevann said the Board should recognize " t in a PRO or subdivision, the developer can be required to maintain a greenbelt area or common open space. These areas should also be addressed 1n the policy statue nt. The Board decided to discuss this item with the ADS on • January 25. 5. Strut trees. Mr. Palmer said he had a lot of difficulty reaching any conclusions from the Board's Previous discussions of this item. Mr. D. Lewis said that they discussed this with Mr. Mills who indicated that staff has revamped their plan on what is to be planted. The Board discussed whether street trees should be included in the discussion with the ADS on January 25. The Board had no conclusions regarding street trees at this point. They felt there is no teed to modify the pr"ran at this time. The Board decided to schedule this topic for future discussion on the 19B9 extended agenda. 6. iseri[ag0 trees. Mr. Palmer said that the Board never got into a major discussion of this Item, and he inquired whether the Board wanted to pursue this topic. Discussion regarding this Issue continued and the Board decided that no Immediate changes were necessary and that the topic should be scheduled on the extended agenda. the of a Claussen said thatdIf the she lookedrd was at othernJurisdictions dsted in efinition ofeal hedger, whichhdefinesMe hedge as dense. foliage to the ground. Mr. H. Lewis felt this would be a worthy Item for discussion in the future. Mr. Bowman reviewed a case that came before the Hearing Examiner involving the definition of a hedge. Mr. Palmer said that another option rather than redefining a hedge would be to see where the term appears in the Code and de•.'de if the City can either remove the word or divide the sect l on. Mr. Bowman said he felt the definition needed clarification. Mr. H. Lewis said that If staff felt the definition of a hedge needed clarification, the Board should provide the clarification PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 6, December 14. 1988 Mr. Bowman pointed out that, 94nardl iy, appcois end up 9oin9 ,, 11- ••••••••••j• Ms. Phillips Inquired whether a developer would be allowed to start work the day the decision it rude or do they have to wait until the entire appeal time expires.uplMr. Bowman answered that clearing permits would be effective after the 10-day sppedI period rt Mr. Palmer pointed out that the word 'of' should be changed to 'or' in definition F. Mr. Mathias Inquired whether in Individual will have to get permission from the City to Cut down a dlseaifd tree front his own property. Mr. Allen pointed out that since the development is already on ene properly, no Pamil It required. Mr. Bowe said that if the clearing is fol .-- more than 1,000 square feet, the property owner would be rfquired to get a clearing Permit PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .v _ Page 5, November 9, 1988 •: •., +, , The Board decided to add this discussion to their January 2S meeting. The Board also scheduled .:;•� ::' _% �c-`• i •.' �.•. '. time on the January 11 agenda to discuss what topics will be discussed at the joint meeting on_•�' �••.:_•- January 25. � Mr. Boron pointed out that the audience is interested In knowing how the Board will proceed _ with this issue. He suggested that on December 26, the Board formulate the exact steps ❑f what the publft can expect for this Issue. He said that the Board should also discuss on Dece-ber • 28 home they want to present their recommendations to the C"ncil. .• • There being no further business to come before the Board, MA, ROROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. PHILLIPS, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 9 PM. MOTION CARRIED. . _.f PB121488 - - j .. 1 A. t _ f •l e I , PIANNING BOARD MINUTES -- Page 7, December 14. 1988 Av MIN- - " THESE MIN TES SUBJECT ' �.• •�' ti •;`'•-• r TO FEBRUARY B APPROVAL - :';,i; :• b'`1 - PIANNIYG BOARD MINUTES •- c January 25, 1989 s' - The regular meeting of the Chairperson Jeff Palmer In Edmmnds Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Plaza Meetinq Room of the Edmonds Library Building. F �� PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT 1 ' Jeff Palmer. Chair Hank Lewis Duane Bowmen, Asst. City Planner lE ' .___I —,,,,__ Karin Moves. Recorder s 0. I. Change at follows: 'A 25-loot buffer area from the annual high water me rk of creeks,. - D. 2. Change +s follows: 'Areas in which the average slope Is greater than 25 percent.- D. 4. Change as follows: Include slgniflcanl vegetation, wildlife, or other valuable resources which should PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 4, March 22, 1989 FTT - l:. lr 1 l �uV� *� Mr- Mathias said he felt the Board is 'giving a houft away' and they should turn s request ;•.'. ri?" f:.^� :' " down. The Board should not change the Code to aceammod+te the mistakes of the y or tot .�;:sou p•-•'.' rA' builder. He reminded the Board members that the City Is seeking annexation Lh will ir:rease • the number of residents by SO percent. If staff are rot catching these Lyge f errors at thisf -. •. time, the problems will only get uarse when the population is doubled. - Mr. Mathias urged the Board to vote against the proposed change at Lhl .iee. He said he is i ? not particularly against the change, but he Is against the timing. did not feel the Code • should be changed to correct a mistake. _ Mr. Palmer asked about the granting of <pecial privileges. Mr. Bowman said the applicant would have to come before the ty and make the request for the wa ever and the engineer will hawe to review the request b re granting approval. Mr. Clouston will not automatically obtain approval of his slope we lr If the Board approves the Code v: " change. Mr. Nordqulst Inquired how the Bard wand vote an IS issue if there bad -wen no vfoletid.ts discussed. Would the Board be looking At the !Mtge the simet Would they be deciding If .: •. ,- this change would improve the quality cf lido i the City? Mr. Nordqulst said the Board needs - -. •- - 7r._ to relate to the benefits this Change would h ! to the City rather than to the individual - applicant who is seeking the change. The 8 rd can make the 4-cislen based upon the proposal r - Itself, regardless of the applicant. - Mr. Palmer indicated that he agreed w Mr. Nordquist. Hs' Claussen said she felt the rested Code change cculd stand by itself. She felt it would be a very rational, consistent c ge. - Mr. H. Lewis caid that to en rage proper de;19el within the City, the Code must allow Jr., •� flexibility. He pointed that there are any pmjtcts In the City wisere slopes of parking y lots are over 6 percent 4 just have not been Caught. * felt it Is appropriate to change the me Code as recoamended. H elt the Code change could stand of its mm. lie Indicated that he can understand some of Mr chili' concerns, also, Mr. H. Lewes said 1s somewhat hesitant to limit the percent o1 slope to 14 percent. ..><- Mr. H. Lewis ted out that the City Codes change frequently and it is difficult to keep up with them. B muse of this, mistakes are sometimes made. He said the City needs to look past. - the mistake that are made. That is how Code changes come about. The Board needs to decide if a :ode eh le 1s necessary regardless of the mistake that has been maJe. Mr. Sat pointed out that it is the tuilder's responsibility to be up-to-date on a city's cod It is their responsibility to make sure that their projects meet the codas. ION CARRIED, WITH MR. MATHIAS VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. CDC-2-89 CITY OF EDMONDS s , PROPOSED NEW CHAPTER To THE EDMONDS COMMINITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATING LAND CLEARING AND TREE CUTTING WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. Mr. Palmer opened the public hearing by reviewing the procedures and process for audience " participation. He explained that the Board will make a recommendation to the Council. It will be up to the Council to make the final decision on policy. S Mr. Bowmen explained that the Board developed a draft clearing ordinance which was distribute p to a number of `Alders and other interested citizens. Mr. Bowman explained that the Board has initlwted a process based on past actions that have 1 occurred in the City. What tt. Board has put together represents what Ehey feel to be a reasonable proposal to address land clearing in the City. Since the current ordinances are nc, specific, it was decided that a code change was necessary to better define clearing. Mr. Bowman pointed out that copies of the draft are available for th.• audience. He said he also made transparencies to be displayed for the audience. a Mr. Bowmen pointed out that the first section of the proposed ordinance is the purpose statement. This section tells why the Board proposed the regulations. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES !1 y. •' ;-' Page 4, April 26, 1989 's��.. r•-:i - 1 .he Board agreed to have staff draw up a draft ordinance on the one year time limit. The Bard - . also recuested the,. staff draft an ordinance to make the landscape policy part of the Code. • .he Board (!tided that after the draft ordinances are preserted to them, they w111 discuss the } - 'ssues fur,-r . H, Lewis asked staff to pull out the minutes from the ;:int AOb/planning Board ee rd mting to 'Ind the o,."r Items that the ADS requested the Board conSiCer, hr. Bowman said thise two i - Items before t'e Board tonight are the ones the ADS had a specific imrnediete and Interest 1n, 19 °r. Dalrlr read the Ilse of items the ADO requeftld ;he Boa-E to discuss. 41 • -r. Bow-!^ saic for the Board's information, staff his rece'ved the Environmental Impact itstement ; 15; rcr the Lyinwood golf course. Pe said the _ngintering Division has seen real S �� w sroblerS with the ;rafflc and some other water problems wit-• the project. He said he only Mt • ]ne Cory or fi:. If the Board 1s Interested in Mr. Bar -.es' and Mr. Alberti' comments, he • :an incluc! these In the Board's next packet. Mr. Bowr.,an -ointed out that there I• a group of r Mr. Bowman Indicated that he reviewed this sectlon with the Clty Attorney. Iht City Attorney Informed him that this section, as currently written, would be Irgal. Nowerer, the Cl ty Attorney told that 1l the City Is going to allow the Planning Manager to Impose a fine, they must provide an appeal process. The Board discussed this section and many felt that the penalties were not great enough. Mr. pal me suggested that the Board consider adding Item E on page 9 of draft 2 to the penalties section, Item E o/ draft 2 states: -for any parcel on which tree% and/or ground cover are removed by any person for the like of preparing that site for future development in violation of this Chapter, the following will apply: For five years after the date a violaton notice Is Issued by the City, the City she 11 deny any or all applications for permits or approval, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 5. March 22. 1989 a Mr. Bowman read through the proposed ordinance and displayed transparencies for the audience to follow along. Mr. Bowman explains: that on a previous draft that was distributed to builders, the oblations section Include a provision that restricts the City frog issuing any type of permit for a period of one to three years. This section was dropped from the pr:posed draft. Mr. Palmer opened the meeting to audience participation and said that each speaker will oe given three minutes to speak, if there is any time at the end of the meeting, the Board may choose to hear additional testimony. _ Alvin Slelster, 6E2 'slm Street, said this Is E989, Edmonds xas fdrmad in 1.890. All those years and tt ;s stetI a beautiful town. $thy, every time they turn around. Is the City let( -I All =re restrictions te1111s9 which tees can be removed and xhlch cannot. He inquired how srueh gooey was spent do this project. He felt that there were uncoenpletad sidewalks in the Clty that the money should have been spent on. He said it takes nine months to set a parfait to do smoothing in the City. If the City keeps passfng things. 1t will take two ye►rs td get A Dfroft. He felt that If a person has a piece of property and has the money he should be able to do what he wants on his property. He does not went someone te111ng him what he can and cannot do on his property. Me pointed out that in his neighborhood, all but two of the trees _ were resnvtd When the ho+xs were CdnstrVCted. Now that the homes are built and the area 1s replanted, it 15 a beautiful neighborhood. lie suggested that 1f the City threw half of their rules out. Edmonds would still bt a beautiful City. Rich Slettvet, 21027 Shell Valley Road, congratulated the staff and Board for their work in developing the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that the Board and staff have devoted mny months to preparing the proposal. He said he noticed that the Board has very carefully tried to balance the rights and pr-;vileges of property owners and the comunity to insure public safety and welfare. He said he has noticed soma developers have stripptd ?and of trees without regard to the environment. He said he anticipates the following arguments this evening: 1. No one has the right to tell what trees can be cut down. Mr. Slettvet said that the property 1s part of a larger community long after the developer Is gone. 2. Clearing permit will present an additional cost to the builder. Mr. Slettvet pointed out that it difficult to place a price on the trees that are cleared. ]. These regulations are unnecessary. Mr. Slettvet pointed out that Lynnwood's ordinance was found to be in need of strengthening because it had no teeth in it when it comes to enforcement. Me suggested that Edmonds should learn from Lynnwood's excerience. Mr. Slettvet pointed out two cases within the City where the developer did grading and clearing without any type of permit. The current Cade can do nothing to prohibit this type of thing from occurring. Marion Roy, 870 Alder Street, said she has attended most of the meetings relating to tree clearing and private view regulations. She congratulated the Board on the proposal. She said she feels it Is a good ordinance. She inquired about the reference to the native growth protection easement on pege four. She inquired what the enhancement progrec would be. Mr. Palmer said that one example of an enhancement program could be done on a steep slope where there Is native growth. A person may find that a slope could be further stabilized by aiding additional species of ground cover to the slope. Ms. Roy Inquired if this ordinance would supersede the current code regulations regarding tree cutting. Ms. Block said the current ordinance refers to public property. She said that the proposed ordinance will refer to bath private and public property. This ordinance will not supersede the current regulations. Both the current resolutions and the proposed ordinance, If adopted, will be part of the City's regulations. Michael Surface. Seattle Master Builders, P.O. Boa 958. said he had some questions and concerns on Page 2. Items D and E. It appears that the City may possibly be excusing themselves end public dtilities from the requirements that are being placed on privatd property owners and developers. He pointed out that utilities can use up more land then developers. rr. Surface said he had some concerns about the scale and the reference to the scale being determined on a case by case basis. He suggested that this section be more clear and give a specific scale the City would like to have Presented to them. Mr. H. Lewis pointed out that the Board was trying to accommodate the different sites and characteristics of the sites. The: Is why they recommended the scale of ore inch to thirty feet, with the possibility of the planning manager sopeoving a different scale, if appmprlate. PLANNING BOARO MINUTES Page S. April 26, 1989 THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO JU1E la APPROVAL PLANNING 6 W 0 MINUTES May 24 , 1989 The regula: —eating of the Edmonds Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 P.m. by Chairperson Jeff Palmer in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT -• - -- w111 w..w•. Peter Mahn. Cones. Sere. 01r H i Edmonds Mr. Bowman felt that Mr. A11an't toly",tlon could be in interesting avenue and he would discuss this posslblllty with the Ll ty Attorney to deterolne if that would be legal, Mr. Bowman said he would like to take the Board's comments from this meeting and make a fourth draft. The Board briefly talked about the fourth draft at the April 12 meeting and then advertise the meeting of April 26 as a public hearing. Mr. Palmer suggested that the Poard and Staff do everything they Can to get the word out about the public hearing for the proposed clearing ordinance. Mr. Bowman sold he would send Information out to all of the developers In the area. PLANNING BOAkO MINUTES Page 6, March 22, 1989 Mr. Surface referred to the performance standards end inquired if an impervicw,s surface would r include roofs. He said it is his interpretation that this could exclude someone from building a house under + drip line of a tree. Mr. Surface suggested that the Board come wp with : minimum and maximum level of bonding. In reference to the maxlrymr $10,000 fine, Mr. Surface said h^ did ryt understand why the fine was so high. He pointed out that a person could have too much to drink, get caught speeding, and get off + lot cheaper than a person who cuts down sore trees. He said it Depends on the Board's values. He said he values hu.—an lives more than trees. He said he feels the fine is way too high. Mr. Nordquist said he agrees with Mr. Surface that lives are mare Important than trees, however, he referred to a recent seminar at the University of Wshtnton, where the Board members were shown four trees on one lot that were valued at S2S,Cw0O. Scott Brews, Snohomish County Realtors, 1O11S 200th Place Southeast, Srwlaomith, said that till Board likes Erie and they arc Involved In sang tree planting projects. Me sold his Weed has taken the position and feels it 1s unfair for the Board to regulate private Property omen. He pointed Out that not only deal. this proposed Ordinance re961141te trees, It also regulate[ the reaasval of vegetation, which by definition turns out to be ground cover, also. Although there IS an intention to exempt single fseely lot owners. It does nit exempt single family lot Owners whose lots ray be further subdivlded. These People will have to coreply with this ordinance' Further, if these people are required to dbteIn a perisst, IC must be acwmpanicd ty a plot plan, description of low the clearing is sling to be perforased, a time table for replanting ere meny other things that are very time consuming and expensive for laymen to go through, Mr. Brown said this ordinance would prohibit those people who are seeking a permit from doing any work until the appeal time has expired. If they are trying to operate on a time fray.., they have got to wait until the appeal period has expired. He said his Board finds this to to a bit excessive. Mr. Brown so id the proposed ordinance states that for people subject to this ordinance and for C those who want to obtain a building permit, you cannot edjust the grade of the land within ae drip line of the tree. He said that if you look it some of the lots in the City, you will notice that they are very small lots with very large trees. This provision would prohibit a home from being built on this lot. Mr. Brown said he concurs with previous speakers on the extreme fines. He did not think the: this ordinance covers many things that should be covered in that there is no time limitation in which the City must process the permit application. Paul Joslin, 16219 70th Place West, said that the first speaker referred to the great city they have, based on the good hatits of its citizens. Mlle that applied in the early days when there was a lot of land, that is very different today. He said there Is not much land left so ordinances are needed to protect the citizens of the City. He credited the Board with the efforts they have made in that direction. Mr. Joslin said it is his feeling that this ordinance is directed towards the big developers 0o can cause irreparable harm. He said he has seen a developer take out 250 trees without a permit and the average tree was 70 years old. Mr. Joslin felt that perhaps the Board needs to redress the violations and penalties section :f the Code. He pointed out that in the proposed ordinance all trees are treated equally and violators are charged $500 per tree. He suggested that smell trees less than five years old shoard have no fine for removal without a permlt. The fine should increase depending on how old tee tree is. He suggested perhaps a SS,000 per tree fine for trees 30 years or older and S10.ODO per tree for trees SO years or older. Mr. Joslin recommended that the Board consider using this same principal when determining h_w many trees must be planted for each tree removed. All trees arc not equal. Finally, Mr. Joslin said that he thinks the notification area should be determined by the amount of land being cleared. Clearing on large parcels sho�ld require that a larger number surrounding property owners be notified. lie said that the ramifications of tree removal will differ depending on location of the trees that are being proposed to be reanved. Anne Knight, IT Northwest ]Bich Street, thinks the Board created the ordinance in in atte-�: to protect the trees in the City. She said It is clearly necessary for someone to do this. She did not feel the penalties in the proposed ordinance are too severe. All trees, big or little, most be protected. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 6, April 26, 1989 O\J Mr. Palmer sold that at the May 23 Council meeting, there was further discussion on the ferry duct study And what role the City lhw ld play and what }voding would be prnvldad At Uwe state level. Me said that at least one Councllaaember wA need to Put together a form to +l1ty community Input for the study. louse cowaunity seerbert wishing to give Input Could do so and assist the Council in determining the :Cope of the study. Mr. P+Imer sari he felt the Bard Should have some input regarding the scope of the lively, also, Mr. Palmer said that after the Board has had the QWrtunl to discuss this Issue at their July 12 meeting, he would like to fend a a msorandum to the Council expressing the 80ard's concerns end reco mendetlons. The Board concurred that this Should be done. Mr. Palmer 54014 he would put together same sort of aaemDrandus and distribute It to the board. The Board could use this seaorandusave Of al a basis for their discusSion. Mr. PalAev pointed Out saOf the heal. ,h., wr. dlscussed it the Counctl meting regard ln9 the ferry dark study, =r, k '41ML F-:. !-V� 3f PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page 1, March 22. 1989 Buford Stalker, 958 Sprague Street, in reference to trees in a neighbor" backyard that �y blocked his view, said that his neighbors got together several years ago to remove 11 large ceder trees. They did not have to take three months to get a permit to remove the trees. One thug he noticed about the tree meetings Is tEet the Board restricts the rerovel of trees but they do not tell the residents what they can do. For instance, the ordinance said that for every tree removed, the developer will be required to plant three trees to replace it. What type of tree should be used to replace the One removed? Mr. Stalker cid not feel the community wou10 be benefited if the dive Loper ropla ced the tree removed with the sane type of tree that would block someone's view in the future. Mr. Stalker 5+1d he previously Suggested that the Board ]emit the helynt of the trees to be planted in the City. He suggested that a good heloht would be 10 fee:. He did not feel that trees should grow up to whatever height a property owner wants. He said the City Is guilty of planting forest trees that grow to block the views of the resiJents of Edmonds. He pointed out examples of where the City has planted forest trees in rows. Mr. Stalker thanked the Board and hoped that they would limit the helSht of trees that are to be replanted. Chet Curtis, e02 Ninth Avenue South, said he had a couple of things about the ordinance that bothered him. The first being aesthetic values. What Is an aesthetic value. Edmonds Is a desirous place to live and is not desirous because It Is a forested area. It is desirous because of the view of the mountains and sound. Mr. Curtis said that the Board has spend a great deal of time thinking about all of the rules amid regulations and he Is wondering if the citizens of Edmonds and developers have had the chance to digest all of this Information before a decision is made. Mr. Palmer explained that the Board has been studying this issua for over a year now. He said that each of the Board's agendas are published in the newspapers. He noted that whatever recommendation the Board makes to the Council, the Council will consider and then make their own decisiot. after an additional public hearing. Mr. Curtis said that he received notification of the meeting but no information regarding what the meeting would be about. He felt the public needed more time to think about the proposed ordinance before a decision Is made. Mr. Curtis said that a person should be able to develop his property as best he can as he sees fit. Robert Anderson, 18310 Sunset Way, said he did not sign up because he was not entirely aware of what was going tr be involved in this hearing. He said it is obvious to him that this ordinance came about because of past abuses by developers. In reference to Page 1. Item L. Mr. Anderson inquired if a person werting to remove a dead or diseased tree would be required to obtain permission to do so if the tree were located on his private property. He also inquired if the regulations for topping trees were applicable to individual property Owners. Mr. Palmer said that if the property does not fall under one of the conditions that rsAke it exempt from the Code, It will be required to go through the review process. if the property is a single fe:.ily property, Is not in an environmentally sensitive area, etc., the hoomwiler would not be required to go through the permit process. Monte Clousten proposed that this ordinance only be appllcabl� to setback areas because It is discriminatory the way the standards are written rim. There are many people who have bought property many years ago that may experience an extreme drop in value if this ordinance is approved. .. Clousten said that many people do not want the trees in their backyard and this ordinance would prevent many of these psoole from removing the trees. He Said that from a developer's point of view, this process Is very expensive. He asked that this ordinance be transferable because the cost of holding a piece of property is expensive. He said he would like to see the previous property Owner aeing able to go through the permit process end then transfer the permit to the builder when he purchases t.e land. r.r. Clousten a,reed with the gentlemen who discussed !ifferent trees needing different reou la tipns and that all trees arc not the same. Man,• trees are easily replaceable and should not have a large fine If removed. PLANNING BOARD h (IS Page 1, April 2 989 G �) Mr. Hahn explained that this meetinn is scheduled IN an effort tv put together the information and direction as tb how the City would like the 1t190 program to be. The City's information Is due to the Puget Saun6 Water polity Authority by dune 30. Mr. Hahn said that the Council's agenda was full and that Is why he requested that this hearing be scheduled a" the Board's dune la meeting. He said it should not tak" meach time. Mr. Hahn explained that the City Sias applied for A $50.00(1 County grant to be used for the development of ■ cdmpreheniive recycling plan and progres, hie said that this Is a 100 percent and hi Brent wth grti*aks m good opportunity tdr the City sift" the Community Services Department doe& not have the tim.r to develop the Alen and program. wr Hahn said that Mr. Nude free the Engineering Department Is preparing some helpful Mr, Mathias requested that the first two Items on the agenda be rearranged to accommodate Mike Heryla, Fire Dorartment Reprasentatl ve. The Board agreed to rearrange the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 22. 1969 MR. ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MS. PHILLIPS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 198a, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. PAGE THREE, MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, CHANGE TO READ, 'MR, PALMER SAID HE IS STILL INTERESTED IN INCLUOIUG SOME WAY TO ALLOW IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE SAME TREES THAT LYN14WOOD ALLO' s 10 RC REvOVED.' 2, PAGE FIVC, LAST PARAGRAPH, SECOND SENTENCE, CHANGE, _MR. PALMER' TO 'MR, ALLEN.' Q Mr. Palmer clarified that fines are listed in the proposed ordinance as a euximum of S10,000. The Planning Division Manager Is given discretion to that level. Minor refractions c(ould bring a lower fine. Rich Slettvet said he concurs with the gentlemen's concerns about the drip line making it impossible to place a house on some of the smaller lots. He felt this may be too restrictive. He said he could see someone wanting to leave a tree in and not being able to do so. Mr. SlettveC recommended that the Board include 'ninimizing the yreen house effect' In the purposes section of the proposed ordinance. Scott Brown added that on runy lots there would not be enough lot space left to develop a house If the drip line that is proposed is maintained. Paul Joslin asked why the maxicl fine was set At $10,000. Mr. Palmer said there is a 11n1t on the amount, of fine cunicipal orficlals can levy. Mr. Joslin pointed out that in his area where the developers are putting in 520v,000 homes, the S1O,000 fee 1s inconsequential to the avrrall impact. Ms. Claussen, In reference to the drip line regulation preventing a lot from being developed, said that if this Is the case, approval would be given for the tree to be removed. Mr. Bowman agreed that it would be reasonable to remove the tree if the lot would not be developable without doing so. Mr. M. Lewis Inquired If It were the Board's Intent to require the owners of each single family lot within a subdivision to obtain a clearing permit even though a permit was granted when the entire subdivision was created. Ms. Claussen said is was her intent that the developer of each lot would be responsible for obtaining a clearing permit. Mr. M. Lewis said that requiring the developer of a subdivision to obtain a clearing permit does not bother him, but he felt that each individual property owner should have the same opportunities and rights to develop his property that developed parcels currently have. Mr. H. Lrwis said he Is speaking of newly develo;ed subdivisions where the grading activities are limited to thtr necessary to complete the development of the subdivision. He Inquired If new single ramlly home lots within that developed subdivision are required to submit land and clearing applicatlon along with the wilding appll cation. Ms. Sloe: indicated that these property owners -mold be required to obtain t clearing permit according to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Claussen felt that the proposed ordinance should be left as is. She Inquired why the City should go through the clearing pernit process with the subdivision and require t!:em to protect a certain number of trees and then after the subdivision is created, allow the Individual but Iders to clear whatever they went from the lot. She felt this would defeat the purpose of requiring a clearing permit in the first place. M. Claussen referred the Board to Page 7, )ten G regarding clearing and tutting in wetlards except for Installation of roads and utilities. She inqutred if there Is something in the Code that would reculye replacement of that function. Ms. Block said that the preparation of wetlands regulatlons Is on the Board's extended agenda. She said that at this time there Is nothing In the ET.00, specifically, regarding wetlands. Ms. Block said it would be difficult tc get to the point where a wetland would be the only feasible location fcr a motility or roadway. There are state. Federal, and SEPA regulations vHch address wetland protection. Mr. Palmer said he had some concerns that he wanted to discuss with the Bard. They are as follows: 1. Roof lines being classified as impervious surfaces. Mr. Palmer did not feel roof liras should be classified as impervious surfaces because with wind, etc, water can still reach the ground around the tree's drip line. The Board discussed this and concurred with Mr. Palmer. 2. Appeal times ceusing developers to wait. Mr. Paler pointed out that the Board was concerned that if the permit has been granted and :fat next day the Clearing IS done, it would be too late fcr any individuals opposed to the clearing to voice their opposition. T. Time limit for City to process clearing application. Mr. Palmer said he thought the Boarc br lefty Is cu. rd a 10 wmrking day application processing period, Mr. Born said that the T"',d previously discussed this. He said he would try to locate this tmformation, PLANING BOARD MINUTES Page a, April 26. 1989 possibiltty of doing sane repilr work On the bulkhead. He sold the design of that project Should begin after the Completion Of Phase I vhlch should be Melt fall. After PMse 1 Is coeplete4, the staff should know how mirth money will be available for Muse IF. Mr. Barnes said stiff hopes that Phase III is not A"seary at all. Mr. Barnes explained more about the fundlw,g for the project and Mr. Mahn explained the bidding process. A. Tenths court repairs and lighting at Seavlew Park. Mr. Barnes said that currently sae designs are being developed for repairs of all the w.. A ,w., .11 of I. Cltv'. remnlf rnurti are in need of resurracing. He said Mr. Paleen saS gr\t¢o tn+t + drinti�y 1�u•„•,n �. „c .. �.... agreed that l m stall should look •nto this pots16111ty.Y Mr. Allen suggested that the City eonsider placing automatic alarms it the beach to alert people using the beach when in emergency Is occurring. Mr, Heryla said the ettlmated cost of the eoulPant wil, total approximately $9,100. The total ccst projection I% somewhere around $30,000 to 135,000 (or the building. Mr. Heryls said that the Council seems t0 be satlffled with the proposed price estimates, Mr. H. Lewlt sold that he Is not So sure the City shouldn't expand the building even larger then Proposed to appro I innate ly goo to 1,ODO square feet. He did not feel the Impact of making I Wil,n ng Lrger would be great. Mr, Barnes mild that he would Ilk to minlmlte the Clty's or a to nee at the beach because It Is the only be that II truly a to seem rya Mr, Barnas Bald !het I1 he felt there were Shea real need for the larger bulldlnq, he could confider It, but he would prefer to have minimal presence In the area, PLAMHI MG BOARD MI MUTES Page 2, April 13. 1969 4. Effect on property values. Mr. Palmer said it is hard to assess whether property values will be increased or decreased significantly by the cutting of trees verses preserving t ref:. He pointed out that there are many experts who will each express different views. Ms. Claussen said that In talking to the County assessor, she learned that a neighborhood that has many trees has a higher property value thin some neighborhoods that have a view. 5. Transferable clearing permits. Mr. Palmer said he did not think the next property owner should be held to the plans of the previous property owners. Mr. H. Lewis pointed out that, often, properties are purchased with existing conditions. He said he believes transferring of conditions should be allowed. Clearing is either appropriate or not. Who cares who does the clearing as ;ong as it is approved? Mr. Palmer said he questioned whether this would be workable. Ms. Block said the only way to insure that it Is passed on to the next property owner would be to make the clearing plans part of the deed. She sold sometimes even that is not read. She said that, short of that, there Is no way to insure that the clearing Information will be passed or.. Mr. Palmer inquire•i what would happen to the Bond when the permits are transferred. Ms. Block said the bonds can be substituted by the second owner to release the first property owner's bond. Its. Block said the staff has had a problem in the post when the land has changed ownership during or after cmnpletiod of the subdivision process. One of the most drastic tree clearing problew•+s occurred In this type of situation. Mr. Allen said he found in Draft 2 of the clearing ordinance where the Board recoe nded a 10 working day processing time for clearing permits. Ms. Block suggested that the Board use the wording from SEPA that, 'the permit shall ge.ierally be reviewed within 15 working d¢ys.' The Board agreed to this wordsng- Mr. H. Lewes said that the application requirements do not mention anything about environmental checklists. He requested that this be included. Ms. Ph II " p S inquired if the no could be placed at the ma )or intersections if there Is going to be a large clearing rather than just around the property. She suggested that changing the City's notification policy rather than changing the ordinance would be the appropriate way to handle this suggestion. Mr. Palmer reconaended the following minor changes to the draft ordinance: 1. Page 2, Iten B: The chapter number is incorrect, it should be 20.10. Mr. Bowan agreed to make this change. 2. Include in the ordinance a phrase about the Architectural Design Board applying the standards of this chapter. The Board concurred that this addition should be taken. 3. Page 6, Item B.2: Mr. Palmer recommended that the words 'environmentally sensitive site' should be changed to 'designated areas listed an the envlrormen Lr Ily sensitive areas map.' Ms. Claussen pointed out that the wording should be left as it currently Is because some environmentally sensitive areas within the City are not listed In the envirormentally sensitive map. The Board agreed to leave this section as is. c. Page 7, Item F: Mr. Palmer pointed out that the word 'with' needs to be added between the words -comply' and 'Intent.' S. Page 7, Item C: Mr Palmer suggested that the phrase. 'unl K: otherwise approved by the staff, no clearing shall be performed Outside of regular business hours of the City of Edmonds' be added to this it,.. Ms. Claussen agreed because a lot can happen on the weekend when there is no one for the neighbors to contact. Ms. Claussen suggested that the Item be changed to ' . . Specific dates• tiers, and/or seasons when _ The Board agreed to Ms. Claussen's suggested Chang!. M;. CLAUSSEN MOVED. SECONDED By MR. ALLEN. TO WEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. WITH MS. PHILLIPS OPPOSING THE MOT1011, MR. PALMER MOVED. SECONDED By MS. CLAUSSER TO RICOMMENO THE COUNCIL APPROVE CDC-2-99 WITH THE CHANGES 11401LATED TONIGHT. PLANNING HOARD MIMMS Page 9. April 26. 19" theemelves and they have &crass ud planalmii rights to the tide land% which the City does not. W. SerNel Hla the City uemTd ]mar& access to the beach for public vie through the grant if the Impron#gm mte wen mik tN eenjwK%ton with transient mbera" farther put. The City Cannot take the great exam, to aC"Ire IN ieaM without establishing the trmntlemt moorage. Mr. Palmer lnpmired If arlem 10 the City Ms A&d any Centaet with the Mderion Family on their desire to be bought Out. Ile. Bernet tall mot that be !nowt about. v' -mar[:444`^ 11 v" ou..v au vas ny avaitw�.� t •nit au gun. concerns about PeopI@ winllnq to lop lraes.v He a .d Pat would Ilk. to see the loard�add tone I orgua ge to this Item that would prohlbl, topping. Tho Board agreed on the following chin;# to the item: 'The applicant may prune branches and roots, fertilize, and water at horticulturally a ODroFriaYa for any trees and/or ground cover which ere t0 be retained." The Board polnted out three typographical errors: Page S Item 6.9. remove 'of,' page 6 Item A. change 'clear' to 'clewing,' page 2 Item I was deleted but the numbering was not changed.' Mr. Mathias Inquired to whom this ordinance would apply. Mr. Bowman said It app.let to everyone in the Cl ty. He referred to page a where the permit section is fvund. Mr. Mathias su;gested that this section should De placed at the beginning of the document. The Board agreed to the fo l low 1.9 rearrangement: ` 1, purpose `!Ij 2. Administering Authority 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES I Page J, April 13, 1989 t+` i.. Mr. Palmer suggested the following be Included Ina cover letter to the City Council: •:•:t•��z. 7. �.✓/ 1. That all of the recommendations regarding trees be sent to the Council together. �I 2. That the fines collected be used for the City's flower program, or, 1f It.1s fully funded, _. x the street tree program, If It is fully funded, the park beautification program. Y i J. That pe nit rates be set at a rate consistent with 100 percent recovery of the cost to administer tMs permit process. r a Mr. H. Lewis suggested that the permit be free because it 1s Intended to be for the benefit of the public. That is what the citizens pay taxes for. Mr. Nordquist agreed. ._ Mr. H. Lewis said he Is ct•Icerned about the single family hones-ner who falls into the category ' of having to pay for a permit. Ms. Block suggested that it v wld be possible to exempt these people from the fee. >� s Mr. Palner said that the reason he wants to see a full recovery fee is that he cannot see y_ requiring a single featly homeowner to pay extra taxes to pay for this permit. _ Mr. H. Lewis felt that the clearing permit is a community benefit. t MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board decided not to recommend any fee permit recovery. They did agree to the other two i recommendations to be included to a cover letter to the Council. MP.. NORDOUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 PM. MOTION CARRIED. S i f S i' i 7I i i PLAMINL BOARD MINUTES ': i•;*;+�►`;:. -• Page 10. Wil 26. 19" . '�r•`..t-.tiy,-- ��LL� ' I 0 0 Mr. HIM saki that that Idsltlam of the laraelee/r Mel�tr toss 0110W baeaese of the IwrBet i cvu. Me said that this left a 9" in tste forks 04 Mcraatlem Divlstssst anted pets too, welt i brrdo en the hrb 1Yiyger to Ks7ar+ that frmctlom. He sold 1f tlterI 1s aqy hMHaI avaiiabie Is the fetmrtt Be Woe d llkr to henna that i"Itlom rti doted. Mr. D. LeWls In eirlrtd If W. Baemms world nthar haw the PTNrtt" Bleard %&male tM paresproblems K Weald ow like to hen a +;ante teary to taladie parks Issue. Mr. Mrmes said % felt the Parts Dlvlstom could famttfoa tke ran it in, ibmever, he said son clear-cwt e guidelines from the Nerd voutd to iM1oMl at" rith sam tfue frames. � �r�i C' T i OF E M ■Ye O N o S LARRY S_ NAUGHTEN 250 5I11 AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 9W20. (206) 771.3202 4AY0R HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING MULMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL File: AP-21-88 OF ROY AND JOAN GEISELMAN OF AN EDMONDS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DECISION: The appeal is denied. INTRODUCTION On August 12, 1988, the City of Edmonds Planning Department (hereinafter "Department") issued a decision that cedar trees along the western property line of 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020, do not constitute a hedge and thus are not regulated by the height restrictions of ECDC 17.30.000. On August 26, 1988, Roy and Joan Geiselman, 700 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020, (hereinafter referred to as Appel- lants), filed an appeal of the Department's decision of August 12, 1988. A hearing on this appeal was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds on October 6, 1988. At the hearing the following•• presented testimony and evidence: Duane Bowman Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Sharon Marlow 660 Birch Street Edmonds, WA -98020 Marion Roy 830 Alder Edmonds, WA 98020 Roy Geiselman 700 Birch Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Cassandra Larson 650 Birch Street Edmonds, WA 98020 31 '11P-ft1<-LNG EXAMIN" ' DECISION RE: AP-21-88 _j/28/88 Page 2 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the record: Exhibit 1 -- Staff Report 2 - Appeal 3 - Schipanski Letter of 8/12/88 " 4 - Photographs " 5 - Daniel Rudolph Letter " 6 - Notebook of Geiselman " 7 - 9 / 15 Letter " 8 - Marlow Letter After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appellant and the Appellant; and evidence elicited during the public hearing; and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. On June 24, 1988,.the Department received a complaint that the hedge located along the driveway of 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington; and, the cedar trees located on the rear yard of the east property line of the same property were in violation of the Provisions of ECDC 17.30.000 which restricts the height of fences and hedges to six feet, unless a conditional use permit is ob- tained. (Bowman Testimony) 2. On July 12;- 1988, the code enforcement technician for the Department informed the property owners at 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington, that the hedge on the east property line was to be trimmed to a maximum height of 6 feet.. This work was completed. The cedar trees were not cut. (Bowman Testimony) 3. On August 121., 1988, the code enforcement technician sent a letter to the Appellants stating that the cedar trees along the eastern property line do not constitute a hedge and therefore are not subject to the height restrictions of ECDC 17.30.000. (Exhibit 3) 4. The Appellants filed an appeal of the Department's decision of August 12, 1988. (Exhibit 3) 5. The Appellant is a registered professional engineer with 38 years of experience in botany, landscaping, forest management and horticulture. He served 23 years with the State of Illinois HEARING EXAMII RE: AP-21-88 Page 3 I DECISION 10/28/88 Department of Conservation, Division Forestry, Game Management and Fisheries. Illinois State Conservation Engineer during his career. He is an expert on vegetation, (Roy Geiselman Testimony) 6. ECDC 21.40.020 defines hedge as: of Parks, Memorials, He was the Chief the last six years of hedges, screens, etc. "A fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees." (ECDC) 8. The cedar trees at issue have been planted 3 to 8 feet apart. They are on the east property line of 660 Birch Street and are close to the west property line of the Appellants. There is a six foot high fence on the Appellant's west property line. (Bowman Testimony) 9. There are a few branches located on the cedar trees below the height of the fence. The trees will grow to approximately 200 feet in height as mature trees. (Bowman Testimony) 10. The Department's position is that the cedar trees do not constitute a hedge because they are not a dense row of shrubs nor a low tree. Because of the height of these trees, the Department contended that they do not qualify as a low tree and are not subject to the restrictions of ECDC 17.30.000. (Bowman Testimony) 11. The Appellahts' submitted that the height limits for fences and hedges were adopted by the Edmonds City Council to preserve views and to prevent detrimental effects to nearby properties. (Geiselman Testimony) 12. The Appellants submitted that Webster's Dictionary's defini- tion of "hedge" means a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees. Fence is defined in the ECDC as something which obstructs the clear view of any angle. Thus, according to the Appellants, these definitions indicate that the height re- strictions for fences and hedges also have been enacted to prevent obstruction of views. Only with the use of a conditional use permit can these height restrictions be waived. (Geiselman Testimony) 13. The Appellants submitted that a conditional use permit would allow neighbors to negotiate compromise and variations of the height restrictions. (Geiselman Testimony) NI HEARING EXAMIr-R DECISION RE: A.P-21-88 _0/28/88 Page +4 14. According to the Appellants, the cedars, Western Red Cedars, are planted and shaped as a hedge or an extension of the fence on the west property line. Thus, according to the Appellants cedars are subject to a six foot height restriction. the 15. The Appellants: submitted that the ECDC does not specify the species or types of trees that are considered low growing or high growing. Further, according to -the Appellants, the word growing is not defined in the ECDC. (Geiselman Testimony) 16. The Appellants submitted that the trees can be considered low growing trees because they are less than 1.0% of their ordinary height and are planted in a dense row. The dense row of trees blocks views and lights and is detrimental to nearby properties. (Geiselman Testimony) 17. The Appellants submitted that any dense row of low trees that forms a fence or boundary that obstructs the view from any angle is a hedge and subject to the restrictions of ECDC 17.30.000. 1$- The Appellants submitted that the cedar trees are an aerial or post -hedge, commonly used to extend or add height to a fence and that Western red cedars are one of the most popular coniferous hedges in the Pacific Northwest. (Geiselman Testimony) 19- The Appellants submitted a notebook that described and depicted in detail their arguments. The notebook included a site plan, a description of the species' height, branch spread, trunk diameter and trunk distance of the trees on the east boundary of 660 Birch Street; a typical section of a house and tree hedge; numerouPhotographs showing the trees in question and 'the Appel- lants' property and surrounding properties; references, including articles from Sunset magazine, Basic Garden Illustrated, Year Around Gardening, The Garden Hook, and other references; and a detailed summary of all letters and correspondence with the City of Edmonds. In addition, the Applicants' exhibit included cita- tions from the ECDC and excerpts -.from Webster's Dictionary, Roget's Thesaurus, and excerpts from the City of Seattle's zoning codes. (Exhibit 6) 20. A witness (Marlow) testified to be the owner of the property at 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington. She contended that she had lived in the house for 24 years and had planted the cedar seedlings over the course of the last 22 years. They are planted 18 inches from the fence and are currently 18 - 20 feet tall. They are cone -shaped trees. She submitted that if they are reduced to 6 feet there would be nothing but tree trunks because the branches do not start below the 6 foot fence line. She #%r HEARING EXAMIN' DECISION RE: AP-21-88 _,/28/88 Page 5 supported the Department's interpretation of the definition of the word "hedge" and the refusal to enforce the height restrictions of ECDC 17.30.000. [Marlow Testimony) 21. A witness (Larson) submitted that the Appellant had at times cut the cedar trees, causing them to bush and therefore create more of a hedge appearance. She testified to be in oPposition to the appeal. (Larson) 22. A witness (Roy) submitted that the trees are a row of trees and cannot be considered a hedge. (Roy Testimony) 23. A witness (Cassandra Larson) submitted.that if these cedars are considered a hedge that must be reduced to 6 feet, then other trees in the area will also have to be reduced. (Larson Testimony) CONCLUSIONS 1. The City of Edmonds Planning Department issued an adminis- trative decision on ,August 12, 1988, stating that cedar trees along the eastern property boundary of 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington, do not constitute a hedge as defined in ECDC 21.40.020. 2." The trees are Western cedar trees that are considerably higher than 6 feet. These trees will grow to a maturity of 150 - 200 feet. 3. The cedar trees cannot be considered a dense row of shrubs and do not qualify as a hedge for such purposes. 4. The trees are not low trees and do not constittrte a hedge. 5. The provisions of ECDC 17.30.000 general height restrictions do not apply for the Western cedar•.trees on 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington. These restrictions do not apply because the Western cedar trees on the eastern property boundary of 660 Birch Street are not a fence or a hedge. DE(_TSTM Based upon the preceding findings of facts and conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the appeal of Roy and Joan Geiselman from the �f3 RE: AP-21-88-�/28/88 Page 6 City of Edmonds administrative determination that the cedar trees along the eastern property boundary of property located at 660 Birch Street, Edmonds, Washington, do not constitute a hedge and are not subject to the height restrictions for fences or hedges as set forth in ECDC 17.30.000, is denied, and, the City's adminis- trative decision is upheld. COMMENTS As noted in the Findings of this Decision, the Appellants presen- ted an exhaustive and well -prepared argument that the Western cedar trees along the eastern property boundary of 660 Birch Street constitute a hedge and are subject to the height restric- tions of ECDC 17.30.000 for fences and hedges. During my tenure as Hearing Examiner I have never had an Applicant or Appellant give a more orderly and exhaustive presentation. It is obvious that Mr. Geiselman is an expert in his field and knows significant amounts about trees, hedges, shrubbery, etc. However, I have ruled against Mr. Gei.selman's appeal because x do not agree with his conclusion that the Western cedar trees on the eastern pro- perty boundary of 660 Birch Street constitute a hedge as defined in the ECDC. The compelling evidence for me in this matter was the fact that at maturity the Western cedar trees reach elevations of 150 to 200 feet. The trees in question, having been planted over the course of the last 22 years, have reached elevations well in excess. of 6 feet. They are not shrubs, and they are not low trees, and thus they do not constitute a hedge which is a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees. If anything, these trees can be considered high growing trees. 4 Further compelling testimony was that if the trees were to be reduced to a 6 foot height limit what will result will be a row of tree stumps. This obviously is not the intent ofathe definition of hedges. Further, it is ludicrous to believe that the City would enact a height restriction of 6 feet for Western cedars which, if enforced, would result in nothing but dead tree trunks. The City's administrative decision of August 12,. 1988 is correct and the Appellants' appeal of this decision is denied. DONE AND DATED this 28th day of October, 1988. S M. RISCOLL aring Examiner N4 filed as a separate action from the previous street vacation request in the event the application was denied. On January 4, 1990, the Hearing Examiner /street is hearing on the street vacation request along with the PRO and other related applThe Hearing Examiner issued his report on January 20, 1990 recommending approval of tacation request, subject to the conditions listed in his report. If the City Council approved ST-3-89, his street vacation request would be moot. If street vacation request ST-3-89 were dens Staff recommended approval of the street vacation request ST-4-89, subject to conditions. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SE DED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THE COUNCIL DEEM ST-4-89 TO BE MOOT, GIVEN THAT THE COUNCI ACATED THE ST-3-89 PROPERTY WITH CONDITIONS. MOTION CARRIED. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED 10 AD d PRD SUBDIVISION N R l M D L D. PRE7_ - N H HS N �ti AGENDA - - COUNCILMEMBER li TRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE ITEM (p). MOTION CAR— RIED WITH COU ILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY d Y L PMEN C D R G Hn ❑ ur_ un .., .... _.. Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman reported that on April 26, 1989, the Planning Board held a public hearing on a proposed Cade amendment which would establish new regulations governing tree cutting and clearing in Edmonds. He said the development of these proposed regulations emanated from several months of public meetings and hearings. Mr. Bowman said the Planning Board recommendation was reviewed by members of the Community Servic- es Committee who then referred the matter to the City Council. lie noted that the Planning Board recommendation includes retention of existing City policies regarding .tree cutting on public property and sets forth new regulations for tree cutting and clearing on private property. Mr. Bowman said it is Staffs recommendation to adopt the Planning Board recommendations and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Contrary to what some people believe, Mr. Bowman said the proposed ordinance does not prohibit the cutting of trees but encourages more responsible action. Mr. Bovmran reviewed sections of Chapter 18.45 - Land Clearing and Tree Cutting. He noted that the administrative authority of the Code would be the City's Planning Division Manager or his/her designee. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the proposed ordinance was initiated to address indiscriminate clearing by developers. Mr. Bowman replied negatively. He said it encompasses not only undevel- oped lands but lands that are designated as environmentally sensitive and that have n❑ permit Process. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if a map exists that depicts the envirann�entally Berm tive areas_ nsi- Mr. Bowman replied affirmatively. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if a person would be restricted from cutting a tree in an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Bowman said a person would not automatically be restricted from cutting a tree but would have to obtain a permit to do SO. He said the Planning Board did not recommend topping of trees as an appropriate method of pruning and discussed replacing a tree with another species if it is to be removed. Councilmem- ber Hertrich questioned the viability of Staff surveying all of the trees in the City. Mr. Bow- man said staff does not intend to survey all of the trees. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Bowman said it is not the intent of the proposed ordinance to require individual single family home owners to obtain a clearing permit on a steep lot if they fall within the parameters included in the exemption section. For the public's benefit, Councilmember Jaech requested Mr. Bowman to clarify the issue of prun- ing fruit trees. Mr. Bowman said pruning of fruit trees is considered routine maintenance and is exempt from the ordinance. Councilmember Kasper inquired about penalties. Mr. Bowman said a penalty would be assessed on the day that a viDlatioR occurred up to a maximum of $10,000. Councilmember Kasper inquired how Staff will determine when a violation has been rectified other than by replanting of a tree. Mr. Bowman replied when a remedy for replanting a tree has been submitted to the City. E)(A I S (T 6A EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 MARCH 6, 1990 Councilmember Kasper did not feel the public had an opportunity to review the proposed ordi- nance. lie suggested that it be placed in public areas for review and that the proceeding before the Council be considered as a first hearing. Councilmember Kasper expressed concern with the language in the definition section, because he said it is not the same language that is used in the industry or by the general public and it is confusing. Councilmember, Kasper thought the proposed ordinance should be reviewed in-depth, and the Council should consider view lots and lots without views as separate issues. Councilmember Dwyer inquired what limitations would be written into the ordinance so that every tree that is removed is not fined up to $10,000. Mr. Bowman said the monetary fine is intended to penalize a developer who willfully cuts down trees without obtaining the necessary permits. He said the violations and penalties section can be rewritten if it is unsatisfactory to the Council. He said that section is not directed to a single family home owner who cuts down a tree on his lot without being aware that he lives in an environmentally sensitive area. Councilmember Jaech inquired how the ordinance addresses the preservation of view corridors for a project under construction in which landscaping has not been planted yet. Mr. Bowman said it has been recommended that the ADD review that issue when a project comes before them. He said the Planning Board recently submitted a recommendation to the Council with respect to fences and hedges that will address the view issue. Mr. Bowman said the City has no control over a single family residence unless it is located in a subdivision or PRD and the owner of the property subdi- vision or PRO agrees to institute a private restrictive covenant. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the ADB has a list of trees that will grow to a certain height for which they can recommend for a landscape plan for a project that is before them for review. Mr. Bowman replied negative- ly. He noted, however, that the Planning Board recommended to the Council adoption of a land- scape policy by the ADD. In response to a question by Councilmember Wilson, City Attorney Scott Snyder said the City has discussed, with respect to a subdivision. identifying view corridors and imposing both view ease- ments and appropriate growth easements that restrict species of trees to a specific growth pat- tern. Councilmember Palmer pointed out that the idea that the public does not know about the proposed ordinance was incorrect because hearings were held over a period of a year and a half at the Planning Board level, numerous newspaper articles were written. and a recommendation has been before the Council for approximately a year. Councilmember Palmer inquired if there was flexibility for the Planning Division Manager in impos- ing solely up to the to Planning anning D000 on ivision iManageal rto decide whatramou t lied affirmatively. poseebased uponsaid the severity of the violation. Councilmember Wilson did not believe the proposed ordinance would accomplish much because prob- lems exist that the ordinance does not address. He said controls must be placed on developers, but he said the community will not be impacted a great deal because individual property owners allow trees on their property to grow "abusively, lowering property values for their neighbors". He said the City also allows trees on City property to grow to excessive heights. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist opened the public portion of the hearing. Jack Bevin, 19210 - 94th W., forester, said the liability of damage to neighboring property would be considerable if the City requires that certain trees be retained in an area that will be exten- sively cleared. He said topped trees are also dangerous in windstorms because the limbs branch out at the top and eventually create an even larger tree. Kurt Dunphy, 1126 "B" Ave., said he has not heard any discussion regarding the policy of changes to public land or regarding the blockage of a neighbor's view by a tree on an adjacent property in which the owner of the tree does not want to remove it. Mr. Dunphy said the $10,000 fine does not seem excessive to him, especially since it is aimed at developers who have a lot of money. Mr. Dunphy said the corrections to the abuses mentioned by Councilmember Wilson would result in abuses to other people. * See Council Minutes of March 20, 1990 PageEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 MARCH 6, 1990 Richard Slettvet, 21027 Shell Valley Rd., was of the opinion that the public had many opportuni- ties to review the proposed ordinance because he said it was passed unanimously by the Planning Board after three months of hearings. Mr. Slettvet said the City of Lynnwood had a tree cutting ordinance in effect for several years Hedsaid,1 however, atthescity rewrote•thetordiinan od not rave any dinance last year to Penalties penaltieselopers ignored it. Mr. Slettvet said a developer should have the option of clearing trees on a parcel if they are undesirable but should be required, in turn, to replant the area to mitigate the effect of mass clearing. He said the landscaping plan should be bonded to insure that it will be implemented. Doug Herman, 321 - 3rd Ave. N., said he would prefer that one tree be planted in place of a tree that is removed rather than up to 3 trees for every tree that is removed. Mr. Herman said construction has taken place in the City that could not otherwise have been done without the removal of trees and replanting of trees. He said if the City requires him, as a builder, to retain certain trees, he will insist that the City accept the liabili occurs if a trees falls during a windstorm, ty if damage d the that he con- structed he. were required toumaintain the driplinearound several tsently constructing he trees could not be con- ees. Mr. Herman was concerned by the delay that will result if the proposed ordinance is adopted and a review process is required to obtain permits. Mr. llernQn said the ordinance does not address the issue of view preservation if it requires that the same species of trees be planted in place of a cut tree. Mr. Herman felt the $10,000 maximum fine was excessive. Mr. Herman pointed out that the number of lots that are undeveloped in Edmonds are very few. He was hopeful that the Council will review the ordinance in-depth before taking any action. Kass Turnbull, 906 N.W. 87th, Seattle, said she was surprised that so much of the testimony given has nothing to do with the issue, view clearing. Ms. Turnbull said the proposed ordinance seems to be fairly sensible, and there is enough leeway to allow developers to conduct business in a reasonable manner. Ms. Turnbull said the penalty for violations "seemed a bit whimpy... sort of gutless". Ms. Turnbull said she was glad to see that the Planning Board recommended that topping not be considered as an appropriate pruning method. She said she sent the Board a considerable amount of literature regarding the ill effects of topping and how it is universally condemned by profes- leadatorn the field of questions of liabilityculture as not onlywhen hazardous treesaarexcreatedlthroutopping. practic in a but one which can 9 to PP 9- Bob Noack, 317 - 3rd Ave. S., 1103, said 18.45.030 (A) of the proposed ordinance should be amend- ed if the single family lot is located in a multifamily zone. He said those lots should not be exempt from the ordinance because a developer has the ability at the present time to clear the lot before an application is submitted to the City. He said 18.45.030 (I) should be revised to include multifamily development so that adequate landscaping is provided. and 18.45.050 (H)(1) should be revised to include multifamily zones. Mr. Noack felt the ADB has been hindered in their review of projects because the City allows overdevelopment of a parcel. Mr. Noack said the Council should consider in what zone trees should be preserved. He thought that a specific type of tree in view sensitive areas would solve the view problem. Mr. Noack submitted a copy of the City of Lynnwood code to Mr. Bowman. Shirley Dunphy, 1126 "B" Ave., said the penalty for violations was totally and offensively trivi- al to her. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 MARCH 6, 1990 4 1 Ms. Dunphy inquired how the proposed ordinance will affect 7th & Elm. Mr. Bowman said the Plan- ning Board has recommended that the City retain its existing resolution 418, which states that the City does not trim, top or cut down trees for view enhancement unless the tree poses a hazard to the public. Ms. Dunphy said the residents of the area adjacent to the City's property on 7th and Elm do not want the City's parcel developed or sold or trees topped. She inquired if that parcel will be "safe". Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Mr. Bowman noted that that parcel is zoned as open space. As a procedural matter. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONSIDER THE HEARING AS A FIRST HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. Jeanie Anderson, 16727 - 74th P1. W.. said she lives in a home with a view but considers her trees to be more important than a. view of the Sound. Ms. Anderson commended the Planning Board for the time and effort they have expended on the is- sue. She hoped the Council would consider their recommendations more carefully. . Ms. Anderson said she was disappointed that the proposed ordinance exempts utility maintenance. She thought the City should require that an arborist be consulted when a utility is to be in- stalled to help resolve some of the problems that trees present. Suzie Schaefer, 1055 Edmonds St., felt there was adequate notice for the hearing because she received three notices. Ms. Schaefer said the Planning Board worked very hard on the proposed ordinance, and she was in support of the document. Norm Nelson, 15729 - 75th Pl. W., said he liked trees but thought that ornamental trees would be more appropriate in areas where overgrown trees obstruct a view. He asked why the City enforces a height limitation on buildings but allows trees to grow "forever'. Stalker Buford, 958 Sprague St., suggested that the Council adopt an ordinance which prevents the planting of a tree that will obstruct a view in the future. He said he did not believe that topping of trees will solve view obstruction because topped trees grow to the same height or higher before it was topped within a relatively short period of time. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist closed the public portion of the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO HOLD THE SECOND HEARING ON THE TREE ISSUE ON MAY 15, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORI7ATION TO PURCHASE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FRO MR. AND MRS. .1 N ROWS AND MS. 144J� L R S R C L ND F R S LL R Y N /twentive ��City Engineer Bob Alberts reported that Stafa final verbal offer from Mr. and Mrs. John Rowe and Ms. Lorena Strickland to obtaiive foot temporary construction easement across their property at a cost of $9,000 pling and topsoil considerations. He said Staff believes the offer is approximately $4than the cost of comparable easements but has taken into consideration project schedulicost of condemnation. fie said because it would be in the best interest of the City tooffer, Staff recommends that the Council accept the easement. 1. O (' COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY CO�,41LMEMBER KASPER, TO ACCEPT THE EASEMENT. Councilmember Palmer inquired from wh source the funds would emanate. Mr. Alberts replied the Combined Utility Fund. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION 695 PRO ING FORMAL NOTICE OF CITY OF EDMONDS- INTENT TO WITHDRAW {RUM THE UG UN UNC L F G V M N_. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MDFj, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES op Page 11 MARCH 6, 1990 a Earl Govier, 23326 - 76th W., said he probably sees the shed more than anyone else in the neigh- borhood, and he said he has no objection to its presence. Zhave aid he uld rather see the shed than the boat with a tarp over it. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist closed the public portion of the hear Councilmember Hertrich referred to Conclusion /3 in the Heas report regarding spe- cial circumstances. Because of the steepness of the topogrit was apparent to him that special circumstances do exist and that the criteria, thbeen satisfied. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYETHE APPEAL AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE. To more specifically address the criteria, Councilmen Dwyer said the existence of special circumstances relates to the topography of the lot; ap oval of the variance would not be a grant of a special privilege because structures like the at shed exist in the City in single family zones; the proposal is consistent with the Compr nsive Plan; no testimony of any detrimental nature to the surrounding property has been giv , the variance request is the minimum necessary because it is not of a type which lends itself o automobile use but is defined strictly for the use of the boat, the shed is located in pro mitt' to the road that other structures on the lot are located, the location of the shed le s itself to the preservation of trees on site; the easement to the south provides a side yar setback. Councilmember Palmer disagreed with a comments that were made in support of the motion. He said the argument that the shed ca ' my be used for storage and cannot accommodate vehicles was a weak argument because a vehicle oul'd be parked in that structure. He said there is the poten- tial for an accident when the b t is backed into the shed and pulled out of the shed. Further, the easement to the south may of remain indefinitely. And, lastly, the variance request would be a grant of a special priv ege. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TA MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH IN AVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER PALM - ER, AND COUNCILMEMBER L50H OPP05ED. COUNCILMEMBER P R MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AND DI T THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED COUNCILMEMBER WITH RDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, AND COUNCILMEMBER CARRIED I FAVOR; COUNC EMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH OPPOSED. Councilme er Hertrich asked Mr. Snyder if the shed has to be completely removed. Mr. Snyder said no only does the shed have to be removed, but storage in that location is prohibited, as well. g5r Pro Tem Nordquist noted that an executive session will be held following the agenda to scuss a land acquisition matter. DEVELOP SECOND HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING COMMUNITY Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman reported that on March 6, 1990, the City Council held a pub- lic hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation for a proposed code amendment which would establish new regulations governing tree cutting and clearing in Edmonds. Mr. Bowman said the need for a clearing ordinance has been emphasized during the two months since the Council hearing. During that period, he said there have been at least four instances where a clearing ordinance would have prevented indiscriminate tree cutting, the most notable being on the YMCA property on 212th Street Southwest. Mr. Bowman noted that a copy of the minutes from the March 6, 1990 Council meeting and the pro- posed clearing regulations were included.in the Council packets. Mr. Bowman said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the Planning Board's recommendations and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Mr. Bowman explained that the intent of the proposed ordinance is not to prohibit people from cutting trees but to make them think about it in the process. Councilmember Hertrich inquired about the lot size that will require a permit to cut trees. Mr. Bowman reviewed titled 18.45.030, which outlined exemptions from the provisions of the chapter. E)(Alb(T SOD EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 MAY 15. 1990 4f Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the owner of a lot capable of being subdivided could claim exemption from the proposed ordinance applying item (C) of 18.45.030 - routine landscape mainte- nance and gardening. Mr. Bowman said routine maintenance could be done on a double lot, but a permit would have to be issued for any tree cutting. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if a two-year time limit in which tree cutting would be prohibit- ed on a lot that is capable of being subdivided would simplify the matter. Mr. Bowman replied negatively. He reminded Councilmember Hertrich that the intent of the ordinance is not to prohib- it tree cutting but to encourage people to selectively remove a tree. Councilmember Wilson inquired how a developer will be restricted from planting trees that will grow in excess of the 25 foot height limit. Mr. Bowman said that issue'is addressed in the ADB landscape ordinance that was recently adopted. Councilmember Wilson asked who will enforce that ordinance. Mr. Bowman said Staff will enforce it. Councilmember Wilson inquired if the develop- er of a subdivision will be required to place covenants on the land restricting the growth of a tree to a certain height. Mr. Bowman said the developer of a view lot usually institutes private restrictive covenants. Councilmember Wilson inquired if the City can require a developer to institute covenants to that effect. Mr. Bowman replied affirmatively. Councilmember .laech inquired if a permit can be issued to remove a tree that exceeds the height limit in an area that has instituted a height restriction on trees. City Attorney Scott Snyder replied affirmatively. lie suggested that the covenant governing the lots be approved by the City Council as part of the subdivision process. Councilmember Palmer said circumstances may arise where the City may want to look at a reduced fee or elimination of the fee for smaller, projects or for a lot that is capable of being subdivid- ed. Councilmember Palmer pointed out that the Planning Board has recommended that private cove- nants for new subdivisions and PRO`s should address view encroachment and problems that might restrict view corridors. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist opened the public portion of the hearing. Kathryn Peterson, 15710 - 76th Ave. W., said she lives, in an environmentally protected area. She spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance because she has observed the detrimental effect to the environment when tree cutting is not regulated. Ms. Peterson said she felt the residents in -her neighborhood have a responsibility to preserve their neighborhood not only for themselves but for the benefit of generations to come. Ms. Peterson strongly urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance. Margaret Stalker, 958 Sprague St., said she likes trees but objects to trees that are allowed to grow to excessive heights and block views. Chester Curtis, 402 - 9th Ave. S., said he was opposed to the proposed ordinance for the follow- ing reasons: 1) no one has stated a need for the ordinance. He recalled that Mayor Naughten stated earlier that most of the lots in Edmonds have already been developed. Mr. Curtis said the few lots that are not developed can be controlled by the landscaping ordinance; 2) there is no consistency in the Code with regard to height restrictions because the City allows trees to grow to excessive heights but regulates the height of buildings to 25 feet; 3) he did not believe it was a good policy to adopt an ordinance that will devalue property by retaining trees that grow to excessive heights and create view obstructions. Mr. Curtis believed the City should do all it can to protect property values and the rights of its citizens. Nancy May, 1350 - 6th Ave. S., spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. She said it was obvi- ous to her that a process is necessary to eliminate the indiscriminate cutting of trees. Ms. May said she did not believe a property owner is entitled to the same view and conditions that existed at the time he/she purchased a home. Ms. May said she did not think the proposed ordinance is a view ordinance because tree cutting is a separate issue from views. Ms. May said the quality of life in Edmonds is dependent upon a farsighted and detailed process for development. Ms. May felt more strength is needed in section 18.45.030(B) in order to prevent clearing of trees before Architectural Design Board approval is granted for a project. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES �� Page 4 MAY 15, 1990 Richard 5lettvet, 21027 Shell Valley Way, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. He said the environment is in such a state that everyone needs to make sacrifices and political decisions to start doing a better job of protecting the environment. Pat ford, 7114 - 164th St., spoke against the proposed ordinance because he said it will preclude people from retaining their views. Mr. Ford said residential property values have greatly depre- ciated in his neighborhood because unattended trees have created view obstruction. He noted that the City has imposed a height restriction on buildings, and he questioned why the City would not impose the same restriction on planted trees. Jeannie Anderson, 16727 - 74th P1. W., strongly urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance. Ms. Anderson suggested that no fee be charged to obtain a permit for the developer, as well as the single family home owner, to encourage developers to go through the process. Ms. Anderson inquired if tree cutting for installation and maintenance of public utilities would be precluded in parks or environmentally sensitive areas if the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Bowman o said the Parks Board would review that type of development, but it would not necessarily be pre- cluded from occurring. Ms. Anderson inquired about the wording on page 8 regarding topping not being an appropriate pruning method. Mr. Bowman said the Planning Board has recommended that topping of trees not be considered as a method of pruning. Hugh Gardner, 15712 - 71st Ave. W., said his view of the Sound has been completed obstructed over the years because the trees in front of his lot have grown to excessive heights. Mr. Gardner said he would appreciate it if the City took some action to protect views that have been obstruct- ed. Mr. Gardner was opposed to topping of trees. He believed trees that are excessively high should be removed and a tree planted in its place that will only grow to a certain height. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Snyder noted that the Planning Board's comments that topping is not an acceptable form of pruning related to public land, and nothing in the ordinance limits pruning methods on private property- Councilmember Palmer recommended the following amendments to the proposed ordinance; 1) require tree covenants in new subdivisions and PRD's; 2) do not charge a permit fee for one year, if the ordinance is enacted, and no permit fee thereafter for requests within a one year period to cut five or less trees that are determined by Staff to be insignificant. Councilmember Palmer said he thought it was "time to bite the bullet", and he recommended passage of the proposed- ordinance. Councilmember Hertrich said he fully supported prohibiting developers from clear cutting trees on a lot for development, but he did not believe the City should mandate what a private property owner may do on his own lot. Councilmember Hertrich recommended that a waiting period be includ- ed in the proposed ordinance, as well as a monetary fine, to deter developers from illegally cutting trees on a lot. Councilmember Dwyer noted that most of the decisiolial criteria in the proposed ordinance is phrased in terms of no more construction than necessary for the proposed development. He in- quired what wording could be written into the ordinance that would encompass that provision that does not relate it Just to proposed development. Mr. Snyder said the performance standards or the definition of routine maintenance could be' referred to. He noted that routine maintenance does not deal with removing dead or diseased trees but only to pruning or trimming. Mr. Snyder said removing trees on a larger lot for fire wood, inappropriate plantings or removing dead or diseased trees would seem to be a reasonable expansion of the code. Councilmember (Casper said the City is made up of areas that have different characteristics from one another, and the ordinance does not address each of those areas specifically. He suggested that the proposed ordinance be discussed further in a committee meeting. Councilmember Wilson noted that testimony was given that the Council has been derelict for not doing more about mitigating problems with tree heights that impact views. He explained that the courts have held that it is not within the City's power to govern that issue and so the City's hands are somewhat tied. He said the institution of a covenant on the face of a plat can quickly resolve a dispute between property owners in a civil lawsuit. Councilmember Wilson said the City EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 MAY 15, 1990 5 1 does have control, however, over trees that block views in the public right-of-way, and he recom- mended that the Council establish a process to provide relief In that instance. He also suggest- ed that interested citizens form a group to mediate a dispute between neighbors when a tree is blocking someone's view. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL JUNE 26, 1990 FOR CONTINUED DELIBERATION. Councilmember Palmer said it behooves the Council to immediately pass the concepts outlined in the ordinance and then work out the details in a work meeting. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the Council could impose a moratorium on tree cutting until the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Snyder replied negatively. He said a moratorium prevents the City from issuing a permit, and he pointed out that there is nothing in place at the present time to prohibit or require a permit. SECOND HEARING ON CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND PROPOSED ADOPTION OF ORDACE IMPLEMENTING Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that following the firs Council hearing on the recycling ordinance on April 3, the City mailed to over 9,000 househol a letter from the Mayor and the Council President announcing the May 15th hearing on recyclin and describing elements of the recycling program. Only about 20 telephone calls and a coupl of letters were received by way of public convent. Mr. Hahn said the proposed ordinance has been amended to reflec Council direction with regard to multifamily facilities for recycling. He said that partic ar element is also scheduled for discussion by the Planning Board. Mr. Hahn reviewed the of r amendments from the April 3 hear- ing as follows: prohibition of mixing of yard waste and arbage once yard waste services are available; singe family is changed to "non-multifamil ; the goals for effective dates were postponed from July 1, 1990 to September 1. Mr. Hahn noted that the County Council recently a/rotshave d the long haul option to K1lckitat County and set a tipping fee of $62 per ton for service that have implemented a recycling program and a fee of $72 per ton for service areas that do a recycling program in place. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist opened the public portio/of the hearing. James Chapman, 23321 - 75th Ave. W., spoke n favor of the ordinance because he said it will encourage people to recycle who do not recy e at the present time. Mr. Chapman said plastics are one of t major problems- in' the waste stream, and he urged that the section of the proposed ordinance dressing plastics be strengthened to the effect that the City and the hauler shall together ag essively work to find a marketplace to institute recycling of plastic materials. Mr. Chapman said the section of a proposed ordinance that refers to the City recycling its own materials is vague. He suggest that the City limit its use of utensils to paper utensils in- stead of/Caspers. tic and that the ty publish all its literature on recyclable paper. Mr. Chalso suggested at the haulers provide an annual report to the City with regard to the succte of the pr ram. Judith G, 1010 Bra re Dr., said she fully supports the recycling program. She felt the cost of ing shoo be borne by everyone. Because rogra s a new program in Edmonds and not everyone is accustomed to recycling. Ms. Gorman sted at incentives be provided. She thought a credit system for a full recycling bin and n a garbage bin will encourage people to participate. Ms. Gormthe issue of plastics needs to -be addressed more specifically and that a market- place focling of those materials should be -more aggressively sought. Joan Gie07 Caspers. said the City-funded.recycling information cart is located in Dayton Place an soon have the City's logo on it and information that the City has funded it. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 MAY 15, 1990 5 &- Councilmember Kasper said he /ed ot believe the right- -way should be vacated until the Shell Creek project is completed anissue should not a discussed until that time. Community Services Director Peter Hahn nthat the ordinanc specifies that the right-of-way will not be vacated until the project isleted. Counci ember Kasper inquired why the value of the right-of-way needs to be detd at the pre nt time. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said Ms. Cox purchase thperty adjac t to the right-of-way and has requested that the amount of compensation be reduCouncilm er Kasper noted that the utilities are not located within the right-of-way, and hetioned a reason to retain the easement. City Attorney Scott Snyder notat tters of compensation should be referred to the Hearing Examiner to make a recommendato he Council, and a public hearing should be scheduled to determine the value of the righy.COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR ADJUDICATION. MOTARRIED. COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING M Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that this item was continued by the City Council from the public hearing on May 15, 1990. The Planning Board recommendation and minutes from the May 15th Council meeting were included in the Council packets. ti Councilmember liertrich said the intent of the proposed ordinance is to prevent developers clear cutting a site. H� e believed a "rooting period" should be included in the once from said a rooting period would require a developer who has clear cut a site to replant vegetation and that a specified period of time go by to insure that the plantings have rooted. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that a rooting period would deter developers from premature- ly clearing a site of vegetation before applying for the proper permits. He said there are a number of permit processes for which the City cannot arbitrarily establish waiting periods after cutting vegetation and before a development application. However, under SEPA and general ration- al governmental purposes, the City could establish a process that requires a person who has prema- turely cut vegetation to go to the Architectural Design Board so they can review and approve neighborhood buffering and dust erosion control measures and require those to be implemented and that a reasonable rooting period take place to insure that neighborhoods will be buffered when development occurs. He noted that that administrative review and site restoration period would be between six months to one year. Councilmember Kasper was concerned with the City's ability to impose such an administrative peri- od. He noted that there are many areas in the City that vary in characteristic, and one area may value trees where another area values a view of the water. He thought the ordinance should take into consideration the different characteristics and be applied accordingly. Councilmember Kas- per was also concerned that the wording to the proposed ordinance is confusing, and citizens are under the impression that it will restrict a private owner of a large lot from cutting a single tree. He recommended that the issue be remanded to the Planning Board for further review. Coun- cilmember Wilson concurred. He said the ordinance should also address view corridors. Councilmember Palmer said the overall concept of the proposed ordinance is incredibly valuable, and he did not "want to throw the baby out with the bath water". COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH FOR DISCUSSION, TO PASS THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS; 1) IN THE PERMIT SECTION ON PAGE 2, ADJUST THE LANGUAGE SUCH THAT THE TRIGGER LEVEL WOULD BE LAND PARCELS OF ONE ACRE OR GREATER; 2) ADJUST 18.45.030(8) SUCH THAT PRD'S WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE COVENANTS ESTABLISHING TREE HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS; 3) DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE ESTABLISHING A PERIOD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND SITE RESTORATION. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE SECOND SENTENCE IN 18.45.030(H)(6) REGARDING TOPPING. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED WITH COUNCIL - MEMBER DWYER AND COUNCILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED. Mr. Snyder advised the Council, if the Council wished to approve the ordinance with a new substan- tive, amendment, to refer the ordinance to the Planning Board. Councilmember Palmer disagreed that the administrative period is a new substantive issue. He said he was heavily involved with the proposed ordinance at the Planning Board level, and a waiting period or administrative period was discussed at length. He pointed out that 18.45.075(D) specifically calls for a period of administration. EXAMIT4co EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 June 26, 1990 C3 Councilmember Kasper requested a roll call vote on the amendment. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEM BER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER. AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER DWYER AND COUN CILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED. At the request of Councilmember Hertrich, Councilmember Palmer explained that the Architectural Design Board would not be able to approve a PRD plan unless it included covenants. establishing tree height limits to protect views. Councilmember Hertrich said the proposed ordinance protects existing trees whereas Councilmember Palmer's motion regarding PRD's addresses new plantings to protect view corridors. Councilmember Palmer disagreed. He said he was simply recommending that the City exercise its authority to control view issues in PRD's. Councilmember Hertrich believed that'view issues in PRD's should not be included in the proposed ordinance because they are a separate issue from tree cutting. Councilmember Dwyer said he would vote against the motion because he could foresee the City "be- coming a City full of tree police climbing along people's balconies and trying to see what you can and can't see (with respect to views) and deciding, then, whether you can or cannot cut the tree". He said the City has met its match on its ability to regulate, and he did not believe the existing or proposed ordinance fully addresses the issue of trees. Mayor Naughten said the issue is confusing, but there must be some controls in place to provide protection to people who want to preserve their views as well as to people who love trees. Councilmember Jaech inquired if lots less than an acre in size would be exempt from the proposed ordinance if the language referencing lots of one acre or greater was included. Mr. Snyder re- plied affirmatively, regardless of ownership, use, or inning. Because there was confusion regarding the definition of developed and undeveloped lots, Council - member Hertrich read sections 18.45.050(E) and (M) of the proposed ordinance into the record. He said he lives on a partially developed lot that is capable of being subdivided but, in his opin- ion, a one acre parcel of flat land does not fall into either one of the categories. He suggest- ed that the proposed ordinance include wording to the effect of a partially developed lot always having a structure on it in which someone resides. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUN- CILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH OPPOSED; COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINED BECAUSE HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SINGLE LOT OR A DOUBLE LOT. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO REFER THE ORDINANCE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON. TO PASS THE ORDINANCE BUT CHANGE THE EXEMPTION FLOOR FIGURE TO ONE ACRE PARTIALLY DEVELOPED, AND EXCLUDE THE SECTION REGARDING COVENANTS IN PRO'S AND INCLUDE WORDING ON PERIOD FOR ADMINISTRATION, REVIEW AND SITE RESTORA- TION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEM- BER JAECH AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED. In order to allow the Council to discuss the issue at more length, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO MOVE CDC-2-89 TO THE AUGUST 28, 1990 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER OPPOSED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR G0977M= AUTHORIZING: APPLICATION COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION Parks & Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde sal he Mayor discussed the possible sale of a lot with the owner of a lot on the waterfront but a owner is not interested in selling until perhaps {, August. She said there is a parcel of nd for sale, however, at 264 Beach Place for $695,000 that is 25x60 feet, is zoned commercial aterfront, has a 25 foot wide beach side an a 760 square �Q foot cottage. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONK BYCOCOUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO SUBMIT THE HENNING PROPERTY FOR THE IAC GRANT. MOTION FAIL WITH UNCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCI MBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUN- CILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED/TO SUBMIT THE PROPERTY AT 264 BEACH PLACE FOR THE IAC GRANT. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECON EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 June 26, 1990 5 f aeration basins is underway. Installation of piping and mechanical equipment ongoing in the aeration basins and RAS/WAS pumping station. Mr. Benges said change order number 8 in the amount of $39,301 has been neg iated with the con- tractor. The change order includes 17 miscellaneous items. Major than items include 7 site utilities modifications equalling $20,000, and modification of the dewat ed sludge hopper mixer motor from 5 Hp to 10 Hp. Mr. Benges said status of the meter station construction project yfmains unchanged since last month. The contractor has completed construction activities and isyforking on contract closeout. Mr. Benges noted that the architect has prepared a design for a plaque that will be placed in the operations center. He said the design will be submitted the Council for approval in the near future. Councilmember Kasper inquired how the plaque w" be funded. Mr. Benges said that cost was included in the contract. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist thanked Mr. Benges for his preseKyyAttorney's tion. Mayor Pro Tem Nordquist introduced Jim Haney from the C' office. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2792 AMENDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPM56T CODE TO ESTABLISH LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR On May 1, 1990 the City Council voted to appr❑ an amendment to the Edmonds Community Develop- ment Code (ECOC) establishing landscape Stan rds for use by the Architectural Design Board ADB). Included in the Council packets wer a copy of the proposed ordinance and the minutes from the May 1 and May 29, 1990 Council meet' gs. Councilmember Hertrich recalled that on y 29 the Council discussed imposing a maximum height for individual species of trees. He P, inted out that that provision was not included in the proposed ordinance and he recommended is inclusion. Councilmember Palmer noted that the pro- posed ordinance does make reference t the growth pattern of a tree in item (P) on page 5. Coun- cilmember Hertrich expressed concer that someone reading the ordinance may not be aware that there is a height restriction becau section 20.12.015, which precedes item (P), makes no refer- ence to height limits. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SNDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH FOR DISCUSSION, TO INJECT THE WORD- ING OF 20.12.020(P) IN SECTION 12.015. Councilmember Kasper noted at the ADB has always had the ability to require that a tree be maintained at a certain h ght but neither they nor Staff have enforced that. Councilmember Jaech said that is a diff ent issue than is before the Council and it should be discussed at a later date. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUXCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER DWYER OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH VED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2792, AS AMENDED, AMENDING THE COMMU Y DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL N DESIGN BOARD. MOT CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED BECAUSE HE SAID THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DOES OT IMPOSE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON THE GROWTH OF TREES. �✓ EXECUTIVE SESSI - REPORT FROM CABLE TV CONSULTANT The Council cessed to an executive session at 7:21 p.m. to hear the report from the Cable TV Consultant, s well as a litigation matter from the City Attorney, and reconvened at 8:11 p.m. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF EDMONDS CONTINUED FROM JUNE 26 DELIBERATION AND SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 15 1990 111 " Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that this item was heard by the City Council on May 15, 1990 and on June 26, 1990. One section of the proposed ordinance, Section 18.45.075, has been modified to establish clearer guidelines for redress for clearing without a permit. Ms. Block said much of the discussion on the proposed code amendment has centered around its impact on developed single family lots. The ordinance specifically exempts developed single family lots except when a portion of the property is located in an environmentally sensitive area. A clearing permit would be required only for clearing in the environmentally sensitive area. PY MIS IT G D 2 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page Page 2 AUGUST 28, 1990 Ms. Block said the purpose for the code amendment is to prevent indiscriminate clearing on unde- veloped or partially developed residential and commercial properties and in environmentally sensi- tives areas. It is not intended to address view impact. Ms. Block noted that the modified clearing ordinance amendment, the minutes from the Council meetings and a memorandum from Bill Allen, Planning Board Chairman, were included in the Council packets. Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the modified clearing ordi- nance amendment and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Councilmember Wilson urged the Council to require covenants on any project that has view impac- tion from trees which states that no tree can grow to the point that it obstructs the view. Councilmember Hertrich suggested that that issue be discussed as a separate item by the Planning Board because he thought the proposed ordinance should be as clear and concise as possible. Councilmember Palmer concurred. In response to Councilmember Kasper, Ms. Block stated that the owner of a residential lot would be required to obtain a permit to cut down a tree on an undeveloped lot. Councilmember Wilson recommended that the Council define the size of a single family lot to which the ordinance would apply. Ms. Block said the proposed ordinance defines a developed lot as not capable of being subdivid- ed. She noted that a lot that is capable of being subdivided is addressed in the ordinance. Councilmember Palmer suggested an exemption from the Code for residentially -zoned property that is 20,000 square feet or less. Councilmember Wilson thought the lot size should be at least 1/2 acre or 2/3 of an acre. Councilmember Kasper inquired how the Meadowdale area would be affected if such -an exemption were allowed. Ms. Block said a majority of the Meadowdale area would be exempt because many of the lots are 20,000 square feet. She suggested that a certain size lot in each zone be exempted if the Council wanted to integrate the size of a parcel with specific zoning. Councilmember Jaech cautioned the Council not to exempt lots that are under 20,000 square feet if they are lots that are contiguous with one another and under the ownership of one person because there is a potential that each lot could be individually clear cut. She used her own property as an example because her home is on four of the downtown undersized lots which are contiguous but only comprise two standard building lots. She could foresee how a similar situation could be misused. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER FOR DISCUSSION, TO ADOPT THE RECOM- MENDED ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: UNDER EXEMPTIONS ON PAGE 2, REVISE LINE "A" SUCH THAT CLEARING ON UNDEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT ARE 26.600 SQUARE FEET OR UNDER ARE AN OUT- RIGHT EXEMPTION; CLEARING ON PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IS EXEMPT EXCEPT FOR ITEMS 1, 2 AND 3 THAT ARE LISTED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. The Council discussed the feasibility of not allowing the exemption for a 26,600 square foot lot if a lot owner submits an application for a building permit. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REVISE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COUNCIL VOTES ON THE MOTION AND ALLOWS STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE COUNCIL'S AC- TION, AND THEN SET A PU8LIC HEARING. THE SECONDER AGREED. MOTION CARRIED. A public hearing was scheduled on October 16, 1990. REVIEW OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONANSULTANT, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR J��JU SIGN N R CT WITH LC M MANAG MENT CONCEPTS �,�Steven Perry, Chairman of the Telephone Committe reported that the Committee has screened the L� applications of telecommunication consultants fr a number of companies from around the Pacific Northwest. He said the Committee feels that com Management Concepts of Federal Way will best serve the City. They employ a staff of co ltants that are very experienced in the field and who have performed similar tasks for a numb of other municipalities in the area. He noted that the City Attorney has draXed a proposed contract for review by the Council. Councilmember Wilson said he was a ittle surprised that the fee was as high as $18,455. Mr. Perry explained that that fXr in the mid -range. He said several firms have offered to provide services at a lowerbut the Committee questioned their expertise and ability to perform. Councilmember Wilressed concern that the budgeted amount for the telephone EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 AUGUST 28. 1990 4�4 from the Official Street map when the project is completed, nd it will only reflect the 6 foot area that is owned by the City. He said the City Counc:' wanted to acquire that parcel, but there is no plan to construct a road in the future. ;00inf:ilmember Palmer added that not only will the Official Street Map not show a road in that _a, but a 6 foot parcel is not adequate to construct a road to street standards. Councilmember Kasper said it has been City polic to open up neighborhood walkways so people do not have to walk on main arterials. He said t City made a decision not to spend large sums of money to construct sidewalks on both sides o a main arterial and has, rather, made a goal of opening walkways. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY�UNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO SET A SECOND HEARING ON THE MATTER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT ,, In response to Mayor Naughten, Kiomn'as lberts explained that the easement cannot be accessed by pedestrians at the present time Hindley Creek. He said the contractor will restore all properties to their previous con best he can when the pipeline project is completed. Councilmember Dwyer felt the ouncil would be premature if they made a commitment at the present time with respect to the w way, He felt the Council should wait for the question to come up in the normal course of the gineering process and then notify the neighborhood and make a decision at that time. Because Ceuncilmembe Hertrich also believed it would be inappropriate to hold a second hearing at the presen/Ptim COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH WITHDREW THE SECOND TO THE MOTION. Councilmemberconcurred with Councilmember Dwyer. He recommended, however, that a second hearing be he the City has reached the completion stage. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION FOLLOWING SECOND HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSEDPORTION OF M N D Y L M NCODE REGARDINGH F HEDGES (S i- ��"Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the City Council held public hearings on April 17, 1990 and August 7, 1990 on the Planning Board's recommendation for proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code revising regulations governing fences and hedges. The Council voted to approve the amendments concerning fences but asked for a second hearing on the proposed amendments regarding hedges. Ms. Block said much of the concern regarding hedges stemmed from the suggested definition. As a result, Staff made changes in the hedge definition. Ms. Block noted that the Planning Board recommendation, the minutes from the Council hearings, and a revised definition were included in the Council packets. Ms. Block said. it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the proposed amendment and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Councilmember Wilson was dissatisfied with the proposed changes because he said they do not ad- dress the problem of view impaction. In the future, Councilmember Kasper requested Staff to highlight proposed deletions and additions to an ordinance so the Council can grasp a better understanding of the effect of any proposed amendments. Councilmember Wilson said a mechanism must be devised whereby plantings that are determined to be a hedge are logged and monitored to prevent view impaction from occurring in the future. He said the ordinance must have some "teeth" in it. Councilmember Wilson felt that the proposed amend- ments, if adopted, will accomplish nothing because the ordinance will not be enforced. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if there is a means for the City to limit the growth pattern of plants to a certain height after the plants have been logged. City Attorney John Wallace said an ordinance can be drafted but an enforcement problem would be encountered. Councilmember Palmer said he was not satisfied with the definition of a hedge because it is not species specific and the amendments are not view specific. He said putting restrictions in areas that have no views will only make people angry. Councilmember Palmer said he agreed with Councilmember Wilson with respect to the need for cove- nants for new plantings in new developments, but he could not support the proposed amendments because the definition of a hedge is too broad and because he did not want to restrict plantings in non -view areas because plants provide a number of benefits to the environment. e0lsm 7 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 Councilmember Kasper believed the Council should strive towards creating view corridors in the bowl area and in view -sensitive areas vis-a-vis the tree and hedge ordinance. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if plantings can be restricted in view -sensitive areas only. Mr. /v ,_J Wallace felt the State Supreme Court would challenge the City's ability to regulate plantings solely on the preservation of a view. He said the City could include view preservation as a / 1 factor in regulating plantings, but other factors would have to be established. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the City can enforce its present ordinance and request a person to cut a hedge down to six feet. Mr. Wallace said the present ordinance is enforceable on a complaint basis if a hedge did not predate the height restriction. Mr. Wallace said the City can pursue either criminal or civil action if a property owner does not comply with the City's re- quest to trim a hedge to the height limit. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the City's ability to prevail in such an instance. Mr. Wallace said the Supreme Court sustained a municipality's regulatory power in a similar instance. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO NOT ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS SO FAR AS THEY PERTAIN TO HEDGES. -- Councilmember Palmer said there are many unanswered questions with respect to the hedge issue, and the Council will have to reach some decision more likely during its deliberation on the clear- ing ordinance MOTION CARRIED. �Y REVIEW OF HUTT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARK PROTECTION ORDINANCE Parks b Recreation Division Manager Arvilla Ohlde introduced Hank Lewis. Hank kewis, Hutt Park Citizen Advisory Committee member, 21723 - 97t Ave. W., noted that Commit- tee members Larry Brainard, Kim Pierce, Dr. Robert VanCitters, and Dodge were in the audience. Mr. Lewis reported that on July 17, 1990, the City Council di cted the City Attorney to work with the Committee to prepare an optional resolution or ❑rdin a protecting Hutt Park from sale or trade and preserving it in its natural setting as a public rk in perpetuity. Mr. Lewis said the Committee met with the City Attorney on my 24 to review alternate methods of protecting Hutt Park and thereafter produced an ordinanc which takes into consideration the use of other parks within the City without isolating Hutt P k with superior or special rights. The recommended ordinance provides three aspects of the otection plan as follows: 1) an intent section which clearly defines the intended use of a property; 2) an administration section which outlines the process for master planning, a re ew period of every five years, and a condi- tion for proposed changes; and 3) a restriction re al section that defines the methods of modi- fications, changes or amendments if they are not pacifically stated in the Master Plan for the park. If modifications are inconsistent with t ordinance, legal processes will be set in mo- tion. Mr. Lewis said the Committee believes the or inance will serve as a short- and long: -range solu- tion to all Hutt Park controversies. He lieved passage of the proposed ordinance will be a solid statement from the City Council to a Hutt Park neighborhood and the City, at large, that the City is sincere in its commitment to is park system and is willing to make a strong commit- ment towards protecting an irreplaceable sset to the community. With reference to section 2 of the pr osed ordinance, second to the last sentence, Councilmember Hertrich inquired why it is propose that any future structures or improvements within the park be limited to the extent that the are necessary for the preservation and maintenance of above - stated goals or provide a necess y benefit to surrounding properties and/or neighborhood. Mr. Lewis said the Committee felt i as important that any improvements have a benefit to the neigh- borhood because the park is a eighborhood park as opposed to a community park, such as Yost Park. Councilmember Hertrich xpressed concern -with that provision because he said any improve- ments that may be necessary ithin the park that would benefit another area would be precluded and, therefore, would not b efit the City as a whole. Larry Brainard, 18822 - th Ave. W., said the proposed ordinance simply says that the City is dedicating the property th the intent to make it a natural park. He briefly reviewed the provi- sions of the proposed rdinance. Mr. Brainard said if there are any specific concerns by the Council, the Committe will review those areas of concern and make necessary changes. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 ST THIRD HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO LAND CLEAR T17f d Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman reported that the City Council voted on August 28, 1990 to approve a proposed ordinance to establish land clearing and tree cutting regulations for the City of Edmonds. The Council made two changes to the exemptions section of the proposed ordinance. Under the changes proposed by the Council. Mr. Bowman said developed single family lots of 26,600 square feet or under are to be outright exemptions, and clearing on partially developed single family lots is exempt except for land meeting the three conditions listed in the proposed changes. Mr. Bowman said a majority of the land within the City of Edmonds is zoned single family residen- tial, with much of the land being fully developed. The primary area left for development is in the North Meadowdale area, which is a known landslide hazard area with steep slopes and water problems. Mr. Bowman said the proposed changes would exempt most of North Meadowdale from the regulations, which does not make sense in light of the potential problems that indiscriminate clearing could create for properties located in that area. Additionally, the proposed exemptions would elimi- nate almost all short subdivisions from the ordinance. Mr. Bowman reviewed the changes proposed by Staff as follows:. Section-18.45.030 - Exemptions - The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (A) Clearing on a developed single family lot or clearing on a partially developed single family lot, which is capable of being divided into one additional lot, except for: 1) That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area; 2 That portion of the lot that is located within twenty-five feet of any stream or wetland; 3) That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent. (B) Undeveloped lots which are not capable of being further subdivided, except for: 1 That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area; 2 That portion of the lot that is located within twenty-five feet of any stream or wetland; 30 That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent. Mr. Bowman said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the proposed changes and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if a property owner of a developed single family lot or partially developed single family lot would be penalized if he/she cleared the lot without first obtaining a building permit. Mr. Bowman said the property owner would not be penalized if the lot was not subject to the language in 18.45.030(A). In response to Councilmember Kasper, Mr. Bowman said section.18.45.050(H)(6) states that "Topping shall not be considered as an appropriate pruning method". Councilmember Palmer recalled that the Council excluded that provision from the proposed ordinance at a previous meeting. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Chet Curtis, 402 - 9th Ave. S., inquired if the proposed ordinance has been adopted. City Attor- ney Scott Snyder replied negatively. Mr. Bowman explained that the Council accepted the basic ordinance in its form but has not formally adopted the proposed ordinance yet. Mr. Curtis said he was opposed to the proposed ordinance because he did not believe there is a need for a tree cutting ordinance in the City because there is no problem with trees. He be- lieved a property owner should be able to develop his/her property as he/she desires. Dolores Curtis, 402 - 9th Ave. S., was concerned about the rights of property owners. She be- lieved every property owner, developers included, should be entitled to equal rights, regardless of the size of their parcel. Ms. Curtis urged the Council to impose a 25 foot height limit on trees from the commencement of the proposed ordinance, if adopted. She wondered if the ordinance could include a provision requiring developers to provide a specific amount of landscaping in a development with a height limit of 25 feet. eX91161T SJN EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 OCTOBER 16, 1990 60f Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER movLj), SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED CHANGES RECOM- MENDED BY STAFF AND DIRlEC-f THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO DELETE THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION 18.44.050(H)(6). MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper pointed out that the issue of views and view blockage by trees still needs to be addressed. 1 DISCUSSION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUNDING Police Chief Dan Prinz reported that the Washington State L/in re ssed laws in 1990 that deal with the funding of local criminal justice needs. Moniehe otor Vehicle Excise Tax, a one-time gift from the General Fund of the legislature, ah f 1% of the sales tax in Snohomish County are to be expended for criminal justice pushall not be used to re- place or supplant existing funding. Chief Prinz said that bincludes all costs incurred with administering and enforcing criminal laws. Chief Prinz said the City will be receiving approximately $351991, with a minimum carry- over from 1990 of an additional $48,000; $341.000 in 1992; 5,000 in 1993. Chief Prinz said the funding will sunset in January of 1994 and, at thatcitizens can be asked to ex- tend the 1/10th of 1% sales tax, which will generate approxima5,000 in 1994. Chief Prinz requested that the funds be expended in 1991 in Je following manner: 1) Hire two additional clerical positions to provtaff assistance for patrol and the public on a 24-hour basis; 2) Hire one investigator to assist with fraud, fo, and crimes against persons, and two officers to be assigned to a proactive Pat/ Chief Prinz also requested authorization to hire on patrol officer and one clerk in 1990. He noted that the costs can be taken out of the crim al •justice funds. Chief Prinz conjectured that the cost for 1990 will he minimal because he annot hire a police officer until guaranteed placement in the basic academy becomes available. Chief Prinz said he will also be requesting anot full-time DARE officer in 1990 so the curricu- lum can be expanded into the junior high schools nd pre -sixth grades. Chief Prinz said having the ability to hire ree additional clerks will give the Police Depart- ment the latitude to be open twenty -fours h rs a day to the public and have a lead person to assume some of the duties of the administra ve supervisor, which will free him to perform more technical duties (fingerprinting, crime sc a processing, computer enhancements and maintenance, records management, etc.). Chief Prinz said the proactive patrol ca be used to work on specific problems at specific times, such as: 1) crimes in apartment comp xes; 2) narcotics usage and sales in parking lots and cocktail lounges; 3) prostitution along ighway 99; 4) gang activities; and 5) gathering/dissem- ination of intelligence. Chief Prinz said the additional aff er will be used to augment the patrol division. Over the years, he said the City has retie on reserve police officers to fill in for vacation and sick leave relief and to provide additi al units for peak work periods. He noted that the Department has had up to fifteen reserve poli officers but there are currently seven, and three are active- ly seeking full-time police emp yment. Chief Prinz said it is very difficult to recruit and retain good reserve police off ers because of the standards in backgrounds and education and experience that the City requirlt. Councilmember Dwyer noted t t the population growth has generated more telephone calls to SnoCom, and the solution wou be to either hire additional staff to answer the calls or to limit the type of calls going to S Cam. Councilmember Dwyer said onds is an abuser of the SnoCom system because the City is set up to have non -emergency calls aced through the 911 lines. He said 24-hour service must be set up at the Police Department to screen calls so that all calls going through to SnoCom are of a true emergency nature. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 OCTOBER 16, 1990 66 THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 201. 1990 _APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1990 (SPECIAL MEETING - MONDAY) A special meeting of the Edmonds City Council, because of the general electjj��n on Tuesday, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughteu at the Library Plaxa/1�oom, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. �/ PRESENT Larry Haughten, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember Jeff Palmer, Councilmember Jack Nilson, Councilmember Megan Renquist, Student Rep. CONSENT AGENDA STAFF - Mary Lo Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Art Ho ler, Admin. Svc. Director Dan P nz, Police Chief K ahn, Comm. Svc. Director ower, Treatment Plant Supvr, Mills, Public Works Supt. Snyder, City Attorney e Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Items (B), (C) and (E) were removed from the Consent ends. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF HE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the fol owing: (A) ROLL CALL P� (D) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2803 AUTHORIZING CON MNATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC WORKS �—� BUILDING SITE (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGR MENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGARDING REGIONAL EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATION COURSE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23 1990 tTEM B ON THE CONSENT AGENDA A memorandum dated November 6, 1990 f m City Clerk Jackie Parrett stated that on page 2, in the item regarding senior housing, a mo on was made to adopt the Planning Board's recommendations, beginning with the seventh line of ext on the page. The minutes do not reflect that the motion carried. In checking the tape, th City Clerk found the motion passed unanimously. She request- ed that "Motion Carried" be ins ted following the list of the Planning Board recommendations which were adopted by the motion 3 Councilmember Kasper referred read, "He noted that ferr c marking lots" COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF page 1, paragraph 1, noting that the second sentence. should ters should not be directed to park in the circular bus system's BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. ANGELL SCULPTURE 729 JITEM (C) ON CONSENT AGENDA Because of the contr ersy over the spotted owl and the possibility that people may confuse the GU sculpture of the s wy owl with the spotted owl, Councilmember Palmer was concerned that the rv�x tt�sculpture may not b secure in the location that it is proposed to be placed. Win Bainbridge, p1nonds Arts Commission, said she felt the sculpture would be secure in its pro- posed location cause it will be placed in an area that is well patrolled by police officers and in which many /ALMER ple pass. She noted that it will be permanently anchored. COUNCILMEMBER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (C). MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2804 ADDING NEW CHAPTER 18.45 TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO LAND L N N In response to a concern by Councilmember Hertrich, City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested that the Council approve the ordinance that evening. He said he would submit a revised ordinance to the 5041VT 913 Council in the near future which better integrates the reseeding requirements. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE ITEM (E). MOTION CAR RIED. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. Tess Peterson, 93rd West, said despite previous assurances from Olympic View Water District (OVD), the area in which she lives will not be connected to the City's sanitation system because annexation did not occur. Mayor Naughten explained that the City entered into an agreement many years ago with OVD that an area must first annex into the City if residents wish to connect to the City's system. Community Services Director Peter Hahn noted that the area north of 220th is unincorporated and. therefore, is not included in either of the service areas. He said OVD is willing to construct a collection system for that area, fie noted, however, that the Council's policy has consistently been not to approve a system unless annexation occurs, but the Council does have the discretion to change that policy. Ms. Peterson said the residents of 93rd West are willing to connect to the system through an L.I.D. Kay Johnston said she had to relocate the drain field on her property eleven years ago because water was coming to the surface, which created a health problem. She said the City would not allow her to connect to the City's system at that time despite the health problem that existed. Mayor Naughten inquired if Ms. Peterson had contacted the Health District, which is the entity that determines if, in fact, a health problem exists. Ms. Peterson replied negatively. Discussion ensued regarding the process involved to annex into the City. Councilmember Palmer noted that the issue was a philosophical one in that OVD is not in a posi- tion or is unwilling to provide the level of service that residents on 93rd West desire, and the City of Edmonds is willing to provide that service to all residents within its boundaries. He said the decision that must be made is whether changing those boundaries is in order. Councilmem- ber Palmer said Mr. Hahn would be happy to speak with the residents of 93rd West if they desired to annex into the City. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. DISCUSSION ON CONGRESSMAN JOHN MILLER'S TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN WITH PRES ATION BY STAFF ASSISTANT BRUCE AGNEW Bruce Agnew, Staff Director for Congressman John Miller, repor that copies of the proposed Surface Transportation Reauthorization Plan for 1991 were di emanated to local governmental bodies in the 1st District, as well as business and communit roups, to try to develop a broad theme of policy statements that will be used not only in to of the 1st District plan but also in hopes that it will be adopted by the regional congressi l delegation as a list of priorities to accomplish in the next reauthorization, which will me at the University of Washington for a public forum on November 19th on the Surface Transporta on Act and local transportation initia- tives. Mr. Agnew offered the City assistance should the S e Department of Transportation and the City of Edmonds reach an agreement with regard to rel ation of the ferry terminal in Edmonds. He noted that the federal government will subsidi 80% of the cost to purchase a passenger -only ferry. In addition, he said funds are availa if the State and City come to an agreement in terms of expanding the wildlife habitat around a proposed location for the ferry terminal facil- ity. Mr. Agnew stated that the priorities the congestion relief plan contemplate completion of the region's HOV system; would allow th egional governmental structure to move funds between federal transit and highway categories so acal option taxes can be best complimented to build a high -capacity bus or rail system in the uture; provides incentives for local open space/energy conservation programs; and provides ad tonal federal assistance for the ferry system. He noted that the federal government can prov economic assistance for the purchase of ferry boats and shore -side improvements that benefit ssengers. Mr. Agnew said it is hopeful th the delegation will adopt the position to take the Highway Trust Fund off budget so that mo es are available from the trust fund balances. In response to Councilmember Asper, Mr. Agnew said some of the ferries that were purchased in the 1960's were purchased p ially with federal funds, but the Urban Mass Transit Administration tightened the regulations in the 1970's so that only passenger -related improvements could EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 NOVEMBER 5, 1990 3. INTRODUCTION QF NEW SERGEANT Police Chief Tom Miller introduced/ram Jones w has been with the Edmonds Police Department for 14 years. He provided Council wef s ary of the highlights of Sgt. Jones' career. 'These included, among other things, Sgt. rti anon in the Lynnwood serial rapist investigation, for which the perpetrator received a seyears, and being the lead investigator in the Yost Park incident last year for which three yowere recently presented with Commendations for Bravery. Sgt. Jones started the Police Exploam in 1984, and again this year won the award for Best Explorer Post. On June 15 his appto sergeant was made. Accompanying Sgt. Jones for the occasion was his wife Cheryl and soayor Hall had the honor of pinning on his new badge, along with bestowing congratulations. 4. DISCUSSION WITH RESIDENTS OF THE MARINER PLAZA BUILDING REGARDING TREES AND SHRUBS OWNED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS Councilmember Earling disclosed that one of the agents in his real estate office had written a letter contained in Council's packets regardiazg the trees involved with this discussion. Though he did not feel there was reason for him to recuse himself as this was not a quasi-judicial process, he did wish to make the fact known. Community Services Director Paul Mar provided an historical summary of this issue and called Council attention to the 8 exhibits to the Agenda Memorandum, the latest being an August 17, 1995 informational packet of 11 pages from Kevin Michael Paulich of Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., counsel for Joe and Vicky Wagner, 114 Second Avenue South. Kevin Paulich stated he represents Mr. and Mr. Wagner. He hoped that after this discussion the trees and shrubs that block his clients' view of Puget Sound will be able to be removed. Mr. Paulich showed a Picture taken in the late 1980s and another taken recently showing no remaining view. The main point tonight is that these are not natural growing trees but a 50' fence constructed of trees and shrubs. The fence was constructed by the City of Edmonds on City property. It is consistent with City policy that prohibits fences over 6' high. He noted that it limits fences to 6' and recognizes that fences can be constructed of various materials — here it is constructed of trees and shrubs. Mr. Paulich stated that the City additionally planted these trees and shrubs in a row so that they would grow together and form a fence and block views. Mr. Paulich then passed around, through the City Clerk, three photos showing that the trees and shrubs also block views from ground level. They have made every effort to get the trees trimmed down. The Planning Department argues that the City not cut the trees for two reasons. First, trees can't be constructed and therefore can't be considered a fence. Mr. Paulich said the ordinance in question says that a fence means any construction of wood, metal, masonry, or other materials. Here, the fence is made of natural material of trees and shrubs. Secondly, there must be an obstruction at ground level. Mr. Paulich feels the letter of the law would allow the City to cut trees and give his clients back their view. He indicated he understood the good policy against cutting natural trees, but he wanted to bring to Council's attention the fact that people can circumvent the law by making fences of trees. Mr. Paulich reported that the matter had been appealed through the Planning Department on grounds that it is a policy. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested coming to a Council meeting for discussion. Mr. Paulich G�xgvslfl"CrrY COUNCIL &MRNEs 43 A W UST 22.1995 PAGE 3 further advised that the next step, which they would like to avoid, is to go into the court system on a Writ of Mandamus. The arguments are set forth in the letter in Council packets. Mr. Paulich believes Edmonds' code would require the cutting of the trees and that his clients to be victims of misrepresentation because they were told the trees would only grow 25'. His clients bought their condo with the expectation of having a view. Also, he believes it would be in the public interest to preserve property values for the people of Edmonds because the tax base depends on value of property, and a Property with a view is worth substantially more than one without. Mr. Paulich hopes Council will find that these trees be cut down to 6', removed, or replaced with trees that would reach a maximum height of 25', any of which would preserve views from the Mariner Plaza. Councilmember Hall asked Mr. Paulich whether there was any proof that there was a promise as to the height of these trees. He was told that it had been submitted in Mr. Hanson's affidavit. Mr. Hanson is one of the partners that built the building. Mr. Paulich summarized the contents of the affidavit. . Councilmember Hall was then advised the identification of the Parks Department individual was believed to be in the packet. Responding to further questions of Councilmember Hall, Mr. Paulich said this distinction between a group of trees simply growing naturally on a piece of property and trees that have been intentionally used to create a fence is discussed in the Cl de Hill v. Roisen case wherein the Washington Supreme Court held that trees planted closely together in a row create a "fence" for the purposes of enforcing a community rode prohibiting fences over six feet in height. Councilmember Hall then asked how Mr. Paulich would make the distinction between random trees growing together and those intentionally planted. Mr. Paulich responded it would be on a case -by -case basis. Council would need to make a decision such as Clyde Hill's, that in certain instances trees planted a certain way are considered a fence. He added that here it is very clear that the way the trees and shrubs were planted that they would form levels and then intertwine to, in effect, create a fence. Mr. Paulich believes that to have been the Parks Department intention when the trees were planted. Council President Petruzzi confirmed that these trees and shrubs were planted next to a fence. Mr. Paulich explained how vegetation growing next to a fence can become an extension of that fence. The fence on the property is under the 6' limit, but the trees are closer to 50'. Councilmember Petruzzi said there are existing policies established by the City with regard to the matters of trees and fences. He explained his feeling that attempting to take any broad -brush action tonight would create the necessity to change policy which would require a series of hearings. He would Wee to take this as a stand-alone situation and look at it in terms of being two property owners being good neighbors without jeopardizing present policies on which there have been many years and many more public hearings during development. Council President Petruzzi suggested Staff work with Mr. Paulich and his clients on possible solutions. He stressed it would be at the Wagners' expense because he would like to find solutions in a good neighbor spirit but without creating some large liability on the City's part. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Mar if, when the park was developed in 1970 or 1971 ownership was turned over to the City. Parks and Recreations Manager Arvilla Ohlde indicated that the park is under City ownership. Councilmember Earling asked Council President Petruzzi whether it would be part of the decision -making process to send this to the Community Services Committee so that there could be discussion between a couple of Council members, the residents of the condominium project, and Staff. The reply was affirmative. Councilmembers Earling and Myers will both support that vehicle. APPROVED CITY OOUP&M &04UMS AUGUST 2ZI"S PAGE 4 4 Mayor Hall recalled several hearings there had been on trees, This is not new territory. We do live in a view corridor. However, she can't buy the idea of a fence because otherwise her view is fenced in from Puget Sound. She had before leer Resolution 418 signed by former Mayor Harve Harrison and passed by the City Council November 28, 1978, which allows three instances for trees to be cut. She feels that the issue could be referred to the Community Services Committee, but the ultimate would be with a legislative body to revisit the issue. She read a list of requests for trees being cut or thinned. This was provided for a sense of direction and lustory. Mr. Paulich acknowledged the distinction in the policy that preserves the trees and a policy that prohibits fences made out of trees. He thinks Council President PcUuzzi's suggestion to sit-down together and work out a compromise where both goals can be accomplished is excellent. Councilmember Fahey commented that she has thought for some time it didn't make sense to have a 25' height restriction on buildings and not have restrictions on what can be referred to as ornamental landscaping which is allowed to grow beyond the height limits of buildings. She thinks it appropriate to ultimately re-evaluate that policy. For this situation, it is appropriate for the Community Services Committee to review it. As chairman of that committee, she will work with the neighbors. She agreed with the experiences of Council President Petruzzi in that she too has worked with neighbors to get trees topped to preserve views. She thinks that is the direction this situation should take, and ultimately review the policy on height restrictions to see if they are in keeping with the heights of buildings. Numerous individuals have commented on that issue. She wants to resolve this in a neighborly fashion and then eventually review the policy, possibly through a public hearing. 5. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, TO PLACE THIS AGENDA ITEM ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE'S NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI AND COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY SET THE MATTER FOR SEPTEMBER 12 UNDER THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. LVUA EV AT 22901 106TH AVENUE WEST UNDOR FILE NO. ADB-95-71 (Appellant: File No. AP-95-120) Pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Co !member Myers recused himself from the appeal hearing because of his status as a part-time employee the School Board. Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson pro " ed those in attendance with a history and summary of the issue before the Council and used the overh to show the parking proposal as planned by the School District. Mr. Wilson then discussed the three appg41 issues: The project will " act the driveways on 106th Avenue West due to traffic backing up while waiting for a school buses coming down the hill before making the left-hand turn into the school ggrkinp, lot. APPROVED CrrY COUNCIL MIIIUTES AUOUST 2Z 1995 PAGE 5 2. Visibility on 106th Avenue West at the proposed gate is dangerously limited because of the two hills on 106th Avenue West. This would be a consideration for arrivals and departures later in the school day, The appellants believe that safety and flow of traffic would be greatly enhanced by having the new exit-cntry coming out on 228th Street Southwest. Traffic flow could be further enhanced by having a 4-way flashing traffic light at the intersection of 106th Avenue West and 228th Street Southwest, There are two main points in the appeal analysis: The proposed site improvements will not create any additional floor area. Therefore, no additional traffic to the site will be created as a result of the proposed site improvements. 2. The proposed site improvements, including driveway locations, have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Division. The Engineering Division has found that the proposed driveway locations will not create vehicle sight distance problems, nor is the proposed driveway separation less than the minimum acceptable according to adopted standards. He then called Council attention to Agenda Memo Exhibit 5 which is an alternative plan submitted by Sharon Mirante. Councilmember Fahey confirmed with Mr. Wilson that in the matter being considered tonight, all Council was doing was considering the appeal which is in opposition to the plan presented tonight. She then asked if the extra piece that is added as a proposal is something Council cant address and that it was not for Council to consider an alternate proposal tonight. Mr. Wilson provided Staffs impression of the legal process. Council has several options. It has the option to deny the appeal and uphold the ADB decision; you have the ability to overturn the ADB decision and issue your own decision; you have the ability to even remand it back to the ADB, preferably with some specific guidance giving them some direction as to what they should look at in furtlter consideration of this matter. He thinks Council has some latitude to make some changes in the process, but it is desired to make sure there is an adequate review of any other possible considerations in site design to make sure that the appropriate testimony was given by the Engineering Division regarding safety issues from the City's standpoint, as well as any other public participation. He further indicated that Councilmember Fahey was correct in her assessment of the role tonight. He reminded Council it has some flexibility, but if it feels there is an alternative design, it may want to remand it to the ADB with some direction. Counciimcmber Nordquist asked about the summary regarding Staff concurrence. His only concern is when it is in conjunction with the on -site as well as the off -site requirements. He thinks Mr. 'Nilson is leaning toward giving Council direction on the on -site ability to meet requirements. He is concerned about the safety factor on leaving the site. He saw no input from the police department which to him is an important ingredient when dealing with a small street. Mr. Wilson said that the Police Department is not typically consulted; these tend to be issues of traffic engineering which are based on sight distances, visibility, widths of road, adopted standards that Staff is aware of when evaluating a proposal. They will look at the on -site issue but will also take a look at where those driveway entrances are to determine whether they will be located in such a way as to create additional traffic hazards and make sure there are no conflicts in turning movements. It is not confined to just traffic circulation on the site, but also what happens when that traffic enters onto City streets. APPROVED CITY COLMM M[NUTP.s AUGM 2Z 1995 PAOB 6 Councillmcmber Nordquist referred to the safety checks of the buses and the equipment operating on the streets, He is concerned about the equipment going into and out of that school yard and whether it meets all the City requirements, and taking it a step farther because of compression. Mr. Wilson said that the State Patrol is responsible for items such as school buses because they fall under the state's jurisdiction so they will look at safety issues for the buses. Mayor Hall asked Chief Miller why the police was not involved in this, Chief Miller responded that state law requires the State Patrol to do safety inspections of public school vehicles, and they have that jurisdiction. He believed Councilmember Nordquist was discussing a technical committee where various departments are at the table discussing options. That is a policy for the Mayor and Planning Department as to how they want to process those applications as they come through. Mr. Wilson interjected that there is a technical committee in place. Historically, the police have not been a participant. Most reviews do not involve issues upon which the Police Department would comment. All other departments are involved and all other health and safety issues are addressed. Mayor Hall opened the hearing. Trevor Hart, Edmonds School District 15 Project Manager for Construction and Design, Architectural Project Manager Stephen Matsudaira, and Civil Engineer Maureen Kwalik were present to discuss the applicant's position. Mr. Hart presented some visual aids on the area surrounding the actual site. He then went on to address some of the questions that had been asked. Responding to Councdmember Kasper, Mr. Hart described the parking configuration for the present 34 stalls and stated that those would be kept and parking stalls are to be expanded to 75 stalls. He further explained that the increase in parking was not the primary reason this project was undertaken. In 1995 the School District has a number of small works projects. This is one of three sites deemed to be the most dangerous sites we have. He identified the three sites and the District's desire to begin those projects in 1995 in order to eliminate and avoid any more congestion as referred to by Councilmember Nordquist. Improving traffic circulation for safety of pedestrians, visitors, parents, and anyone in a vehicle or bus was the primary reason for this project. This plan provides for a clear separation between cars and buses so there is no confusion on ingress or egress. In terms of the design process, what is seen is a result of numerous options reviewed. There are numerous exhibits presented to help show the complexity of the site. There is technical information regarding the question raised about sight lines which will clarify what some of the issues have been. He hopes Council will then see how this particular design mitigates those issues. He introduced Steve Matsudaira of Mahlum & Nordfors, McKinley Gordon to discuss the process taken and why the resulting design is the only good solution to the problems faced at the site. Mr. Matsudaira indicated that they had been asked by the Edmonds School District to look at the problems that occurred at Sherwood Elementary School with regard to improving the student drop-off safety on the site. Along with that they were to increase the number of parking stalls and improve and increase the handicap stalls available. During the 10-month process, numerous schemes were addressed. One of note which he described was shared access for the bus and car drop-off into the existing parking lot. Another scheme was having the access to the North with an access into the current parking lot with the expansion of parking for that area. The site plan presented was then described. Maureen Kwalik, 7509 - 30th Avenue N.E., Seattle, is the project manager for the design company on this and a licensed engineer with the State of Washington. Her seal is on the drawing. She went over why they believe this is the best alternative, There is a minimising of earth moving for construction and the overall removal of trees. It fits most naturally on the site itself The plan provides for a lot of stacking of vehicles on the property and does not use public right of way to store vehicles. It also provides separation of traffic at the bus loop. This minimizes conflicts with other traffic. Ms. Kwalik then stated it provides adequate distance from the 228th Street intersection. In driveway design it is critical you are not too close to other APPROVED (Try couNcm MIIdllrEs � AUGUST =1995 PAGE 7 intersections or driveways. There is a reasonable amount of setback, and this plan meets all engineering requirements for the site, A photo display was logged in with the City Clerk and passed around for Council to peruse. Councilmember Fahey asked for confirmation there will be a fully circular loop and for the Iocation of the students' pedestrian crossing. Mr. Matsudaira explained to Councilmember Fahey's satisfaction the layout for the separation of buses and cars, He also noted the concrete walk areas. Appellant Jane Roberts lives on the corner of 106th and 228th just 100' North of the entrancelexit level proposed, She has seen airborne traffic coating off that hill and described it as a speed trap. The entrance and exit are at the bottom of a hill that does not have adequate visibility because of a dip. if a car were coming over the hill, it would not be seen. She further indicated there were three instances of which she is aware where people have come down that strut and landed in yards. There is not enough visibility to provide for safety at this location. She asked for a more careful look at that aspect of the plan, Appellant Sharon Mirante, 22820 - 106th Avenue West, Edmonds, logged in some exhibits with the City Clerk. They were then passed around to Council. Ms. Mirante indicated that while the School District had been working on this proposal for 10 months, most of the neighbors knew nothing about it in mid -.tune when a notice was posted on the telephone poles. Most only formally found out the depth of the plan on July 6, the day after the ADB meeting. That is why most were not able to give a detailed opposition to the proposal at that time, There are now over 40 people who have signed a petition in opposition to the plan. She presented that petition to City Clerk Sandy Chase. One of the primary reasons for plan opposition is that it is not a safe plan. While many have spoken about how convenient it would be getting into the playground area, the problem is not what happens inside, but what happens when you are attempting to enter at that point. Traffic goes by at 35-40+ m.p.h. any time of the day or night. She showed a photo of the area in discussion, using a man as a reference point for the discussion. Southbound cars will be hidden from the view of the parents trying to make a left-hand turn into the parking and student drop-off areas. Because of the danger of the plan proposed by the Edmonds School District and Brett Carlstad, another alternative in addition to the one proposed by Jane Roberts is being proposed tonight. There is a copy of the plan in the packet. She explained the proposal shown. She then explained the proposal contained in Exhibit 5 of the Agenda Memo. There is a large grassy area by the school sign not presently used which could be enlarged so that the buses could use that as their exit point. The cars would use the existing exit and make a loop and drop off their children close to the school and use the flat area as a turnaround connecting to the current exit area. With their proposed change in the parking design, the playground area would not be impacted. There is also additional parking available in the never -used basketball area. Ms. Mirante said this plan is cost-effective, makes minor changes in traffic flow patterns but ensures safety, and has little negative impact on the neighborhood. The public portion of the hearing was opened. C. D. "Dick" Jewell Jr., 22740 - 106th Avenue West, lives across the comer on 106th from the Northwest comer of the school. He reiterated that this stretch of road acts like a ski jump to some of the drivers. He does not wish to see a serious accident. Ray Olson, 22808 - 106th Place West, restated that the basic issue is safety of the children. He believes there should be enhanced police protection so that the parents can trust the bus system. He also noted that the City was doing traffic counts on 106th and 228th which he did not see prior to the ADB hearing. Mr. Olson thinks there should be police on site in the mornings and afternoons to keep traffic separated. This APPROVED CITY COUNCII. NUNUTBS AUGUST 22.1995 69 PAGE strategy was used at one point during the time the area was Dart of the county and not tlic jurisdiction of the Ldmonds Police Department. He further suggested that if there more "patrols" along the site's bus routes, there would not be as many cars and parents would have more confidence in the system. Betty Heston, 22807 - 106th Place West, was involved at the inception of Sherwood. She indicated she met Mayor Hall while in Olympia on a safety issue concerning exactly what was now being discussed. Since that time the ADB has overlooked the seriousness of the design and the contours of that street. Ms. Heston has seen and knows of many of the accidents that have occurred in the area. The neighborhood tried to work periodically with the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office trying to get officers there in the mornings when students were going to Woodway High School. She said that when they came, it was usually after school had started when there wasn't a problem. They were never there at a time when the neighbors felt they could see what is happening on the street. She, too, feels that the safety concern is the primary issue. Barbara Hinkle, 22720 - 105th Avenue West, provided the City Clerk with copies of her presentation to be passed out to Council. She favors the plan. She has witnessed the amount of haphazard off-street parking that takes place daily for school events, PTSA meetings, and outdoor sporting events. Often the people park so that portions of cars are extended into the roadway areas; children and adults dart between parked cars. She described it as an invitation to disaster. Since the peak hours at the school are 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., area residents are still at work and are able to avoid personal delays due to school related activities. She claims visibility is not an issue. She believes this matter should be redirected to the City as an enforcement issue with regard to speeds. Ms. Hinkle vehemently opposed the idea that safety and traffic flow would be greatly enhanced by having a new point of ingress and egress off of 228th Street S.W. She said that 228th is a residential street and frequently has neighborhood children playing on it. It is quite contrary to add traffic to a residential street where additional traffic would further endanger the lives of school children. Ms. Hinkle noted that 105th Avenue West and 228th Street S.W. act as the only through streets providing a relatively safe pedestrian corridor to those children living in the area. She went on to state that the proposed changes at the school will greatly improve the safety of the users and area residents, as well as allow for better maintenance by the School District. Wendy Kimble, 22719 - 105th Avenue West, indicated that much of what Ms. Hinkle stated was also her opinion. Her concern also is children's safety. Historically, 105th Avenue West has been the avenue that the kids who live North of the school utilize. She then referenced the monthly letter in the Edmonds Enterprise from Dr. Benzel which stated that the State has cut transportation funds for education.. She stressed that 105th Avenue West and 228th Street must remain that safe avenue for children going to and from school. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCH MEMBER FAHEY, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 20 MINUTES FOR COMPLETION. MOTION CARRIED. Rich Kincaid, 9730 - 241st Place S.W., is the Principal of Sherwood Elementary. He brought with him numerous letters of support of the project. This is a site that had over 400 volunteers this year and is a school that thrives on community and parent involvement. Every day there are 7 buses in the lot forming a "fence" between the children and the parents' cars. He described the pedestrian traffic through the bus areas to get to parental vehicles. He further described the present traffic problems. The proposed plan will provide event parking, ample parking for stag volunteers and parents, and a safe access to the school. He said they are living with a time bomb, and the sooner this project, and the sooner they can get this project rolling, the sooner there will be more safety for the students. He urged approval with the plan. He described his publication activities for the plan. There was ample opportunity to review the plan. "PROW-3) = COUNM NUNU S w AUGM V, 1 "5 //Vj PAGE 9 Council President Petruzzi acknowledged receipt of nine letters in support of the project and passed them among Council. Mayor Hall reported receipt of a telephone call in support of the project. Elizabeth Lang, 8730 - 236th S.W., as President of the PTA at Sherwood Elementary, was representing the 500 students and families. She has had three children attend Sherwood in the last 10 years and seen the Parking and traffic worsen. She likened it to an accident waiting to happen. Total separation of buses and parent drop-off is critical, Ms. Lang also stated that presently parents, staff and volunteers must frequently park in front of neighborhood homes because of the lack of parking facilities on -site. She encouraged Council to rule in favor of the proposal as soon as possible. Peter Hart, 10415 _ 228th Street S.W., generally supports the principal and the PTA and recognizes the dangers. He also agrees with Councilmember Kasper in that the paving of the parking lot will take away two playftelds for parking. Mr. Hart supports safety issues but has reservations on the amount of property being used for the project. Bruce Barber, 10617 Robin Hood Drive, has three children attending Sherwood Elementary. His concerns are primarily with the safety of the kids. He thinks the sight issue with regard to safety has been exaggerated. He thinks there is a valid concern but believes a car can be seen. He also noted his agreement with Peter Hart that the playfields are being used. He asked the design team if the Southern part of the site has been addressed as a potential alternative for this type of loop which would leave the ballfield in place. He described this portion of the site for those in need. Svendt Ross, 22631 - 106th Avenue West, agrees with the school in that they need the parking and the traffic separation. He also agrees with the neighbors with regard to the fact that this is an extremely high speed residential street with a lot of inherent dangers in that matter. Mr. Ross agrees with the last speaker regarding the South property. He asked if the ADB looked at the extreme West side of the property which would come out on 228th. There is a lot of erosion on which something will have to be done. He acknowledged something needs to be done with regard to the speed issue and the separation of buses and cars, but would like to see other alternatives considered. Jim Roberts, 22724 - 106th West, wanted to provide perspective on this issue as a former student of Sherwood Elementary and neighborhood resident. He recognizes the neon as stated by the PTA and Principal Kincaid and confirmed the need for the plan. He also pointed out that the point of entry and departure for the parent drop-off is dangerous. He has had three dogs hit by cars, he has witnessed accidents, and has himself utilized the speed factor of the hill. He described the road as a roller coaster. Mr. Roberts reiterated the need for the plan and his belief that the entry and exit should be in another location. Barbara Wilmont, 10503 Little John Court, is in favor of what Mr. Kincaid and the School District propose. Tonight, however, she was walking her dog from the top of the hill and saw her husband coming around the comer in a white van. She them lost sight of him for about 20 seconds. She testified there is a dip that she has never previously noticed. Sometimes. even when your own children are not involved, you should vote in favor of the schools and the needs for children. Ms. Wilmont feels the alternate plan proposal seems to take away a little more of the playground than what was initially approved. She hopes Council can have an alternate plan. She suggested the possibility of putting a stop light at that spot so that people do not cut that corner. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL NONUTES �� AUGUST 22, 1995 PAGE 10 Ray Olson, 22808 - 10Gth Place West, provided information regarding his son's accident and verified that this is a roller coaster road. He also confirmed that you cannot see that intersection at 106th nor the area considered for ingress and egress in the proposal. Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Council President Petruzzi asked City Engineer Jim Walker and Ms. Kwalik about the hill and wanted to know their personal opinions on the project and what they did to insure to themselves that it was safe. Ms. Kwalik showed a profile of 106th which shoes the dip and rise of the exit of the school and on down the hill to 228th. There is adequate space for the speed posted. If the road is a ski jump, it is an enforcement issue. Mr. Walker stated the City can only require what is adequate for posted speeds and not the speed that is being driven as advised by the City Attorney. Normally the City would prefer io have the two accesses separated and typically discourage access to a school from a street such as 228th. The selected location meets the requirements used to evaluate it. It is not the City's place to look for the best solution, but only to make sure the applicant is meeting City standards. Council President Petruzzi commented he is concerned with the safety issue but also feels something needs to be done soon in order to prevent injuries. He doesn't know how the two issues can be solved. He suggested upholding the ADB's decision on approving the permit, but he feels the hill must be addressed. That is something he would like the Public Safety Committee to review with a concentration on that particular street to see what can be developed. COUNCILMEM 3ER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO EXTEND THE HEARING ANOTHER TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Student Representative Emily Shen made some observations from a young driver and student's point of view. Many young drivers who do drive fast are usually in school from 7:00 until at least 1:50, thereby not being in the area at the same time as school children would be coming and going. At her high school there is a separate bus loading. Still, it is a busy street, and even though the parking lot access for car drivers is about 200-300' away from bus loading, there are still conflicts sometimes. The separation between bus and car access should be a greater distance so that there is no conflict which is why the District is looking at two separate loading facilities. Councilmember Hall's bottom line is that he thinks it will be too dangerous at the bottom of the hill for that exit and entrance portion. If this is being built at just over the maximum sight distance at 25 m.p.h., there is no reason why we can't figure out how to give us just a little more leeway on that. He suggested and showed an alternative configuration. Mayor Hall reminded Council that its purpose was not to design but to vote on the ADB recommendation, and then there would be a chance for a redesign, depending upon Council's actions. Councilmember Earling agrees with some of the comments earlier made. He described the road at best as organized chaos and intolerable. He acknowledged it was a tough site with limited space, and its contour is hard to deal with. There are going to have to be made some on -site compromises by the school also. He said one of his biggest concerns is a need to get some of the cars off the road. The way the configuration is given to Council he thinks it will allow a maximum amount of cars to be off the street so there won't need APPROVED CrrY COUNCIL 104UrES AUGUST 22.1995 PAGE I to be as much worry about the kids getting to and from school. He wanted to move forward on the issue presented. COUNCILML+MBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION WINCH IS TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AS SET FORTH IN EXRIBIT 4 AND DENY THE APPEAL Councilmember Kasper will support the motion. He says the City has had bad luck with the Council re- designing. There have been experts here. He thinks this administration has to get committed to enforcing the speed limit. That's an area that has to be addressed. You don't go by how many collisions there have been; it's what are the hazards that could cause the accidents. Mayor Hall thinks Councilmember Kasper will find enforcement in place. Councilmember Kasper noted that there are school crosswalks in his area, and they are not enforced. Councilmember Hall doesn't have a major problem with the design of the parking. He thinks the Architectural Design Board did an excellent job in that regard. He doesn't believe they are experts as well in the safety issues. He would hope that what decision is made today, if the Council wants to approve the plan, that it allow someone to take a second look at trying to figure out how to get this ingress and egress at a different spot that would be more advantageous to the site plan and the safety issues there. Councilmember Nordquist commented that he had no problems with the corrections on the campus. He thinks the problem is on the street itself He thinks the Public Safety Committee should put this as an ongoing item to keep abreast of whether we need traffic control, another officer, etc. The Council should still be involved with this, and not if it passes this tonight, let it go. It should be watched and reviewed. The on -campus corrections, obviously, are needed. Council President Petruzzi suggested putting this on the Public Safety agenda. Mayor Hall reminded Council of the limitation on discussion to items relative to the motion. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL VOTING NO. Council President Petruzzi again announced his desire toZve?6Public Safety Committee put this on their agenda to sit down with the Police Department and E eering Department to discuss the sight problems on this hill. It could create problems in the future. There was a two -minute recess declared at 9:08 p.m.; meeting reconvened at 9:12 p.m. During this time Ms. Shen left the meeting. 6. AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE NI 9 POLICE CARS FROM FINANC PubGe Works Superintendent Noel Mille reported that this item was continued from the July 25 meeting. A motion was made by Council have the Finance Committee look at this and some other options regarding purchase versus lease. ug Farman in Finance worked up some other scenarios that were reviewed by the Finance Commi Mr. Miller described these scenarios. He then discussed the advantages of the different options as ously described to the Finance Committee when they settled on going with the existing lease which been originally recommended. The City Attorney has worked up some language, there is a memoran m dated today that was in Council packets for review, with a lease agreement and the proposed mod' cation to the lease contract. Yesterday Greg Ramsland talked with Financial Consultants Internation , Inc., the lessor, and the language was satisfactory. APPROVED C7rYCOUNCELTES AUGU 22, 19995 72w Auovsrzz,lsgs PAGE 12 MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FEBRUARY 1, 1995 TO: PAUL MAR, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM: JOHN BISSELL, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: PARK TREES BLOCKING VIEWS AND PERTINENT HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS As you know, the City has received a letter from an attorney representing the owners of a condominium in the Mariner Plaza building on 2nd Avenue South. The attorney states in her letter that trees located on Parks property are blocking the view of the Sound and mountains. The letter goes on to say that a Washington State Supreme Court decision has detennined that trees planted closely together create a fence according to a Clyde Hill ordinance. The property owners at Mariner Plaza have alleged that Supreme Court decision will apply to the City of Edmonds, and thus our trees would be considered to be a fence and must be reduced to six feet in height. ECDC section 21.30.020 defines a fence as -...any construction of wood, metal, masonry or other material which provides a visual or physical obstruction to an observer at ground level-" ECDC section 21.40.020 defines a fence as "...a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shnibs or low trees." The definition of fence uses the word "construction ". Il is clear that Trees are not constricted, and therefore, a row of trees cannot be considered to be a fence. In addition, the definition requires a fence to "provide a visual or physical obstniclion from ground level." The trees which the propertyowners are complaining about do not provide either a visual or physical obstruction at ground level. The city has consistently enforced an interpretation that the term "/ow trees" found in the hedge definition applies to low tree species, not to the lteiglit of a particular tree. at a particular time. Therefore, rnugo pine, pyramidaIIis and ornamental d►►-arf dog%%%Ms are to►r trees. Typical Pines, Cedars and Douglas Firs are not low trees and would therefore not be considered to be a hedge. The trees which (lie property owners arc complaining about are Coastal Pines. Coastal Pines are not considered a low tree by species, and therefore could not be considered as a hedge. I liave asked Scott Snyder at the City Attorneys office if the Clyde Hill case cited by the property owner's attorney has any bearing on our code requirements. He Sind that the Clyde Hill case is particular the precise wording of the Clyde Hill Ordinance. He has also agreed that our interpretations are consistent with the code requirements and past interpretations of the ordinance by staff and Hearing Examiner and that private properly owners have no legal cause of action to remove trees or other view blockage from adjacent public or private properly absent a view easement authorizing them to do so. According to these definitions, (lie Planning Division can fund no violation, and therefore cannot require (fie Parks Division to remove or trim (lie existing trees. If the Parks Division decides to change the landscaping in the park, (lie new landscape plan must be approved by (lie Architectural Design Board Prior to impletneuutation. I hope this lnciaro has answered Your questions. JB r YAM zdw� r c:\frles\letters\trees.doc Law Offices of STANLEYG. BAKUN Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. LYNN PENIX BARKER 1500 Norton Building Charles J. Coolidge Carl KENNETH A. BLOCH KAY L. BROSSARD 801 Second Avenue P. Jensen Of Counsel DONNA M. CALF ROBE Seattle, Washington 98104-1577 T — ROBERT L. DiJULIO LARRY A.JOHNSTONE SEATTLE/BELLEVUE JOHN A. MoGARY (206) 682-3640 DUDLEY PANCHOT KEVIN MICHAEL PAULICH FAX: (206) 340-8837 BRADLEY S. WOLF EDMN G. WOODWARD BELLEVUE OFFICE LEON L. WnLFSTONE , r.- �- � ','_ : . 320-108th N.E., 8-410 (1914-1981) Bellevue. WA 98004 Please Reply to Seattle Office March 14, 1995 VIA FAX (205) 771-0220 AND HAND DELIVERY Mr. Paul Mar Community Development Director City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Appeal of Staff Decision Dear Mr. Mar: This letter is to serve as written documentation of your decision regarding the Wagners' request that the City of Edmonds trim or remove the row of trees and shrubs growing along the park next to the Mariner Plaza Building. When we spoke by telephone on February 28, 1995, you stated that you did not interpret the Edmonds Community Development Code as requiring the trimming or removal of the park trees or shrubs and that neither you nor the Edmonds City Parks Department intended to request the removal or trimming of the trees and shrubs growing along the park fence. If this is an incorrect characterization of your decision, please provide me with a written clarification as soon as possible. Enclosed is the Appeal from the According to section 20.105.020 (B) of the above Staff Decision. Edmonds Community ,t-g!w 7 Mr. Paul Mar March 14, 1995 Page 2 Development Code, the appeal is to be filed with you, the Community Development € hector. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call me. Very truly yours, Donna M. Calf Robe WOLFSTONE, PANCHOT & BLOCH, P.S., INC. DCR/ts cc: Joe and Vicki Wagner I. of Staff Dec _is a.ari A ellants: Joe and Vicki Wagner, and the residents and tenants of the Mariner Plaza Building, located at 114 Second Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington. Facts: The Wagners purchased a second floor condominium apartment in the Mariner Plaza Building in 1990. The Wagners and the other residents purchased the condominium apartments in part because of the buildings unobstructed view of Puget Sound. However, over the years, their view has been encroached upon by the hedge of shrubs and trees growing in a row along the fence separating the city property from the Mariner Plaza Building. When the construction of the Mariner Plaza Building started in 1989, the Mariner Plaza Partnership approached the City of Edmonds about the possible removal of the trees and replacement with smaller trees or shrubs, and the Partnership was willing to provide some substitute plant material. Representatives for the City Parks Department told the Partnership that the trees were mature, would grow to only 25 feet, would not block the view of the residential units in the Mariner Plaza Building, and would be kept trimmed by the City of Edmonds. In fact the City did trim the shrubs and trees once in approximately 1991. However, the wall of trees and shrubs have since grown to approximately 40 feet and block the view of the Wagners and other residents of the Mariner Plaza Building. -1- � 070 Decision bei E_p healed: On behalf of the Wagners and the residents of the Mariner Plaza Building, I wrote to Robert Chave, of the Edmonds Planning Department concerning the above -described problem. He did not respond. When I called Mr. Chave, I was directed to John Bissell. He informed me that the city was unwilling to assist my clients. He promised a written response, but I never received one. I then contacted Paul Mar, the community development director, and requested his assistance with the problem. When I called him on February 28, 1995, he informed me that he had concluded that the Edmonds Community Code was not being violated, and the City Parks Department was unwilling to trim or remove the row of trees and shrubs. When I called him on March 3, 1995, he stated that he would not be sending me a written decision. Reason why decision is wron : Pursuant to Chapter 17.30.000 of the Edmonds Community Development Code ("ECDC"), "Unless a variance is first obtained, no fence or hedge shall be more than six (6) feet in height...." The ECDC defines "Hedge" as "a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees." The trees and shrubs adjacent to the Mariner Plaza Building were planted along a chain link fence in order to create a boundary between the Mariner Plaza Building and the city property. Enclosed are copies of photographs showing the boundary created by the dense row of shrubs and trees. The practical effect of this row of trees and shrubs has been to create a 40-foot fence between the Mariner 077 Plaza Building and the Puget Sound. The Washington Supreme Court has upheld a Washington Appellate Court decision that trees planted closely together, in a row, create a "fence" for the purposes of enforcing a community code prohibiting fences over six (6) feet in height. Clyde Hill v. Roisen, 111 Wn.2d 912, 767 P.2d 1375 (1989); see also 48 Wn. App. 769, 740 P.2d 378 (1987). According to Chapter 15.00.040 of the ECDC, the Community Development Director shall enforce Title 17, which includes enforcement of the height restriction for fences and hedges. Paul Mar, the Community Development Director should be required to enforce Title 17, and direct that the trees and shrubs either be kept trimmed, or replaced with smaller growing trees and shrubs. Names of persons requirina notification: Pursuant to Chapter 20.95.010 of the ECDC, the people on the attached list should be notified of this appeal by the Community Development Department. Date 3 1995. ! f-- 1l?v7ti-rA Donna M. Calf R be WOLFSTONE, PANCHOT & BLOCH, P.S., INC. Attorneys for Joe and Vicki Wagner and residents of Mariner Plaza Building c:\tt\clients\w\wager.app -78 Pro ert Qwtters to be Notifi-ed Names and address provided by First American Title Company: Owner: Alaska N W Publishing Co. Site #1 address: 130 2nd Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Site #2 address: no address, vacant land Mail address: 130 2nd Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: William Erwert Site address: 116 2nd Ave S #202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 114 2nd Ave S #202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: ESC Associates Site address: 190 Sunset Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 3131 E Madison St #202 Seattle, WA 98112 Owner: Nels O. Lindh Site address: 110 Main St Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 4255 Thorndyke Rd Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Owner: Mariner Plaza Site address: 116 2nd Ave S #100 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 20146 25th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Owner: Norhawk Investments Inc. Site address: 120 2nd Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 120 2nd Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: Park Department Site address: no address, vacant land Mail address: 250 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: Rio Petrol Inc. Site '#1 address: 100 2nd Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 Site #2 address: no address, vacant land Mail address: 100 2nd Ave S #11 Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: Skippers Building #151 Site address: 102 Main St Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Owner: State Dept of Transportation Site #1 address: 131 Sunset Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 Site #2 address: no address, vacant land Mail address: P.O. Box 330310 MS 118 Olympia, WA 98133 Owner: Richard and Dorothy Tucker Site address: 116 2nd Ave S #201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 114 2nd Ave S #201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: Joe Wagner Site address: 116 2nd Ave S W203 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mail address: 114 2nd Ave S #203 Edmonds, WA 98020 890 1 9 q " CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M- HALL 250 - STH AVE N • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation VIA FAX (206) 340-8837 AND U.S. MAIL April 7, 1995 Donna M. Calf Robe WOL STONE, PANCHOT & BLOCH, P.S., INC- 1500 Norton Building 801 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1577 Subject: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION Dear Ms. Robe: Engin eri I V``�� !� 1 { AFC G` 1995 ' E WOLf-STONE "A!.;CHOT Thank you for your patience in allowing me to review your letter of appeal regarding certain trees and shrubs owned by the City and located adjacent to your client's property. After reviewing the information contained in your letter, and review of the issues with the city Attorney, I must inform you that the Planning Division can not process your request as an appeal. As you know a Municipal Corporation wears two hats, first, it wears the hat of a regulatory agency which reviews and issues permits and enforces the laws of the. City; and second, it has a proprietary role as a land owner. The issues which you have raised in your letter of March 14 1995, are directed to the City in it's proprietary role. As a land owner, the City has adopted a policy regarding when it will and wil! not remove vegetation on property it Owns. The determination of the City as a property owner not to remove vegetation as your clients have requested, is not a decision based on the City's role as a regulatory agency. Therefore, the decision of the City as a property owner not to remove vegetation, is not appealable pursuant to ECDC Section 20.105.020(B). Your request is a policy decision, which the City as a property owner must make. If you wish to proceed further with this issue, you may approach the City Council to discuss it's policy regarding the removal of vegetation of City owned property. You may either forward your request in writing to the Mayor and Council, or may appear on the audience portion of the Council public meetings on either the first or third Tuesday of each month - If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0223. ROBE-1.DOC • Incorporated August 11. 1890 Or.07/95.CORRES4ErrE tS S Sincerely, Community Services Department - Planning Division Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor Enclosures pc: Mayor Hall Scott Snyder, City Attorney Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Page 2 of 2 Rose-i.00cn-u-w.coRResn-ETrau R!T CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 447-7000 FAX: 447-XM 0215 890 _ 199" April 21, 1995 Ms. Donna M. Calf Robe WOLFSTONE, PANCHOT & BLOCH, P.S., INC. 1500 Norton Building 801 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1577 Re: Mariner Plaza Building Dear Ms. Calf Robe: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR W. Scott Snyder 1 am in receipt of your letter of April 14, 1995 forwarded to me by the Edmonds City Council for response. I serve as the Edmonds City Attorney. The Edmonds Community Development Code appeal procedures and the cited Section 20.105.020(B) are intended for review of land use interpretations in the permit and applications process. It is clearly not applicable to the matter to which you refer and has never been interpreted by the staff to apply to such situations. There has been no written interpretation or land use decision by the City staff in this matter. The City Parks and Recreation Director in her administrative capacity is fulfilling a policy regarding tree trimming and removal established by the City Council some years ago. Even assuming that the City in its governmental capacity has determined not to charge the City in its proprietary capacity with a code violation, that decision is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion neither reviewable under the appeal provisions of the Community Development Code nor subject to review or injunctive relief by a court. The City Council invites your clients, as the staff has, to set up a date to meet with the City Council at one of its committee meeting nights on the second Tuesday of each month to discuss the City's tree trimming policy and how it might be amended to address your client's concerns. Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHy WALLACE, P.L.L.C. AScottnyd WSS:are cc: Mayor Laura M. Hall Edmonds City Council WSS 100 136. 1 LA'0006.222 7 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1686 * Incorporated August 11, 1890 •� Sister Cities International — Kpkinan .IanAn MINUTES of Community Services Committee Meeting September 12, 1995 Committee Members Present: Committee Chairperson Barbara Fahey, Councilmember Bill Kasper Staff Present: Arvilla Ohlde, Jim Walker, Rob Chave, Jeannine Graf, Brent Hunter, Art Housler Guests Present: Mr. Joe Wagner, Mr. Kevin Paulich, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Rob King Councilmember Fahey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A. Discussion Regarding Trees And Shrubs Owned By The City Of Edmonds Near The Mariner Plaza Building Chairperson Fahey introduced this item requesting a discussion with the guests and staff. She restated that the City Council directions were to consider the request and be a good neighbor in resolving the problem. She stated that staff was acting in accordance with the requirements of Resolution 418 and that the City Attorney has included a written memo regarding options of consideration, in brief that is 1) a waiver to the policy that sets a city-wide precedence; and 2) evaluate the policy, revise the options for change and/or provide a method of cost to parties that desire the replacement of the trees. Mr. Paulich , attorney for the Mariner Plaza Building tenants, stated that the proposed solution needs to stay with a narrow number of options or exceptions where the city has trees that constitute a fence and or a wall. Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager, commented that a party that is able to define trees as a fence throughout the city could make a case for their view benefit. Examples of recent destruction of trees were shown to indicate that the individual perception or definition of "view" would determine when individuals wanted trees taken down or removed. Councilmember Kasper stated that trees are removed for utility needs, and that the mini park was landscaped with the ADB approved plans and that these are scotch pines. He stated that considerations could be made for new requests and that it could be reflected in a code change that is under the mandate of the ADB, i.e.; that trees could not exceed building heights. He feels that we need to address this case; he also added that the "fence" item is unique. Mr. Wagner proposed that tree height limits be at 25'. Chairperson Fahey stated that view corridors need to be considered and that the landscaping needs to benefit and support view corridors and that the current issue 23 needs to have a resolution that benefits other buildings. Arvilla suggested that the item go to the Planning Board or the ADB to formulate a policy and procedures to ugo-IT Io define the steps for the requests or any recommended changes to the current policy. Mr. Wagner asked that his request be a pilot project. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, stated that any changes to ordinance or policies set the general process and procedures to allow for specific requests to be considered. He added that the City Attorney memo states that the Council needed to look at the policy issue in general, and the memo lists specific questions to consider. Mr. Paulich recommended that if the city could define their specific request as a fence, then the issue could be resolved more quickly. He admitted that his definition and the City's definition of a fence differ. Mr. Wagner stated that this has been a very long process and he has worked with staff and has expended attorney costs to resolve the issue and he has had no answers. Chairperson Fahey discussed looking at this specific request and grant a waiver according to the City Attorney's memo, and then proceed through the public policy for changes. Rob stated that City Council needs to review the general policy and obtain ADB feedback. The Council should set the criteria and give the City Attorney direction to draft a policy for review by the ADB. Chairperson Fahey requested that staff and council committee members look over the City Attorney recommendations and questions and prepare a list of answers with options and recommendations. This information will be presented to the full council on October 10 prior to the Council Committee meeting. The Council will set criteria and the City Attorney will draft a policy recommendation to be forwarded to ADB. B. LID 214 Progress Staff gave a brief review of project status. ublic Works has installed the 3-way stop sign at 204th and 88th and the Str t Ends sign. The City received a report on the trees the Bean's were concern about which recommended saving the trees and gave recommendations to concern/about the trees' survival. Staff is following the City Attorn s suggestion to include physical damage to private property as part of the vrk required by the Contractor to complete the project. The September 6th ter Mr. Rob King submitted in response to that request was briefly reviewe in the meeting. Mrs. King provided svm clarification on item 1 of that letter regarding the "incomplete sidewalk" 205th. The contractor did install that sidewalk as shown on the Engineer's pl s. Item 5 regarding the "No Parking" signs were requested to be removed by b King and Margaret Doyle at a meeting on August 1 st was also discussed, a earlier LID proposal was for a 36 foot wide road with parking on both sides. a road section chosen by the LID participants was a 24 foot wide road with no p rking. The City would not allow parking on a road only 24 feet wide unless it wer one-way. It might be acceptable to place parking on the section of Approved 10/17/95 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President (7:35 p.m.) William J. Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember ABSENT David Earling, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Emily Shen, Student Repres STAFF PRESENT hael Springer, Fire Chief 1 Housler, Administrative Services Director Zob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor Pat Harris, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Phil Olbrechts, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Brian McIntosh, Cultural) creation Supervisor, introduced Dr. Ellen Kahan, the new Edmonds Elementary School princip . Dr. Kahan stated she was pleased to be in Edmonds and intends to make Edmonds Elementary Scl of a part of the Edmonds community, both at the school and in the streets of Edmonds. 1. REVIEW OF POLICY REGARDING TREES Mayor Hall acknowledged correspondence received from the following citizens: Harold M. Skoog, Mrs. H. Piazza, Hazel Miller, Lucille P. Conley, Roland J. Scott, Lurline B. Brown and Ralph and Marlene Ulricksen. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, advised this item was raised at a previous Council meeting. The Community Services Committee discussed it and suggested it be brought to full Council discussion to address the five questions in the City Attorney's memo of September 7. Resolution 418, adopted in 1978, addresses the policy for cutting of trees on public rights of way. This review is to determine the Council's wishes regarding revisiting, revising or drafting a new policy and to look at the review process. Councilmember Kasper stressed this discussion did not apply to all trees in the City, only improperly planted trees with severe impacts. Councilmember Kasper noted there are waivers currently that are not followed through on such as Brackett's Landing. Trees are mandated by the ADB, then waived, and the trees ultimately planted exceed the height of the building . He referred to the row of trees planted by the State Highway Department and questioned if the City had approved these trees. Mr. Olbrechts said the 17 factors outlined in the Tacoma Ordinance should be considered; as well as view corridors and whether the City was responsible for placing the trees in certain locations. Councilmember Hall cautioned the Council that narrowing restrictions would result in a policy that is unconstitutional. Councilmember Fahey requested the City's policy address trees planted by the City on public rights -of --way which restrict existing views established but not include trees in parks. In the future, the Council can look at ornamental plantings that diminish views. Councilmember Nordquist recalled Resolution 418 resulted from bulldozing of trees on 7th and'Elm for a view corridor. He noted the intention when planting trees in the ferry holding lanes was simply to plant trees, height was not a consideration. He questioned whether trees should be allowed to grow to their ultimate height or be trimmed to an acceptable height. Mr. Chave advised he would obtain additional information from Tacoma for discussion at a Council work session. Mr. Olbrechts observed the Tacoma ordinance does apply to view blockage. The most notable constitutional issue to be considered is who will pay for removal of trees to enhance someone's view. In Tacoma, the property owner pays for that. In cases where the view is blocked by trees improperly placed by the City, the payment for removal becomes more complicated. He reminded the Council to keep cost in mind as well as who will pay for the tree removal. Council President Petruzzi was willing to consider changes for view corridors and restricting tree heights but was not willing to have the removal be a cost to the City. He noted the attorney for the owners of the building indicated the removal would be borne by the owners of the property (attorney agreed). Councilmember Myers suggested pruning rather than topping should be considered as an alternative as topping often results in the death of the tree. Councilmember Fahey agreed cost should be built into the ordinance. She did not want this issue to be discussed for an extended period of time and thus no answer provided to the individuals who brought the issue before the Council. A short term solution to provide immediate relief for this problem is necessary in addition to a phased -in overall tree policy. Councilmember Hall stated he was open to the group paying for the removal of the trees and planting of replacement trees. He felt this was an appropriate way to solve similar problems, on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Olbrechts cautioned this may set a precedence as this is not an isolated case. Council President Petruzzi favored setting this matter over to another meeting. Although he wanted to provide relief for the group, he was concerned with setting a precedence. Council agreed to discuss the matter for 30 minutes at the October 24 work session. Mr. Olbrechts clarified the Tacoma ordinance operates on a case -by -case basis but has standards to allow fair treatment. City Council Approved Minutes October 10, 1993 Page 3 Council President Petruzzi suggested this be discussed at a public hearing. Councilmember Hall cautioned the Council about acting too quickly as interested individuals may not be aware of the discussion. He felt a case -by -case basis would allow time to deal with the entire policy issue. Council President Petruzzi felt both could be accomplished, if the evidence at the hearing indicates, a solution could be worked out for this group and continue the hearing for discussion on the issuance of the ordinance. He expressed concern with acting quickly to accommodate one group without allowing public input. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Myers wanted the ADB to have input before the Council passed an ordinance and requested the Tacoma ordinance be included in next week's packet. Councilmember Fahey suggested Council consider a proposal at the work session on a potential solution to meet a short term need for this group and similar situations without setting a precedence. It then would be needed to be reviewed by ADB and be subject to a hearing process. Council President Petruzzi advised the topic would be discussed for 30 minutes at the work session following the Consent Agenda and requested the City Altomey be available for the discussion. Mr. Olbrechts summarized proposals would be limited to trees improperly placed by the City and not deal with parks. The Council adjourned to committees at 8:00 p.m. City Council Approved Minutes October 10, 1995 Page 4 riginator: DMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo E Planning Division Item #J-f For Action: X For Information. - Subject: REVIEW OF POLICY REGARDING TREES. .Clearances: Department/Initials Agenda Time: 30 Minutes �� Admin Svcs/Finance— Community SvcsV� City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: October 10, 1995 City Clerk Parks & Rec ' Court Planning Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works I. Current Tree Policy (Resolution 418) Fire Comm�iee2. Police May Memo from Scott Snyder dated 9/7/95 3. Community Services Committee Minutes Comments: 4. Memo from Pat Harris dated 9/18/95 5. Misc. Articles & Information on Trees Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A History And Summary Statement: The subject of tree maintenance and replacement has been raised in the context of city policy. The main question is whether the City should establish a waiver or variance process from the current City policy prohibiting tree cutting on public property in order to benefit the views of adjacent property owners. The attached memorandum from the City Attorney (Exhibit 1) outlines a series of questions designed to frame the policy questions regarding this issue. The Community Services Committee discussed this item at its September 12th meeting, and recommended that the full council discuss the five questions listed in the City Attorney's memo. Staffs input on Scott Snyder's five questions follows. Question 1. Should a waiver process be established? The answer to this question really should arise from asking the question twice_ (1) From a philosophical standpoint, what is the purpose of allowing the waiver process? Is there a public purpose? Or is the City attempting to establish a policy wherein we can act as a "good neighbor" when requested by an adjoining property owner? Although the City may desire to act as a "good neighbor," it must also act as a steward of public resources. The purpose should be clearly stated. (2) Assuming a purpose is established, the question should be asked again after reviewing questions 2-5. Is a waiver process practical and/or feasible to establish? �� Vjz— U S. -i.4 t , L. Question 2. What standard should the City employ to grant a waiver? As noted in Scott's memo, certain circumstances would currently require a public review and approval process before a waiver could be granted. Areas which received ADB approval will need a threshold determination and may require ADB review. Parks covered by park master plans may need a comprehensive plan amendment and/or ADB review. One of the most basic questions is whether the right tree is in the right place. If the tree is covered by and consistent with ail approved plan (ADB, park master plan, or otherwise), then presumably there was a public process that resulted in that tree being there. In this case, the same public process should also be used to modify the tree or its location. Note that some of this may change due to lf� regulatory reform. For example, we are working on establishing replacement or substitution lists which would allow more flexibility when plantings need to be replaced for whatever reason, not just the process [�►`��,' at issue here. Nonetheless, the general conclusion is that trees located by public process need to be modified by going through that same public process. Where no plan or other approval is required, the issue is more clearly a question of policy and purpose. The points raised in Pat Harris' memo under item 1 state some of the policy considerations for being very concerned about simply removing trees from public land. Tree replacement may be an option, but many detail questions arise: • What alternatives should be considered? Does tree replacement mean replacement with a smaller tree, relocation and replanting of a similar tree, or both? Should a 100-foot tree be replaced with a 100-foot tree in another location, or a 25-foot tree in the same location? There is also the question of whether tree removal should be an option. These questions are intimately tied to the question of cost and who pays (see below), • Who makes that decision? Based on what criteria? The options are staff decision, hearing examiner, ADB, or Planning Board. Staff and the ADB have the most direct experience and expertise in this area. In private circumstances, an individual property owner faced with this type of request makes a decision to keep or remove a tree based on his or her individual values. Aside from Resolution 418, we have no current measure of public values we can rely on to tell us how the community values its trees. We do know, however, that this issue has been hotly debated in the past. • How much notice should be provided? In the example of a park, shouldn't general city residents and park users be afforded the opportunity comment on a change to the landscaping in that park? Question 3. To what public properties should the policy apply? As Scott notes, there are different situations. • Unopened public rights -of -way present few obstacles. ■ Developed rights -of -way are sometimes covered by approved street tree plans and are publicly maintained, while others may have landscape plans that were approved by the ADB. • Parks and municipal properties such as the city hall campus, Anderson Center, wastewater treatment plant, etc. typically have master plans which govern their development. View issues in these situations should normally be covered during the appropriate planning and development approval process. Those properties which are not covered by an approved plan have more options. Question 4. Who pays? Because no public benefit is being derived, it seems inappropriate to spend public money on tree replacement for views. The private interests requesting the tree replacement are the appropriate parties to bear the costs of tree replacement. The actual costs identified in Pat Harris' memo should be noted. A particular concern is that large, mature trees should not be replaced with saplings that will take many years to mature. A more basic policy concern arises from the issue of who pays vs. who benefits from tree replacement. If a private property owner can only obtain tree replacement when s/he can afford the costs of tree replacement, does this create a situation in which only those property owners who can afford tree replacement can gain the windfall of increased private property values due to expanded views? Question 5. Removal and replacement vs. trimming. Staff believes that best forest practices should always be applied, with or without a waiver process. Tree replacement or maintenance (which would include some thinning or pruning) are viable alternatives to consider; radical trimming or tree topping are not acceptable and should be prohibited. Recommended Action: Council to provide policy direction to the City Attorney in order to draft an ordinance for ADB review. Council Action: RESOLUTION NO_ 418 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AND FORMALIZING A POLICY FOR TREE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. WHEREAS, there have been -numerous requests to have trees that are located upon public rights -of -way or. other public property removed or topped in order to enhance views of the vicinai property owners, and WHEREAS, heretofore the policy of removal or trimming of trees in the public right-of-way and on other public property has not been formalized by the City Council and there is a need to adopt such a formal policy to provide guidance and direction for the administration and staff, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The policy of the City of Edmonds with respect to the removal or trimming of trees located on City property or on public rights -of -way shall permit the same to occur only in the following listed instances: 1. The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard; or 2_ The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public improve- i ments such as roadways, sidewalks, etc; or 3. The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health safety -and general welfare. RESOLVED this 28th day of November, 1978. APPROVED: MAW,-- _ HA ZR SON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, IRENEOVARNEY MORA,N FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 27, 1978 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL- November 28, 1978 _ 13 ..01V4/Va uw 11:57 FAA 206 447 0215 OGDEN HURPHY WALLACE WJ 008 - MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 1995 TO: City Council Community Services Committee FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Potential Changes to Existing Pnx=ses to Accommodate Waivers to Current T = Cutting Policies I have suggested to the City Council that it avoid individual negotiation of the tree cutting policy for public property. The Architectural Design Board currently reviews landscaping plans for both public and private property owners. This Board seems a good resource to utilize if the City Council wishes to establish a waiver or variance process from the current City policy prohibiting tree cutting on public property in order to benefit the views of adjacent properties. To assist you in your deliberations I have taken the liberty of suggesting the following discussion items: 1_ SHOULD —A WAIVER PR0CF9R 'RE ABLISHED? Any Process should take into consideration that the City currently has permits for tree cutting, that certain requests will trigger Shoreline Mauagement Act, State Environmental Protection Act review, and a 5'. 5 . IE— Memorandum to City Council Community Services Committee September 7, 1995 Page 2 that the Arohitectural Design Board is generally charged with landscaping plans_ 2. WIiAT STANDARD SHQI11Dn THE CITY _EMPLOY Td QAAiT A WAIVER? As noted, the City already has a variety of Permit structures which must be incorporated inany waiver Process- In addition, any action taken with respect to the park should comply with any specific park's comprehensive plan. 3. APPLY? City policy has consistently prohibited tree trimming or cutting on City park property for the adjacent property owner's benefit. The City does have an obligation to prevent dangerous or hazardous conditions. In addition, the City owns numerous unopened right -of --ways throughout the City. These properties are scattered throughout the City and the City has limited funds with which to maintain them- The policy issues with respect to the trimming of trees on these properties are more limited than those which apply to park property- Finally, there is municipal property such as the sewer treatment plant, the City campus, the Anderson Center and other public facilities which have an approved 09-07-1995 05:58PM 206 447 0215 P.09 Memorandum to City Council Community Services Committee September 7, 1995 Page 3 landscaping plan by Architectural Design Board. In theory any substantial change to an established landscaping plan would require ADB approval. Property owners would presumably have had an opportunity to participate and appeal when the landscaping plan was approved. 4. WHO PAYS? A policy which continues to prohibit tree cutting with respect to parks could have a more liberal provision with respect to unopened rights -of -way. One issue which always remains as to who pays -for the cutting or removal and replacement of trees. 5. REM )VAL AND REPLACEMENT VER TRWKrNG. Best forest practices as utilized by the City in reviewing commercial and other private and public projects discourage tree trimming and topping. if the City Council wishes to consider a waiver provision, an alternative would be to -require removal at the expense of the benefitted property owner of a particular tree, and its replacement with a planting with a more appropriate growth pattern. This would limit future trimming and provide a more permanent solution to the neighbor's problem. 09-07-1995 05 = 58PM 206 447 0215 P; Memorandum to City Council Community Services Committee September 7, 1995 Page 4 When the City Council has outlined the general perimeters of a amendment to the Ordinance, MY office can put it in draft form. It would be forwarded to the Architectural Design Board for review and recommendation before final consideration by the City Council so that you can have the benefit of the Architectural Design Board's landscaping expertise_ cc: Mayor Laura ILL Hall Ms. Arvilla ()hide 09-07-1995 05:58PM 206 447 0215 P.11 ra COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE RATE INCREASES AS DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER FROM SCOTT SNYDER TO THE CITY DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. ii� Mayor Pro-Tem Petruzzi stated this topic has been discussed several times by the Council and at the October 24th meeting it was agreed that the ordinance be forwarded to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the ADB felt the ordinance was not a good idea in its present form and preferred the current policy be retained. Mayor Pro-Tem Petruzzi noted he received a letter from Kevin Pollet, legal representation for the Wagners. Mayor Pro-Tem Petruzzi stated he asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to provide some suggestions. Mr. Snyder advised his memo was sent out Monday and apparently not yet received by the City. He summarized his letter --the Council can provide individualized relief in this situation. However he expressed concern that the policy proposed in the letter was very simplistic and 1) gives right of entry to private parties to come onto City property to cut/remove without any permit procedure, 2) does not differentiate between the different types of property the City has --unopened rights of way, street trees, plantings installed on public property pursuant to ADB recommendations, or public parks, 3) ignores the role the City has given to the ADB to review and approve landscaping plans. Therefore he could not recommend this policy. His firm is interested in preserving these issues and suggested, if a change were made, it be an incremental change which permits the review of plantings on public property in line with ADB or a Park Board Master Plan. The ordinance was tailored to a very limited situation, to deal with those trees on unopened street right-of-way, other trees already have a process in place for review. He suggested, if the City wanted to change the policy, they use general standards that recognize the distinctions being discussed and those that the Council recognizes in their discussion. If the Council wants to offer particular relief to this location, there is no constitutional restriction but he would suggest the existing process of the ADB be used. He stated it would be preferable to, 1) have a permit process or review process which ensures the general public has a right to comment prior to any tree removal from public property, 2) require the person requesting removal bear the cost of removal, and 3) require removal be balanced with the replacement, preferably with an appropriate growth pattern for the neighborhood. Councilmember Kasper questioned whether the ADB should be the entity used for review. Mr. Chave stated in this particular case, there is not an approved Master Plan that the City is aware of. Parks feels the DOT may have originated the planning scheme; therefore it may be possible to forward a review based on a Master Plan for this property to consider issues raised by neighbors. Councilmember Kasper expressed concern with the broadside planting of trees and the lack of provisions to remove or replace the trees if they exceed the height limit recommended by the ADB. Mr. Chave noted the ADB's main concern seemed to be with the subjectivity of the ordinance. Councilmember Fahey expressed concern that the ADB felt the Council simply passed this ordinance to the ADB to avoid a difficult decision. She noted, in speaking with one member of the ADB, none of the members felt they had the expertise or knowledge to determine which trees to top or remove. The ADB also expressed concern with "what constitutes views." She reiterated that property values in the City are established by views; when the views are reduced by trees, property values are diminished which has an Dpt I FJ ( T I ?e City Council Approved Mimics Novembcr2g, 1995 Page 7 5( r6 effect on property taxes. She suggested staff determine the County Assessor's basis for property values. Councilmember Hall commented there are two issues, a long term policy and a short term e solution to th immediate problem. He observed everyone seems to be in favor of removing these trees direction be given to staff to remove the trees. and preferredthe Mr. Snyder stated there are two ways to solve the immediate problem --the City is a proprietary property owner of the pocket park without a Master Plan, under the City's Code the Council could direct staff to negotiate removal of the trees and replace them with comparable trees of a certain size with a 25' growth pattern. The issue would then be what approval process to use --review by the ADD or initiate a Master Plan for this tiny park. Mr. Snyder suggested he bring back a Resolution on the Council's next agenda that establishes an interim policy, and states the Council's intent under the GMA, to look at the Planning Policy and amend the existing policy. The resolution would also provide for, during the interim, negotiation of the removal of these trees and replacement with trees with a 25' height limit. He suggested a public hearing also be held. Councilmember Hall suggested the height of the trees be discussed with the interested parties. Mr. Snyder noted there are dwarf species listed in standard arborist text; staff could be directed to select trees that by that standard table, not exceed the City's height limitations. Councilmember Earling disclosed one of the agents in his office has granted an opinion of price and how that would be affected by tree growth. As the discussion shifted to a specific project, he did not participate in the discussion and would step down if a public hearing was held. Lac 11. 1 I L PyrF—ROFESST V E D V F ❑ B 1 COMPLEX .5 aR�r Y �°��G Community Services Director Paul Mar noted a brief explanati of the effort to resolve the City's pr space needs, specifically for the public safety functions is conta' d in Council's packet. The request is epofor authorization to initiate the minor consultant process; the timated cost of the services is below the threshold to trigger a full selection process. Councilmember Earling questioned the statement i the memo which indicated the survey could cost $7,000 to $10,000. Councilmember Fahey said t members of the Committee felt the survey could be done for less than $10,000. She noted they als eviewed the cost of the swimming pool survey ($7,000) which did not have a screening/planning pr ss for questions in advance which they felt was important• for this survey. In addition, the swimrn' ■ pool survey was conducted with 300 respondents and 500 respondents are desired for this sure Mr. Mar said other jurisdictions who have had surveys performed indicated the fee would b ess than the $15,000 that triggers a full selection process. Mayor Pro-Tem Petruzzi asked ' the questions would be reviewed by the Council and noted one of the Council's concerns is the sco of the project. Mr. Mar replied the scope of work would be presented to Council prior to authorizati to initiate the notice to proceed. He noted he was not present at the Public Safety Citizen's meeting here the topic of Council involvement of question review or generation was discussed, but he and tands that the Public Safety Committee as well as the two Police Chiefs will participate in select- g questions. If Council wants to review the questions, he felt that could be incorporated into a work plan. Mayor Pro -Tern Petruzzi stated he would like Council to approve the City Council Approved Minutes 77 November 28, 1995 Page 8 --r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X Subject: CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF TREE POLICY ISSUE. Agenda Time Agenda Date Exhibits Attached: 30 minutes November 28, 1995 I. Draft Ordinance 2. Resolution 418 (Existing policy) 3. Tacoma Ordinance 4. ADB Minutes 5. City Council Minutes Item #:� For Information: Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance- City Attorney _ City Clerk Court Personnel Fire _ Police Comments: Community Svcs _ Engineering Parks & Rea Planning Public Works Committ e M, Expenditure Amount Required: $ 0 Appropriation Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A History And Summary Statement: The City Council discussed the existing policy regarding tree maintenance and replacement on City Property during the October IOth and 24th Council meetings. A draft ordinance was presented on October 24th that would address narrowly defined situations in which issues such as view blockage could be addressed through an approval process_ During the October 24th Council meeting it was agreed that the ordinance be forwarded to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review. The ADB's comments are attached as Exhibit 4. The purpose of this meeting is to continue the discussion by reviewing the draft ordinance (see Exhibit 1) together with the existing policy (Exhibit 2) and the AD13's review comments. Recommended Action: Council to continue discussion and provide policy direction. Council Action: FM Lit- I-]'A-]11 :dUA I I OF CG11QWj PIP DLPI �'-G6 "T71 C3 :i t t� 0006-150.092 PAO/gj z 10/18t95 ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CrrY OP EDMONDS. WASHING -MN, ESTAELISHING A PRO=URE AY WHICH VT3GBTA7IpN LOCATED UPON CiT1f PROPERTY U AT HAS NOT U-2N DESIGNATa) BY ANY CirY POYICY. PERMIT APPROVAL OR ORDINANCE, OR VEGETATION UPON A CITY PAS THAT 1S LESS THAN A HALF ACRE IN SITE CAN BE REMOVPO BY PRflpMTy OWNEM WHOSE VIEWS ARE ❑BS'1CRUC-M BY TIM vEGETATfON, IF THE REMOVAL OR PRUNING OF THIr VEGEi'ATiOiS IS C NSI' i' W'T" SEV& Tim STAMAiMS T1iAT WEIGH TIM VALUE Op THt, VIEW AGAIN&T THE UTaXrY OF TIM VEGETATION AND ALSO REQUMNG PROPERTY 01ilNLRS TO REMOVE THE VEGETATION AT TfMM OWN EXPENSE AND FIXTNG A TZM WIMN TM 5ANM SHALL BECOME EpFECTWE. UIEP$RAS, the City Council finds that the City of Edmonds iz benefited by SpeCtaeular viM3 which arc vb=iacd by vegetatiea on city property in some areas in the City-, and WIffiREAS, the City Council finds that the removal of vegetation involves a ncvc" ry balancing of the utility of the vegetzt against the value of the obrtructcd view; and WHBRP-AS, the City Council dcsirrs to establish a pivots in which all rcicvant factors are 'dc9d and all intertsted Parties are given an opportunity for input; and Wf1FRiAS, the City Council bas deimminW that Darks 0.5 acres in size or larger should be exempt from this ordinance and parks smaller tf>an this size should be included. since a review of panics within the City rcvrals that parka undrs 0.5 =1= are often ineidenml to some Other public use, are not destitzatton recreation areas and do ncc support as complex an et /a/ OCT-19-1995 11:4e 1TY OF EN"-4L'S P3R DEPT. 206 771 0F3 P.02 000system as baker panes. Since paft under 0.5 acres generally serve fewer ftmctions tfian Eger per, the relative importance of the impact of the park on the views of private property owners becomes 11>aclsed and the Council finds that the vegetation should be removed or altered Lf the value of the view outweighs the value of the vcZaatioa; and NVE EREAS. the- Council fireds that the removal of individual tines for purposes of proserving views does not constitute a troy clearias aeon sa conteuaplatod by ECDC Chapter 18.45 and such tetuoval should be exempt froth Bald chapter, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMomS, WASHiNGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: aggL'21-11. Thee is hczc y added a new dmp= ISA7 to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as follows; uobAV 1 S. 47 1 Intent. The City of Edmonds is benefited by cpecft'= a viturc of the Puget Sao lttd and the Cascmdc and Olympic Mountains. In the G V3 parka, open apace acas, and along the 'Z: we MXW U Und ad= vegeation which add to the naUml b=M of the area. It is important that ttresC views and trees be prob cte and pmserved for their ontabu inn fo the quality of life in Edmonds. It is the intent of this d mptcr to provide re"jai ons to preserve vegetate m and views within the City. This can be partially 4coowph4ied by controlling how and when pruning or vegetation removal can occur on public prape ty and, in speoific irstwm, by zllowi B inlvidmk to provide for the pmiing or removal of v%,cfttiAA on public property_ I1u dabtzmining whCitttr or not ve get Won Mmld be gruncd or t=owed for view purposes., tiro value of the view azxi the vegtrtarion, includi.ag such factOn as wildhfc hahitat pzvLeG17m. air poUuaw coaft-ot, noise pollutjon redacfim, sail saki water quality Prctmt on, and dimVz coatml roust be om&idared and all interests should be balanced in that one is oonsidered more important than the others. -2- �0"y OC T - l 4" - I T Y Or E DI101-g -b f �.R DEFT . -Ott 771 0253 P . 1J'• 1 ltOA 10 Additional iAtcrus of this c#+r sre pcatecting Rttc public inveitu'leat in rail Pr*P Y and M dmtring potcrltutl HaWlity by properly managing vegetatiaa on City -owned propeny. 47 AMHQat�litX- This chapter shall apply to all City -owned property, including but not unused a(: rights-cf-uray, open = , " property waved for f2eiutj*s, uUIO" specifically stated otherw-j&-, This chapter atwll apply to mquests to prune ar rcuzovc vcTctatiou which is impairing the viow from priv-ate PrVPah'- This chapter siza.11 only apply to "nondesignated vegetation". NoadesV4Vcd vegetation is defiled as vegetation that is }ocated outside Of -m= 015641y d=a=ted in City policies, permit appravais or plans for Vegdaiinn, ineludisz but =>.at iimited to grombdtr identified in ECDC Ci1aPW 15 =4 16, iandtOlPl ag PUM alrprovad by the ArrWuxxuz'al Design Board Undtr FIMC ChUV= 20.12, arras dcsignetod for trees in ally S=a. T=c F'l.zn pt, -Pu t w ECDC Chaptcx IS 5 and 2xcaa &—APatcd fOr VC9Ctatlon dtaVto SEPA under ECDC Chapter 20.15A. Vegctafon in parks-.lei-RMn 0.5 ticxts in size shall be subject to this chapt w wbahc3'4c, 2' natcd .& not. Van in parks greater than o.5 acm in sire shalt nc t W subject to this chapter. This chatcr is to cerve as 2 supplement to, mid is not intended/ to replace anY tldsting PrOmdu " for the ---oval, of vecc afion upon City prvperty. This Chapter al3o acrves as an exception to dta prohibitio:t of trtt rCTnoval Of- trimming on cuy property expressed in Edmonds Resolution No. 418_ 18,47.0 9 definitions. A. 'Developed right -of --way' means the area between tht right -of --way line and the nearest edge of the sftegat or 711ey_ Such right -of --way does not include medians_ - To be considcrcd dcrrloped, the abUtting 3UV=t or &Ucy must be otfk=y recognized by die city of Edmunds- B. "OPen seam" Me= any space or sand characterized by [lateral scenic b=ty and/or existing opeaness, natural comlition., or present state of use., such as a steep slope or gulch- If retaindd, the areas would ®hand the present or pateatW valtx of surrounding urbn dtvelopm&nt, or would maintain or enhanoe the conservation of "tural and -3 CJC.T-19-195rt� 11 : -_O ' TY OF ENICA ,=. P;;R LCE-1 _ 206 '.71 021- i IJ_ C14 .v. sow rr39ur=. The term "natural' as it relates to vegetation is tntenae4 to mean native vegetation. C. `Ynmirtg" means the removal of plant parts. dead or alive, in a careful anal systematic numxr &o as to not damage otlier parts of the plant. Prunmg is rwst often performcd for the purges s of imprvvinj; the hcalth, amlcttrrc, acstlx�dcs or safety of the vegetation, but may also be perfonnod for other reasons. Pruning includes limbiug up, dinning to create viewing win&ws through the vegetation, shVing, trimming, and removal of dead, decaying or diwasod bramfics- 1§,47MQ 6Mr9y41 Tv Pttlrr� Or acmoYe. It is unlawful for any person, ftm, or corporation to, in any manner, remove, destroy, or prune any Vitgetation on City -own d property for the purpose of view prey vation withatd having first obtained approval from the Edmonds Architectural Design Board; provided, however, that such approval is not required for pruning vcrvtahan which is less than 15 feet in height and located m developed or undeveloped right-of-way abutting t11e property of the individual performing or regumting the pruning; and pmoided, further, that itl addition to approval from the Edmonds Architectural Design Board, perm ion to prime or remove any vegetation on developed or undewlnpod right-of-way must be obtained from the owner of the abutting property, if other than the individual rc iucsting the vrark- 19 47,t)SQ =t. A written application must be submitted by tl:e individual who desires pruning or rcmaval of vcgetation from public pity_ 'Ihe request must be submitted an a form drsigmtrd by the Edmon& Planning Division, and must include the following: A. Vcgdatioa location- B. Photograph of vegetation. C. A statement of the problem. D- Proposed solutloa. E. If the vegetation is located on developed or undeveloped right-of-way, and if the individual irQuesting the work is not the owner, written permission filom the ovmer of abutting prop" to prune or remove vegetation- - -4- LICT-19-194-5 11:51 -ITY OF [[HICINDS e&F [},=P1. 'e(1 02--, r.vao P. Namc of company or individual to perfmm work. All requests shall indudo a deposit amount equal to the estimated cost of performing tha investigation and issuance of by the Edmonds Architectural Design Board as required under Section 18.47.060 of thia chapter. A base fx of $250-00 sball be cbaigod for each rcqucst. After comptetioa of all work identified under Section 18.47.060 of this cuter, any unexpended balance of said deposit in excess of $250.00 shall be refunded; or. if. for any reason, the charges exceed the amount of tfse deposit, the balance due shall be paid by the applicant to tht City. A. Review by E,dmoMs Azrhicectural Design Board. The request will be reviewed and approved oc denied by the Architectural Design Board- The following will be considcrod by tic Edmonds Architectural Design Board: 1. The purpose for which the property was acquired by the City. 2. Consi� with ECDC Chapters 15 and 16. 3. The view benefit. 4. The vegetation benefit- 5. The ext=t of the view and the view ioopairMcat. 6. The quality or type of view. 7. The value, type and amount of the vezetatxcan. 8. Overall quality anti density of the vegcWiatt. 9. The potential impacts on the future aestbelic quality of rho area. 10. The potential impacts on the planting symmetry upvnn the Sma or alley if locattd thereon. 11. The aesifietie and health impacts of Junin-g or removal on the vegetation_ -5- OCT-19-1995 11;51 -TY OF EDrIC"DS P&R DEPT_ 771 0_s•3 P_06 ,IAN&Ao 12. PotcntW cnYh-v mcutal impacts on Soils, slope stabs sty, taative wildlife habitat and other vcgctdion. wtian runoff, and wind and sound babies prout a on _ 13- Notential for replacement with more suitable vegetmion. 14_ Special coWdention for native vezetation in opm- 15. Special coasldcratian fur unique varieties, vegetation of grrat age, rare vegetalion, or vegetation of ba tict ltunl or Wstorical significance_ 16. Proximity to overhead power lines, both primary and s000ndary. 17. Tbad, boat= U"ing of trees can cause pcnnmmt dmmge by promoting unnatural, dense and weak bra.szcUig strut a r., topping shall not be apptvVcd tsl that is no other renonsble alternsiive for adoquabe control. Removal and/or replacement is preferable to topping. The detenn=tm of the Edmonds Architechn-al Design Bird sk& be set forth m a writl= order con FRinin findings of fact and conclusions which rapport such decision and which demonstrate that the dccisiM is consistent v t#1 the above -noted appkable factors and the intent of this chapter. The Edmonds Architectural Design Board shall issw its decision within BO days of receipt of the reque rt; provided, however, that, upon a findiniz of 6t cxi3t&nce of unusual eircu stanom, the 13vard may extend Said YMay time period m chic day iuctrstu U. '11= determination may coat nn cant ticus necessary to mltignte the impact of the qVr vat. ne, determination SUR also uzdicam the- time period in which the apprvrtad wogs must be performed, which uux period dL211 roc eye one >enx and umy be fn*or dcfincd so a3 to szlUdalim d=lage to vcgCmaon, or for outer puiporscs_ 'Mc dctar,ati_rlatiola "I carta:m a UQte that the appmyal is for one tl= only and that any future requests vning the s -or other im :?C i — : ] ` '; 1 i — I T f OF E_r`t'!U . n— o, IL � F'� f: DL=F iF. 0 i 1113y. 10 vegetation must be submiaed to the Edmonds Archltsctum, Desip Bond. B. prior to ace iWfeat on of the applicwtion by the Edmonds Amhitectvt^al Demon Hoard, the. Edmonds Pk=ir% ❑iYisian shall pewee a staff' report for the ArcWtoctusal Design Board in crostdtation with the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Division that provides an analysis of the seventeen factors listed in Section 18.47.060(A) and recommended action. The Pluming Division may utilizes the services of an vriu at or focrstcr as ncoded in making any recommendations to the Board_ If the requm involves vegetation winch, t rroug pruning or removal, may come into contact with utility lines, the request may be reviewed by the the agency having perry Jurisdiction over the Utility lines, and stuch ggeacy may comment on the roquast and rococm end ccmdllions of any approval. C. Notice and Public Hearing. The Edmonds Arciutectural Design Board shall hold a public ring on the am)lication prior to a final detcmiration an the application and provide notkc of the hearing as provided in F. = Section 20.90.010(A) and ECDC Section 20-90.010(B)(1) except OW notice will not have to be sent to the "owner of the property involved" as directed in ECDC Section 20.90.01003XI)(a)(1)- notice of the determination regarding the vgcParictri shall be mailed to the applicant by oeltiSed mail and provided to the city official responsible far the property. Notice of the det=-mir Lion shall also be mailed by fast class mail to owners of property (as indicated by the records of the Snohomish County Assessor) within 300 feet from ttr-- property for which the determit=6on wu requeded. D. Appeal- Any person may appeal a decision of the Architectural Design Board to the City Council. Ttie appeal shall be filed, processed and herd in the manner provided in Section 20.105.040 for appealing a decision of the Hearing Examiner. A foe of S 125.00 sh211 accompany any appeal of d-ten inn on of the City En&eex or designee made ro the Hearing Examiner. E. Costs. The cost of any work approved shall k paid by the individual requesting the action. Also, the valueof anY -7- OCT-19-199`. 11 :52 - I T)' OF EDI'ICdJDS r2R DEFT . 206 771 0253 P.0e. r 114214.00 vege a.tion complexly removed sW be detetTnimd by thr, Imanllzcr of the Edmonds Parks and Rcclration Divlsiorl ar designee and oad-half of such value shall be paid to the City by the individual; PraykW, hawcYcr, that an illdiYAual rcqucvint that vek emtivll tic removed ftum a developed or un&-velopCd right-cf-way abutting such individual's owe property shall not have to Tay the value - of the vegetation_ The Yalu-- of the vegetation snail be determined by using the Cidde for FstablishLV VQlues of ?hca mid Ocher Plaw, Ituemational Sacicq of ArWilcuUure, for guidance_ Money paid for vezeution removed from any city property shall'be placed -in a fund for planting and repbzcment or trxs oa city propcaty. F. Performance of Work.. Any work approved must be performed by an established treewservice company with a City business lionrise or. with speL`iflc appmvad from the >rrmnager of the Waxionds park% 2M p crellion Di►rir im or dcsignoc, by a pr[ratc ci6=, T11c work must b.-- performed wording to the NadmW AdKmst AswdadoWs Prwang SUmdar+ds and Must be done in such a =n= as to Minimize the powntw far M!5im % utlde*rusli dnx=tr The mmpany ar individxmi performing the- work must enter into an indc:=ifxaftox sgre went, in x farrn apprpvcd by the City An=Ky, with the City_ At his/her dtsaritpll, the City Bgirtesx or biVhcr designee may require liabi_iity insurance and/or a performance band. G, R=mavnd vegetation. Any remaining roots or stumps shall be cut out at least eight itches below the wJaaa of the ground. 11y; mffirager cst the rctmanus ram auu Aeorcatou Division or hiStha deface snaR deWflninc whether any mmoved vegeanon must be takea off the site. or may roman oa-site- The individual rcallcxti-ng the pruning or removal matt be entitled to any Mmovad ,Vc" im- H. inspocti.on of Site_ Upon completion of the work, the site will be ingmcted by ttic maw of the Edmonds Irks and Rtcfeation Divisioa or his/her desikncc and any bond released upon hivimt xaoommend=on. in OCT-19-1995 11:53 'TY OF EWCX4Dc-� P8R DEPT. 206 771 0253 P_O9 1 1 e + M �[r.". The violation of =ay of the pnovWoaa of Qapwr 18.47 shall constitute a civil kior=. AUY PC:r o riolatir S ouch pflpnigony Xhali be pcIalixod In a suns not CXOWdistg the value of tlla vegetadw pruned or reraaved plus S 1,000. Any nary coUectcd under this pmOsioa shall be placed in the General Fund. on 2. Section t8.45.030(M is hereby added to the Edmonds COMMUnity Development Code as follows: The following MmH be exempt from the previsions of "a chapter: H. The cutting and/or removing of any vcze atiou pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.47, uulan the Edmonds Architectural Design Board dctetmiues, that duo to the fact that more than n few individual trees are beigg mwwA under ECDC Chapter 18.47 for a particular application, that the tatting and/or reaming of veg=tioa pursuant to E 13C Chapter 18.47 rises to the level of "clearing" as contemplated within ft purpose of this Chapw. :imioa 3. ScYC,0114. If any section, senteaoe, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of compctent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SoudunA. Fff :xiy _ Date. This ordinance. bed an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is net subject to referendum, and shall take effort five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of thz title. I L,ulo m OCT-19-1995 11:53 s 'TY OF EDMONDS P&R DEPT. _ 206 771 0253 P.10 MAYOR, LAURA M. HALL ATTESVAUTHENTICATF.D: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF TfW CITY ATPORN'EV. FILED WITH THE CTI'Y CUM PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHISM PFFEC7IVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. -- I LL37110 -10- OCT-19-1995 11:54 TY OF EW014DS PZR DEPT. 206 771 0253 P.11 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 199_, the City .Council of the -City of Fdmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordLmncc, consi inu of the title. provides as follows: AN omiKANCF OF THb CITY OF mmoNDS, WASHINGTON. ESTABIMBING A PROCEDURE BY WHICH VEGETATION LOCATED UPON CITY PROPERTY THAT HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED BY ANY CITY POLICY, PERMIT APPROVAL OR ORDINANCE, OR VEGETATION UPON A CITY PARK THAT IS LESS THAN A HALF ACRE IN SIZE CAN BE REMOVED BY PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE VIEWS ARE OBSTRUCTED BY THE VEGETATION, IF RIM REMOVAL OR PRUNING OF THE V GETATTON IS CONSISTENT VVTM SEVF137EEPY STANDARDS THAT WEIGH THE VALUE OF THE VIMV AGAINST THE ITT=Y OF THE VEGETATION AND ALSO REQUIRRNG PROPERTY OWNERS TO REMOVE TEE VEGETATION AT THEM OWN EXPENSE AND FUQNG A TINS WFMN THE SAME SHAY T - BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of — 199 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE I ' 1 TOTFI. 6'e I RESOLUTION NO_ 418 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AND FORMALIZING A POLICY FOR TREE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL ON PUBLIC PROPERTY_ WHEREAS, there have been -numerous requests to have trees that are located upon public rights -of -way or other public property removed or topped in order to enhance views of the vicinal property owners, and WHEREAS, heretofore the policy of removal or trimming of trees in the public right-of-way and on other public property has not been formalized by the City Council and there is a need to adopt such a formal policy to provide uidance and direction for the administration and staff, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The policy of the City of Edmonds with respect to the removal or trimming of trees located on City property -or on public rights -of -way shall permit the same to occur only in the following listed instances: 1_ The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard; or 2_ The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public improve- tt liZ 0 ments such as roadways, sidewalks, etc; or 3_ The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health safety, and general welfare_ RESOLVED this 28th day of November, 1978_ APPROVED= MAW"- i _ ��R3S0I1 ATTEST/AUTIiENTICATED_ CITY CLERK, IRENE Ai{NEY MORAN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 27, 197E PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL- Novernber 28, 1978 9.15.0§0 `rACOMA ORDINANCE: an insurance policy or policies with limits of not less th" $100,0001300,000 for injuries to persons rid $50,000 for injuries to property, naming the City of Tacoma as an additional insured on said policy, which policy of insurance shall be approved in writing by the City of Tacoma. F. Any such project shall obtain specific clear- ance from the Traffic Engineering Division of the City of Tacoma and from the Tacoma Police Department, to the effect that there will be no inter- ference with pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the area, and that any potential hazards will be mini - or eliminated. G. The person or persons constructing such a project shall specifically agree to maintain the project during the existence thereof in a good and Workmanlike manner, and, in the event of their failure to so maintain the project, the City shall have the right, at the expense of the applicant, to maintain or remove the same, and it shall be promptly reimbursed for all expenses so incurred. (Ord. 16610 § 1; passed July 12, 1960.) 9.19.090 Penalty for violation. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall e subject to payment of a fine in an amount not 4xceeding $300-00, or subject to imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 16610 § 1; passed July 12, 1960.) Chapter-9=26 TREES AND SHRUBS— VIEW BLOCKAGE S ons: 9.20. 10 Intent. 9.20.02Q Applicability. 9.20.03 Defini� ns. 9.20.040 . `Appval to prune or remove. 9.20.050 R—uest. 9.20.060 Investigation and issuance of deterr^ination. 9.20.07G Violation — Penalty. -930.010 Intent. The City of Tacoma -is located on -a steep-eliffed-- peninsula-with spectacular views mftom-many-van= tage-points-In the city's parks, open space areas, and along the streets are many trees which add to the natural beauty of the area. It is important that these views and trees be protected and preserved for their contribution to the quality of life in faroma. It is the intent of this chapter to provide regulations to preserve vegetation and views within the city. This can be partially accomplished by controlling how and when pruning or vegetation removal can occur on public property and, in spe- cific instances, by allowing individuals to provide for the pruning or removal of vegetation on public Property In determining whether or not vegetation should be pruned or removed for view purposes, the value of the view and the vegetation, including such fac- tors as wildlife habitat protection, air pollution control, noise pollution reduction, soil and water quality protection, and climate control must be considered and all interests should be balanced in that none is considered -more important than the others. Additional intents of this chapter are protecting the public investment in real property and mini me - ing potential liability by Properly managing vege- tation on City -owned property. (Ord. 24945 § 1; passed July 16, 1991: Ord. 24710 § 1; passed Aug. 28, 1990.) 9.20.020 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all City -owned prop- erty, artmcntvf P.ublic_�ies— including, but not limited to: rights -of -way, open space, and property used for facilities, unless specifically stated otherwise. This chapter shall apply to requests to prude or mmove vegetation which is impairing view:— n7- • CJ 9-24 ccsrung--safcr5r-or nvn-view Issues are cwrcr�bY 11Y ` �5 Tacorna Municipal ..n, 9.20.060 �J • • Chagtcr-9-1$,--(9rd:-24.94g- 2;-passed July- 16, 1991 -Ord-247-€()+4+passed-Aug,-28. i990.-) 9.20.030 Definitions. A. "Developed right-of-way" means the area between the right-of-way line and the nearest edge of the street or alley. Such right-of-way does not include medians. To be considered developed, the abutting street or alley must be officially recog- nized by the City of Tacoma. B. "Open space" means any space or area char- acterized by natural scenic beauty and/or existing openness, natural condition, or present state of use, such as a steep slope or gulch. If retained, these areas would enhance the present or potential value of surrounding urban development, or would main- tain or enhance the conservation of natural and sce- nic resources. The term "natural' as it relates to vegetation is intended to mean native vegetation. C. "Pruning" means the removal of plant parts, dead or alive, in a careful and systematic manner so as to not damage other parts of the plant. Pruning is most often performed for the purposes of improv- ing the health, structure, aesthetics or safety of the vegetation, but may also be performed for other reasons. Pruning includes limbing up, thinning to create viewing windows through the vegetation, shaping, trimming, and removal of dead, decaying or diseased branches. (Ord. 24710 § 1; passed Aug. 28, 1990.) 9.20.040 Approval to prune or remove. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corpora- tion to. in any manner. remove, destroy, or prune any vegetation on City -owned property for the pur- pose of view preservation without having fast obtained approval from -the City Engineer. pro- vided, however, that such approval is not required for pruning vegetation which is less than 15 feet in height and located on developed or undeveloped right-of-way abutting the property of the individual performing or requesting the pruning; and pro- vided, further. that in addition to approval from the City Engineer, permission to prune or remove any vegetation on developed or undeveloped right-of- way must be obtained from the owner of the abut- ting property, if other than the individual request- ing the work. (Ord. 24710 § 1; passed Aug. 28, 1990.) 9.20.050 Request. A written request must be submitted by the indi- vidual who desires pruning or removal of vegeta- tion from public property. The request must be submitted on a form designated by the Department of Public Works, and must include the following A. Vegetation location. B. Photograph of vegetation. C. A statement of the problem D. Proposed solution. E. If the vegetation is located on developed or undeveloped right-of-way, and if the individual requesting the work is not the owner, written per- mission from the owner of abutting property to prune or remove vegetation. F. Name of company or individual to perform work. All requests shall include a deposit amount equal to the estimated cost of performing the inves- tigation and issuance of determination by Public Works as required under Section 9120.060 of this chapter. A base fee of $250.00 shall be chargedfor each request. After completion of all work identi- fied under Section 9-.2G._60 of this chapter, any unexpended balance of said deposit in excess of $250.00 shall be refunded; or, if, for any reason, the charges exceed the amount of the deposit, the balance due shall be paid by the applicant to the City. (Ord, 24945 § 3; passed July 16. 1991: Ord. 24710 § 1; passed Aug. 28, 1990.) 9.20.060 Investigation and issuance of determination. A. Review by City Engineer. The request will be reviewed and approved or denied by the City Engineer or his/her designee. If the request involves vegetation which, through pruning or removal, may come into contact with utility lines, the request must be reviewed by the L-ight-Bivi- siearNblic-UtiUM, and such division may com- ment on the request and recommend conditions of any approval. Any request may be referred for review and recommendation to a committee which shall include members of the gen reside within the City of Tsoefffsaad one represen- tative each from the Planning nt Se t, Public Works Department. Publie-Utilities-Department-and-Met mpolitan-Park Oisttict City staff members of the committee shall have knowledge, background, or training in arbori- culture, forestry, horticulture, landscape architec- ture, or other closely related field. The City Engineer may utilize the services of a consulting arborist or forester as needed. The following will be considered by the City Engineer or his/her des- ignee and the committee: 1. The purpose for which the property wa acquired by the City. 9-25 4e 15, 910.060 2. Consistency with the-1✓asdk.US(-_Manage_ ment-PIE . I The view benefit. 4. The vegetation benefit. 5. The extent of the view and the view impairment. 6. The quality or type of view. 7. The value, type and amount of the vege- tation. 8. Overall quality and density of the vegeta- tion. 9. The potential impacts on the future aes- thetic quality of the area. 10. The potential impacts on the planting symmetry upon the street or alley where located. 11. The aesthetic and health impacts of pruning or removal on the vegetation. 12. Potential environmental impacts on soils, slope stability, native wildlife habitat and other vegetation, urban runoff, and wind and sound barrier protection. 13. Potential for replacement with more suitable vegetation. 14. Special consideration for native vegeta- tion in open -space areas. 15. Special consideration for unique variet- ies, vegetation of great age, rare vegetation, or veg- tation of horticultural or historical significance. 16. Proximity to overhead power lines, both primary and secondary. 17. That, because topping of trees can cause permanent damage by promoting unnatural, dense and weak branching structure, topping shall not be approved unless there is no other reasonable alter- native for adequate control. Removal and/or replacement is preferable to topping. The determination, of the City Engineer shall be set forth in a written order containing findings of fact and conclusions which support such decision and which demonstrate that the decision is consis- tent with the above -noted applicable factors and the intent of this chapter. The City Engineer shall issue his decision within 30 days of receipt of the request; provided, however, that; upon a finding of the existence of unusual circumstances, the City Engineer may extend said 30-day time period. The determination may contain conditions necessary to mitigate the impact of the approval. The determi- nation shall also indicate the time period in which the approved work must be performed, which time period shall not exceed one year and may be further defined so as to minimize damage to vegetation, or `or other purposes. The determination shall contain . note that the approval is for one time only and that any future requests concerning the same or other vegetation must be submitted to the City Engineer. B. Notice. Notice of aniappltcation files under provisions of this cha7property shall be mailed by fit class mail to owners (as indicated by the records of the Ptercc County Assessor) within 400 feet from the property for which the applica- tion is filed, and-to4}ualified-neighbodioodorxat3i munit organizations and t1-u—Qeautif cation Committee, .allowing for comments to be made to the City Engineer prior to making a decision. Notice of the determination regarding Elie Vegeta- tion shall he mailed to the applicant by certified mail and provided to the city official responsib[c for the property. Notice of the determination shall also be mailed by fast class mail to owners of prop- erty (as indicated by the records of the Pierce County Assessor) within 400 feet from the prop- erty for which the determination was requested, and-to-qualified-neighborhood,or commurdty-orga-- niaations C. Reconsideration. Any aggrievcd person hav- ing standing under the ordinance governing such notices of determination and believing that the determination of the Engineer is based on errors of procedure or fact may, within 15 days of the issu- ance of the notice, make a written request for review by the Engineer. This request shall set forth the alleged errors, and the Engineer may, after fur- ther review, take such further action as he deems proper, and may render a revised determination. D. Appeal. The applicant property owner, own- ers of property, or any qualified neighborhood/ community organization entitled to receive a notice of determination of the City Engineer may, within 15 days of the issuance of the notice or within seven days of the date of issuance of the Engineer's decision on a reconsiderativtt, appeal the decision to the Hearing Exatiitner. Such apEe I shall be in accordance with'Sectiorr:95-.44$ of agulatovy-code. A fee of $125.00 shall accompany any appeal of determination of the City Engineer or designee made to the Hearing Examiner. E. Costs. The cost of any work approved shall be paid by the individual requesting the action. Also, the value of any vegetation completely removed shall be determined by the City Engineer or designee and one-half of such value shall be paid to the City by the individual; provided, however, that an individual requesting that vegetation be removed from a developed or undeveloped right- of-way abutting such individual's own property shall not have to pay the value of the vegetation. The value of the vegetation shall be dctes mined by 9-26 jor 0 • IP Tacoma Municipal ,,, 9.22.020 • using the Guide far Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants, International Society of Arbori- culture, for guidance. MOn--YpBid-Nrdte-City-for-the-value of the veg- etation-shZ"_"!ceditt a'fund-acco(ding to the owireffnP o e ProPenY: Ifthcpr0p0tty4s-owned- by-thc-Pubtic4:�ttlities-Dcpam=t, then tlTe-trio eey shal4o-toPublic.Utiiities,-Money paid for vegeta- tion removed from any other property shall be placed in a fund for planting and replacement of trees on city property. F. Performance of Work. Any work approved must be performed by an established tree -service company with a City business License or, with spe- cific approval from the City Engineer, by a private citizen. The work must be performed according to the National Arborist Association's Pruning Stan- dards and must be done in such a manner as to min- imize the potential for erosion or underbrush damage. The company or individual performing the work must enter into an indemnification agree- ment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the City. At his/her discretion, the City Engi- neer or his/her designee may require liability insur- ance and/or a performance bond. G. Removed Vegetation. Any remaining roots or stumps shall be cut out at [east eight inches below the surface of the ground. The City Engineer or his/her designee shall determine whether any removed vegetation must be taken off the site or may remain on -site. The individual requesting the Pruning or removal shall be entitled to any removed vegetation. R Inspection of Site. Upon completion of the work, the site will be inspected by the City Engi- neer or his/her designee and any bond released upon his/her recommendation. (Ord. 24945 § 4; passed July 16, 1991: Ord. 24710 § 1; passed Aug. 28, 1990.) 9.20.070 Violation — Penalty. The violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 9.20 shall constitute a civil infraction- Any person violating such provisions shall be penalized in a sum not exceeding the value of the vegetation pruned or removed plus $1,000. Any money col- lected under this provision shall be placed in the General Fund. (Ord. 24710 § 1; passed Aug. 28. 1990.) 9-27 Chapter 9.22 VACATION OF STREETS Sections: 9.22.010 Petition to vacate authorized. 9.22.020 Presentation of petition - Filing fee. 9.22.030 Report by the Public Works Department. 9.22.040 Major street plan. 9.22.050 Filing petition with City Clerk — Resolution for submission to Council. 9.22.060 Notice of public hearing. 9.22.070 Public hearing. 9.22.080 Ordinance. 9.22.090 Compensation and appraisal fees. 9.22.100 Petition not granted or abandoned. 9.22.010 Petition to vacate authorized. The owners of an interest in any real estate abut- ting on any street or alley who may desire to vacate any street orallcy, or any part thereof, shall petition to the City Council to make vacation in the manner hereafter provided in this chapter and pursuant to Chapter 35.79 RCW, or the City Council may itself initiate by resolution such vacation procedure. The City Council shall require the petitioners to com- pensate the City of Tacoma in an amount whi equals one-half of the appraised value of the area vacated, provided that when the vacation is initi- ated by the City of Tacoma or the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Tacoma, all or any portion of such compensation may be waived. The sums received hereunder shall be devoted to the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of public open space land within the City of Tacoma as approved by the City Council upon recommendation of the Director of Planning. (Ord. 20444 § 1; passed June 10, 1975.) 9.22.020 Presentation of petition — Filing fee. A. The petition and information forms shall be furnished by the Department of Public Works, together with written instructions concerning the street vacation procedure. The petitioner shall fill out and complete the petition and any information forms, including the environmental checklist, and shall present it to the Department of Public Works for approval as to form and content prior to pay- ment to said department of a filing fee of: 1. $125.00 if the street or alley proposed for vacation is within an R-1. R-2, or R-3 zoning clas- sification. Ndutecduat Design Board Meeting Page 5 BOARDMEMBER FRANK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER HARRIS TO APPROVE ADB-95-165 AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF VOTING NO AND BOARDMEMBER BYLSTRA ABSTAINING. A discussion of a proposed ordinance addressing city policy and procedures for the cutting or pruning of trees on city property for view preservation and enhancement was held. City Attorney Phil Olbrechts outlined the proposed ordinance and reviewed the background of this issue with the Board. He stated that the basic issue is views. vs. trees, and that this came up recently regarding trees in the SR 104 Park. Currently the City's ordinances and policies prohibit the cutting of trees for purposes of enhancing views. Mr. Olbrechts explained that the only city in this state to have such an ordinance is Tacoma, and that there is much controversy surrounding that legislation due to its subjectivity. The Edmonds City Council has asked the Architectural Design Board for their opinion of this draft ordinance before making their decision on this issue. Mr. Olbrechts stated that this ordinance came about because of a special situation and would only pertain to parks or public areas that are 1/2 acre or smaller in size, or for areas where trees were never planned. In reviewing the proposed ordinance, he stated that on page 2, the section on "Intent" states that none of the factors in cutting down trees is considered more important than the others. Because there are no priorities, the decision then becomes very subjective. The City cannot make an exception for one person. Policies have to be the same for everyone similarly situated. In addition, Mr. Olbrechts pointed out that if the City makes an exception for one person without policies or standards, it can be very arbitrary. Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager indicated that there were eight parks in the City which are under 1/2 acre and would be covered under this ordinance. She indicated that she has not identified all the public areas which may be included. Trees along the sidewalks on those streets that have been designated by the City to be in their street tree plan, would not be included in this ordinance. Mr. Olbrechts pointed out that the proposed ordinance contains language that would make the applicant responsible for all costs in taking down trees, subject to the cty's approval. Board Comments: Boardmember Bylsma stated that periodically, when the Council does not want to make difficult decisions, they send it to this Board. He explained that when -a city park is designed, the trees are put there for a specific purpose. In addition, when someone buys a house and there is a tree in front of it, they know the tree is going to grow, and they need to take this into consideration. Mr. Bylsma stated that he has a real problem with cutting down trees on city property for the reason of view. Private citizens are rarely allowed to take trees down and he does not like the idea of damaging city property for the benefit of certain citizens. The trees provide more value to more people in the city, and the decision whether to take down certain trees is too subjective. Boardmember Young stated that all citizens will not be satisfied. He would rather maintain the prohibition or have some variance process to review the decision. He explained that this ordinance will not work without causing long appeal processes and great costs to the city. Boardmember Frank stated that she was adamantly opposed to such an ordinance. She explained that there is too much subjectivity in this proposal to ever be able to enforce such a regulation. Boardmember Harris declined to comment other than to see that she agreed with Boardmembers Young and Frank and is totally against such an ordinance. a I Novernber 1, 1995 Boardmember Young stated that he feels that the current policy of not cutting trees for view purposes should remain in place. Boardmember Oaklief referred to the section on "Intent" and asked what potential liability is being minimized by this proposed ordinance. Ms. Ohlde stated that it minimizes a potential law suit against the city for blocking a view. Mr. Olbrechts explained that if a situation occurred where the -city made exceptions to the current policy without an ordinance of this type in place, there could be potential monetary liability. He stated that this ordinance was, in fact, drafted in response to a request, from a citizen who had their attorney present, for the city to remove trees for view purposes. Boardmember Oaklief stated that since potential monetary liability has nothing to do withlife, safety or welfare, such as is spoken to in the current policy, then this section should be removed. He also asked for an example of what "non -designated vegetation" in the downtown area would include. Mr. Ohlde stated that alders on undeveloped property, which are seeding themselves, would be an example Boardmember Oaklief explained that the definition of view in the proposed ordinance is too subjective to be effective. He indicated that under the proposed definition, outside the area where the street plan is in effect, it could include his view of a sign from his car or business. Boardmember Oaklief stated that is appears that a very small portion of the city's population would benefit from such an ordinance. Variance standards are very specific about not creating a special view benefit for one individual, and this appears to be completely inconsistent with the other rules and regulations of the city. He also stated that he feels that the base cause of this matter is a lack of personal responsibility. Real estate investments have risks like any other investment. He explained that he is totally against this ordinance and feels that the current tree cutting policy should be maintained. If anything is done, it should be for the good of the whole community rather than for just a few individuals. Boardmember Young agreed and stated that he feels this is giving special privileges to a few people and would be a detriment to the larger group of Edmonds citizens. He also asked if there is a problem with the current policy. Arvilla Ohlde reviewed the history of Resolution 418 and how it came about, and stated that it is still working effectively in dealing with the approximately 20 calls per month currently received on this issue. She also explained that there are many trees currently being damaged due to illegal cutting. Boardmember Bylsma stated that no policy of this type should be put into effect without public meetings. There is nothing worse than a rule that is poorly written or defined. Boardmember Oaklief stated that he feels it is not the city's responsibility to protect the views of certain individuals. Boardmember Sullivan stated that the Architectural Design Board is not interested in this proposed ordinance which is obviously a significantly flawed document. It gives no definition of view and is ambiguously written. Everything is undefinable. Boardmember Oaklief suggested that the Council adopt a regulation that prohibits cutting of indigenous tree species. Mr. Olbrechts summarized the Board's consensus that they are adamantly opposed to this proposed ordinance, that they feel that the current policy should remain in force, and that trees on city property should not be removed for view purposes. Arehitectural Design Board Mooting Page 6 November 1, 1995 Approved 10/17/9i EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President (7:35 p.m.) William J. Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember ABSENT David Earling, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Emily Shen, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor Pat Harris, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Phil Olbrechts, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor, introduced Dr. Ellen Kahan, the new Edmonds Elementary School principal. Dr. Kahan stated she was pleased to be in Edmonds and intends to make Edmonds Elementary School a part of the Edmonds community, both at the school and in the streets of Edmonds. 1. R 'uIEW FPO KY RE rARDIN-G TREU Mayor Hall acknowledged correspondence received from the following citizens: Harold M. Skoog, Mrs. H. Piazza, Hazel Miller, Lucille P_ Conley, Roland J. Scott, Lurline B. Brown and Ralph and Marlene Ulricksen_ Rob Chave, Planning Manager, advised this item was raised at a previous Council meeting_ Tile - Community Services Committee discussed it and suggested it be brought to full Council discussion to address the five questions in the City Attomey's memo of September 7. Resolution 418, adopted in 1978, addresses the policy for cutting of trees on public rights of way. This review is to determine the Council's wishes regarding revisiting, revising or drafting a new policy and to look at the review process_ Councilmember Kasper stressed this discussion did not apply to all trees in the City, only improperly Ianted trees with severe impacts. 170 City Attorney Phil Olbrechts, stated the limits of the tree cutting policy should be addressed. He noted the Mariner Plaza situation is not an isolated incident, and a procedure to deal with similar situations is necessary. He noted the Council has dealt with tree cutting three times since 1983 and has decided each time not to do anything because the issue became too complicated and controversial. The only City in the State that deals directly with tree cutting is Tacoma; the City Engineer makes a determination whether a tree is to be removed. The factors the City Engineer considers include view benefit, extent of view impairment, quality and density of vegetation, aesthetics of entire area, planting symmetry, pruning vs. removal vs. topping, and proximity to power lines. A total of 17 issues are considered, although the City Engineer in Tacoma feels the ordinance needs to be more specific and the 17 factors prioritized. Mr. Olbrechts advised that City Attorney Scott Snyder recommends, if the Council wants to proceed with a waiver process, to have an ADB review, which includes public notice. Mr. Olbrechts addressed the first question, should a waiver process be established? Councilmember Kasper noted the ADB has not been involved with much tree planting. Trees mandated since 1981 did not reflect the neighbors wishes, but only the recommendation of the ADB. He felt this needed to be addressed on a waiver basis. Councilmember Hall asked what the wavier would accomplish in addition to what the City is presently allowed to do. View corridors would not be addressed by the waiver. Mr. Olbrechts advised Resolution 418 currently addresses public safety issues. Mr. Chave said the waiver would not address cutting trees that block view corridors. One approach could be to identify view corridors and adopt procedures for views and plantings in those view corridors to establish a standard. Mr. Olbrecltts noted this could include standards to require certain plantings in view corridors, heights and alignment of buildings to prevent view obstruction. Councilmember Hall observed there is no view corridor protection in Edmonds, the only protection is height limits. Councilmember Fahey stated the purpose of the meeting is to present guidelines and criteria so the ADB can review and prepare a proposal. She pointed out views determine property values in many areas of Edmonds and the policy limiting building heights prevents the obstruction of views. When trees grow above the building height limit, property values are lowered, ultimately diminishing the tax base. She favored an evaluation of trees planted on public property that diminish property value due to growth patterns and requiring new plantings in accordance with building height limits. She wants to provide relief to Mariner Plaza but did not feel a policy should apply to parks or old growth trees. Mayor Hall noted many complaints are received regarding trees in City parks. She questioned how tree heights could be regulated. Mr. Chave explained the City Attorney needs guidance from the Council, what the Council is most concerned with --standards for new development, existing trees, new plantings, etc_ Councilmember Ball suggested if an individual wants to pay to remove a tree, it could be addressed on a case -by -case basis. lie expressed concern that a policy regarding tree cutting would be unconstitutional in other areas of the city's police power. Councilmember Myers stated he would like to read the letters submitted and Tacoma's ordinance_ He noted many citizens arc concerned with trees blocking views. Cily Comial Appro%—W h4inulc% (Mober 10. 11r)5 'ouncilmember Kasper noted there are waivers currently that are not followed through on such as Bracketfs Landing. Trees are mandated by the ADB, then waived, and the trees ultimately planted exceed the height of the building . He referred to the row of trees planted by the State Highway Department and questioned if the City had approved these trees. Mr. Olbrechts said the 17 factors outlined in the Tacoma Ordinance should be considered; as well as view corridors and whether the City was responsible for placing the trees in certain locations. Councilmember Hall cautioned the Council that narrowing restrictions would result in a policy that is unconstitutional. Councilmember Fahey requested the City's policy address trees planted by the City on public rights -of -way which restrict existing views established but not include trees in parks. In the future, the Council can look at ornamental plantings that diminish views. Councilmember Nordquist recalled Resolution 418 resulted from bulldozing of trees on 7th and Elm for a view corridor. He noted the intention when planting trees in the ferry holding lanes was simply to plant trees, height was not a consideration. He questioned whether trees should be allowed to grow to their ultimate height or be trimmed to an acceptable height. Mr. Chave advised he would obtain additional information from Tacoma for discussion at a Council work session. Mr. Olbrechts observed the Tacoma ordinance does apply to view blockage. The most notable constitutional issue to be considered is who will pay for removal of trees to enhance someone's view. In Tacoma, the property owner pays for that. In cases where the view is blocked by trees ;mproperly placed by the City, the payment for removal becomes more complicated. He reminded the .,ouncil to keep cost in mind as well as who will pay for the tree removal. Council President Petruzzi was willing to consider changes for view corridors and restricting tree heights but was not willing to have the removal be a cost to the City. He noted the attorney for the owners of the building indicated the removal would be borne by the owners of the property (attorney agreed). Councilmember Myers suggested pruning rather than topping should be considered as an alternative as topping often results in the death of the tree. Councilmember Fahey agreed cost should be built into the ordinance. She did not want this issue to be discussed for an extended period of time and thus no answer provided to the individuals who brought the issue before the Council. A short term solution to provide immediate relief for this problem is necessary in addition to a phased -in overall tree policy. Councilmember Hall stated he was open to the group paying for the removal of the trees and planting of replacement trees. He felt this was an appropriate way to solve similar problems, on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Olbrechts cautioned this may set a precedence as this is not an isolated case. Council President Petruzzi favored setting this matter over to another meeting. Although lie wanted to provide relief for the group, lie was concerned with setting a precedence. Council agreed to discuss the matter for 30 minutes at the October 24 work session. Mr. Olbreclits clarified the Tacoma ordinance operates on a case. -by -case basis but has standards to allow -fair treatment 0 City Council Approved Mmut%�. I ( )oobcr 10. 199 i Council President Petruzzi suggested this be discussed at a public hearing. Councilmember Hall cautioned the Council about acting too quickly as interested individuals may not be aware of the discussion. He felt a case -by -case basis would allow time to deal with the entire policy issue. Council President Petruzzi felt both could be accomplished, if the evidence at the hearing indicates, a solution could be worked out for this group and continue the hearing for discussion on the issuance of the ordinance. He expressed concern with acting quickly to accommodate one group xvithout allowing public input. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL ['RESIDENT PETRUZZI TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR TIIREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Myers wanted the ADB to have input before the Council passed an ordinance and requested the Tacoma ordinance be included in next week's packet. Councilmember Fahey suggested Council consider a proposal at the work session oil a potential solution to meet a short term need for (his group and similar situations without setting a precedence. It then would be needed to be reviewed by ADB and be subject to a hearing process. Council President Petruzzi -advised tine topic would be discussed for 30 minutes at the work session following the Consent Agenda and requested the City Attorney be available for the discussion. Mr. Olbrechts summarized proposals would be limited to trees improperly placed by the City and not deal with parks_ The Council adjourned to committees at 8:00 p.m. rZ03,00W C:il% Council Approved Minulcs 0clohcr 10. 19')5 I':mc 4 Terese Coleman, Vice Chair of the Edmonds Bike Group, looks forward to working with Council and the community. Mayor Hall commented that she believes becoming an official City Advisory Commission is an excellent idea. 3A. GIFT TO CITY dl ff -ro Fire Chief Michael Springer stated the City has recently received a sizable donation, specifically PO earmarked to the Fire Department Aid Car Fund, from an unidentified person. Chief Springer thanked 0� this unknown person for the donation. He wanted to let the public know that they do receive donations, AID both in the Aid Car Fund and the Fire Equipment Fund, and this money is used to purchase equipment CAX rldb that, literally, saves lives. He cited the examples of the jaws of life purchase and an aid unit vehicle enabled by previous donations. He again thanked the donator and said the money would be put to good use and, hopefully, whatever equipment is purchased with this money will save additional lives in the future. Mayor Hall verified from experience the value of the jaws of life. This is one more step in the City's interaction with the community. Councilmember Hall suggested a way fro people to give to the City is by a specific bequest in their Will. It can be made out to a specific department. A lot of people are doing this these days, and he encourages it. 4. V n inued from IQIIQ/95) RI Planning Manager Rob Chave began his presentation by stating that City Attorney Phil Olbrechts TRCr> assisted in compiling the draft ordinance attached to the Agenda Memo. It is patterned after the Tacoma ordinance which similarly regulates trees, particularly looking at trees in rights -of -way. Mr. Olbrechts has tried to craft an ordinance that would provide some limited ways of removing view -obstructing trees. It is intended to address certain situations without opening the entire city to requests for tree removal. It is targeting rights -of -way, and particularly very small parks that are unlikely to have master plans or any other type of approval attached to them -- basically parks under half an acre. Any part over half an acre would not fall within this ordinance and would have to go through the normal process which would involve either reviewing or revising the Master Plan or Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval. One aspect that has been discussed is who may apply for this type of thing. Right now, the way the ordinance is drafted, it doesn't address that question. The feeling is it probably should be limited to those people who are in close proximity to one of these situations and a limitation of being within 300 feet of the particular property is being considered. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that he had provided to Councilmember Fahey language to add that limitation. He also noted that Councilmember Myers had found a typo on page 2 where the word "one" should be "none" in the next -to -the -last sentence. Mr. Chave said his assumption is that this is an ordinance in draft form. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to get a sounding from the Council as to whether this is something it wants sent forward to the ADB for their review, or whether there are other ideas needing to be considered. Council President Petruzzi questioned the phraseology "any person may appeal a decision of the Architectural Design Board ..." contained in paragraph D on page seven. Mr. Chave responded that City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 1995 dow 20 Page 4 typically the people that are effected know about a project early on. With trees it may be more difficult for people to be aware of that proposal initially. With that understanding, they feel it might be appropriate to broaden the appeal possibilities. It is a subject that could be opened for discussion, but that is the present rationale. Council President Petruzzi then questioned reference on page 7-8, to "... Also, the value of any vegetation completely removed shall be determined by the .manager of the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Division or designee and one-half of such value shall be paid to the City by the individual . . ". He has seen that one-half come up in dealing with certain types of rights -of -way. Mr. Chave assumes it came from the Tacoma ordinance. Mr. Petruzzi's concern was that removing them was only one-half of the expense because presumably other trees of relatively good age and won't grow as tall will be replaced. He asked for Ms. Ohlde's comments. Ms. Ohlde was advised by Mr. Olbrechts that you may have someone that states it is 100% of the value, they may be looking just for the lumber amount to be gained back. When you set it at half, there is an incentive to not be looking at timber feet. Mr. Petruzzi confirmed where the money would be held. Councilmember Kasper asked if there was a copy of the Tacoma ordinance as he had thought Council was to be provided with them. Mr. Kasper would like to see a copy. Councilmember Fahey stated her understanding that in drafting this ordinance we were only trying to provide for either trimming or actual replacement of vegetation. She had not anticipated there would be situations where vegetation would be completely removed and not be replaced to some degree with some other appropriate planting. She asked why language was included that allows for removal without replacement. Mr. Chave's sense was that it may not be possible in all situations to replace something; it may be that you may want to relocate it. Mr. Snyder advised that one of the questions he had asked Mr. Olbrechts about the rationale and liked his response -- there may be situations, particularly talking about trees that were either put there and designated by a landscape planner and have just grown -- there usually is the thinning technique. It may be in order for the remaining trees to better grow, you need to remove some in between to provide space. They wanted to give them the latitude to have that professionally assessed. The intent is not the wholesale removal of trees. Councilmember Fahey questioned language contained on page 4 under § 18.47.040 where it says, ".. . provided however, that such approval is not required for pruning vegetation which is less than 15 feet in height...". She asked if her understanding was correct that you don't need approval for something that short, or that you can arbitrarily go in and consistently trim things back even if they haven't exceeded the 15 feet height. City Attorney Snyder suggested adding "by City staff and City franchisees"; it is not the intent to give anyone carte blanche to come on City property. Further discussion followed with regard to parks under one-half acre. It works on all parks. It is unknown whether there are other isolated right-of-way that fit the size criteria. Councilmember Myers asked for clarification of the costs. He questioned specifically paragraph G on page 8. He asked if it was possible for someone to walk off with a profit as a result. Mr. Chave indicated it had occurred to him that it could be possible which is one of the reasons he cited this as a draft ordinance. Mr. Snyder said that in the version that goes to the ADB removal may be entitled to any removed vegetation subject to the order of the ADB. It will give them the latitude to do it. Councilmember Hall expressed reservations about this type of ordinance. He noted it has been attempted by City Council a couple of times and the decision was made not to open up a can of worms. 12s, City Council Approvcd Minutcs Octobcr 24 1995 Page 5 Specifically, in the beginning of this ordinance we are designating an intent to preserve vegetation and views within the city. Those are two separate things. The issue of preserving views and placing a value on view is rather replete throughout the ordinance itself: He is worried that someone could easily use this to jump over to private property stating that the: City has recognized a value in views in our city and use this as a precedent on lawsuits involving residents. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr. Snyder if they had gotten into view corridors or if that would be considered subsequently. Mr. Snyder said the City has previously discussed trying to designate view corridors on several occasions. Mr. Kasper said the first time around, there was a contract being drawn to develop corridors, and then at the last minute the Council pulled that out. But it didn't have anything to do with the public hearings we had at the Planning Commission on whether it expanded into private property; we really were only talking at that time about mandated trees. Mr. Chave believes this ordinance is aimed at the City as a property owner, and it is not intended to go further than that. It was confirmed if we got into view corridors it could effect City property as well as private property. Councilmember Kasper's thinking was originally to limit it to broad scale obstructions, not every piece of property that has a tree sticking up. Areas that are largely blocked are those that need to be addressed. Councilmember Hall reiterated that if we allow the economics to rule the day on a case by case basis, it could provide an opportunity for someone else to take advantage. In reality, we can probably accomplish what we are attempting to do without having to set something we might regret in the future. Councilmember Nordquist went back to the Council minutes of October 10, at which time Mr. Olbrechts said we should consider 17 factors outlined in the Tacoma ordinance. He asked if that was part of the process yet. He questioned whether the ordinance was ready to be sent forward to the ADB. Mr. Chave said if Council feels the ordinance is ready to get some input from someone else, it can send it to them after tonight. If it wants to work more on the ordinance, it can be held for further discussion. The ADB review would occur after Council is comfortable with an ordinance as a draft. Councilmember Nordquist thinks there are still a lot of questions, and a lot of important matters on the agenda tonight. He is not ready to send it forward and asked Council President Petruzzi to schedule another meeting. Councilmember Kasper still wants to see the Tacoma ordinance. Council President Petruzzi has more difficulty doing this on a case -by -case basis as suggested by Councilmember Hall than by placing it in an ordinance. This ordinance can be refined to quite a bit of specificity; if you start taking things on a case -by -case basis and rule on them, we are in effect making case law. Then we would have a lot more difficulty with case law than we would have with a specific ordinance. He agreed there are a lot of questions, and Council should carry it forward for further discussion. He suggested those with more specific questions address them to the City Attorney privately. The City Attorney will see that Council all gets copies of the Tacoma Ordinance. He asked Mr. Snyder how long the Tacoma ordinance had been in effect and what type of difficulty has that City had with that ordinance, if any. Mr. Snyder thinks the Tacoma experience has been the reason Council would probably want to address this through some sort of structure rather than ad hoc basis. It is his understanding it has been in effect approximately one year, and they have been amazed at the controversy they have generated. Mr. Snyder additionally pointed out that the City's Comprehensive Plan already designates views as something that the City will strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors. It includes views along with open spaces and natural resources. It is already in the Comp Plan for private developmenI. )SAP City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 1995 Page 6 CounciImember Fahey thinks this draft ordinance is a good beginning from which to draw. However, she noted there is a time lag involved for the ADB to review it. She said she would appreciate input from the AD13 and anybody who might wish to review it and provide additional input to Council so that she can factor all of that into her consideration of what we currently have on paper. She would like to see the ADB simultaneously reviewing this and gathering input from interested citizens. Council President Petruzzi agreed that that would be beneficial.. Once the questions raised this evening are taken care of, we can push it on to the ADB, get their process started, and then Council can get tracking along the same line with them. Mr. Chave asked for some clarification as to whether he is expecting the ADB to have some sort of public meeting on this, or whether he is asking for more of a technical review from the Board members and discussion among themselves. Mr. Petruzzi responded that right now a technical review would be appropriate. When Council feels it is ready, it can go to the ADB for a hearing. Mr. Chave advised the ADB has a meeting next Wednesday. As long as it isn't a public hearing type of meeting, it may be possible to get it to them for some discussion. Council President Petruzzi asked for a consensus. Councilmember Myers said that would be all right with him if all of the questions raised tonight are addressed in there before it goes to the ADB. Mr. Snyder will make the changes. Mayor Hall announced receipt of a paper prepared by Mr. Pat Harris_ He has written an analysis of the Resolution 418 Tree Cutting Policy. Copies will be provided to Council. Mr. Chave noted Mr. Harris' analysis was from a research paper he had done connected to some classes he was taking at one time, so it is not something generated for this purpose. Council President Petruzzi asked Mr. Chave, Mr. Snyder and City Clerk Sandy Chase to get together and set a date certain to place this on the agenda. CounciImember Hall wanted to make sure the public doesn't think Council is putting off any emergency situations. There are certain people waiting in the wings wondering how this is going to come out on a policy basis, but that should not preclude someone from coming forth and requesting on a case -by -case basis. 4A. T T OBLIGATION ❑ 18-SUE AS R fq/ n V ED BY TH F COT FINAN E COMMITTEE 0N, )Q10BER._Iq I995 6.0. Administrative Services Director Art Housler reported that on October 4 the Council Finance 13,p,gp5 Committee reviewed a recommendation by Staff to consider refunding the 1991 General Obligation Bond Issue. A review by Dick Ehlers, our financial advisor with Seattle Northwest Security, determined there would be a savings of about $50,000. This equates to be about $ I0,000 per year aver the five year period remaining on the bond. Mr. Housler introduced Mr. Ehlers, who would provide an update on the market and savings as well as respond to any questions. Mayor Hall interjected that the second part of the recommended action was to consider wrapping new money into this issue for capital needs. She noted Council has set $7 Million as a possible figure for the Public Safety and Court facility. In discussion, there has become a $7 - 12 Million spread overall which will be funded by the voters. Property will be assessed at corresponding rates between 25 and 43 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. She referred to Fire Station 6 and the fact that firefighters are required to live in a trailer due to the unsafe buildings, and the fact that Fire Station 6 at Five Corners is a separate issue. The proposal she raised would not be asking taxpayers or citizens for any more money, nor adding new taxes or increasing old ones. The proposal would be to refund the existing debt on the library and wrap into it $1 million of new money to replace Fire Station 6. r City Council Approved Minutes October 24 1995 Page 7 Item #: EDMONDS C117Y COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Arvilla Ohlde For Action: X For Information: Subject: AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO MAINTAIN THE SR 104 MINI PARK SHORE PINE AT 25' IN HEIGHT Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 1. 2. Consent December 5, 1995 Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police 3 Comments: Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Planning Public Works _ Committee Mayor . Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: History And Summary Statement: The SR 104 Mini Park was constructed by the Washington State Department of Transportation as part of the construction of the ferry holding lanes. Upon completion of the construction WDOT deeded the park to the City of Edmonds. The landscaping at the site provides perimeter softening for the facility. The shore pines at this time need to be maintained at a height of 25'. The thinning and pruning maintenance will improve the health and structure of the shore pines while retaining the landscape goals of the site. Staff is requesting authorization as an attempt to facilitate the thinning and pruning, which is site and species specific. Staff will be in contact with local neighbors to the site. As a practical step, staff and the City Attorney request the maintenance authorization prior to proceeding to the next option of continued discussions of the tree policy issue and the setting of a public hearing on an interim zoning ordinance as suggested by the City Attorney on November 28, 1995. Recommended Action: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MAINTAIN THE SR 104 MINI PARK SHORE PINE AT 25' IN HEIGHT Council Action: exws(T 13 r RESOLUTION NO. 418 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AND FORMALIZING A POLICY FOR TREE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. WHEREAS, there have been -numerous requests to have trees that are located upon public rights -of -way or other public property removed or topped in order to enhance views of the vicinal property owners, and WHEREAS, heretofore the policy of removal or trimming of trees in the public right-of-way and on other public property has not been formalized by the City Council and there is a need to adopt such a formal policy to provide guidance and direction for the administration and staff, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The policy of the City of Edmonds with respect to the removal or trimming of trees located on City property or on public rights -of -way shall permit the same to occur only in the following listed instances: 1. The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard; or 2. The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public improve- e0Xp 1611- A C ment•s such as roadways, sidewalks, etc; or 3- The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health safety and general welfare - RESOLVED this 28th day of November, 1978_ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, IRENE ARN�EYMORAN APPROVED: MAY *NIA R SON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 27, 1978 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: November 28, 1978 130 To:� Larry Naughten Mayor of Edmonds ANALYSIS OF ORDINANCE 418 TREE -CUTTING POLICY Prepared by Patrick Harris Park Maintenance Manager BXNl61T I � 8 131 Ordinance was too restrictive because it didn't take into account their views of the Puget Sound or their property values, both of which were being negatively impacted. The Planning Board examined the exisiting Ordinance thoroughly and made the recommendation to the Council not to alter the existing Ordinance. The Board felt that despite the objections made by some Edmonds residents, the Ordinance preserved the greenbelt areas and parklands which they believed were vital to the local community. This issue was left unresolved in 1983, and the Council did not vote on making any amendments to the Ordinance. Almost six years have passed since the Ordinance was last examined. In August of 1989, the current City Council requested that the Ordinance be re-examined by the Planning Board. The Council wanted recommendations on altering this Ordinance to create more flexibility with regard to selective tree cutting to enhance property owner's views. The most vocal group of citizens wanting the Ordinance modified were people who lived in the Bowl area of Edmonds. This area is generally regarded as having some of the most spectacular views of the Puget Sound and the Olympics. People living in this area of Edmonds typically have the highest property values, and thus, have an economic interest in having the Ordinance modified to allow tree 1033 cutting for view enhancement. The task for you and the City Council will be to determine if Ordinance 418 is too inflexible as it currently is written and enforced by the City. Clearly, cutting of any trees on public lands is an extremely volitile, emotion -ridden issue, for the public. The difficulty in addressing this issue involves satisfying two distinct groups of citizens who have equally strong feelings about cutting or saving trees on public land. The Council's objective is to examine the Ordinance to see if it is reasonable to allow restricted cutting on public land to enhance views, while preserving the general character of the open spaces which so many people value in Edmonds. A discussion of the central interests of each opposing group is critical in order to assess what changes you may want to recommend. In 1983,_two public hearings were held by the Planning Board to allow citizen input on Ordinance 418. I will summarize the extensive testimony the Planning Board received at the hearings. 13f Many of the people living in the Bowl area felt the city should stop the encroachment of their views caused by trees growing on public lands. They felt the city had an obligation to help it's citizens preserve their views. As of this writing, no ordinances or legal precedent in the State of"Washington require cities to protect the public's views. The second concern mentioned frequently at the hearings concerned property values. Property owners believed their property values were being reduced because they have lost their views and consequently, the potential resale value of their homes had been diminished. At one of the meetings, the Snohomish County Tax Assessor was asked to testify on the status of property tax assessments on properties which had reduced views. The Assessor said that some homes had indeed been downgraded in value because views had been lost or cut back. Properties were rated as high, medium and low -view status and the difference in tax valuation between a view property and a low -view property could change the property value by sixty thousand dollars or more. Fewer than five percent of the homes in Edmonds lost value between 1978 and 1983. On the opposite side of this issue is a group of citizens who believe that trees on public lands should be protected 13C' at all costs. This group believes trees are an inherent part of the local community and an element that makes Edmonds desirable and attractive. Many people testified that a view of a tree was just as valuable to them as a view of the Puget Sound. A number of benefits of trees were cited at the hearings. I will briefly summarize the public testimony of this group: (1)Trees can provide privacy for residences. (2)Trees can stabilize property on slopes and provide a sound break or sound barrier to noise. (3)Trees provide habitat to animal and bird life. (4)Trees give off oxygen, and therefore are important in terms of the greenhouse effect, as well as providing for our local ecosystem. (5)Trees help combat global warming. (6)Finally, trees are valued for their aesthetic appeal. In August of this year, the Planning Board held a public hearing to again allow testimony on the Ordinance. It comes as no suprise that the issues remain the same - views and property values. The Planning Board has examined key components of Ordinance 418. As a result of their studies, the Board concluded with a number of questions in respect to how the City could allow selective tree cutting for view enhancement on public lands. The Board tried to decide what constitutes a view. If the City was going to obligate 103AP itself to protecting the views of private property owners, then a working definition of what a view is was required. Is a view of the water the only view worth protecting? Are there other considerations of a view which a citizen might value such as views of trees, cars on roadways, or the neighbors house? The Board restricted it's interpretation of what constitutes a view, using the Tax Assessor's definition which essentially says that views of open water spaces such as lakes or a sound significantly increase the value of the property, hence a view. A second consideration the Board examined was the aesthetics and maintenance of trees which would be cut in order to enhance a property owner's view. Topping a tree is generally considered by most tree arborists as a harmful method of pruning. Topping generally reduces the aesthetic shape of a tree and does not eliminate future growth after the tree has been cut. As a result, trees will have to be completely removed or regularly cut -in order to maintain the views of property owners. The significant issue of public interest verses private interest was discussed. Altering the tree policy was looked at as a threat to green belts and city parks where some of the oldest, tallest trees are located. Amending the Ordinance raises a conflict between the rights of the 137 public to enjoy the city parks and right-of-ways verses the economic and view gains of select individuals. The Board discussed the potential problem of some citizen's feeling that the City would be showing preferential treatment to some of it's citizens at the expense of many. After examining these issues, the Planning Board has made the recommendation that the Ordinance remain without 4 modification. Their recommendations are based on the difficulty in fairly addressing the issue to all who are impacted. Because the Planning Board is only advisory in nature, you, as Mayor and the City Council may decide to disregard the Board's recommendations and alter the Ordinance, if you deem this appropriate. Since the Council is receiving pressure to modify the Ordinance, some council members may feel compelled to make some changes just to lessen the negative public comments. In order to properly assess possible options available to you, I have prepared a summary of two considerations you can address to the Council. OPTIONS o Keep the exisiting Ordinance as it exists, but establishing active guidelines which would restrict 1433 the type of future tree replacements or new trees which could be planted on public land. The existing tree policy has been in place for eleven years. During this period, the City has enforced the Ordinance without exceptions. Although the Ordinance has not satisfied everyone, it does appear to satisfy the demands and wishes of many residents in Edmonds. It is important to remember that the majority of people of Edmonds live in areas without views of the Puget Sound. Altering the Ordinance for a few property owners who want their view enhanced, won't address those who want or demand trees in public right-of-ways and parks. Endorsing active guidelines which would limit the type of tree replacements or new tree plantings on public land will reduce the view problem on a long-term basis. The current practice of the Parks Department is to replace a dead or dying tree with another tree of the -same species. Conifers which can block views could be eliminated and substituted by deciduous trees. Deciduous trees would allow Winter views and are easily and more successfully topped than conifers. This change of policy is supported by the Parks and Recreation Manager, as well as the Park Planning Board. Establishing guidelines will be relatively easy, if 131 tree species are used as a central criteria for tree replacement. This option does address the concerns of property owners who have had their views obscured, but only on an extremely long-term basis. Keeping the existing Ordinance would satisfy the many people who don't want trees removed. The repercussions from leaving the policy as it states, even with restrictions on future tree replacements, is the fact that some people will still say the issue is unresolved. By keeping Ordinance 418, the Council will be sending the signal that the present Ordinance is satisfactory in dealing with most of the issues. The current Ordinance is easy to administer because there are no deviations allowed. The City spends a minimum amount of money enforcing the Ordinance. Most of the expense is administrative costs associated with replying to citizens who are upset about the Ordinance. o Establish a permanent appeal process, whereby property owners would have the ability to make appeals to the City to have specific trees removed. This option would involve setting up a permanent decision -making panel who would decide whether a tree I q0 should be removed or trimmed. This option, although creating flexibility, creates a number of problems which would have to be addressed. Who would the decision making panel consist of? There are a number of groups who would want to have representation on this Board. Such groups include the Architectural Design Board, the Parks Board, the Planning Board, Parks and Recreation employees, City Management, and possibly merchants or members of the 4 Chamber of Commerce. The exclusion of one group will create conflict for you and the Council. After an Appeal Board is established, guidelines would need to be developed which would address complaints. Again, establishing guidelines will not be easy. Different individuals will have different interests in interpreting and enforcing new rules. Questions regarding acceptable tree removal or trimming would have to be resolved. Then there is the valid question of -economic restitution, whereby, individuals who have trees removed should pay the City for removal cost. Individuals may be requested to pay for removal or trimming costs, as well as tree replacement of another acceptable species. If trees are topped and the City was responsible for doing the work, the City will incur increased maintenance and labor costs associated with repeated maintenance over the years. Some experts would I q1 say the value of a tree would be the value of the wood only. Other arborists would maintain that trees have other values intrinsic to them. These values include replacement costs, shade value, and aesthetics. The City Council will have to make a determination as to the assessment valuation which would be fair and equitable for both the City and the individuals who would benefit from having the trees removed. The creation of an Appeal Board which would make decisions on selective tree removal, could create flexibility in addressing those citizens who feel the Ordinance is too restrictive. If limitations on tree removal were strict enough, those wishing to keep trees may be satisfied as well. The issue of decreasing property values could become an interest to the City, as well as to the effected property owners. If properties are being downgraded in value, less revenues will be available to the City's general fund due to reduced tax revenue. However, based on earlier testimony by the Tax Assessor, only five percent of the property of Edmonds was downgraded in value because of view loss. The tax issue doesn't appear to impact Edmonds financial condition as much as it does the individual property owners who have had their views impacted. I q 7000,- A more recent appraisal from the Assessor would be necessary to determine if the percent of property negatively impacted has changed. An appeal process will cost the City additional money due to the increased administrative costs associated with record keeping and staff time. I think the Council will react negatively to the formation of another board group, 4 who would have control over a highly controversial issue. RECOMMENDATIONS You must weigh the needs of homeowners with reduced views, verses those citizens who want to preserve trees. I recommend that the Council keep the exisiting Ordinance as stated and implement a strict set of guidelines which will limit the kinds and sizes of trees that the City could plant on public property in the future. Keeping the existing policy is taking the middle ground and possibly the safest strategy in terms of the groups of constituents who have an interest in this Ordinance. This Ordinance has worked, in part, because it is inflexible. It treats all citizens equally by denying all property owners the right to appeal. By implementing guidelines on future tree replacement, you will be seen as addressing the view issue, although not to the extent that some would wish. 143 The appeal process could create more problems than solutions. There appears to be a number of difficulties in trying to establish a fair process which would'allow selective tree removal or trimming for view enhancement. I think an Appeal Board would be both politically and organizationally challenging to implement and sustain because of the difficulties in interpretation of what is acceptable. As I pointed out earlier, the Council is not obligated to protect the views of the public. The Council does have an obligation to address citizen concerns in a way which most people will be satisfied with. You will not make everyone happy with either alternative, but I believe that keeping the existing policy intact will satisfy the majority of the residents in Edmonds. 101 ORDINANCE NO. 1952 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 7.18 IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE; REGULATING THE PLANTING, MAINTENANCE, AND REMOVAL OF TREES IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, PARKS, AND OTHER CITY - OWNED PROPERTY; DESIGNATING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AS THE AGENCY PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PLANTING, MAINTENANCE, AND REMOVAL OF TREES IN PUBLIC PLACES; AUTHORIZING A MASTER STREET TREE PLAN AND PROVIDING CRITERIA THEREFORE; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUING OF PERMITS FOR THE PLANTING, MAINTENANCE, AND REMOVAL OF TREES IN PUBLIC PLACES; PROVIDING FOR THE PRUNING AND REMOVAL OF TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY; AND PRESCRIBING PENA- LTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS; AND REPEALING CHAPTER 7.16 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds finds that trees constitute a natural resource that should be preserved and protected for future generations, and WHEREAS, that the City Council finds that trees may be unique by reason of size, age, species, rarity, status as a landmark and contribute to the aesthetic experience of the City, are worthy of preservation, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that unplanned planting of trees in the City may create limitations with respect to visibility along streets and at intersections thus con- stituting a safety hazard, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that certain varieties of trees may cause destruction of or interference with the existing or planned utility lines, sidewalks, driveways and will obstruct the view from adjoining homes, and -1- EX*l S 11' 1 J, )µ5 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that trees contribute to the reduction of soil erosion, water runoff and provide noise buffering, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 7.18 entitled Municipal Tree Ordinance is hereby added to the Edmonds City Code. Section 2. 7.18.010. Definitions. 1. Director of Public Works. As used herein this term shall mean the Director of Public Works or his designee. 2. Person means any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or organiza- tion of any kind. 3. Planting Strip means that part of a street or highway, not covered by sidewalk, lying between the property line and that portion of the street or highway usually used for vehicular traffic. 4. Property Line means the edge abutting the public right-of-way. 5. Property Owner means the person owning such property as shown by the records of the County Assessor of Snohomish County. 6. Public Places shall include all property owned or leased by the City of Edmonds. 7. Public Trees shall include all shade and ornamental trees now or hereafter growing within the right- of-way or any other public place. 8. Street or Highway means the entire width of every existing or proposed public way or right-of-way when any part thereof is or will be open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular and/or pedestrian and/or equestrian traffic. 9. Trees, Large are designated as those attaining a height of forty-five (45) feet or more at maturity. 10. Trees, Medium are height of thirty maturity. 11. Trees, Small are height of twenty maturity. designated as those attaining a (30) to forty-five (45) feet at designated as those attaining a (20) to thirty (30) feet at 12. 'frees Worthy of Preservation are trees unique by reason of size, age, rarity, or status as a land- mark; or contribute to the aesthetic experience of the facility, and are so noted on the Master Street Tree Plan. Section 3. 7.18.020. Master Street Tree Plan 1. Description. The Master Street Tree Plan (Plan) shall designate which of three categories of trees (small, medium, or large) shall be planted along the streets or in other public places within the City. Pursuant to the procedure specified hereinafter, the Director of Public Works (Director) shall develop a list of suggested species of trees that are within the categories above -mentioned. These lists shall be illustrative only and, subject to the restrictions listed hereinafter, species of trees not on the suggested list may be planted if they are within the designated category. The plan may incorporate maps of city streets, parks and other public areas. These maps shall show which category of tree has been designated to be planted along particular streets, in particular parks or in other public places. The plan may also categorize certain streets according to volume of traffic, width, location in the city, existing or proposed utility lines, adjoining housing, or other relevant factors. A particular species of tree may then be desig- nated for the particular classification of street. 2. Creation. The Plan shall be developed as follows: A. The Director of Public Works shall be respon- sible for developing the Plan. The Director shall consult with the Amenities Design Board. B. In drafting the Plan the Director shall consider among other things, the following criteria: (1) Safety factors: (a) visibility along the street, at intersections and from adjoining property. (b) Danger from low limbs and branches. (c) Possible interference with planned future or existing overhead or underground utility lines. (d) Possibility of present or future damage to public property, including streets and/or sidewalks. (2) Maintenance factors: (a) Ease of care once planted. (b) Ability to survive given the soil, temperature and exposure. (3) Environmental factors: (a) Desireability of wind screens in certain areas of the city. (b) Need for erosion control in certain areas of the city. (c) Need for noise buffering. (4) Aesthetic factors: (a) Relationship between building height and.tree height. (b) Special designations for Boulevards, entrances to Edmonds, areas of the city. (c) Enabling certain sections of the city to achieve community identity by encouraging specific species of trees in specific areas. (d) Preservation of trees worthy of preservation. (e) Visual effect of trees on sight lines and views. C. Amendments. Any member of the Amenities Design Board may request the Director to consider amendments to the Plan. The Director, upon his own motion may also consider amendments to the Plan. In considering amendments to the Plan the Director shall follow the same pro- cedures and shall be guided by the same criteria as provided for above. Section 4. 7.18.030. Additonal Duties of Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works or his designee shall: 1. Be responsible for planting, maintaining and removing public trees in accordance with the public health, safety, welfare; appropriate .standards; the Master Street Tree Plan and the provisions of this chapter. 2. When necessary, inspect or supervise work done under permits issued in accordance with the terms of this chapter. 3. Insure that all permits issued, comply with the Master Street Tree Plan. 4. Develop procedures for issuing permits, including but not limited to, the specific information required of an applicant before a permit will issue. Section 5. 7_18.040. Permits Required. 1. Planting or Removal Permits. A. No person shall plant or remove any tree on any street or public place without first obtaining a permit from -the Director of Public Works. B. The application for permits must be made at the office of the Director of Public Works not less than 48 hours in advance of the time the work is to be done. No work shall commence until the permit has been issued. -5- C. The Director of Public Works shall issue the permit provided for herein if the pro- posed work is in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan and the proposed method and workmanship are of a satisfactory nature. Any permit granted shall contain a definite date of expiration and the work shall be completed in the time allowed on the permit and in the manner as herein described. Any permit shall be void if its terms are violated. D. Notice of completion shall be given within five (5) days to the Director of Public Works for his inspection. 2. Maintenance Permits. A. No person shall cut above ground or other- wise disturb any public tree without first obtaining a permit from the Director of Public Works B. (1) Application for permit shall be made at the Public Works Department, 200 Dayton Street, Edmonds, Washington. (2) The Director of Public Works shall issue the permit to every application upon satisfaction of the following require- ments. (a) The applicant has information on the proper care and maintenance of trees. (b) Payment of a fee sufficient to cover costs of printing any infor- mational material sent to the applicant and postage. (c) The applicant furnish his name, address, telephone number. (3) Once issued, the permit may be renewed from year to year either in person or by telephoning the Director of Public Works. 3. lm ro er Planting. Whenever any tree shall be planted contrary to the provisions of this section, the Director of Public Works or his designee shall have the power to remove the same. 150 r_ Section 6_ 7.18- 050. Abuse or Mutilation of Public Trees. Unless specifically authorized by the Director of - Public Works, no person shall intentionally damage any public tree; attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising posters, or other contrivance to any public tree; allow any gaseous liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to such trees to come in contact with them; set fire or permit any fire to burn when such fire or the heat thereof will injure any portion of any public tree; excavate any ditches, tunnels, trenches or lay any drive within a radius of ten (10) feet of any public tree; deposit, place or store any stone, bricks and concrete or other materials which may impede the free passage of water and fertilizer to the roots of any public tree: Section 7. 7.18.060. Removal, Replanting, and Replacement. -- 1. Wherever it is necessary to remove a tree or trees from a planting strip in connection with the paving of a sidewalk, or the paving or widening of the portion of a street or highway used for vehicular traffic, the city should replant such trees or 'replace them. Provided, when conditions prevent planting on planting strips, this require- ment will be satisfied if any equivalent number of trees are planted in an attractive manner on the Tree Plan, if so desired by the property owner. 2. No person or property owner shall remove a tree from the planting strip for the purpose of con- struction, or for any other reason, without first filing an application and procuring a permit from the Director of Public Works, and without replacing the removed tree or trees. Such replacement shall meet the standards specified in the Master Street Tree Plan of size, species, and placement as provided for in a permit issued by the Director of Public Works. The person or property owner shall bear the costs of removal and replacement of all trees removed. 3. Removal, planting and replacement of all public trees shall be in conformance with the standards as specified in the material labeled "Standards for Planting Street Trees Within the City of Edmonds," three copies of which are and have been on file with the City Clerk, and which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. Ist Section 8. 7.18.070. Interference with Director of Public Works. No person shall hinder, prevent, delay, or interfere with the Director of Public Works or any of his assistants while engaged in carrying out the execution or enforcement of this chapter; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed.as an attempt to prohibit the pursuit of any remedy, legal or equitable, in any court or competent jurisdiction for the protection of property rights by the owner of any property with the city. Section 9. 7.19.080. Obstruction= -Trees Pruned. Any property owner who owns property bordering on any street shall prune any trees growing on his property in such manner that they will not block or shade the light from the street lights, obstruct the passage of persons on'the sidewalks, obstruct vision of traffic signs, or obstruct the view of any intersection or alley intersection. 1. Notice to Prune. Should any property owner fail to prune trees as hereinabove provided, and the Director of Public Works has actual knowledge of the condition, then the Director of Public Works shall, by written notice, order such person within fourteen (14) days after written notice is sent to prune such trees. The notice shall state that criminal prosecution may result from noncompliance. 2. Order Required. The notice required herein shall be served by mailing a copy of the notice to the last known address of the property owner, postage prepaid. 3. Failure to Cam 1 When a person to whom.a notice is directed shall fail or refuse to comply within the specified time, in addition to any other action the city may take under this chapter, the Director of Public Works may prune such trees. Section 10. 7.18.090. Violation and person violating or failing to comply with sions of this chapter shall be guilty of a upon conviction thereof shall be fined not hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250.00) costs of like specimen and quality. �� Penalty. Any any of the provi- misdemeanor and more than two plus replacement Section 11. hereby repealed. Chapter 7.16 of the Edmonds City Code is APPROVED: MAYOR, H. H. HARRISON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, TRENVARNEY MORAN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: September 30, 1977 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: October 18, 1977 PUBLISHED: October 26, 1977 WE 153 • Q NE2 577 7,Ek : t r ar >iic2 FIG. 4 RESTRICTED PLANTING AREA OVER STREETS AND SIDE14ALKS TREE BRANCHES AND SHRUBBERY SMALL NOT IMPINGE INTO VERTICAL AREA EXTENDING SEVEN FEET (7) ABOVE SIDEWALKS AND FOURTEEN (14) FEET ABOVE STREETS. 1 hereby certify that the attached_21�.�?SF4 is a true and correct Cozy of tliq or1p!na7 passed (or executed) on the d_day of.____- as ii s in the minute book of the City of Edmonds. Dated this- -L-_-day SEAL' Irene Varney Moran Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington 1S4 F--Z44 FIG. I INTERSECTION 14ITH FRONT YARD SETBACKS .L - -r RESTRICTED PLANTING AREA SHRUB PLANT -LN MATERIAL S'JF'ALLED N T IN 1� SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT AT FULLY COMPLETED GROWTH AND TREES PLANTED IN THIS AR"EA SHALL NOT HAVE FOLIAGE BELOW SEVEN (7) FEET. NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL IMPINGE IN THIS AREA ABOVE THREE FEET OR - BELOW SEVEN FEET EXCEPT TREE TRUNKS. GD' i � l - � 1 • � CU�2G' r%-Y" n�'/ y FIG. 2 INTERSECTION 14ITH NO FRONT YARD SETBACKS RESTRICTED PLANTING AREA - SHRUB PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED IN THIS AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT AT FULLY COMPLETED GROWTH ARID TREES PLANTED IN THIS AREA SHALL NOT HAVE FOLIAGE BELOW SEVEN (7) FEET. NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL IMPINGE IN THIS AREA ABOVE THREE. FEET OR BELOW SEVEN FEET EXCEPT TREE TRUNKS. rz�sr�cr�r� .7,77r/rr . �2L��r'i'�CoW�2 QI7'Llf FIG. 3 RESTRICTED TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING NO TREE OR SHRUB SHALL BE PLANTED 14ITHIN FIVE (5) FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT. GROUND COVER IS PERMISSABLE AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT "CLIMB" THE HYDRANT. 151 M E M O R A N D U M October 9, 1990 TO: Arvilla Ohlde, Manager Parks and Recreation Division Peter Hahn, Director Community Services Department FROM: Pat Harris <To' Park Maintenance Supervisor SUBJECT: EDMONDS' STREET TREE POLICY/ORDINANCE 1952, SECTION 9 During our September meeting and discussion of the Edmonds' street tree ordinances, I suggested that there were difficulties with the enforcement and practicality of Ordinance 1952 as written. The ordinance requires that each property owner maintain any tree growing on their own property, including trees that are obstructing sidewalks, which can include street trees. Last winter, park staff completed a thorough pruning of all street trees in the central business district. As we were completing this task, it was apparent that there was a great deal of inconsistency in tree maintenance. Some trees were improperly pruned, while others had not been maintained at all. Recently, I contacted a number of other cities to determine how they deal with street tree maintenance. Here is a summary of my findings: Kirkland Street tree maintenance is performed in-house. All right-of-ways are maintained by the city. There is a fine for pruning street trees without authorization. Bothell Street tree maintenance is performed by park staff. Bel 1 i n ham Street tree maintenance is performed by park staff. Salem, Oregon Street tree maintenance is performed by park staff. New Westminster, Canada In-house maintenance. Penalty for pruning without authorization. Mountlake Terrace No current ordinance covering street tree maintenance. Their Planning Department is no longer allowing any trees to be planted in the sidewalk area. They are requiring an eight foot setback from the curb for new trees. Bremerton Street tree maintenance is performed by city staff. As you can see, most of the cities that I called maintained their own street trees. This control measure prevented inconsistent maintenance, improper pruning, and pruning for the wrong reasons (sign visibility). Managing street trees in-house allows for consistent maintenance over time, which includes management of pests, disease, and necessary watering. With in-house maintenance, cities can respond more rapidly to problems as they arise. This is particularly important in regards to dangerous trees, trees that are blocking signs, or trees that are suffering from insect infestation. Our current ordinance does not address responsibility for pesticide and herbicide applications on street trees. Recommendations 1. The City of Edmonds' park staff should maintain street trees in the central business district. We can avoid the administrative problem of notification, follow up, and billing of private property owners who do not maintain their trees. 2. The area that City staff would maintain should be defined, i.e., we could maintain all street trees that are between 9th Avenue and Sunset, SR-104 and Caspers. The central business district has the highest concentration of street trees, as well as the most abuses in terms of improper pruning. 3. Maintenance should be defined as above ground maintenance. For example, park staff would spray, prune and water, but would not be responsible for curb repairs and street damage caused by street trees. 4. A fine should be established for pruning without authorization. This might eliminate problems of improper pruning. 5. Re -write the current street tree ordinance to reflect these changes. I believe that these changes will create a more coherent, professional maintenance plan which will enhance the downtown business district. ORDTRE/TXTGRNDS ISI MEMORANDUM September 24, 1990 TO: 'Peter Hahn, Director Community Services Department FROM: Pat Harris<w Park Maintenance Supervisor SUBJECT: STREET TREE MAINTENANCE - CITY OF EDMONDS+ Last week, representatives from the Planning, Public Works, and the Parks and Recreation Divisions met to discuss Ordinance. 1952, Edmonds' Street Tree Ordinance. A wide range of topics were discussed including proper maintenance of street trees, ability of the City ,of Edmonds to enforce pruning requirements, and long term maintenance costs associated with a street tree program. Although Edmonds has a clearly stated ordinance regarding street tree maintenance, the ordinance has not been followed, particularly the requirement that property owners maintain street trees growing on their own property. It became obvious last winter as we began to prune street trees in the downtown area that property owners are not maintaining their trees, nor has the City given them notice requiring property owners to prune. There is also confusion as to which trees have been the responsibility of the City and which trees are supposedly maintained by the property owner. Requiring property owners to maintain street trees creates additional questions regarding enforcement of proper maintenance, the administrative burden of notification, follow up, and billing. The City of Edmonds may want to look at other options to the current requirements which includes in-house maintenance by the Park staff, selection of an outside contractor who would bill property owners directly for pruning, or requiring property owners to use a certified tree arborist to maintain their trees. I will be investigating the benefits and drawbacks of each option, including a look at how other local municipalities have dealt with street tree maintenance. When I complete my report, I will forward a copy to you. cc ArVilla Ohlde I �0 Street Tree Topic Outline Who's tree is it a may? Ordinance No. 1952, pg.8, Section 9 7.19.080 Pruning City VS. Propgrty Owners Types of pruning Request for pruning (signs) Long term care - watering and insects Ordinance 418 - Pruning/removal based on criteria Fnfnrramant Who does the public contact? Who sends the notice? Who does the billing? Master Street Tree Plan Location questions A. View consideration - 5th Ave. S. B. Power lines and other obstacles C. Uplifting of sidewalks Amendment to Street Tree Ordinance Species selection and growth patterns? Is the City following the Street Tree Ordinance? 5th and Main/220th Cost of Street Tree Maintenance One time cost? Long term cost? (bl TREE ORDINANCES Anatomy of Tree Ordinance Basic Questions 1. 0 does tree ordinance apply to? 2. What is the process of developing, administering tree ordinance? Components - Flexibility (regulations, administration) - Program mechanics (fee structure to cover cost of implementing program) - Tree replacement - Education Mechanics A. Permit Process 1. Tree protection plan (provided by builder/developer) 2. Site visits by planning 3. Tree species for selection 4. Agreement on plan Tree Biolo - James Clark 1. Site conditions, utilities, root damage, machinery Tree Ordinance Imalementation , running Requirements A.. Site visits B. Tree and site disturbances C. Protection of existing trees - allow site adjustments D. Follow up after development Tree Replacement change of grade, compaction, (safety fencing, P.O.T. fencing) (withhold occupancy permit) - Native trees vs replacement - Vs vs Vs replaced/units per acre - County, City, adjacent community agreement - - Clear instructions and standards on species type for replacement, how to plant or transplant Example: City follow same/220th/5th and Main - `Balance in favor of keeping existing Example: Cedar/Dogwood TREEORD/TXTGRNDS 4 7 EDMONDS' STREET TREE PLAN Revised June, 1987 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds has installed street trees and plantings on many of its downtown and neighborhood streets. As funds are available, further plantings and replacements will be made. Some of the species planted in the past are not of suitable types, and are causing the upheaving of sidewalks or will eventually do so. The list below is designed to avoid these problems. It is also advisable to locate trees in yards rather than in the narrow mowing strip between sidewalk and street. The restriction of root growth due to paved surfaces contributes significantly to their upheaval. Refer to the Downtown "Improvements" Street Tree Program map, attached to this plan, for locations and types of trees in the Downtown area. - s Questions concerning street trees may be directed to -the Public Works Superintendent, ext. 296, or the Landscape Designer, ext. 271, through the City of Edmonds, 775-2525. II. MEMORIAL STREET TREE PROGRAM On September 13, 1983, the City Council established the Edmonds Memorial -Street Tree Program and Fund, whereby a citizen may purchase an appropriate tree which the city plants at a specified location. A plaque, with the donor's desired inscription, is also displayed at the Edmonds Library entrance hall. Many people have chosen to memorialize friends or loved ones through this program. The first 50 Memorial Trees have been planted in various location throughout the city. By participating in the program, citizens can help beautify Edmonds along with providing a living memorial. Purchases may be made through the Treasury Clerk at the Edmonds Finance Department, 501 Bell Street. Call 775-2525, ext. 244 for more information. III. TREE PLANTING PLAN BY STREET Since Edmonds has an abundance of healthy trees, both deciduous and coniferous, many streets do not require street trees. Main Street - Ferry Dock to 5th Avenue leg sh4F-raxfnus_or_nus) to eventually replace the aging Kwanzan Cherries. - 5th Avenue to Frances Anderson Center Pyramidal Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus pyramidalis). 1 1tll �� ton Street - Fishinq Pier to SR104 Existing: Red maple and Flowering cherry. Recommend: Replace cherries with Red maple. - SR104 to Frances Anderson Center Sweetgums (Liquidamber styraciflua) Sunset Avenue - Ferry Holdinq Lanes Washington Hawthorn (Crataegus phaenopyrum) - Main to Cas ers Street Plant small shrubs to preserve views. Bell Street - Sunset Ave. to 9th Ave. S. Existing: Cherries, purple leaf plums. Recommend: Small trees - plum, vine maple, hornbeam. 2nd Avenue - Treatment Plant to Bell Street Existing: Red maple, cherry, European beech, elm. Recommend: Red maple (Acer rubrum). 3rd Avenue - Pine to Cas ers Streets Existing: Paul Scarlet, Hawthorn. Recommend: Replace declining P.S.H. with Washington Hawthorn 4th Avaniia Existing: This street is very much in need of more trees Recommend: Seedless Ash (Fraxinus ornus). 5th Avenue Existing: Sweetgum, cherry, purple leaf plum, pin oak. Recommend: Sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua). 6th Avenue Existing: Ash, cherry, Norway maple, purple leaf plum, mountain ash. Recommend: Seedless Ash (Fraxinus ornus). 14# IV. GENERAL TREE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Planting Requirements 1. Due to narrowness of the grass strip between sidewalk and street, it is advised that trees be planted in yards where the roots may obtain adequate water and air. Trees planted in the strip may have to be removed when mature due to root damage to adjoining concrete surfaces. 2. Trees in the small or narrow category shall not be planted closer than 20 feet; those of the medium trees not closer than 30 feet; and the large trees 50 feet or more. Trees that are planted in street areas shall have a minimum of 4 feet by 4 feet unpaved area at their bases. This will allow for moisture and air to reach the root system. Branches will have to be pruned as per the existing ordinance. Trees of 1-3/4" or more in caliper should be planted to reduce damage and vandalism. Large trees that are balled and burlapped have a better chance of survival in the harsh environment during their first few years of establishment. Since city crews will be installing most street trees, planting procedures are not covered here. Consult with a nursery or landscape contractor when planting a tree. There are very particular requirements to ensure the survival of a valuable tree. B. Recommended Trees by Size 1. Small or narrow trees (20' minimum spacing) Acer ginnaia (Amur maple) Acer circinatum (Vine maple) Acer rubrum (Red maple): Armstrong, Scanlon Carpinum betulus pyramidalis (Pyramidal hornbeam) Crataequs lavallei (Carriere Thorn), phaenopyrum (Washington Hawthorn) Fraxinus ornus (Flowering Ash), seedless varieties Prunus maackii (Manchurian chokecherry) Prunus padus (Bird cherry) Prunus subhirtella, autumnalis (ornamental cherry) Prunus blireiana, Newport (Flowering plum) Querus ilex (Holly Oak) Styrex japonica (Snowdrop Tree) -3- 165 2. Medium -Sized Trees (30' minimum spacing) Acer cappodicum (Coliseum Maple), Acer campestre (Hedge maple) Acer davidii (David's Maple) Acer platanoides (Norway Maple). Varieties: Cavalier, Columnare, Crimson King Acer rubrum (Red Maple). Varieties: Red Sunset, October Glory. Acer saccharum (Sugar Maple) Betula nigra (River Birch) (Not suitable for all locations.) Fraxinus (Ash) Flame, Golden Desert, Marshall Seedless Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweetgum) and new varieties Malus (Flowering crab apples) Phillodendron amurense (Amur Corktree) Prunus sargenti, Akebono, Kwanzan, Ukon, etc. (Flowering Cherry) Quercus coccinia (Scarlet Oak) Quercus palustris, variety Crownright (Pin Oak) Quercus phellos, Quercus robur, etc. (Willow & English Oaks) Tilia euchlora (Crimean Linden) 3. Large Trees (50' minimum spacing) Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore Maple) Acer hippocastanum (Horse Chestnut) Castanea mossissima, C. sativa (Chinese and Spanish Chestnuts) Fagus sylvatica (European Beech) Gingko biloba (Maidenhair Tree) Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip Tree) Quercus borealis, Q. rubra (Scarlet & Red Oaks) C. Prohibited Street Trees for Edmonds Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple, Oregon Maple) roots cause injury to sewers, sidewalks, or pavement. This native species is the worst of all maples in this respect. Populus trichocarpa, P. deltoides (Cottonwoods), P-. nigra "Italica" (Lombardy Poplar). These are short-lived and brittle. They are destructive to pavements, streets, sidewalks, and sewers. D. Non -Recommended Trees for Edmonds, including Trees Recommended with Reservations Reasons noted below. These trees may be planted if the problem is met to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Public Works. Some are desirable trees in the right situation. Acer negundo, Acer saccharinum (Box -elder, Silver Maple). Break up badly in storms. Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven). Roots are invasive, suckers freely, brittle. Albizia julibrissin (Silk Tree). Vulnerable to fatal canker attacks in Puget Sound area. Alnus rubra (Red Alder). Short-lived, brittle tree. Favorite of ten caterpillars. Betula alba (White birch, weeping white birch, etc.). Regular aphid infestations require 1-3-summer sprayings to control; otherwise sticky "honeydew" drips from trees. Many trees get aphids, but white birch is always heavily attacked. Gleditsia triancanthos (Honey Locust). Thorny. Select thornless varieties. Common honey locust can damage walks. Juglans nigra, J. regia (Black Walnut, English Walnut). Messy fruit, large leaves of English Walnuts are slippery on walks. J. nigra roots are destructive. Malus (Fruiting apples). Fruit on walks. Prunus (Fruiting cherries and plums). Fruit on walks. Pyrus (Fruiting pears). Fruit on walks. Platanus species (London Plane, Sycamore). Destructive to paving; root lifts ground strongly, may invade sewers. Best with side planting strips or cobble paving, etc. Often these need three sprayings a year to control serous anthracnose disease. Populus species (Poplars). Tops brittle, break up easily in storms. Roots damage sidewalks and may invade sewers. Quercus palustris (Pin Oak). Lower limbs keep growing downward, require a great deal of pruning when used for street trees. "Crownright" mostly avoids this. Sorbus aucuparia (Mountain Ash). may be a sidewalk hazard. -5- Large crop of messy fruit 1b1 Tilia americana (Basswood). Roots are destructive. Tree is apt to be brittle. lllmus americana, U. parvifolia, U. pumila (American, Chinese, and Siberian Elm). Unless sprayed yearly, these are apt to be defoliated in the Puget Sound area by elm leaf beetle. Dutch elm disease may also kill these trees. Roots can break walks and may cause sewer problems. Catalpa bignonoides (Indian Bean). Short lived, brittle. Roots are worse on sidewalks than most trees. Crataegus ❑xycantha (Hawthorne, including Paul's Scarlet and several named varieties). See aphid problem under Betula. Hawthornes are heavily attacked. Also get fire blight. Robinia pseudoacacia (Black.Locust). Thorny, though there are thornless varieties. Relatively short lived and brittle tree. Salix species (Willows, including Weeping). Roots enter sewers. Tree is brittle and short lived. Sophora japonica (Pagoda Tree). I.n the Puget Sound area this tree is highly vulnerable to canker attack that is often fatal. NOTE: MOST CONIFERS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED. Lower limbs cause safety -visibility problems at driveways, alleys, intersections, signs, and signals. ST/TREES/TXTPARKS/1-6 168 Main Street fro Selected fo the Kwanzan From Sth Avenue Acer rubrum electrical on one side Sunset Avenue - Crataegus p .TY OF EDMONDS eventually replace to high voltage trees be planted h and shape. Sunset Avenue - .-•a.L.L OLreer zo uas ers Street: Smaller shrubs should be planted if view is to be preserved. Second Avenue from Treatment Plant to Bell Street: Quercus ilex (Holly Oak) Third Avenue from Pine Street to Caspers Street: Existing trees are Washington Hawthorne. Quercus ilex or Q. coccinia (Scarlet Oak) Fourth Avenue North to South: Fraxinus pensylvanicum (Seedless Ash). Existing trees are at 4th and Main. Fifth Avenue: Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet -gum) This tree should tie in with Old Milltown, Shoreline Savings, and condominium row. Sixth Avenue: Ginko biloba, variety Gentry. Ninth Avenue: Acer platanoides (Crimson Maple) Dayton Street from Fishing Pier Parking Lot to Ninth Avenue South: Liquidamber syraciflua (Sweet -gum) This variety will tie with Old Milltown, Alaskan Publishing House, and parking lot on Dayton Street. 141 MASTER PLAN FOR STREET TREES IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS (Continued) Bell Street -- Sunset Avenue to Ninth Avenue South: Quercus varieties (English Oak, Texas Red Oak, etc.) Alder Street: Varieties of acer rubrum (Armstrong Maple) From 3rd Avenue to 9th Avenue. Maple Street: Varieties of Fraxinus (Flaming Ash) Walnut Street from Third Avenue — Five Corners Water Tank: Tilia cordata (Littleleaf Linden) and varieties Salem, Rancho, or Tilia euchlora (Crimean Linden). I 410 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD LANDSCAPE POLICY STATEMENT A STANDARD FOR DEVELOPMENT I. CHECKLIST FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN A. Name and address or location of the project. B. All plant material identified by botanical and common name -- genus, species and variety. C. Location of all trees and shrubs to be planted. D. Five sets of landscape plans drawn to a scale of 1"=30' or larger (e.g., 1"=201, 1"=10', etc.). See Checklist for Architectural Design Board items for required number of other plans. E. Scale of the drawing, a north arrow and date of the plan. F. Show and label all property lines abutting streets and alleys. G. Locations and sizes and species of existing trees and shrubs. Trees and shrubs to be removed should be noted. Natural areas should be designated as such. H. Any proposed or existing physical elements (such as fencing, walls, buildings, curbing, and signs) that may affect the overall landscape. I. Show parking layout: circulation, driveway location and parking stalls. J. Grading shown by contour lines, spot elevations, sections or other means. II. PLANT SCHEDULE o Shall indicate for all plants the scientific and common names, quantities, sizes and spacing. Quantities are not required on a preliminary landscape plan. A preliminary plan may also indicate shrubs as masses rather than showing the individual plants. The final plan must show individual shrubs and quantities. o Minimum sizes at installation: 1-3/4" caliper street trees 1-1/2" cal. other deciduous trees 8' min. height vine maples and other multi -stemmed trees 6' min. height evergreen trees 18" min. height for medium and tall shrubs small shrub = less than 3-1/2 feet tall at maturity medium shrub = 3-1/2 to 6 feet tall at maturity large shrub = more than 6 feet tall at maturity o Maximum spacing: large shrubs = 6' o.c. medium shrubs = 4-1/2' o.c. small shrubs = 3' o.c. o Groundcovers required in all planting bed areas: 1 gal. 30" o.c. 4" pots 24" o.c. 2-1/4" pots 18" o.c. rooted cuttings 12" o.c. III. GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS o Prefer an informal arrangement of plants installed in a variety of treatments that will enhance building designs and attractively screen parked vehicles and unsightly areas, soften visual impact of structures and enhance views and vistas. o Formal arrangement may be acceptable if it has enough variety in layout and plants. Avoid continuous, long, unbroken, straight rows of a single plant where possible. o Existing vegetation contributing to the attractiveness of the site should be retained. o All planting areas should be at least 4 feet wide between curbs. o Deciduous or broadleaf evergreen trees should be planted at least 4 feet from curbs, especially in front of parking stalls. Coniferous trees should be planted at least 7 feet from curbs. o All plants should be compatible with the character and climate of the Pacific Northwest. Contact the Planning Division for details. o Berms or mounds should be no steeper than 3(H);1(V). Any slopes steeper than 3:1 (2:1 is maximum permitted by the City for fill slopes) need erosion control netting or other erosion control methods in planting areas not covered by grass (e.g. rockery). o Landscaping must be provided in adjacent rights -of -way between property line and curb or street edge and shown on the landscape plan. o Street trees must be planted according to the City's street tree plan. Contact the Planning Division for details. o Street trees should be installed within 4 feet of either side of the property line. o Automatic irrigation is required in all lawn areas, commercial areas and multi -family developments of five dwelling units or greater. Projects witt less than 50 parking stalls need not provide irrigation in the parking lot islands. Irrigation is suggested in all other planting areas. Page 2 107V o Existing trees and other vegetation on the site may be used for landscaping where practical, but the quality must be better than or equal to available nursery stock. 0 Existing significant trees and shrubbery (6" cal. or more) should be shown on the proposed Landscape Plan and saved and incorporated into the landscape plan if they are reasonably attractive and of good quality. o Landscaping should be tall enough to soften any dumpster enclosures located in planting areas. o Trees and very large shrubs should be planted at least 5 feet minimum from any water/sewer lines. Plant groundcover within 4 feet of any fire hydrant. 0 Utility boxes should be screened as much as possible with landscaping. IV. SCREENING A. Parkina Lot Perimeters o Shrubs/berm to an average height of 3-1/2 feet at maturity 0 75% horizontal coverage min. o Min. density of 1 row evergreen or 2 rows deciduous shrubs o Shrubs must be at least 18 inches at installation and must be able to t� reach a height of 3-1/2 feet at maturity if no berm. o Shrub layout may be either informal or formal, i.e., clumps or rows, but informal is preferred, especially in large planting areas. If possible, formal should have some variation in the rows, i.e., not all rigid straight lines. 0 Fronts and sides of parking rows must be screened to an average height of 3-1/2 feet at maturity with shrubs and/or berm; also include trees, either evergreen or deciduous, and groundcover. B. Perimeters - Areas adjacent to buildings but not parking o Softening of building walls by landscaping o Interesting treatment of space that will contribute to the identity of the project.and integrate the project into the landscape C. Outdoor Stora o Areas of outdoor storage must be screened on all sides by a solid barrier at least 6 feet high. This barrier may include a combination of building wall, a decorative, sight obscuring fence or wall, earth berms, or a solid planting screen of predominantly evergreens. Page 3 1071 D. Service Area o Service areas must be screened with material or vegetation sufficient to provide a solid visual barrier at least 8 feet high. E. Blank Building Walls o Softening of building wall by landscaping o Landscaping should include trees and shrubs - mostly evergreen. o Trees - an average of 30 feet on center either formally or in clusters. V. FOUNDATION PLANTING o Trees and shrubs should soften the building elevation and soften the transition between the pavement and the building. o Informal or formal arrangement o Should be installed in all areas except service areas 0 Planting area should be at least 4 feet wide. VI. INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING o Applies to parking lots with 20 or more stalls or 6,000 square feet 0 6,000 - 30,000 square feet - 5% of vehicle use area in landscaping 0 30,000 square feet or more - 7% of vehicle use area in landscaping o Vehicle use area includes driveways and service areas. o Minimum area per planter = 64 square feet o Maximum area per planter = 1,500 for lots greater than 30,000 square feet o Larger areas are acceptable but the excess is not included in total area requirement. o Planters are supposed to project out into the pavement as peninsulas or islands (surrounded on at least two sides by pavement). o Shade trees are required at the rate of 1 per planter min. and 1 per 150 square feet of planter. o Clear trunk to height of 5 feet o Planted 4 feet min. from curb where vehicles will overhang o Shrubs and/or groundcover are required for the remainder of planters to provide 75% ground coverage within 3 years. Page 4 107q VII. LANDSCAPE BONDS o Cost estimates, lump sum for landscaping and irrigation, must be submitted for use in determining the landscape bond amount. The City will use this estimate to set the amount. o A performance bond will be required for release of the building permit. This bond will be used to cover installation of required landscaping, fences or screening for service areas, outdoor storage and rooftop mechanical equipment, or other required improvements. o Landscaping must be installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. o Once the landscaping has been installed, a 15% maintenance bond is required for release of the performance bond. Any plants that die within two years of installation must be replaced before the maintenance bond can be released. Upon inspection and approval, the maintenance bond may be released after two years. NOTE: These standards reflect the landscape design policies of the Architectural Design Board and have not been officially adopted by City Ordinance. They are used by the Architectural Design Board in their review of projects. Page 5 18.85.000 Chapter 18.85 STREET TREES Sections: 18.85.000 Purposes. 18.85.010 Street plan adopted. 18.85.020 Permits. 18.85.030 Duties of director of public works. 18.85.040 Abuse of street trees. 18.85.050 Replanting and replacement. 18.85.060 Visibility blockage. 18.85.000 - Purposes. The purposes of regulations for street trees are: A, To protect existing street trees by regu- lating their maintenance and removal. B. To provide for new street trees on exist- ing and new streets by specifying appropriate trees for particular areas, based on the follow- ing factors: 1. Traffic visibility and interference with pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic; 2. Damage to utilities, streets or side- walks; 3. Control of wind, erosion and noise; 4. Maintenance; 5. Appearance, particularly the en- hancement of major city entrance points and streets, and the use of certain trees to give neighborhood areas visual identity. 18.85.010 Street plan adopted. The Edmonds Street Plan (1982), as issued by the director of public works and approved by the architectural design board is hereby adopted by this reference and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. A copy of the Edmonds Street Tree Plan (1982) shah be kept on file with the city clerk for public inspection and use during regular city business hours. All planting of street trees and other landscaping of streets shal l conform to the Edmonds Street Tree Plan (1982). [Ord. 2387, 1983]. (Revised soot 18-38 18.85.020 Permits. A. Required. No person shall plant, remove, prune or otherwise change a tree on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place without a permit from the director of public works. This permit require- ment does not apply to city employees under the direction of the director of public works. B. Application. The application shall be filed with the director of public works, con- taining information as required by the director. C. Issuance. The director of public works shall issue the permit if the proposal conforms to the street tree plan, the applicant demon- strates knowledge of the proper care and main- tenance of trees, and the director is satisfied that the proposed method and workmanship is adequate. 18.85.030 Duties of director of public works. A. Enforcement. The director of public works shall enforce this chapter, inspect work done under this chapter and maintain city street trees in healthy growing conditions. B. Improper Planting. Whenever any tree is planted contrary to the provisions of this chap- ter, the director of public works may remove the tree. A second violation constitutes a mis- demeanor. 18.85.040 Abuse of street trees. Unless specifically authorized by the direc- tor of public works, no person shall damage any street tree, attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising posters or other contrivance to any street tree; allow any gaseous, liquid or solid substance which is harmful to trees to come into contact with them; set fire or permit any fire to burn when such fire or the heat thereof will injure any portion of any street tree; exca- vate any ditches, tunnels, trenches or lay any drive within a radius of 10 feet of any street tree; deposit, place or store any materials which may impede the free passage of water and fertilizer to the roots of any street tree. �� IEiT rl A i�6 Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.070 cant or the city engineer, additional width in excess of the established standard may be approved as a staff decision to a maximum width of 40 feet. Such decision shall be made only after notice and hearing in accordance with provisions of ECDC 20.95.050. Such application shall be approved only if: (a) it conforms to the provisions of the comprehen- sive plan; (b) is found to be in the public inter- est when the needs of the applicant are reviewed and balanced in light of the benefits to the general public and the impacts, if any, on the immediate neighborhood; and (c) is consis- tent with or enhances public safety and will not create a hazard to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. The public works director may authorize additional residential driveway width for three -car garages and for access driveways necessary for off-street parking or recreational vehicles. D. Driveway Slopes. 1. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 14 percent unless authorized by the public works director as set forth below. 2. The public works director may autho- rize driveway slopes to exceed 14 percent, up to a maximum of 20 percent, if he determines that: a. The driveway is the only economi- cally and environmentally reasonable alterna- tive; b. The driveway will not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard; c. The police and fire chief concur in allowing the increased driveway slope; d. The public health, safety and gen- eral welfare will not be adversely affected. 3. The public works director shall place in the appropriate city file, a signed, written statement of findings and reasons for authoriz- ing the driveway slope to exceed 14 percent. The statement shall also contain the maximum slope authorized up to 20 percent. [Ord. 3302 § 1, 1-000; Ord. 3132 § 1, 1997; Ord. 2713, 19891. 18-37 18.80.070 Street slope requirements. A. Street slopes shall not exceed 12 percent unless authorized by the public works director as set forth below. B. The public works director may authorize street slopes to exceed 12 percent, up to a max- imum of 15 percent, if the director determines that: 1. The street as proposed is the only eco- nomical and environmentally reasonable alter- native; 2. The street as proposed will not create a traffic, pedestrian or bicycle hazard or other- wise negatively impact the safety of its use; 3. The police and fire chiefs concur in the increased street slope; and 4. The public health, safety and general welfare will -not be adversely affected. C. The public works director shall place in the appropriate city file, a signed, written state- ment of findings and reasons for authorizing the street slope to exceed 12 percent. The state- ment shall also contain the maximum slope authorized up to 15 percent. [Ord. 2731, 1989]. (Revised 5/00) 117 Edmonds Community Development Code 18.85.060 18.85.050 Replanting and replacement. A. Required. When it is necessary to remove a street tree in connection with paving of a sidewalk, or the paving or widening of the portion of a street or highway used for vehicu- lar traffic, the city shall replant the tree(s) or replace them. If conditions prevent replanting, this requirement may be satisfied if any equiv- alent number of trees are planted nearby in accord with the street tree plan. B. Size and Cost. Replacements shall meet the standards specified in the street tree plan for size, species and placement. The permittee shall bear the costs of removal and replace- ment. C. Specifications. Removal, planting and replacement of all street trees shall conform to the standards in the material labeled "Stan- dards for Planting Street Trees Within the City of Edmonds," three copies of which are on file with the city clerk, and which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 18.85.060 Visibility blockage. A. Pruning Required. Any property owner who owns property on any street shall prune or otherwise prohibit private trees or other vege- tation growing on his property in such manner that they will not block or shade the light from the street lights, obstruct the passage of per- sons on the sidewalks, obstruct vision of traffic signs, or obstruct the view of any intersection or alley intersection. B. Enforcement. 1. If any property owner fails to prune (or take other appropriate action) trees as pro- vided in subsection A of this section and the director of public works has actual knowledge of the condition, then the director of public works may, by written notice, order such per- son to prune (or take other appropriate action) such trees within 14 days after written notice is sent. The notice shall state that criminal prose- cution may result from noncompliance. 2. If a person to whom a notice is sent does not comply within the specified time, in addition to any other action the city may take 18-38.1 (Revised 5/00) 1 112 Edmonds Community Development Code 18.90.030 under this chapter, the director of public works Chapter 18.90 may prune the trees, take other appropriate action, charge the owner for the cost of the SIDEWALKS work, record the same as a lien against the property, and collect the same in court. Sections: 18.90.000 Purpose. 18.90.010 Sidewalk plan adopted. 18.90.020 Effect. 18.90.030 Sidewalk standards. 18.90.040 Sidewalk maintenance. 18.90.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Implement the comprehensive sidewalk plan. B. Regulate the construction of improve- ments which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive sidewalk plan. [Ord. 2477 § 2, 19851. 18.90.010 Sidewalk plan adopted. A map, which is on file with the office of the city clerk and city engineer, entitled Compre- hensive Sidewalk Plan — 1984, is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full in this chap- ter. Changes shall be by ordinance, attested by the mayor and city clerk on the affected map. [Ord. 2477 § 2, 1985]. 18.90.020 Effect. The city council shall use the map to assist it in determining the priority of streets for side- walk construction. Development along those streets designated for sidewalks shall be required to include sidewalks designed to the specifications of this chapter as a condition of development approval, as said term is defined in ECDC 15.40.010. [Ord. 2477 § 2, 1985]. 18.90.030 Sidewalk standards. Sidewalks to be constructed as a condition of development approval shall be constructed as shown in the Table of Sidewalk Standards below. The city engineer will prepare draw- ings illustrating the sidewalk standards. 18-39 (Revised 10/97) 1-074 18.90.040 Table of Sidewalk Standards Sidewalk Zone Required Width Material RS-20 No 1 5'-7' ) Optional '- RS-12 No 1 Y-7'2 Optional'` RS-8 Yes 5'-7' z Optional , RS-6 Yes 5'-7' z Optional '- [Vertical or rolled RM, B, C. Yes 7'-10' 3 curb required] Optional'` [Vertical or rolled curb required] t Except as shown on comprehensive sidewalk plan map or as re- quired by the planning director and city engineer. Note: It is the city's policy to require sidewalks on all streets over 300 feet in length. x Requirements are optional to encourage flexibility of location, alignment, specifications,and malerials to insure compati bi I i ty wi th individual locations and circumstances. The planning director and city engineer shall make the rtnal decision on the requirements after review Of pertinent information supplied by the affected neighbor- hood and/or the architectural design board, 3 Comerparks will be required a all street interscctions,percityStan. lard, within the downtown business area and may be required in all other commercial areas. A. Location. Streets designated on the Comprehensive Thoroughfare Map as an arte- rial street shall have sidewalks constructed on both sides of the street- Designated collector streets shall have sidewalks constructed on at least one side of the street. B. Regulation. The planning director and the city engineer will be responsible for deter- mining the width and materials to be used for sidewalks as set forth in the table above. With the approval of both the planning director and city engineer, the requirements of this chapter may be waived, if it can be demon- strated by the applicant that there are special circumstances related to topography or other factors which make the construction of the sidewalk economically unfeasible or practi- cally impossible. [Ord. 2477 § 2, 1985]. 18.90.040 Sidewalk maintenance. The duty of an adjacent property owner to maintain a sidewalk and a planting strip are governed pursuant to Chapter 9.20 ECC, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. [Ord. 3149 § 1, 1997]. (Revised 10/97) 18-40 18.45.000 The fee for any permit required under this subsection shall be the same as established in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, as it now exists, and as it may hereafter be amended. Any permit issued under this sub- section shall expire within 180 days of permit issuance. [Ord. 2916 § 1, 19931. Chapter 18.45 LAND CLEARING AND TREE CUTTING CODE Sections: 18.45.000 Purposes. 18.45.010 Administering authority. 18.45.020 Permits. 18.45.030 Exemptions. 18.45.040 Definitions. 18.45.045 Application requirements. 18.45.050 Performance standards for land development permits. 18.45.055 Notice. 18.45.060 Appeals. 18.45.065 Bonding. 18.45.070 Violations and penalties. 18.45.075 Public and private redress. 18.45.000 Purposes. This chapter provides regulations for the clearing of and the protection and preservation of trees and associated significant vegetation for the following purposes: A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic char- acter of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on undeveloped or partially developed property; B. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as revised in 1984; C. To implement and further the goals and policies of the city's comprehensive plan in regard to the environment, open space, wild- life habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watershed, and economics; D. To ensure prompt development, restora- tion and replanting and effective erosion con- trol of property during and after land clearing; E. To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the city; 18.24 EXAMT41 111B Edmonds Community Development Code 18.40.020 Chapter 18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS Sections: 18.40.000 Permit required. 18.40.010 Grading plans required. 18.40.020 Retaining walls. 18.40.000 Permit required. Section 7003 of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city is amended to read as follows: No person shall do any grading without first having obtained a permit from the building official except for the follow- ing: 1. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a build- ing, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit which has been reviewed and ap- proved by the building official. This shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation nor ex- empt any excavation having an unsup- ported height greater than five feet after completion of such structure. 2. Cemetery graves. 3. Excavations for utilities for which a city permit is required by Chapter 18.60 ECDC. 4. Subdivisions for which the public works director has approved the im- provement plans under ECDC 20.75.120. 5. Exploratory excavations of less than 100 cubic yards by licensed soils engineers or graduate geologists. 6. An excavation which (a) is less than two feet in depth, or (b) which does not create a cut slope greater than five feet in height and steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical. 7. A fill less than one foot in depth, and placed on natural terrain with a slope flatter than five horizontal to one verti- cal, or less than three feet in depth, not intended to support structures, which does not exceed 50 cubic yards on any one lot and does not obstruct a drain- age course. 18.40.010 Grading plans required. Subsection (c) of section 7006 of the Uni- form Building Code as adopted by the city is amended to read as follows: Plans and Specifications. Eac,y appli- cation for a grading permit shaft be ac- companied by two sets of plans and specifications. Supporting data con- sisting of a soil engineering report and engineering geology report shall be supplied if required by the public works director. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a reg- istered civil engineer when required by the public works director. 18.40.020 Retaining walls. Except as provided below, no person shall erect a retaining wall, as defined in the Uni- form Building Code adopted by the city, made of any material, including rockeries, without first obtaining a permit from the building offi- cial. Prior to issuing any permit, the building official shall review plans and specifications which shall show any effect that the proposal will have on drainage and shall be subject to Edmonds Community Development Code set- back requirements. In addition, when required by the public works director, the plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer; provided, that no permit shall be required for rockeries or retain- ing walls less than four feet in height and not located in a critical area. 18-23 1 s2 Edmonds Community Development Code 18.45.040 F. To minimize surface water and ground water runoff and diversion; G. To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation; H. To minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabi- lization of soils; I. To retain clusters of trees for the abate- ment of noise and for wind protection; J. To acknowledge that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide; K. To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands and groves of trees; L. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's nat- ural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condi- tion (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvement, interference with utility ser- vices, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; M. To promote the reasonable development of land in the city of Edmonds. 18.45.010 Administering authority. The city's planning division manager or his/her duly authorized representative is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of this chapter. 18.45.020 Permits. No person shall engage in or cause any land to be cleared without first obtaining a land clearing permit from the planning division manager or his/her designee. 18.45.030 Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from the pro- visions of this chapter: A. Clearing on a developed single-family lot or clearing on a partially developed single- family lot, which is capable of being divided into one additional lot, except for: 1. That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area, 2. That portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any stream or wetland, 3. That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent; B. Undeveloped lots which are not capable of being further subdivided, except for: 1. That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area, 2. That portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any stream or Wetland, 3. That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent; C. Projects requiring approval of the Edmonds architectural design board (ADB) under the provisions of Chapter 20.10 ECDC; provided that clearing on such projects shall take place only after ADB approval and shall be in accordance with such approval as deter- mined by the planning division staff; the ADS shall view and approve projects by applying the stands contained in this chapter; D. Routine landscape maintenance and gar- dening; E. Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the public works department, parks depart- ment, fire department and/or public or private utility in situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interrup- tion of services provided by a utility; F. Installation and maintenance of public utilities, after approval of route by the plan- ning division manager or his or her designee, except in parks or environmentally sensitive areas; G. Emergency situations on private prop- erty involving danger to life or property or sub- stantial fire hazards. 18.45.040 Definitions. A. "Caliper" shall mean the diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of four feet above the ground on the upslope side of the tree. B. "Creek" means those areas where sur- face waters flow sufficiently to produce a 18-25 Asa 18.45.040 defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is indicated by hydraulically sorted sedi- ments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely rooted vegetation by the action of mov- ing water. The channel or bed need not contain water year around. This definition is not meant to include storm water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to store and/or convey pass -through stream flows naturally occurring prior to con- struction. C. "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation. D. "Clearing permit" means the written approval of the city of Edmonds planning divi- sion manager or his or her designee to proceed with the act of clearing property within the city limits of Edmonds. E. "Developed lot" shall mean a lot or par- cel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, which cannot be more intensively developed pursuant to the city zoning code, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations. F. "Drip line" of a tree shall be described by a line projected to the ground delineating the outermost extent of foliage in all directions. G. "Grubbing" means the act of removing vegetation by the roots. H. "Ground cover" shall mean a dense cov- ering of small plants such as salal, ivy, ferns, mosses, grasses, or other types of vegetation which normally cover the ground. 1. "Land development permit" means a pre- liminary or final plat for a single-family resi- dential development; a building permit; site plan; preliminary or final planned unit devel- opment plan. J. "Lakes" are natural or artificial bodies of water of two or more acres and/or where the deepest part of the basin at low water exceeds two meters (6.6 feet). Artificial bodies of water with a recirculation system approved by the public works department are not included in this definition. 18-26 K. "Mechanical equipment" shall include all motorized equipment used for earth mov- ing, trenching, excavation, gardening, land- scaping, and general property maintenance exceeding 12 horsepower in size. L. "Native growth protection easement" is a restrictive area where all native, predevelop- ment vegetation shall not be disturbed or removed except for removal pursuant to an enhancement program approved pursuant to this chapter or to remove dead or diseased veg- etation. The purpose of an easement is to pro- tect steep slopes, slopes with erosion potential, landslide and seismic hazards, creeks, wet- lands and/or riparian corridors, wildlife, and areas shown on the environmentally sensitive areas map. This easement shall be. defined dur- ing the development review process and shown on the recorded plat or short plat or approved site plan. M. "Partially developed lot" shall mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) is located and which is of sufficient area so as to be capable of accommodating additional development pursuant to the Edmonds zoning code; or which may be subdivided in accordance with the city of Edmonds subdivision chapter. N. "Person" shall mean any person, indi- vidual, public or private corporation, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, owner, lessee, tenant, or any other entity whatsoever or any combination of such, jointly or sever- ally. O. "Removal' is the actual destruction or causing the effective destruction through dam- aging, poisoning or other direct or indirect actions resulting in the death of a tree or ground cover. P. "Routine landscape maintenance" shall mean tree trimming and ground cover manage- ment which is undertaken by a person in con- nection with the normal maintenance and repair of property. Q. "Tree" shall mean any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six I Iq Edmonds Community Development Code 18.45.045 inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. R. "Undeveloped lot" shall mean a platted lot or parcel of land upon which no structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) exists. S. "Wetlands" are those areas that are inun- dated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to sup- port and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar area. 18.45.045 Application requirements. A. An application for a land clearing permit shall be submitted on a form provided by the city, together with a plot plan and other infor- mation as described hereafter: 1. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; 2. Legal status of applicant with respect to the land; 3. Written consent of owner(s) of the land, if the applicant is not the sole owner; 4. Name of person preparing the map, drawing or diagram submitted with the appli- cation, along with credentials if applicable; 5. Location of the property, including street number and addresses, together with the names and addresses of all the adjacent prop- erty owners within 80 feet of the subject prop- erty as listed in the records of the Snohomish County assessor; 6. A plot plan, drawn to scale, of the property depicting the following items (scale V = 30' or as approved by the planning divi- sion manager): a. Topographic information, b. Location of all existing and/or pro- posed structures, driveways, and utilities, c. Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such area, d. Designation of all diseased or damaged trees, 18-27 e. Any proposed grade changes that might adversely affect or endanger trees on the property and specifications to maintain them. f. Designation of trees to be removed and trees to be maintained, g. Designation of all wetlands, streams and environmentally sensitive areas; 7. A statement outlining the purpose of the tree removal (e.g., building construction, street or roadway, driveway, recreation area, patio, or parking lot), together with a proposed timetable for when the work will occur; 8. The manner in which the cleared areas on the property will be reclaimed with vegetation and the timetable for replanting; 9. Any other information deemed neces- sary by the city to allow adequate review and implementation in conformance with the pur- poses of this chapter. B. Upon receipt of the application for a clearing permit, the staff shall inspect the site and contiguous properties. If the staff deter- mines that the plan is in compliance with the provisions of this section and will result in the removal of no more trees or vegetation than is necessary to achieve the proposed develop- ment, the permit shall be approved under the provisions of ECDC 20.95.050 (Staff Decision — Optional Hearing). The city may require a modification of the clearing plan or the associated land develop- ment plan to ensure the retention of the maxi- mum number of trees. If the staff determines that the plan will result in the destruction of more trees and veg- etation than is reasonably necessary to achieve the proposed development the permit shall be denied. C. Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one year from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until the appeal time limit has expired. Upon receipt of a written request, a permit may be extended for six months. D. Approved plans shall not be amended without written authorization from the city. The permit may be revoked or suspended by 115 18.45.050 the city upon discovery that incorrect informa- tion was supplied or upon any violation of the provisions of this chapter. E. Applications for land clearing shall be referred to Other city departments or agencies for review and approval as deemed necessary by the planning division manager. Applica- tions for clearing in parks shall always be referred to the Edmonds planning board for review and approval. 18.45.050 Performance standards for land development permits. A. There shall be no clearing on a site for the sake of preparing that site for sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pur- suant to a clearing permit which has been approved by the city. B. Trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible. I. Clearing should not occur outside of the areas designated on the clearing plan. 2. No tree(s) or ground cover shall be removed from a native growth protection ease- ment or environmentally sensitive site unless that plot plan and other submitted materials can demonstrate that the removal will enhance the easement area. An exception for the instal- lation of roads and utilities may be approved if it can be demonstrated that alternative access is not practical or would be more damaging and is developed pursuant to an approved development plan. Enhancement may include non -mechan- ical removal of noxious or intrusive species or dead or diseased plants and replanting of appropriate native species. C. The city may restrict the timing of the land clearing and tree cutting activities to spe- cific dates, times, and/or seasons when such restrictions are necessary for the public health, safety and welfare, or for the protection of the environment. D. Native growth protection easements may be established through the subdivision process in the following areas: 18-28 1. A 25-foot buffer area from the annual high water mark of creeks, streams, lakes and other shoreline areas or from top of the bank of same, whichever provides good resource pro- tection; 2. Areas in which the average slope is greater than 25 percent; I Wetlands; 4. Any other area which is determined through the environmental review process to include significant vegetation, wildlife or other similar resources which should be pro- tected. E. No ground cover or trees which are within 25 feet of the annual high water mark of creeks, streams, lakes, and other shoreline areas or within 15 feet of the top of the bank of same should be removed, nor should any mechanical equipment operate in such areas except for the development of public parks and trail systems; provided that conditions deemed by the city to constitute a public nuisance shall be removed, and provided that a property owner shall not be prohibited from making landscaping improvements where such improvements are consistent with the aims of this chapter. F. The city may require and/or allow the applicant to relocate or replace trees, provide interim erosion control, hydroseed exposed slopes, or use other similar methods which would comply with the intent of the chapter. G. No land clearing and tree cutting shall be conducted in a wetland, except for the installation of roads and utilities where no fea- sible altemative exists and the work is done pursuant to an approved development plan. H. When tree cutting or land clearing will occur pursuant to a building, permit protection measures should apply for all trees which are to be retained in areas immediately subject to construction. The requirements listed may be modified individually or severally by the city if the developer demonstrates them to be inap- plicable to the specific on -site conditions or if the intent of the regulations will be imple- mented by another means with the same result. ebb Edmonds Community Development Code 18.45.075 Where the drip line of a tree overlaps a con- struction line, this shall be indicated on the sur- vey and the following tree protection measures shall be employed: 1. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 2. The applicant shall erect and maintain rope barriers on the drip line or place bales of hay to protect roots. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. 3. If the grade level adjoining a retaining tree is to be rai-sed or lowered, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree's drip line. 4. The applicant may not install ground level impervious surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 5. The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (1) the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or (2) an area around the tree equal to one foot in diameter for each one -inch of tree caliper. 6. The applicant may prune branches and roots, fertilize and water as horticulturally appropriate for any trees and ground cover which are to be retained. The planning division manager or his/her designee may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protec- tion than the techniques listed above. 18.45.055 Notice. The city shall mail a notice to .the surround- ing property owners, pursuant to ECDC 20.90.010, informing them of the application for a clearing permit. 18.45.060 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the staff regarding a clearing permit may appeal such decision of the hearing examiner within 10 working days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 20.105 ECDC. 18.45.065 Bonding. The applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount covering the installation of tem- porary erosion control measures and the clear- ing work to be done on the property and the cost of any proposed revegetation. 18.45.070 Violations and penalties. A. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor. It shall be a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any viola- tion of any of the provisions of this chapter is committed. B. Any person found violating the provi- sions of this chapter may be fined by the plan- ning division manager in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day and/or $500.00 per tree to a maximum of $10,000. Any fine imposed by the planning division manager is appealable to the hearing examiner. This civil fine shall be in addition to any criminal, civil or injunctive remedy available to the city. 18.45.075 Public and private redress. A. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or of a permit issued pursuant hereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its original condition prior to such violation and the payment of any levied fine. 1. Restoration shall include the replace- ment of all ground cover with a species similar to those which were removed or other approved species such that the biological and habitat values will be substantially replaced; and 2. For each tree removed, replacement planting of up to three trees of the same species in the immediate vicinity of the tree(s) which was removed so long as adequate growing 18-29 191 18.50.000 space is provided for such species. The replacement trees shall be of sufficient caliper to adequately replace the lost tree(s). Replace- ment trees shall be a minimum of three inches in caliper and shall be replaced at the direction of the planning division manager. B. In order that replanted species shall have an opportunity to adequately root and establish themselves prior to disturbance by any future development, no permit shall be issued nor final approval given to any project until such time as all planting required to mitigate illegal activity has been fully implemented in accor- dance with an approved landscaping plan, and an adequate rooting period has expired. The plan shall meet the performance standards established in ECDC 18.45.050. The phrase "adequate rooting period" is defined for the purposes of this section as a period of one cal- endar year from the date of planting; provided, however, that a developer or other impacted party may apply to the architectural design board for the establishment of a different root- ing period. The architectural design board shall establish such period which may be longer or shorter than one calendar year based upon the species of the plants involved, the particular point in the growing cycle at which the application is reviewed, and the planting schedule. The architectural design board shall establish a rooting period based upon the best scientific and biological evidence available as necessary to reasonably insure the establish- ment of the plantings. In no event shall a root- ing period be established as a penalty. C. Restoration shall also include installa- tion and maintenance of interim and emer- gency erosion control measures until such time + as the restored ground cover and trees reach sufficient maturation to function in compli- ance via performance standards identified in ECDC 18.45.050. [Ord. 2804 § 1, 1990]. 18-30 Chapter 18.50 OFFICIAL STREET MAP Sections: 18.50.000 Purpose. 18.50.010 Street map adopted. 18.50.020 Effect. 18.50.030 Changes, 18.50.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Implement the comprehensive street plan. B. Regulate the construction of improve- ments which could prevent the implementation of the comprehensive street plan. 18.50.010 Street map adopted. That certain collection of maps, which is on file with the director of public works, entitled Official Street Map of Edmonds — 1980, is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full in this chapter. All prior official street and thoroughfare maps and plans previously adopted by the city are hereby readopted and affirmed, unless expressly repealed as to any particular street or thoroughfare. In the event a prior map or plan is in conflict with one adopted subsequent in time, the most recent shall prevail. Changes shall be by ordinance, attested to by the mayor and city clerk on the affected map. Dedications may be entered on the map without an ordinance after the city council has accepted the dedication. 18.50.020 Effect. A. Property Fronting on Street. No permit shall be issued or improvement built within an existing or proposed right-of-way shown on the official street map. Required setbacks and yard or other open space requirements shall be measured from the existing or proposed right- of-way as shown on the official street map. B. Property Not on Street. No building per- mit shall be issued to property not fronting on an improved street shown on the official street Conifer Topping _ i May Be Common, But Is It Right 2 By John Hushagen Arborists around the world resounding- ly condemn tree topping as a harmful practice that ruins tree structure, makes wounds that the tree can't close, and de- stroys the appraised dollar value that trees add to the landscape. Despite this seem- . ingly universal consensus, there is still confusion within the arboricultural com- munity about the topping of conifers. In theory, topping a healthy conifer with a small diameter cut (less than six inches) should not do significant harm. I have observed that healthy second -growth Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii) have effectively closed the topping wound with callus after several seasons. Longitu- dinal dissections in some of the same trees revealed that discoloration and decay were contained to a fairly small area. lowever, we must ask how much ben- cjit (e.g., greater safety from "windsail" reduction) is to be gained by cutting the top 15 feet off a 135-foot fir. The answer is little, if any. Hidden problems In practice, most tree toppers don't stop at a 15-foot reduction and a 4-to-6-inch di- ameter cut. They prefer to reduce the Rot weakens the attachment of largo branches, and pre0msly shielded branches are too weak to endure strong winds. As a result, limbs may break. The goal of conifer pruning should be to reduce the tree's mass and "windsail" without reducing its size. Proper thinning does that. height of a tree by one-third to one-half. Herein lies the problem. If a 140-foot fir is suddenly turned into a 70-foot fir, this top- ping cut is probably 12 to 15 inches in di- ameter. Even the healthiest trees under the best of conditions cannot cover a 12-inch wound. Very often one of the top rot fun- gi enter the wounded area, rapidly devour- ing the center of the tree. As founder and owner of one of the larger tree services in the greater Seattle area, I have had ample opportunity to ob- serve the effects of conifer topping. I once climbed and core sampled in several places an old -growth fir that had been topped many years before by nature or man. The base of the tree was sound, and from the ground it looked healthy. But as I worked my way down from the top, I discovered that there were only two inches of sound wood beneath the bark of a 24-inch diameter trunk, halfway down from the top of the 80-foot tree. The decay column was at least 55 feet long! Heavy, bushy branches, some covered with fungal fruiting structures, clung to the sides of this grand tree. Halfway down the tree. I stopped coring since it was obvious 14 TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 1"2 (3iN1sCf 18SA that the tree was too dangerous to keep. Physiologically the tree's plumbing was working but structurally it was an accident - waiting to happen. It is not uncommon to find handfuls of gooey. rotten wood below large topping cuts. Rot spreads down the trunk, weaken- ing the attachments of large branches and causing them to break and become dan- gerous hangers. Some toppers cut back to a lateral branch hoping it will "bend" and form a new top. What usually happens is that these previously shielded branches are too weak to endure the winds they soon encounter. Upsetting the balance Topping, or any other form of excessive pruning, upsets the delicate balance among leaf area, shoot growth and root growth. Trees need their leaves to feed shoots, developing buds and roots. Top- ping starves a tree, forcing it to use its stored reserves to rebuild its crown and fight invading micro-organisms. Topped trees become stressed trees that are sus - STUMPS? Get a Dependable Work -Force... J W 12 hp. 20 hp. seIl-prop*IlW w AN ■11 MR to m g►Am► w� + A. si! �. Mnk .rt• Raw =�= = off by Mwf�A f t,, 4255 Lincoln Way East • Wooster, Ohio 44691 a Fax (216) 264.3697 1.800.392.2687 IN O H IO • 1.800.392.2686 OUTSIDE OH IO Please circle 26 on the Reader Service Card DO YOUR EMPLOYEES NEED TRAINING Do they climb - SAFELY, PROPERLY Are they aware of the latest TREE CARE techniques -- How does the completed PRUNING job look Do they know the Z-133 Standards Are they trained for Arborist Certification 0 THE WORK PERFORMED BY YOUR EMPLOYEES IS YOUR REPUTATION If your employees' job skills need improvement--- CALL 1-800-622-2562 tt ,T THE TRAINING LEADER SINCE 1985: IN -� ACRT, INC. 227 Naw,11 Deft . 51 I O ft. 219 K� O. 442.0 0219 ceptible to root rots, a major cause of death in Pacific Northwest trees. Tress do not -blow over because they are "too big." Shortening trees to make them safer -is unprofessional, at best. In r cases, conifer topping could be considelw arboricultural malpractice since the "cure" more often becomes "the cause" of haz- ardous trees. Topping conifers gives us a somewhat shorter tree that rapidly re- grows new, bushy tops that are scabbed onto the outside of a rotting trunk. The tree soon becomes more hazardous than ever. Maintaining values As professionals, we must cease pro- viding services of dubious value to the trees and the customers. Instead; we should concentrate on promoting hazard tree evaluations and proper pruning. I feel the best way to explain the correct method of pruning a conifer is to say that the goal should be to reduce the mass of the tree without reducing its size. Thin- ning from the top to the bottom and from the inside out will reduce the tree's "wind - sail," reduce branch weight, remove poor- ly formed, crowded, broken and dead branches, and allow more light to reach the landscape below. After this, if the client insists on tops or overthinning, bid the client a good day and walk away with your head held high. You won't get that quick, short-term pay- check, but neither will you have sacrificed your principles or the long-term welfare of the tree. Recently, a client who owns one of the oldest homes in Beaux Arts told me that eight large conifers that we had pruned lost no branches in Seattle's fierce 100- year storm in December 1990. Getting tes- timonials like that is what quality tree care is all about. For more information write or call: 16 PlantAmnesty 906 N.W. 87th, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 783-9813 jq0 086-£8L (90Z) LTT86 dM `ai»eaS `gJL8 WN 906 B;sauwVlueld :1M Jo 0111M uopeuuojul aiow ao3 V « C nip Q r W co c° m �' tgm..aco a)ac m2 o_ m °' �v 3 alit o; C� N 1 o a N O m U a y C y E m v al 0 0.9-0 c�� .e'. �Ri3 �i 19 r m$ p 2 N cr m q E H O p m a1 a y O cp -T � � � 0 0 � C, L'M 01 5 Z O+ ~ m CO y a1 0 m m m y m U N p y �` + a1 p O O > Vi m m lC C a1 t m O a '- m d y p�p ` m` ' an d ;;« n n y` C c nrUU �s ��E m m w q rQ a1°-- ai Zi =� G1 t� . C II 1L a et ai E t t O y 3 CO H O m n y g 7 V ^c A m h ccepp^ y� C m% a C~ o C O y °� m C� pm or j O (1 L C p m U N� p �pp C-0 U') _ 07 y O 3 o c .a m r 7 O 'r aUi v V Q �, N y y ° U O •� y «O N E b :3 oyf a N �p C iC '�` O t Y �. _ y O C p� O �C y O m a) .� hL .0 a1 _ C. N l0 • p p V w ca 7 w p O y o p C n a7 0 E w cc 0 3 C C 3 p C 4 _m Z J c Q A W E Lu W CC 3 cr A. 40 (D rn m U. O �. L h m p m a—. ?. Vl 44 _�p •9 y y fa = c m C d N C p W°.10V> 'SW �'� m3D3'D D asE�1°c��' _ v, am E E-E 2 m a1 y a ami C n t � a1 O LL. '� C o m m en d t c b Lu a > c t p p -x O.m.00 ° yNE�&P E tpo= aEi.0 m 0 m�mcdocl C C t y C T ` a 2 y 3 0 30a— pc� �o _ m t .9 m en N C O p a1 O N a "' C p Er C 0� C X. Z, cW c m .� a, ° a v N > ac°i C d c� co p ;mmLEvpFN�m«0= maim 0 3 o m m--a�,mr1 `'; 02 o m c o L W o� H �,p o n_E 02a m qZ"t 4t c c1 Ed en> N '+' p d d 0 210 A U d m W p N O O 75 t 1-j E m ,Cm 75 c`C m aU1 7 7O7 0 m E C IE 2 o a« C 0 0 V1 cc oCOL m m .. $z 62 Ea�-2 O 6 0 0 b a N p m « E Kvv°1 vi aa� «ya 02z t °° y m o m I? 3�� 8y� • I I W I £T86'£8L (90Z) LII86 dM `alj;uaS `4)L8'M'N 906,(lsauuid;uuld :Ilea Jo aiu,t uo;3eu»ojul aloes io3 N 5 a Y Y a r _« a v m m oo C W ¢y7 [Gq� 2j Q �_ C Ti U -3 noN y �� A j, T lz N a a m 0 C ❑C� Q3 v c •C 7. m !_ E; Z22ma Q Cr a� m 3 . C c 2 0 .U cG ID C ro 0 •G :. 4� a 7 C 7 fO U c p r E 7 C � Y m c' 'C) 5! ZE E m • p O cn N 'Oc (cQ Y � •C D ti -- � vim. C � � � U � � ro � Q1 c N N 61 O • :Y :3croN�¢�a ctiIV * v .y R7 G7 j, �' 7 N N 7 ❑ mCP .c Co LL a O c E U co c 4 N c Sp E =icy. �� Q 0 8 U U C >1 cv ro y G k � � C p a O p O �W m� a� Q. O Z .o a arm 42 m mCL - a C U a CX C l� The Truth About Tree Topping Long-standing pruning practices (however erroneous as well as recent advertisements in this newspaper, have perpetuated the myth that topping your trees is acceptable. PlantAmnesty wants no confusion about this issue. The bare, ugly truth about tree topping is it can kill — not only the tree itself, but the overall value of your property. Here's wbat the experts are sa�ing- "Topping a so is a major starting pain fur hazard frees. Malpractice suds may be in the near future for people who continue to top trees... We must push hard to let people know that if it must be topped, then it would be better to remove (ire tree and start over again wish a new tree. AIex Shigo, M.S., Ph.D from A New Tree Biology 1988, P. 459 - "Anyone who empkays.topping or advertises [his service should be avoided. Tt)u often these peo- ple take advantage of -the ignorance of their custorn ers, and see an easy way to make money by quick work with their chain saws. A trained arborist who understands tree growth would not condone tree topping... Many cities have enacted ordinances that hart the topping of street trees." Bonnie Lee Appleton, Ph.D. from Landscape Rejuvenation 1988, p. 37 "Topping of trees in this mariner has been callell 'vandalism for profit.' It often cause's death of the tree...Rarely do reputable companies recommend or perform topping o f lrees. Only if the tree has suffered drastic damage to its form, such as from a tornado, would a professional recurn• mend lopping (also called pollarding or stubbing off). Any company that advertises topping or suggests doing it to your tree should get no further consideration." Sanfort and Butcher i from "How to Avoid Being Clipped by a Tree Trimmer" in Flower and Garden Magazine April 1988, pps. 19-20 'Many homeowners have their trees topped, often by so-called professionals, when their trees have reached heights which they consider unsafe. They fear a strong wind may blow these trees over. This fear is largely unjustified. The extensive root system of a healthy tree, if left relatively undistrubed, provides adequate support for the tree... From an aesthetics aspect, topping disfigures the tree... Topping damages hundreds of large, beautiful trees each year. Marry pe le are unaware of the deterimental effects of topping ... Unfortunutely, even some 'knUwledgeale' tree service companies indiscriminately top trees. Avoid patronizing those companies which ad- vocate topping. Kalsor, Witt, Hartman, McNeil and Dunwell from "Warning: Topping is Hazardous To Your Tree's Health!" in Journal of Arboriculture February 1986, pp. SO-52 For more informadon write or call; PlantAmnesty 906 N.W. 87th, Seattle, WA 98117 10113 (206) 783-9813 Alden Kelley from "Topping: The Most Expensive Form of Pruning" in Arbor Age, November 1985, p. 46 "Topping has been dome so often that it appears to be the correct thing to do. It is a Iragedy thar large sums of money are expended in this misguided belief. Topping is often encourager) by in - di viduuls who either know no better or find it very profitable... The average life expectancy of a topped tree is dramatically reduced when compared to a properly pruned tree or even to an un- primed tree... Constant maintenance, repair and pest control become necessities once a tree has been topped. The annual costs of pesticides and the labor needed to maintain the health and structural safety of topped trees can be very expensive and will be necessary throughout the life of the tree." Dr. Eldon R. Everhart from "'Popping Shortens Tree Life" Ground Maintenance Magazine, April 1985, p.1 - Pruning and thinning of trees done in accordance with N.A.A. (National Arborists Association) standards can reduce the weight and wind resistance of your trees - without causing them to become unsafe, ugly, devalued or a constant maintenance headache — as occurs with topping. in . Hazardous trees do exist, but they are rarely hazardous because they're "too big." Factors con- tributing to unsafe trees include sudden grade changes, changes in the drainage patterns and the water tables, the severing of roots when underground utilities are installed, and root damage due to construction and compaction of the soil. Too, native trees such as Douglas firs may become susceptible to new wind stresses when housing developments are carved out of wooded areas. But wind stress reduction is best handled by selective thinning of the trees' branches. Topping is not selective pruning .— it's wholesale mutilation, What's more, topping is itself a cause of hazard trees, because it can promote weak growth and decay. PlantAmesty, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to promoting better pruning, encourages you to hire arborists who d❑ not advertise topping and who will prune to N.A.A. standards. These professionals will make your trees healthier, safer and more beautiful, increasing the value of your property and reducing maintenance requirements. A qualified arborist can provide you with a Hazard Tree Evaluation, assessing siu, history, health and site conditions. Find out if your tree is only unsafe or just seems "too hig." if unsafe conditions cannot be remedied with pruning or cabling and bracing, the tree should be removed. For copies of the completed texts from which the above quotations were taken, please send ;2.00 to PlantAmnesty, 9U6 N.W. 87th, Seattle, WA 98117. Or call (206) 783-9813. now 41ima For more information write or call: PlantAmnesty 906 N.W. 87th, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 783-9813 Y�A JOR -9 GLU III P- &as WIlhour a concerted, sustained eMorl to counteract topping as a end in the free care business today, the Image and financial base of the profession at large will be affected by those who operate at the low end of the quality scale Topping, also called heading or hatracking_ refers 10 the removal of major porllons of a tree crown by cutting 111:11101f!S la sliiI1S r111(lior 10 Me trunk. Nippu111 ',f:V !iirly 1nllmos and lslfu(as 14CUS If %0MV1111fes kills them ❑ulllglll. Nonetheless. the procedure appears to be on the increase worldwide, Why would a client ask to have a free topped? There seem to be three main rna11va11cr,s lj concern about tree size and the poss1b1i11y of blowdown or line -v+eakage. 2) a misguided intent 10 save Mney--a low -bid policy in the absence of Clear deflnrtlon of pruning method; and 33 acceptance of the method due to its ❑UvroLus pract;ce by many professionals. Unfortunately. correctly pruneu trees AlbW Age Platanus Racemosa are not often apparent to the untrained eye, whereas tapped trees are starkly conspicuous. Thus the examples of qual- ity tree care frequently go unnoticed while the mutiliated victims of topping Specialists serve as the public's model of professional standards. With this guiding image, it is little wonder people specify topping to reduce the damage potential of tress, particularly when it is the cheapest way to allay their fears. When a client requests topping of trees some professionals will do it because they don't know any other way to trim trees. Some will do the work on the grounds that they will lose the bid otherwise. Others will argue against topping (and risk losing the contract) on the basis of professional integrity, It is chiefly the latter group for whom this report is written. This information is offered to help explain the biological and economic COVS of topping. while showpoc the immediate and long-term benefits c high- quality pruning. The purpose is tc show clients that everyone prolas fro" correct pruning, whereas the only perso• to gain from tapping is the toovinc specialist. Tree Responses to Topping Normal apical Control of growth anc form Is eliminated. Released from natura suppression, latent buds frequenth emerge in large numbers. producinc clusters of shoots below the stub cv' These Shoots are characterized by sc Of all of the following features' CIO. — placement, which soon results in include% • bark between branch bases: narrov crotch angles. growth toward the cente, Iq� I Aorus I Released from natural suppression, latent buds frequently emerge In large wmbe, aduNng ciusten of shoats below the stub Cuts. of the crown; frequent crossing branches; and shallow branch attachments, which leave the branches vulnerable to breakage. The intact root system continues to pro. vide water and minerals at the level prev,. ously required by the whole crown. This stimulates the excessive growth of new shoots, often forcing them to grow rapidly which can result in long, thin, brittle branches. Summer topping can thrust the tree into an unseasonat growth flush, upsetting its annual rhythm and leaving it susceptible to further injury from low temperatures in autumn. Topping for any stub cut) disrupts all the longitudinal compartments of a woody stem, maximizing exposure to insects and disease organisms while minimizing the tree's capability either to resist them or IQ produce effective wound closure. The root system depends on leaves or storage reserves for its energy Supply. Topping not only eliminates much of the foliage, it prevents the roots from obtain- ing stored food, The rapid branch growth following topping depletes the remaining reserves. Only after new growth slows down markedly can the leaves again sup- ply sugars to nourish the comparatively remote root system. This weakens the root system, increasing its susceptibility to rot and accelerating the overall decline of the tree. Everyone profits from correct pruning, whereas the only person to gair� from topping is the topping specialist. Exposure and trauma from topping will frequently set the stage for sunscald and/or cold damage. The natural form of the tree is des- troyed. Even with careful, repeated restorative pruning, the tree can never be brought back to Its original potential for beauty and normal shape for the species. Because of the radical disorganization Of Physical and chemical processes caused by topping. even when a tree does not die immediately its life expec- tancy is sharply reduced. Some clients may not accept these facts as a sufficient argument against the Novembe• 199E 1q1 puce difference between topping and line pruning However, the following informa• .iron usually has a telling effect. Effect of Pruning Method on Tree Value The real estate value of trees can be assessed by the procedures set forth in Guide for Esrablishrng Values of Trees and Omer Plants lath edition, International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, IL 1983. The value of transplantable trees is based on replacement cost. For trees too large to transplant (i.e- 12 inches or more DSH) lormulas are given for evaluation in Jr Acer Saccharinum—Topping severely injures and infects tries. 46 1 lwms or four laclors: size, species, loca. tion and condition. The Condition factor Is directly altered by pruning, resulting In an immediate Change in the free's assessed value. Class I fine pruning (National Arborisl Association standards), using Dr. Alex Shigo's natural target pruning method, always enhances tree value. This usually increases the worth of a tree by five to 15 percent, typically ten percent. Topping always lowers tree value by at least 20 percent, frequently 50 percent or more, sometimes 100 percent. A 35 per- cent value loss would be very conser- vative. Consider the net effect of each method on an unpruned tree valued at $1,000. with contract figures of $200 for fine prun- ing versus $too for topping. Fine pruning at $200, increasing the Tree value by S1t}0 (10 percent of $1,000), would have a net cost of $100. Topping for a contract pace of $100, resulting in a S350 loss in value (35 percent of $1,000); would have a true cost of $450. The difference in the tree's value spread will increase wrth each passino year. It can take five or ten years for a topped tree just to return to its former value. On the other Eland. a correctly trimmed free increases in value between prunings, and Immediately increases fur- they in value at each pruning, By the same token, mast tappr;lg devaluation exceeds the 35 percent mean value suggested. As a general obsr:rva- tion one can assert that every $too invested in topping trees is followed by a W1. A • W 1 Nove-l"r 1985 1 q% acvv w r.vvv ur greater wss ur Nrujieny value. Obviously, topping is not a bargain at any price. Nationwide, the annual property ,depreciation due to lopping may well exceed a billion dollars. This does not include the environmental loss from defoliation of millions of trees by 'chain so ..ghl." or the expenditure of money at for required to remove and replace trees prematurely dead because of topping The issue of quality pruning versus top- ping is one of biological concerns. eco- nomic consequences and professional elhres. Those who ignore these matters and top trees as a matter Of course or because someone else will get the con- tract of they don't top, assure long-term toss 10 everyone. Within The industry, topping sets the lowest standard for both quality and price- Tne result is that the profit margin for q-wily work (which is far narrower than that for topping) is held to a minimal ranee The only way you can maintain a com- petitive contract structure and still do quality e.ork is to teach your prospects and clients the real costs and benefits of proper pruning methods. Show them how 10 specify ►ti•ork 10 exclude topping and other forms of stub cutting. If bids are based upon Class I fine pruning specifica- tions. there will be no option available to the topping specialist. The low bid process will thereby lead to fair competi- tion bel%vet?n quality workers. giving a ref,;'- which Can properly corr,pensate hic ndards of tree care. 6t-,.,nd eoucaling people in recogniz- rnc and specifying proper pruning methods. it is tmportan* to work with other professionals and your own crews to be reacning oy woras ano examples, we can change the trend toward lopping into a pattern of ethical, high-level professional• ism in the tree care industry- Let's substi. tule quality pruning for destructive lopping} Specifications for Pruning The most reliable means to assure fair price competition for quality work is clear specification of pruning details. Because most tree owners have little perception of pruning standards, it can be to your advantage as well as theirs to provide them with a guide to specifications. Specifications should cover most of the conditions encountered. By providing the prospective client with pruning standards you enable him to designate high quality in the bid offer. This will automatically eliminate topping as an option, allowing you to bid at a level appropriate to the quality of workmanship. The following standards are for Class I fine pruning. If a given project is specified at another level, e,g. Class it medium pruning, obviously those standards would prevail. Safety Measures Worker Safety Workers shall wear hats; climbers shall use tree saddles and safety lanyards, and also a safety line with rappelling hitch for climbing at heights above 15 feet- Ground workers shall stand clear of branch drop areas and take appropriate precautions to avoid injury from the work or tools employed. Protection of People and Property Tree pruning or removal performed in Giese 216 on Pods" Free Caro Oil with pylons and/or lines, and shall have warning signs to keep people at a safe distance from the work area. Branch drop after culling shall be con. trolled to avoid injury to people and property. Branches too large for con• trofled, one handed dropping shall be roped and lowered by ropes or othc;r equipment. All brush and other trimming debr-s shall be cleaned up and removed from the site, leaving a safe and neat ground sur. face upon completion of the work Tree Care Three cuts should be employed for removing branches too large for on[ - handed holding- The first cut shoula be an undercut 1/4 to 1/2 the branch thici - ness, six to 12 inches from the brancn base. A second cut within an inch or two of the first should be made to drop the branch. A final cut should be made at the edge of the branch collar to remove the branch stub. No stubs will be left at the end of the pruning operation- No climbing spikes (gaff climbers) or devices injurious to trees shall be used on living trees. No branch should be cut flush with The trunk or mother branch: the branch collar shall be preserved intact. Style of Cut After the final cut in lateral branch removal a protuberance is left. The angle of the cut needed to save the branch col- lar is determined by naturai target Prun- ing. This angle is equal and opposite :o the angle of the branch bark ridge v.hpn present. When the branch bark ridge is not visible, the angle is determined by the swelling at the branch trunk union. The resulting knob or bump, which is calied the branch collar, is neither a stub nor a November 1y2s flush cut For thinning or crown reduction, a ter- minal shall be cut back to a lateral. This lateral must be oriented to maintain the naturaf shape of the tree (e.g. not growing toward the interior of the crown). The basal diameter of the lateral must be at feast 113 the basal diameter of the lermi• nal at the point of removal. The final cut in removal of a terminal branch shall preserve the entire branch collar of the remaining lateral; the angle Of the Cut shall parallel the upper angle of the remaining lateral, Pruning Functions Each of the following shall be per- formed to whatever extent is appropriate for preserving the soundness. landscape function, beauty, form and safeness of each free. Clearing Branches shall be removed, and grovrth redirected as needed to clear pei;cstrian and vehicular traffic areas, buildings and other structures. as wolf as other trees and shrubs. Cosrrierrr, and Hygienic Prunino The trimming operation shall include removal of dead, broken, and unsafe branches, as well as shrubs remaining from prior pruning. Structural Corrections Crossing branches that present current or future surface contact should be cor- ••yam .,. 1u on "ostaye Free Card rected by removing the least desirable branch. Shoots which are expected to b-Ocome crossing branches (such- as suckers, water sprouts or inward -growing shoots) shall be removed. Exceptions are interior branches needed to provide shad- ing of trunk or interior branch bases. Sharp Angled $ranchos When structural weakness Is apparent in branch bases arising at angles of less than 30 degrees, those branches shalt be removed or lightened to curb breakage hazards. Parallel Branches If two branches within 15 inches of each other are parallel for several feel along their main stems, the less desirable one shall be removed. Pruning for Shape Trees with abnormal, unsafe or unat- tractive unbalance should be pruned to resemble a normal shape for the parlicu. tar variety. Trees which are trained as espaliers, hedges, sheared forms, or Pic. turesque styles shall be pruned in a fashion to maintain the intended effect. Pruning to Reduce Wind Resistance Canopy Thinning If foliage density still constitutes a wind brc:ai age hazard after the preceding steps have been completed, the neces- sary thinning cuts and removal of laterals shall be done in a way which retains the natural form. Numerous small branches will be removed, rather than a lesser num- ber of larger branches. Crown: Reduction If density and height of the upper cr present a breakage risk which cannot relieved by canopy thinning_ the uppep crown shall be removed by drop crotch pruning, to establish a natural appearing lower crown through retention of suitable falerals. Size Reduction If necessary for size control. the upper crown and/or horizontal branches shall be restricted by means of drop crotch prun- ing. When feasible. smaller terminals will be removed in preference to larger ones When top and/or root growth must be restricted to protect surface structures. or whets formal shape IS desired. Shearing shall be perforated one to four times annually, as necessitated by exisfing con. ditions. These specifications could be incorpo• rated into a standard bid specificalion form. Afternativeiv. certain portions coulw be excerpted for specific apphca!ions Whatever approach is used. detailed are the best insurance for high -quality tree care, provided at a fair and reasonable return to the operator G Editor's Note: Alden Kelley iS e•-njoloyed by Knapp Tree Service. Riverside Calif. ARBORISTS AND LANDSCAPERS This new, dependable unit will ensure many hours of maintenance free performance and tent at economical rates your customers can afford. USE THE COMPACT CHIP•RRRRR WITH THE BIG CHIPPER PUNCH! increase your safes and profits by buying, stocking or selling the 'Lil Chip-RRRRR. Call today. 216-684.2333 for further information. Let us demonstrate the difference. You'll be Impressed with your ability to Improve productivity, in the field DEALER INQUIRIES WELCOME 216-684.2333 LIMSCO1800 S. CROWN H�ILLC O RVVIILLE30H 44667 Circle 131 on Ppsrrge Free Caro III Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM October 12, 1995 Arvilla Ohlde - Parks and Recreation Manager Pat Harris - Park Maintenance Supervisor P� Costs Associated with Removal of Public Trees 13ased on the direction of City Council's deliberations regarding tree removal on public property, I think we need to prepare guidelines or recommendations regarding the costs the city should pass on directly to the citizen's who make the request to have a tree or trees removed. First, I would recommend that the market value of the trees be used as a cost basis for each tree removed. The value of trees vary significantly based on the species growth patterns and availability. Cutting down a scrub alder is completely different than cutting down a pine tree or other specimen tree. They have different replacement cost values. The City of Edmonds should do everything we can to insure that we are getting full compensation for the trees removed. Although it may be difficult to determine the value of a fully grown tree, there are ways of determining a realistic price. The determination of the value should be made by the city and not by the property owner. Second, the cost of'cutling the tree, removing the brush, and removing the stumps should be born by the property owner making the request to remove the trees. The property owner should be responsible for selecting a licensed and bonded contractor to carry out all phases of the work. We should ask for evidence of insurance and references. Work should be supervised by park staff. For each tree removed, a replacement tree should be required with a minimum caliper size of two inches. This is the size of tree which we typically order for replacement plantings. The cost of the trees and the labor to install the trees should be paid by the person who made the request to remove the trees. Tree replacements should come from our street tree list encompassing trees which typically grow less than 30 feet. City staff should be responsible for selecting the trees and for planting. The City Council agreed at their October 1 Oth meeting that the costs of the tree removal should be born by the property owner and not the City of Edmonds. I think the council was under the assumption that the costs incurred would only include the actual tree removal costs and not the replacement or market value of the trees removed. If we don't include this replacement cost, we could be allowing the destruction of valuable city assets with a replacement of a significantly less valuable tree. Different trees species have very different market values. A five foot lace rra City of Edmonds c,>3 Administrative Services 11 vn. vt♦ad inU 11:5! VAA ZU6 447 0215 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE IA008 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 1995 TO: City Council Community Services Committee FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Potential Changes to Existing Processes to Accommodate- Waivers to Current Tree Cutting Policies I have suggested to the City Council that it avoid individual negotiation of the tree cutting policy for public property. The Architectural Design Board currently reviews landscaping plans for both public and private property owners. This Board seems a good resource to utilize if the City Council wishes to establish a waiver or variance process from the current City policy prohibiting tree cutting on public property in order to benefit the views of adjacent properties. To assist you in your deliberations I have taken the liberty of suggesting the following discussion items: 1 SHOULD—A—W-AIVERAny process should take into consideration that the City currently has permits for tree cutting, that certain requests will trigger Shoreline Management Act, State Environmental Protection Act review, and 206 447 0215 iXN16lt Zo ••. •, •• •••- � r � t.i vv�ua.a. rava�a ul IIALJ..A�.G Wi U 11 Memorandum to City Council Community Services Committee September 7, 1995 Page 4 When the City Council has outlined the general perimeters of a amendment to the Ordinance, my office can put it in draft form. It would be forwarded to the Architectural Design Board for review and recommendation before final consideration by the City Council so that you can have the benefit of the Architectural Design Board's landscaping expertise. CC., Mayor Laura M. Hall Ms. Arvilla Ohlde WSSI 11141.)MVW6&909U7 %Wa& 09-07-1995 05:58PM 206 447 0215 TI Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 9 & 10, 2001 City Council Retreat Packet Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Past Requests for Tree Removal on Park Property To help get an idea of the type of requests received from the public for tree removal for view enhancement, these are a few of the requests received over the years collected from various telephone and written requests: Citizen living on Alder Street who wanted street trees cut on Railroad Avenue Citizen living on 3rd Ave. South who wanted Maple trees in City Park removed Citizen living on 3rd Ave. South who wanted trees removed at the old Public Works site. Citizen living on 3rd Ave. South who wanted trees removed at the wetlands south of the Treatment Plant, along 2°d Avenue at the Treatment Plant, Fishing Pier* parking lot and the Senior Center 1001 Sd' Ave. South Condominium who wants the trees in City Park removed Citizens living behind SR 104 mini park who want the pine trees removed or thinned Citizen living on Dayton who wanted trees at Anderson Center topped City living on Forsyth Lane who want trees cut in City Park Residents around South County Park requesting Snohomish County Parks cut for view (the county does cut for view, but has denied all cutting in respect of City of Edmonds policies of not cutting trees for view) Citizen living on Overlook View Drive who want county park trees removed Citizen living on Pine Street who wants trees cut in City Park Business located east of Brackett's Landing South who want trees removed in park Citizen living on Olympic Ave. N. who wants trees in Hummingbird Hill Park cut for view Citizen living by Hummingbird Hill Park on Sprague Street who wants trees cut for view Citizens living east of Brackett's Landing North requested tree removal for view Citizen living above Hutt Park requested tree removal for view Citizen living east of 911' & Casper right-of-way plantings who want trees removed for view Several citizens living on Sunset Avenue have requested removal for view over the years Citizen living on Td' & Elm requested tree removal for view* *When these requested were not granted, destruction of public property occurred and the trees were cut or destroyed to benefit the private views. e)(RISIT OZI City of Edmonds cZ Parks and Recreation i MEMORANDUM rj�c. l 89v Date: February 9 & 10, 2001 To: Mayor Haakenson & City Council From: Arvilla Ohlde, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Subject: Update on Bulkhead and Walkway Project The City Council, with recommendation from staff, directed the completion of a technical review of the design and the completion of an Environmental Assessment of the Mid -Waterfront Walkway Project in preparation for presentation to the permitting agencies. Over the last four months, the firm of CH2M Hill, who was selected to complete the assessment, has been working with staff and additionally with citizens Mr. Rob Morrison and Mr. John McGibbon, as directed by City Council. The preparation of technical data, which is currently in progress, will evaluate standing wave height, potential for overtopping and scour in relation to the preliminary design of a curvilinear stepped bulkhead with vertical bulkhead elements and waterfront walkway. The firm will complete the preliminary JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application) permits which will be the content for submittal to the City of Edmonds - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SMP), Statewide Environmental Permit Checklist (SEPA) and the Architectural Design Board (ADB); the Corps of Engineers (for NEPA)-Section 404 Permit; Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife — Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA); and Washington Department of Ecology -Section 401 Water Quality Certification. A Biological Assessment (BA) will be prepared to support the SEPA checklist, with the activities of attending a pre -BA meeting with the National Marine Fisheries Services and US Fish & Wildlife Services to discuss project elements. Outline of next steps: 1. Report to the City Council on evaluation of preliminary design and design recommendation with draft DARPA. Request for authorization from the City Council to submit the project to permit. City of Edmonds cg Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services 2. Project is submitted to permit SEPA, SMP, ADB, DFW / HPA, Corp 404 / NEPA, Ecology 401. 3. Permits are approved with a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) or is appealed to the Hearing Examiner or to City Council if appeal of ADB. Further appeal of HE will be to Superior Court. Currently it is anticipated that it will take approximately 18 months for the project to be approved through the permitting agencies; this does not count the additional time necessary if the project is appealed. 4. Following DNS, staff will request authorization to select engineering consultants to complete the project designs and prepare for advertisement to bid to construct. 5. Following receipt of bids to construct, secure authorization from the City Council to select the lowest responsible. bidder to construct the project and approve use of budgeted capital funds to construct the bulkhead and walkway. Currently under the Endangered Species Act and through the HPA from Department of Fish and Wildlife, no "in -water" construction can take place between February 15'h and July 31 [Construction window 811101 to 2114102.] It is anticipated DFW will recommend in the near future no " in -water" work will be allowed between January 15`h and October 15Ih [Construction window four month: 10116 to 11141.] 6. Project is completed and accepted by City Council. Review of Investment Activity Report Edmonds City Council Retreat February 10, 2001 Overview As of December 31, 2000, the investment portfolio for the City of Edmonds totaled approximately $17 million. The average years to maturity is 2.75 and the average investment yield to maturity is 6.59%. The City's General Investment Policy directs the City's investing activities. The primary objective of the City's investment policy is safety of principal. In order to achieve this goal, the City invests in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital within the overall portfolio. Diversification is utilized to limit potential losses on individual securities. Generally, investment purchases are made under the assumption that the investment will be held to maturity. The Finance Office is authorized to trade before maturity only if it is in the best interest of the City to do so as determined by the Administrative Services Director. Reporting The Investment Policy requires the Administrative Services Director to generate monthly reports for distribution to the Council. Each month, two reports are prepared. The Cash & Investment Balances Report is a summarized report by fund that lists the cash in the bank, the investments placed with the Washington State Investment Pool and other direct investments. The Washington State Pool program works similarly to a demand deposit and allows the City maximum liquidity for immediate cash flow needs. Cash is wired to the State Treasurer from the City's depository bank and is immediately invested. The City can access these investments in a manner similar to a checking account with no penalty for early withdrawal. The Pool has no minimum time commitment for disbursing funds to the City. The Investment Activity Report is a listing by fund of the direct investments owned by the City. These investments may include bankers acceptances, treasury notes and bonds, certificates of deposit and Federal agency securities. All of these investment vehicles are authorized under State law. Interpreting the Report The top section of the report is a legend for the various types of investment instruments in the City's portfolio. Below the legend is series of columns listing details about each investment: FINANCIAL INSTITUTION — Identifies who we purchased an investment from. TYPE — Designates type of investment. I.D. NUMBER — Is the account number of the investment PURCHASE DATE — Original date investment was purchased by the City. INTEREST/DISCOUNT RATE — Rates used to calculate investment interest. YIELD — Rates which the investment actually will return to the City if the investment is held to maturity. "Yield" rates will vary from "Interest/Discount" rates due to compounding interest . PAR VALUE — Lists the face value of the investment. For example, if the City pays $950,000 for a Treasury Strip that will pay $1,000,000 at maturity, the $1,000,000 would be the "Par Value" of the investment. MARKET VALUE — Identifies amount the City would receive or pay if we were to sell or purchase an investment at a given time. Governmental Accounting Standards Board pronouncement number 31 requires that cities report the current market value of investments and disclose any unrealized gains or losses within the entity's annual financial statements. Market value often fluctuates from the original purchase price of an investment based on volatility within the investment markets. Since the City of Edmonds purchases investments with the intent of holding to maturity, no investment losses occur. PURCHASED/(MATURED) — Identifies investments that were either purchased or matured during the reporting period. INTERNAL TRANSACTION — Identifies investments that were (sold) and purchased by other funds within the City. Selling of investments within the City is part of the process of managing cash flows of the individual funds. INTEREST RECEIVED — Investment interest earned and paid to the City during the reporting period. Depending on the options negotiated at time of investment purchase, an investment will either pay interest at periodic intervals or interest will be added back to the investment. Copies of the City's December investment reports as well as the General Investment Policy are attached. City of Edmonds Cash & Investment Balances As of December 31, 2000 Total Fund Description Cash State Pool Investments Cash & Invest. 001 General Fund $7,039.26 $950,000.00 $1,875,314.62 $2,832,353.88 002 Cumulative Reserve/Gen. Fund 1,156.50 197,000.00 50,000.00 248,156.50 003 Advance Travel Fund 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 7,000.00 005 Fire Apparatus Reserve Fund 3,087.42 49,000.00 400,000.00 452,087.42 006 Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 6,096.67 171,000.00 1,300,572.00 1,477,668.67 007 Criminal Justice Activity Fund 5,687.52 274,000.00 0.00 279,687.52 009 LEOFF-Medical Insurance Reserve Fund 5,395.43 211,000.00 0.00 216,395.43 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 3,695.62 48,000.00 0.00 51,695.62 111 Street Fund 2,128.74 112,000.00 152,187.50 266,316.24 112 Combined Street Const./Imprv. Fund 4,590.26 36,000.00 1,818,125.00 1,858,715.26 113 Multimodal Transportation Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114 Street Beautification Fund 2,565.30 10,000.00 0.00 12,565.30 115 Underground Wiring Fund 86.41 0.00 0.00 86.41 116 Building Maintenance Fund 6,452.37 33,000.00 150,000.00 189,452.37 117 Municipal Arts Fund 3,648.64 87,000.00 0.00 90,648.64 118 Memorial Street Tree Fund 4,294.71 9,000.00 0.00 13,294.71 119 Council Contingency Fund 4,516.71 265,000.00 321,284.13 590,800.84 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 4,874.55 48,000.00 0.00 52,874.55 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 7,401.62 30,000.00 0.00 37,401.62 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 4,377.56 5,000.00 0.00 9,377.56 123 Tourism Arts Comm. Promotional Fund 6,144.32 28,000.00 0.00 34,144.32 124 Off Street Parking Fund 6,763.05 29,000.00 96,000.00 131,763.05 125 Park Acquisition/Improvement Fund 6,396.26 570,000.00 1,100,000.00 1,676,396.26 126 Special Capital Fund 9,736.52 240,000.00 405,468.75 655,205.27 127 Gift Catalog Fund 6,248.96 98,000.00 0.00 104,248.96 128 City Enterprise Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130 Cemetery Improvement Fund 5,795.29 124,000.00 200,000.00 329,795.29 211 L.I.D. Control Fund 4,843.92 22,000.00 0.00 26,843.92 213 L.I.D. Guaranty Fund 4,815.75 114,000.00 350,000.00 468,815.75 325 Capital Improvement Fund 4,788.95 1,025,000.00 0.00 1,029,788.95 326 Public Safety Building Construction Fund 5,546.04 364,000.00 1,093,843.75 1,463,389.79 411 Combined Utility Operation Fund 3,148.01 398,000.00 2,150,312.50 2,551,460.51 412 Combined Utility Const./Imprv. Fund 5,203.33 783,000.00 989,843.75 1,778,047.08 413 Combined Utility Bond Reserve Fund 4,667.63 1,042,000.00 694,932.00 1,741,599.63 414 Capital Improvements Reserve 5,395.80 254,000.00 1,363,281.25 1,622,677.05 511 Equipment Rental Fund 5,079.41 95,000.00 1,893,543.75 1,993,623.16 520 Self -Insurance Medical Fund 30,816.77 0.00 0.00 30,816.77 610 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 5,205.22 107,000.00 339,937.50 452,142.72 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 1,456.22 95,000.00 387,406.25 483,862.47 620 Special Deposit Fund 26,950.13 0.00 0.00 26,950.13 621 Special Library Fund 3,196.77 6,000.00 0.00 9,196.77 622 State Judicial Fund 10,693.70 0.00 0.00 10,693.70 623 Sister City Commission Fund 4,888.62 7,000.00 0.00 11,888.62 811 Payroll Clearing Fund 444,468.06 0.00 0.00 444,468.06 812 Claims Clearing Fund 1,582,730.71 0.00 0.00 1,582,730.71 825 All Funds Suspense (1.991,109 38) 1,989,709.38 0.00 (1,400.00) Totals $287,965.35 $9.925,709.38 $17,132.052.75 $27,345,727.48 Check total $27,345,727.48 O O a mm 0 W [r Q LL W 0 0 � N IL N W r Z CD 0 z m>o op LU ) W LL Q H 0 Z Z Uy= W } > O LL J O O n. z O a z U O O H U) Q U) U Q O w U) zz O Cr w F- 3 W F- OwQ Z z Q n zU LUm=-j> zcn zg w of D o v >w4-❑LLLL OZ Lr cn aUv (nH W s Q L Y < m Oc ❑ z ; O < U � - LU Q U)O c LL U) = s J CL J w c W (n W L 0 O W L LL LL L LL LL LL L Y F- ZQ U) CO z ❑ O U a OLL w 2 U O a Q (a_i J U W ❑ x W -CYzwC]u mmULLo aC)0ma m m U LL F N LL W :� m LL W C ~ LL z c Cr W m Z a O O O (C) M O O M O � O O c O LO O � N � cli O 69 O) t\ IA M 6H vi 64 v a? OD I N i 0 O h LO O LO LO N O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O C 0 a) N Cl r` f` (0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O LO L( O LO r 0 a) a) "t O O O CD CD LO CD r- O N C) C) CD r- r` O a) Cl) O (0 O O C) C) C) P- CD m 0 r` Gq 69 O a) a I O O LO O N (h O O O O O M r` V O Ln O r CA E N O LO -,r LI) 0 0 O O O V r` co O O O N Cl I (0 O O U) O r` LO LO O O O O T O) O O LO O L( cl) LO N LO a) (9 (s N N v N V N Cl) M 69 6fT EA EA 6fi 6-i 6e 69 69 64 69 v) V3i 69 69 CJ o 0 LO o00 0 00 O o00 rn 00 O O N O LO O O O O O O O O a) O O CD O r Cj rl: O O 66 O C. 0 0 V o Ln O O OD O Cl) O O O O LO O O O N O r- C) O N O CT O O 0 0 P, 0 0 O O O M d C5 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O T O O O LO O LO O O O O O O U') O_ N c` ) V) N LO U9. N N N Ln CO CO CH ffi Efi 6A 69 69 6'i 69 6%i H) 0% 69 69 69 cR N LO LO LO N LO LO (14 R Lf) O N 1n I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O (D � N (D ti LO 0) LP) N N L!7 In I N (D ti (D OD O (D O) D N Cl) m N O CD r 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 o r r 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0_ 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 I Cl)C0 N r` C) C)Cl) � CDO O Cl) C)I W C) r a) Cl) r.- CT O Cl) LO O O 'T Cn Cl) (0 O h (D rl: ti (D f` f` f` LO (o r` (o O f� I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 N Cl) N LO O O Cl) O O C:) CD Cl) O f` O CA W ITf` W (A m R LO O fA a) R 1 to (D I- (D r` r` (0 (D (0 t` LO (o Co m O n 1 1 O Cn o 0 0 0 o O O O O CT ❑ O O I O Cn O O O O O O O O a) 0) O O Z O O (0 0) N CO CO LO !T 1!') i In N Z) Ln C7 r N r r 0 o r O N r O LL O r 1 N (D It: co O (D Q) I'` N C;.) CD ❑ W O I- r 0 0 0 0 0 r O O O O Z p r> r 0 D Z w ❑ LL D W 0)0cooa)vr` r- p a) O p "Tn0v > W v W P---v rnL)mi2yED D Loner W p O❑}� W Cr LLLi W ^O U Y LL Y (� U Cn W N U Y O m0CD� 0 00 > LL v(0(DO LLI y CV Z Ov M f` M M (D M M J C) cl)0 Lr W Co Co M C) Lr W n Q Cl) CO o�c-)ochM p o_ Q o_o_ W > _� (.)('moo C`7 o_r) O Cl) Cl) O M Cl) Z O w O O W M M M O U W f` D O m LL w j Cr N z U Z C) 1E C) Z 2 J❑ U CC C) o J S Z Z Z 0 Z Q 0 J ❑ Z U LL LL U LL LL Z Ix U W U) U U U W LL LL L U CL j m () LL Z J W LU w > a z wL W Ur U) LLIJ Z W W W J V) Z p J J❑ Z I- It W O Cr U❑ L] ❑Q LL Z P 1- 0 U a -) LL 0 0 Z L D Lu F- H w Q Q Z> W S W W w} Cr F- F- Lu Cr U LL Z W L LL wQ QLrLuW W w W❑ W [r[r tY wwwCr W Q U p O m Q 0 J W w W W H U) (� y W U> W_ W_ LL Z H V) U) W W W w J LL W H I. ZLULL U U Z U) U) Q LU Z J p P-- P: J (:iLL, Cr [r J LL J W Z Z W Q 17 Z Z Q W Q Z Z a LL w F- W < e OUS(nO¢ O 1- OO I- O z O O¢ LU �zzXw O p W 0 2 WCr O w ¢aw O Ew LL U) U) LL m i ♦- V LL f- LL LL LL ♦- W m ❑ Cl LL H J w H y Ll m F CDO CD O O O J � a � z L x < w u r � Z e u W w 0 W r u z � W y a u 2 I• Q' C a w W m Z ° W a r o O O c oLO In c C) 1- r- u O c0 Cl) c O (C Vi 00) m a Cl) Lv�o a d3 d 0 o L R to N r` (D r- C O (OD 0 < a) O (D - (D co r- u h L L o L o O L o CD rn a) C 00 o C rLi (00 LLI r• ILO Y C o C) v h Cl) C) co � O (•7 M F L ❑ m Z L U LL LL F c C O L W U LL, F o() C CC W W H U Z Z - O U < U U h LL U) O h O c I O c O C i o c i di d I 0 O O O O O IO di N O to O O 0 M Cn (D O i co ui i 1 o O 'O i ) M f` [ ? oM u j ° O u Z o C LL LU U C) Z U F ) Q < Z ` i w c Z Q Lu [ z H � ° 0 C U- h m (O MI r co a N C` (ter c 69> u O O O O C O O M 69 O N (D 0 0 M O (D O M O 6 O 0 M Cl) LL h c C 0 0 c 0 0 c O O C (D 0 C � d3 u O O �o LO O o 00 M M O C)) (O (O N OM I- co (o co 00 O o (D LO o o 1 OLO M j CY) r C O O L o o C 1 ❑ � C9 0 U C Y u � o a ❑❑ W Ww Of L j W W W c Q' r 00 h y LL C o LL LL F cv N O O o c 0 0 o c O O O C C o O C O O O C 000 c In In O c N co la (Al 69 di ff O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IO (n o N M LO d> d) d3 N to O O O m LO r O M 000 O O o V m co O OA r\ (D (D 000 O co W L Ga co (o (o (O 0 0 0 � O M 0 0 0 C M CO M LO r` 0 ,O r-- u F Z o c o :ul `u z w ❑ ❑ ❑ o w O C W- L a < W W W 0 d CC CC c < i QF-rH 0 z z z000 '< W(If x C a LL LL LL h 0 0 C; N Ol d? In o Lr r- o n (OD O (aC lq� O LO 0 Ir LO (O c fA h9 v O O In O r- O M O L O O O LO ui � d) In O O r- m N ((D O O 0 0 O V Cl? r` r` 00 R CA (O 0 0 Mm C) cD O O v L rn a v o M_ O [ co O I u Z Ll-LL H � n J L H Z ❑ a V LU p J H W U Q U F.- it z LU W w c IL m LL F to N 0 0 c O O C 0 o c O O C 0 0 c ,u-',) �2 c 69 6% 0 0 � M � L t` O O O O M a) O (o (O C 0 0 00 u m CD � C) t `u C M M Q ILO ti 0 o u M M L 0 0 � O O < u U U 2 0 u ❑ ❑ W W ww `u W W L w F O O 0 c 0 0 0 c O O O C O O O c O O O C O O O c � V) u O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 O LO C:- LO O O O m m LO (DDm coo 0 0 0 R R � � O C) C)C) O O L (o f0 (D O O O O o 0 0 C) O C)0 I I M M m L 7 u) In 0 0 0 I Cl) Cl) Cl) O O O I � U cl U L C c I - i LL ❑ ❑ ❑ C LL W W W Z W W W Z Z Z i j 000 LLLL C U LL LL LL h M . N 0 � N Ir) O r (D a M V C V a) r L L a L� d3 C d O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O o . ,.: d) 613 O O N O LO 0 0 In O r-- M LO Ln a) o u L o ZID ` N M LL O O C z o O F U j z O C CA C r- C y C, M z O M M C U = z 2 z 0 LL LL F u j u m < w u L Q Q W d y LU U j V U U - U J < z LU U) 3 F 00 Cl) M (o O) p C M v (p r` v p o LO 04 LO rl H ❑ (D N 00 (O O Cl) co 'tt 0 N a0 W > (O (D O M o D) N W V 69 vi 6co m 9 N69 v) b W W Z cr Z J 0 Z U W (a Z Q F- ❑ ❑ O (D O W (n 2D 00 UCN �� o w a 0000 000o Lno to od O 0 ootn000 LO od(n0 to 000 0 (O00 tr F O to O O O O O LO (- O h O O O O O O (- O LO O N O O N (n (� to O O to N O O C` Z W o N o 0 0 0 0 N Cl) o Cl) N O O N O O (" ) O N LO O LO Ih Cl) I.- C) CD r, coO O a W o (O 69 o Ln O O � C) -It Co 69 69 M O O m 0 N D7 O (- to CD V M o o M O O O C w Z o LO o (- O O M 00 O 00 D) D) O CD O 00 (") N r- N N (D to 0)CDO (MV, 0 0 N F- O 0 00 O O O 0 0 Q) V V O O N O w 4 M r- (, co lT c-i cr (n o 0 B O O h Q O O td a) o O td O O M Q) (3) (O O_ O Cl) o (D 0 a)D) D) Q) o Cl) O_ M O (n (+) 4 in J N to M� to r R v 0) (D (D M CO N N (1 'IT M� MN b9 M M b9 69 W Q b9 69 69 b9 fA 69 N 69 b9 69 fA bq b9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 b9 69 69 b9 E9 ffi b Zm 6:i 69 69 o o O (O O co LO O O O o 0 0 0 O O O to O O W (O O O O O O O O �f O O o N o 0 0 O O Cl O to O O (: o 0 O to N O (O O O O o O O_ O O CD C) 0 O 0 0 0 0 N o 0 M O O J C)It (DN O O 0 o C)O o o a0 C)O U) O O O C)(D C)O V- 0 0 Q o (- O C) Cl) C)o O O C) C:, O O O (- O O r- O O O O to 0 o co O O > O O O o 0 0 0 O O o o O O (M O o o O O O O o ((') O O O O O m V (O m O O O O o Cl) 0 (O O r O o 0 O O o 0 O M O O (n (`7 N� N M V td (1 i R 1� NiL O M M M N (n q(O (O N fA M 69 69 Q 69 69 69 69 69 E9 b9 69 b9 b9 69 69 69 69 69 b9 69 69 b9 b9 64 b9 69 a 69 69 O N N m 0 O O N 'It N (O LO N N O N N o N W O O O O O O O O o O O O O O HQ❑ O r O r r r 0 O Or Or O O O Or Or r 0 0 rOr` M O O (D n N cN r0m COrO n R NDNO LO N m iN 0 (N N O N L(D N M M 0) mNo � ( O o r O o r 0 C) r O O r r r O r O o O O O O O r r O O r ❑ O O O O N O O O O O O o O O (D O o 0 O O_ 0 0 (O O O co O O J In (D O� M C,N Ma) a) N D) M N Cl) o 0 to (O N (") cM N M W 00 O V r 11') O O M 00 00 m O N D) M 00 o M (n to N h 0D O rl-: r 00 5: td r- CO (-� to (D N (D (D (D (O (D (D (D LO (D CO (- LO LO LO (D (- (D 0 r- r- w W WQ N 0 0 0 o O M C)o Z 0 0 O C)O 0 0 0 O o 0 0 (O o 0 0 0 W O C)O to N 0 N N f- a l!') O M N N CDO td to D7 N CO a) O O N W (O O V m V N� C 1 I� LL Z ti r cD O� O� l!7 td N N I� 00 00 O (� LO N (D (D U7 (D (D CD O H W (D (D (D (- (D (D (- (n to to (D N CD O N (D (D Z ❑ W a LL W W F > (n 00 O O O m 0 0 Z rn O O O m O tT o m 0 0 0 O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q W t0) O O 0 0 0 O W D) O x 0 0 O O O D) O m o ' m O O D) O O O o 0 0 2 F- (D(�rrn ocDao g o(D n CO v a (DLomw00M ❑ rn o o(D(n orn(D U Q O r (\7 r r r 0 W N r O N r r O r r r r Z r Cl) Cl) N N O N r r ❑ (!') lD Cl) (D (l'1 N r > O) N N LP) 00 N O (A N Ln n D N M M m N O (D N 0 0 0 0 o r r p O o r z r o o r r 0 r o o LL o 0 0 0 o r r o o r IL Z W O w _ � a > ❑ LL a' C`')NcoM LoM0 NM O o7 � Z vr� rnrnv a' (-tn(nOp Nrn� ❑ Nrnrn W ❑ LLJ c0 y M m Z Z S = (� W M ❑ D V M m S� � Y m M Z co m Z oZdm drnr- d O> a) wd z LL N�mrn�d w �d> Xrn� XLO a))rn p Yo M H rn U U` M ❑ W O aoy a U' N Narn m u. m m LL ovro aooa F= 20 Z VM o LL > 0o2o�v �222 ❑ boo w b oo Z O (O M M o U M M (D 00 M M m M M M (O (�% CD M M (h Z ❑ M M M U M M M Z M O M O� L(J ❑ Cl) O O M N_ O j Fl.I O O O M^ H (r) ^ M Z M O O Z C) O O ❑ O �C-)M Cl)ora0 coo Z MO o W ooMo(hM W MMM() Moo LL Z Moo Q h W� LL W a' 2❑ W W❑ C a ❑z❑o2❑❑~ O m❑ ~ W zWC w ❑❑2E❑gZ � zzz22 z V m00 z z m❑❑ a UL(-mU LLUU U LLU F> LLF- U Z UU LLU LLLL O LLLLLLLL LL W Z LLUU Q LL LL U U U ❑ H S w O W w J � Z L W W z m a ~ r 0 C Z J J ❑W F- ❑W W m> w W~ W w W W ~ = J _ W Z_ J W Z w CO -j J (n J Z J J J W Z W w N W Q 0 F- J p h- ❑ h_ J p Z (n p F- w ❑ ❑ F- ❑ W ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ a F- F- m F- m❑ a' w F'- H Z f✓ a' H H h- J a Q J ~ W J v F �F-w aw Fw z w J a WW aW h-F-F-h- �ww w a F- ¢a as a F-aaaF- 5 z ❑zpaaw� p ❑ a� p O wm ofTwmww ¢ zwwwa d >- QwOf w (n ¢ofW C ?~ Z 0ZU)h- �HOJ z wr J m �Z H J J HF-�F-N� U W (n(n(nW UJ W (W W W U Z W W W C UJ N_ Q N_ O_ Q Q = ..) 2 � (n J � H F- J W H F- LL M �m(n0 LLd�h- 2 cn0 �- Q� O F- ~ OOLLOzaZJZcn F- W <n00 W (n00 h O0(nzxd�oo O ZX a Waw d a ��0x 0 �awaz d w zLLLL a Ix z x w < 0 SD(nLL coLLmF- U (nLL h- = mi LL F- ii LLLLmLL❑m H W ❑�: U) F V ()LLLL F LL ()LLLL h 0 M C) � Q f- 1% cl co co rl N N O Lf) LA rl r� (m ZW i�i i€'y ;� I y 0 0 0 0,0'O O O O.O 0 0 0 DiOlOI0i0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of0•^ O O 0^0 0 0 0 ClU-)LO 0 O 0 0'C, O O O o 0 0 0 0 DICIO O I o I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o CV N (O co a w 0^ 000000100000 D'010;0•0100000000000000000(ri O Ef7 O O Q O O or 0 69 0 0 69 . 6i - d31 69169 69, O COD' (9 O 69 O O O Cl O O O O O d3 (si 69 a Lo v f� 0: O o O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I ` �O 0' O O o � 0 0 0 0 0 0 .(o O T z D W 0 Lrui U.7 CO Ln 06 N W O k CD ` , ! O: O I 0 00 r, O N O O ti rL6 61�i C[) M 69 N' T M M T N N I I t (D : N N co 0) LC] 00 O (D N EA U') !- M o O C!j rn 69 T T 69 69 N (si 64 k CV 164. 64 69• 6R1 ti (O N � M t+? V 69 64 69 `-' `-' 6v 169 I Eve 69 'o t!?, 69 69 M 00 N "t_ T Q Q I ! I 64 69 64 Z I 00 rl o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o101oio 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:o ololoo OOo0oOgo00c 0oo'000;o00oIao-oo,o-o00o0o10o.o1(mmO }} F z 0000^ 00 00 00 0 00000010'000000O1O0o000010016ioioi 000O:_0C0C0ooO I 0 0 010 0 O.o-0,010 0:0 0.0:0 oi0io 0 010 O r, m m m W w Z 0 0 0 0 G O o 0 0 0 O:Q+O'O'go O co cD O_ M !4! 10' O O O O O O O O 0 0 010 0 0 010,0 O 010 0 0 r- r� (D 0 0 O) T rr T N rn v r� v T (h M Op! 69 LP : 00 O I n o' a O O 00 V r i�' Ln 41 00 + ri i N ch Lri : r-- I Ln Lp 1 � Y (3 L 16 W W y J O 69 T N N, Fr] T V) 69 6') 691 (D � m [f} N N r� Ol N N �' N l01 M i 001 It LI) 0). O 1 p1 y} 69- 0p N O Of > UJ Q 69 69 69 69 69 69 N 69 69 bH 63 0 N 69 + 64 • .-I O m r m I r- o N 64t r+ 164 Ol CD N Z m I 63 tR 69 64 64 . 64f69I64 y 69; 64r I 63 rl crLli - 1j1 I i ! 63 64 ! rft vJ� EL a_¢ 0000;0000i00!0.00100c10'It7Io1170o017t7 o mi01010o10010000 0 rn W W W W W W W W.W WIW'W W W W W1WIWIWIW W W W W•WIW+W W'W W WIW W W W W W W (/) (/� (n (n co U) U) (n I in U) U) U) , U) cn (5 cn I U) (n (n U); U) (n W U U) U) U) U) U) U) U) V) U) U) C) U) En rn zo LU O 01000,00000000000000000000000000000 `1 J J J J JIJ J J J J J J J-J JwwJ J J J J O J W O gN F pUIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU'UUUUiUUUUUiUUUU10UUIU J.J J J,J.J J J:J J J J J J J J U J_ J_,J_ J_ J_ J_ J_ J_ J J_ J_ J_ J_III1J_ J_ J_ J_ J_ J_ J_ J J_ J_ J_J_IJ_:J_ J_ N N (nW� ") _J H I I- I I- F- p F- F- f- F- I- F- I I- f- i F- H I- F- f- F- F- H f- F- F- F- H 1 1- I I- !- H F- F- Z I p I- H H zZz,zZZfzZZZZIzZ'zzzzZ.Z.ZZZZZZZIZIZZZZZzzZz'z F- z Z �- 0 0 0'0 0.0 0 0 DID D D i DI 0 0 0 0 0,0 010I0±0J010 0 0.',0 0 0 0:0 0 Z -- J 0 y W ! i-- CD CD (D CD CD CD I (D (D I 0 I o (D I CD CO J O CO COI (DI CD CD co,(D CO CD (D if (D (D (D (D co to (D I (D (D o Q 0 Z W CD O (D CO N N N N.N N N N N NIN NI NI NINTN N N N1N'NIN N N-N�N N N,NIN N.N N N NIN N O W � r; Lo LC) Lo L • m Ln Lr) Lr) LC) LC) I LO 1 Cn 1 (n I LID ii LO • Cf) C[) I Cf) � ; U7 L Cn U7 Lo + Lo I Cf) (!> L0 , (O (O Cn (f) Lo Lo Lo I Cf) I CC7 O IJ.I ? W Z rL ~ tt et � d � �'!�'� �'�!� t"t .t �'� �j�, ctl�t � et �t �.ct �I ctl� CO (O CD (O CD CD co co O 1 (D CD O to (O 1 (O 1 (O CD (D (O (O CD CO (O CD (O (O CO ` CO ; co CD Co CO CD CD (O I Co j CO �t Co 0 z Q O r i (� LU X W w O O O 0 0 0 0 010 010 O 01C 010 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o�OiO o I C O O O,o OlCl0 f O H 2 z rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 o o! . 0 0• o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 10 0 O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o O 0 Co O10 C;0 O O O 010 o O O O O OIO�O0 010 o O o O o 0 o NIN N1N,NN N NN1N N N N N N N N N N N N N NIN NN N I i 0 O N = O () a' Q D T T T T T T'T T T. T r T T O O O O 0 0 0 0 0l0` O O O CC 0 0 O10 0 0 0 O o o1`O Oro 212 O O O O O O o O Q LL d N N N N N N N N NIN N N N N N N N NIN N N N N N N1N IN CV1NICV N N N N N N N O T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T I T T T T T. T T T T T T T T T T T r T T m 2 0000000000000000:010•0000000'00000000000 Q z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mlm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m.mm m m m lD (D (D 0 lD (D (D Lo to lD lD ILD 0 (D (D (D 1(D J lD lD ko lD (D lD (o <D (D I.D r9 W (D (D (D (D (D Lo lD z O 1 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢!¢':¢ ¢'¢ ¢!i¢ ¢ ¢IQ ¢ ¢1¢ Q ¢:ter < < <.< ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢.¢'¢ ¢ ¢ ¢i¢I¢ �.[L aIa_iQ-iClaiILla. a-ICL:a-10-!W 0_1�:CIml�la [� [) ii �!�Z E - DEE J �J J.JJJJ:JJ JIJ J J J JIJ,J J:J,J J J:JJ J J J J J J JIJ J 0.0 010101010i010 O'O O O o 01010 Olo'o oroloro;o 0.0 0 0 0 010,010 0;0 O 0 Q to . (J) 7 c ', cn 1 Cn ' (n () (n m cn (n S! (n I Cn (n U) rI) (n cn cn ! m W (n CO (/) V) U U F- 4 ¢ ¢ ¢I¢ Q Q''¢ ¢ ¢IQ ¢ Q ¢ ¢'¢ ¢1¢i¢i< ¢�q•¢:¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ < Q ¢ ¢;¢ ¢ ¢ ¢�¢ Q LLJ W1WiW LLJiWiW'W!LJ' 'WIW W W W 4J LLJ WrWIW W LLJ W LLJ LIJ U ¢ z LLJ W.WIWIWiW'WiW:W:WIW.W Z H F- F- F- ♦- I- F- F- F- F- F- ♦- I F- : F- ~ F- !- F- ! F- : F- : F- f- H ♦- 1 H F- ♦- • F- F- F- ♦- F- . ♦- ♦- Ur LL Z W LLJ W W I W LLI I LLJ . LLJ I LLJ LLJ W: W W LLJ LLJ ! W I W I W I W LLJ W W: LLJ W W LLJ W W LL. LLI W I W W LLJ LLJ W, LLJ z - F- F- H F- F- F- H F- ♦- ♦- F- F- ♦- F F- F- F- F- H ! F I- 1-- 1-4- F- F- F- F- F- �- I- I �-- �-- F- ¢ ¢I¢ ¢'¢ ¢:a ¢ ¢ ¢'¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢'¢:¢I¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ F- F- ! I- F- ~ F- ♦- F- F- F- H F- r H I f- }- F- F- F- F- F- l- . F- ♦- F- F-1 F- I- F- F- ♦- I- ♦- f- ♦- F- 1(n 1 V) I U) I 0, U) I (n (n i u] W I W; (n () V) (n () 0 U); W 0 (n V) L (n V) m 0 1(n ! Cn (n : Cn Cn IV) (n U) I : V) , (n LO to ¢ <-<I<,< ¢',¢''¢,¢ ¢I¢,¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q'<<<<l<I<!¢ ¢.¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢I¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ mIm mim'�m:m:mlm;m mIm m m:m m mlmjmlm m�m.m,m!m'm-m m m m m m�,m m m m m m I o -41NILo LD r- rn � rI.N'� (D r- 00•rnYo �.NIm1�!to: (D'nIo;. m LO (0 .-+ N m � -I o r� .� m LO _j Ln z O 010'0 o O O rI• -I -+ I -+,r IIN NININ-N N.NINrMj" — N N . -4 . . -+ r -i N N N OOI0!oOO irI-� .y�rI�.I�rI1 IrI, I1�.r:rl: II.+NNmm d I17LO(DlDW.00000 < N Iy 0 1 I1 0 U) U) O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O o 0 O O U) O w I- N� U) O r*- U) O O O O O O O O f` to U) O O 0 O N O 0 r- O ti M T 00 t` U) (M N O O O O O O O (V (M ti ti O r-� N_ O T O O M U) cV WT W Y :) M N M— U) N N V7 CO � 00 r- 00 T 0) O N (D U) T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O CO O eY 00 O 00 0 O 00 (D Cn 00 co U) O N 00 (D O O O OD N 00 O ZT LO LO ti 00 .Zr co r- r- M 4 to 0 N J a > T � O M � O U) 6-,T T O b% N O E9 T M (n O U) (fl O O (A O 0 Uf l O 0 (fl O m (fl 0 o r EF! O U) 6% O 0 _7 609 O (D 6% O "t uq� O "t (fl O � (a x -,I-N (s), O O N (fl O N e» m �t (fl O O"t e3 O en m R (fl O O tr3 M r � r LO LO 0 0 O 0 � O O 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 1-- N N O rl- O N T o O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 W LU (D T O 06 O T U) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O U) O O n O M O 0 (n M T o O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0� 0 O n J -:I- N O O r- r- r` O O O O O O O O 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 O M O O N Q r O O rl M m Q) O O O O O O O o O O O O O O o 0 O O O O 6 > O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O r N U) CA M H4 U) E09, O fA O M EH -T Efi O r U) T U) 69 U) 69 0 T U) Efi O _7 � 69 0 69 U) 6f3 U) ER U) (fi M 69 M 69 N ER 0 b4 O "T 69 U) tFT O r a (q (n Val b4 Efl (s 6s, r a � .�.. O 0 U) O Lo � T U) T 0 T N T N M T T r V U) r T N T N N e W T O O T O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O r� (O I- �5 a3 T (O Zr-5 00 (D tf7 O M M iZ N 00 � f` N O T U) M O> 0 00 O 0 0 O T Lq O O 0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O TO O - O O O O O O O O O O O O O W 0 (D O o O O (D O O O O O O o O O o O O O O O O O 0 rl- O U) J N N O N O N 0 T 'IT M r` M 0 M O N 0 0 M O 0 U) M T T T I- �yJ ti tir.� 0 M O O D r O O O O CO 00 M N N O O O 00 U) U) U) :f M t` f` r- r- r` LO f` t- I- 0 0 0 ti (D (D 0 0 (D 0 0 (D m M LO 0 0 0 W � WU) O O O O O O o O O O O M o O O O 0 O 0 O N O O O O m O N O 0 0 N O T 0 W U) M (D N ti N U) (D M O 0 W U) T M r r- 1all ti r-� rl� r-� r-� r� r-� 6 6 6 co co co co (D m (a (a (d (a co Sri Ui Ui Ui Ui Ui F- y z o f w N Q = W H 0 o o O m O 0 0 N ti O 0 0 T m O 0 0 m O o o M ti O rn rn O o o I� O 0 0 U7 O 0 0 ((D O 0 0 O T 0 0 00 r� O 0 0 U) O T 0 0 00 T T 0 0 (O N T o o 00 N T rn rn O O o rn rn O O O rn rn CM - O rn rn O (D O rn rn N M O rn rn 00 - O O rn00 U) O rn rn ti M O rn rn N O rn rn O (n O rn rn r —M O rn rn U) N 0 C G IL O G LLI m Z N X M (,.) 00 M M = >> (`') co r- W V (D (`") T O " (D M T o m m M N Y Z't 'tq- (D () r O M O O M M O M O T r-q U) O M o• O LO O M O M r- O M O t` M ti O O M O r- rn O M o_ p r- W> (D M T N 2 M M O m H> M M CO U) M M T O U I-- I- p LL. i 0 CO T O 2 M M M m ~o O 0 M U) 23: >� M M h (D M lf) m O Q M U) Y O M M M rn Z} M M J W 0 T M T M T M M T M T M T M T O T O T o T 0 T O T T O (� T M T M M T M M T M T T T M M T M T M T CO w +� Q W a m W LL LL. z LL z LL 0 I- z LL o U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U o U z LL m LL 2 LL_ m LL W z LL. 2 LL o U LL Z LL 2 LL Z LL. 2 LL Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 o LLJ wi z z z z z z o z cwn 0� v cwn a LLJ O O U J J H Z f- 2 Z J J J J W W W W J 0 0 Z v v v U Q~ o z Q Q w L w w p w w w w w W w w w LU U) rn w w m W cn W z z z z z 0 cwi� Q �- U - O� O ►_ �- w w Q Q Q Q U) X - Z� a N N Q U U J Q Z Z Z Z Z Z� U U U U LL U) z w O w E It O w w z z z z 0 0 0 Q Q O W z 0° w° cn cn 3: O m m D LL_ U- W LL LL m LL m 0 0 w 0 o 0 m 0 o m3: cn } H cn Q 0 } O o m CD O � N W oc N LLLL o o o H- Z Q U w Cl) W Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 O 0 O 0 O o 0 0 N 0 r` 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 1- 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 r- O 0 O O U) N 0 r- O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- 0 r W W Y M J Q Q O O o O O 0 E9 O CD O O O N E9 O U) ti O- O zT E9 N (D Lo O U) E9 O CD O O O Lo E9 O O O O U) ' 69 O m M U) CD t 60T r-.: w 0 (T O - ER m N 00 O t b! M � M O O t b4 r- m (D (3) CA ,t E9 O O j- L6 O O E9 6 M V O O 69 M � Cl) t` O T 69 O O O O O O T E9 O O O O O O T 69 r� O ,T CO M N 69 M (n O N T M EA N r 00 (D O N E9 U) r- 00 - N O T E9 T M- U) N O M E9 00 N V O LO 69 o O O O O O .: E9 O O O o o U) E9 (V M C) .1 O CD b4 f` M 'q CD r O T E9 CM -tt M N 0 6+3 N M = CV C7 e- b3 O O 0 O O O r- *- O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m N O O O O LO N O O O O O O O o LO f- M N h W W O O o O O O 6 r- m U7 T r- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O r M rl- O O O O LO 1- T O N O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O 00 M m (D O ITT f` t- N N I.L. O O U) E9 O O N d9 O O EFT O O It En O O LO b9 O O U) _ O O LO 69 o O 0 69. O O LO EFT O O U) 6F0 O O Ln 6FT O O O r O O O O O LO CA (5 O O T (5 O O _7 CT O M 69 M - M EFT O O M EFT M O O r O O M E9 O 0 0 b3 O 0 O T O O In 6H O O r- 6R ti O O 69 r O 0 69 tD � IL6R 6FT 63 69 69 69 6R rfA Q UJ Q 0 T O C1D T O T O f�- O L[ ) O r O O r if ) O r O I- r O T O 00 O (D O T O O T (D O r O ti N (D O r O M T O r O r- T O r O O N O O r O M N O N O N N NNN O N O in N O N O r O O N O L[) O N O CD r O N r M I. O CD r m O 0�0 T L( ) In O Imo- N 0 0 0 N T h 0 O r o 0000 In O L r � m O T M O O O In r '-1- O r � r M O T O N M W } n N O o O U) O O O o (D O O O O O O O M (D LUr- >- (D 6 Uj r- r- r- CD (D Uj (D (D Uj U7 Ln (D (6 CD 6 (D ti r- t` r- (D CD ti r- W U) W W 9 O 0 w N M (D 0 0 It 0 o O M (0 r- 0 O O 0 M O O 0 N o 0 0 O N M o CD O O T In 0 r- M O r 'IT O M w O N r- O O O O CV O O O O o O It O N m O O r- O O 00 w O It 00 co 0 w W } w Q 2 U W H Q O O 00 r w 2 a0 O m Ern O T O O r- r 0 O m O 0 O m- T 0 m N m m O N O m ti T O O O N O m M r O m O T O m Ln N O m T O o O Lf7 O o O -D T 0 m N-M T m O T O 0 -M T O O M T O O N r o 0 O 0 0 Ln T 0 O r M 0 O ;3 O 0 O O T o O O N ~ � Q a G ti O L( O tCj O L-() o T T (p O (p o - O - O tT o O N O N O M O O T N T M O L 5 O LO O rzz 0 r` o co O O O r N T Z75 O 0 O o � rn W Z O Rt CD o M O M m o O M Ui m d Q-t It M N Y Y CD M r- M l- o O M O M `� O M O O 0 U T r- 1- w m rn M M Ui 2 M M N 2 rn M M w m °� M () ti 2 O M M m ti M M 0 Y M M r- M r o M O O r O M O O LL b 4 0 M r rn 0 2 M M M 2 0 M M qT T d v CD M M -) m M M ^- m m 2 M M T 0 M O T 0 M O O r- U co M r- W� Y "t O M T N m g M M W } W Q Q' r O r T r M r M r T T O T M r M T () T M (� T M M M r O r O T M r M r M T M r M M O r O M M r co W Q a } O U O U g w z w 0 U 0 U w w w m w m w z w 2 w z w 0 U 0 U z w 0 f- g w z w w w 0 U 0 U z w z w m w 0 U) U 0 w w 0 0 W W 0 0 J Z Z 0 0 Z U) cn Z Z (n (n Z Z O J J Of J OU O U H W J W J W w z J z J o M w °� Z Q a a Q Q c Q Z w o) W Z (wn Z w w w D w w� w ccn W W I (wn D w vw) W W F- w Q LL Z o z o (1) U)Q (n (n Q U) Q Q (� u) H z m F= f= (n F= Q f= z J Z Z U J Z Z o o U E LL m R o to 0 z 0 w Z 0 J o o z �` z a (n J o o Q U)= o o (n o li z z c z z a z w it w¢ o¢ w z w E w w U z LL = CO 0 2 w (n U) 0 (n (n 0 (n i>> w w 0 m 0 m 0 :� w LL m o cn CITY OF EDMONDS GENERAL INVESTMENT POLICY April 1997 Scope It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. This investment policy applies to the investment activities of all financial assets for all funds including any other funds that may be created from time to time. In accordance with the Revised Code of Washington 35A.42.010 the responsibility for conducting investment transactions resides with the Finance Director. Objectives The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City's investment activities shall be as follows: (1) Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To attain this objective, diversification is required to limit potential losses on individual securities to income generated from the remainder of the portfolio. Furthermore, with the exception of U. S. Treasuries no more than 50% of the investment portfolio either will be invested in a single security or a single financial institution (2) Liquidity of the investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid in order to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. (3) Return on investment of the investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market -average rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by the Finance Director shall be the 'prudent person' standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. The Finance Director acting in accordance with written procedures per the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk change or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported to the Mayor in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. Qualifying Investment Institutions. Those banking and --saving institutions monitored by the Washington State Public Deposit Protection Commission and listed in their quarterly publication are authorized as primary investment depositories for the City. Securities dealers not affiliated with banking and saving institutions which maintain an office in the State of Washington are also authorized investment depositories provided they qualify under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by state laws. Authorized 8 5uitable lnve5tmentq. The City shall limit its investments to those allowed by Revised Code of Washington 35.39.030, which states "Every city and town may invest any portion of the moneys in its inactive funds or in other funds in excess of current needs in: United States bonds, United States certificates of indebtedness, bonds or warrants of this state, general obligation or utility revenue bonds or warrants of its own or of any other city or town in the state, its own bonds or warrants of a local improvement district which are within the protection of the local improvement guaranty fund law, and in any other investments authorized by law for any other taxing districts." Safekeeping& Collatpraliz n. All investment securities purchased shall be held in third -party safekeeping by the institution designated as primary agent. The primary agent shall issue a safekeeping receipt to the City listing the specific instrument, rate, maturity, and any other pertinent information. All investment securities shall be collateralized through the Washington State Public Depository Commission for any amount exceeding FDIC and FSLC coverage. Other investments shall be collateralized by the actual security held in safekeeping by the primary agent. Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the city has a current custodial agreement. All security transactions, including collateral for repurchase agreements, entered into by the City shall be conducted on a delivery -versus -payment (DVP) basis Maximurn Maturities. To the extent possible, the City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements, holding investments to maturity whenever possible. The City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 5 years from the date of purchase. The average maturity will be consistent with the liquidity objective. Performance Sta n ards The investment portfolio will be designed to obtain a market average rate of return during budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. Investment Strategy. is passive. As a result, securities are purchased and sold in accordance with the financial needs of the City. The Accountant will be authorized to trade before maturity only if it is in the best interest of the City to do so. Market Yield Benchmark for determining whether market yields are being achieved shall be the Average U.S. Treasury Note Rate which corresponds to the average life of the investments in the portfolio. Reporting. The Finance Director shall generate monthly reports for distribution to the elected officials. This report shall contain such information that would provide a fair presentation of the City's investments and investment activity. Item #: 4 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Councilmember Davis & City Clerk For Action: X For Information: Subject: REVIEW OF PROCESS AND POLICY FOR ASSEMBLING COUNCIL PACKETS AND POTENTIAL FOR PAPERLESS PACKETS Clearances: Department/[nitials Agenda Time: 45 Minutes Admin Svcs/Finance Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: February 10, 2001 City Clerk! Parks & Rec Court Planning Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works 1. Lenexa, Kansas Paperless Packet Project Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council 2• Dev. Srvs. Mayor 3. Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Narrative: Current Prac� .fbi-Agembling .Q,mcil Packets • The Council President and staff members place items on the City Council Agenda. ■ A staff meeting is held on Wednesday mornings to finalize the agenda. The Council President approves the final agenda. ■ Staff prepare Agenda Memos and attachments, which are to be delivered to the City Clerk's Office by noon on Thursday. • The Mayor reviews the Agenda Memos on Thursday afternoons. ■ 31 sets of the packet are copied and assembled for distribution by the City Clerk's Office. Copies are provided to: Mayor, Council, Student Representative, City Attorney, Department Heads, Managers, Minute Taker, newspapers, and posted at Public Safety Building and the Library. ■ The Council and Student Representative packets/envelopes are picked up by the Police Cadet on Friday at 4:00 p.m. for delivery. Mayor and staff packets are distributed in mail slots. City Attorney, Minute Taker and newspaper packets are mailed. Current Cosh The amount budgeted for paper for the year 2001 in the City Clerk's Office is $6,357.48. This includes all of our paper supplies (not just for Council packets). I believe it would be fair to say that at least half of the paper budget would be related to City Council packets. One staff member is dedicated to copying the packets on Friday mornings. The Deputy City Clerk assembles and distributes the packets on Friday afternoons. Pap r ess Packets Councilmember Davis will give a presentation regarding the idea of changing to a Paperless Packet. A report prepared by Councilmember Davis will be distributed at the retreat. We were able to locate two cities in the United States that are currently preparing their packets in this manner. The City of Lenexa, Kansas has prepared a detailed report on how they converted to this method. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit 1. In contacting Lenexa, I inquired about the costs they experienced. Their Information Technology Director replied with the following information: Things to c2sider: ■ Notebooks (laptop computers) at a cost of $1,000 to $3,500 each ■ Software at a cost of $300 each ■ Network Cards (included in notebook cost) ■ Printer ($200-$1,500 each) • Web site upgrade • In-house communications link ■ Web access ■ Scanners Recommended Action: If the Council would like to pursue the idea of a "paperless packet," it is recommended that a committee be formed consisting of the City Clerk, Information Services Coordinator, a Councilmember, and a Department Head. The committee would provide a report back to the Council on the costs along with an implementation schedule. Council Action: PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 1 of 8 City of Lenexa, Kansas Paperless Packet Project The City of Lenexa -- a leader in Introduction technology EXHIBIT 1 Relative to many of the local city municipalities, the city of Lenexa has been fairly aggressive in implementing technology solutions to improve the level of service and communication within the city and between the Governing Body members. Several years ago the Mayor and Council established several goals, one of which was to "use technology to work smarter." During an audit review of the Information Systems Division, it became apparent that to continue to be a leader among local governments, the city needed to develop standards and policies, and focus attention on information technology strategic planning efforts. Strategic planning for information technology forced a process and provided a framework for city personnel to comment upon and agree to the direction the city will take with technology. The strategic planning process developed a "vision" that links Information Systems initiatives to the Mission and Goals of the organization and the community. This "top down" philosophy ensured that the total organization was focused on, and is supporting, one common mission. The Paperless Packet Project is a product of this unified effort. The city budgets funds, and creates Background standards, policies and procedures for the future use of The city of Lenexa is a community of approximately 40,000 persons, technology which encompasses nearly 31 square miles and is located in Johnson County, Kansas, approximately 12 miles southwest of downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The city operates under a Mayor and Council form of government with the addition of a City Administrator. For many years one of the goals of the city has been to "use technology to work smarter." To help meet this goal required the complete endorsement and cooperation of our progressive thinking Governing Body, which included the budgeting of appropriate funds and the commitment to promote and embrace technological usage as a means to improve functionality and be more efficient. The city first became network capable in 1985 within the city's Fire Department. Network capabilities evolved over the years and in 1992 the entire city organization was connected to the city's network. Today, the city's network has evolved extensively to include 30 file servers. Recently, network performance has been enhanced with the creation of a http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1 /24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 2 of 8 redundant, fast ethernet folded backbone providing superior network throughout. The adoption of a new file server standard has produced overall network availability. Implementing Windows 95 and Office 97 at the desktop has increased employee creativity and productivity. Although, there have been significant accomplishments in information technology within the city, no other accomplishment has provided more benefit to the organization than the Information Systems strategic plan. The strategic plan was developed by partnering with all areas of the organization, and provides a detailed roadmap of our technological future. The strategic plan provides standards organizational -wide for desktop applications, including 300 plus users throughout the city offices. These standards include word processing, e-mail and calendar software, and voicemail software usage, which were viewed as the eventual primary means of communication within the city and with the Governing Body. In March 27, 1997, laptop computers were budgeted and purchased. Nine Compaq Armadas, Model 4120 computers were ordered, software was installed, and on May 6, 1997 the laptop computers were provided to the Governing Body members. These more updated portable computers provided faster more expedient access to the electronic packet, email communications and calendar software, and also provided the Governing Body a means of accessing their packet remotely and while at council meetings. This took the city further toward our goal of going paperless. After receiving extensive individual and group training on the use of their laptops and new software, the Governing Body eventually felt that they were ready to go paperless. At the October 7, 1997 council meeting, the Governing Body set the date of January 1, 1998 for going to a paperless council meeting. City staff worked towards this goal and with the acquisition of upgraded software, were able to put together an electronic council meeting packet that is easily accessible, can be downloaded on to their computer, and can function just like a paper packet. Part of the process of compiling the electronic packet included scanning documents received by outside agencies and some internal plat maps and plans. The city purchased scanners for all pertinent departments that generate packet material. Although scanning saves time and allows the department to include some of these documents and images in the electronic packet, it isn't feasible to scan some of the large plat maps and plans due to the size of the image file, and the readability of the files when reduced down to an 8 1/2 x 11 view. Therefore, some of these documents are either made available to the Governing Body in paper form, or available for viewing at the Council meeting. The Governing Body joins the city's Remote Access for Governing computer network Body for easier and faster communication In 1995, the Mayor and Council members were provided with a desktop personal computer, modem, and printer at their home or place of business. Software applications included basic word processing functions, e-mail, and a calendar program scheduling. Each governing body member had software that allowed them access to the city's network from a remote location. Once logged on to the network, Governing Body members could http://www.ei.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1/24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 3 of 8 receive and send e-mail messages among themselves and to any city staff member. The use of e-mail on the city's network became one of the primary ways for city staff and Governing Body members to communicate information back and forth. This also gave the city the capability to send council meeting packets electronically as attachments to. an e-mail message, which was the method at that time. The current software used in accessing the city's network from a remote location is Reachout, remote access software. The city currently has 8 dial -in reachout machines. Each reachout machine consists of the city's standard PC, which is a Pentium 233 with 32 mg. of memory, and a 28.8 modem. The Council Chambers are made City Hall Renovation network accessible At the outset of the expansion of our City Hall offices, special attention was given toward the future use of technology within the building, The council chambers was improved to accommodate audio/visual and multi- media presentations, along with the functionality to access the city's computer network directly from the council dais and staff tables. The Governing Body makes a Laptops were Budgeted commitment to go portable and paperless Goodbye pc's....hello laptops. Shortly after the City Hall remodeling project was finished, it made sense to replace the Governing Body's desktop PC's with something portable -- laptop computers. The laptops provided a means for the Mayor and Council members to continue using the functionality of remote network access, as well as use them at council meetings for accessing the agenda and supporting packet material. The portability of laptops provided the Governing Body with a means to be connected to City Hall no matter where they were (at home, at work, at City Hall, or while traveling). In the summer of 1996 the Governing Body voted to appropriate funds in the 1997.budget for the acquisition of laptop computers. The laptop computers were delivered to the Governing Body members on May 6, 1997. Each laptop is equipped with: Hardware: • Compaq Armada 4120 Notebook Computer • 3COM Etherlink III Modem/Lan Card • HP 4L Printer • External Mouse (Optional) Software: • MS Windows 95 http://www.ei.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1 /24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 4 of 8 a MS Office 97 Suite (Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint) • Novell Groupwise (Calendar and E-mail Program) . Reachout (Remote Access Software) Eventually, laptops were also provided to key Management Team members within the city so they would have the same capabilities as the Governing Body members. The receives extensi edy The Learning Curve and on -going training Throughout this process, staff met with Governing Body members, in groups and individually, to train them on computer usage and using the various software packages. When the laptops were given to the Governing Body, a training session was conducted in the Council Chambers instructing them on the fundamentals of how to hook up the laptop to the dais, access the electronic packet, getting around within the packet, and how to access the e-mail and calendar program. A trainer/consultant was brought in to teach them the Windows95 environment and other software usage. When Office97 software was purchased in the fall of 1997, Word 7.0 included additional features that took us even further towards the Governing Body nieinber's desire to produce an electronic packet that functions like a paper packet. With the enhancements made in the electronic packet, additional training was required. In December, 1997 a training session was conducted by city staff covering downloading of the packet document and retrieving the packet on the hard drive, and on the functions and usage of the newly enhanced electronic packet document. Additional training was given when the city went to a new Novell Groupwise calendar and email program. This training was conducted in February 1998 for all city employees, including the Governing Body members. electronic packet Electronic Packet Process standards and deadlines are critical By far, the largest volume of information that must be given to the Governing Body is the weekly packet material for the various Committee and Council meetings. Each week, this was an exhaustive task that involved all city department(s) that were responsible for topic(s) on each agenda. The pertinent city department was required to prepare supporting material for each agenda item. All this information was sent to the City CIerk division where it would be sorted by agenda order, dozens of copies made of all the material, and bound as one document called the "council packet." Needless to say, "packet day" was a busy day in the City Clerk division and required at least one staff member be devoted one or more days to compile the packet material. Our large copy machine was virtually tied up http://vvww.ci.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htrn 1/24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 5 of 8 all day running copies. It required staff members to be away from their workstations either at the copy machine or in the workroom assembling the dozens of packets for distribution. Since Governing Body members had access to the city's network from their remote locations and, obviously, most city employees were "on line" -- the notion of transmitting all the packet material electronically was given serious consideration. The City Clerk division is responsible for providing the Governing Body with agenda and meeting packet material. They collect the agenda items and packet item material from the various departments for insertion and compilation of the electronic packet. In order to achieve this organization - wide process, uniform standards needed to be put into place for compiling packet item material, and deadlines needed to be set. The city had to come up with a solution of creating an electronic packet document that would function just like a paper document. With the use of the latest software, here is the method we arrived at: . Those persons responsible for setting agendas for the Council and Committee meetings will send an electronic e-mail notification to the City Clerk's office as soon as an item is determined. • When the agenda is finalized, the City Clerk's office will send an e- mail to the appropriate distribution group and fax the agenda to other requesters. The agendas are also posted on the city's home page on the internet. Those persons within the departments responsible for preparing agenda item packet material will send their documents electronically via e-mail according to the deadline set by the City Clerk's office. Any documents that need to be scanned are done in the department and then sent electronically along with their other documentation. These items are then stored in a directory for future use. . The City Clerk's office will then begin the process of preparing the electronic packet document. ■ A new Word document is created. The files containing the various packet item materials are inserted into the Word packet document, in the order in which they are listed on the agenda, with the agenda appearing first. (Some attachments to packet items, such as standard agreements, contracts, etc., which are considered to be a standard document and can be rather large, are kept on file at the City Clerk office for viewing rather than being included within the electronic packet.) . Hyperhnks are created in the agenda linking each agenda item to a bookmark inserted on the first page of the packet material for that item, which comes later within the document. http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1/24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 6 of 8 • Sections breaks are inserted in the document, separating each packet item material, for ease in printing by section item. . The electronic packet document is then saved to a directory accessible by all persons having access to the city's network. . An email and voicemail message is sent out to applicable staff and Governing Body members, notifying them that the electronic packet is ready to be reviewed and/or downloaded. . The Governing Body then has the option of downloading the electronic packet onto their laptops by accessing the city's network from their remote location and clicking on an icon that will automatically perform the download function for them; or reviewing the electronic packet while connected to the network. (Performing the download alleviates them from tying up their phone line.) • City staff in any city building can access the electronic packet document by going directly to the directory containing the document, opening it, and saving it to their own directory for future editing. This process is also workable with the media. They no longer have to make a special trip to City Hall just to obtain their paper packet before the Council meeting. We have the ability to send their packet document electronically as an attachment to an email sent to them via the internet. They receive it faster, and can review it and be aware of what's going on in the city of Lenexa. The city keeps electronic agendas and packet material on the file server for the legal maximum time frame of two years. Subsequently, these files are purged in the ordinary course of business. Minutes of the various city meetings are retained indefinitely and are migrated to storage on an optical disk system. Minutes and agendas of the various city meetings are made available for viewing on the Lenexa Home Page on the Internet. The Governing Body wanted something Better than Working with Paper that is functional to them -- like working with paper With the acquisition of the latest software the city was able to create an electronic document that functions similar to a paper document, but with more ease and efficiency of use. Some of the latest features include: . Moving around within the document using hypertext linking -- easier than flipping through stacks of paper. . Inserting comments into the document that appear on the screen as you read it -- easier and clearer than writing on the margins. ■ Printing your comments on one page with references to their http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1/24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 7 of 8 location within the document -- easier than flipping through stacks of paper to find your comments. . Highlight important text within your document -- faster and easier than highlighting by hand. Using technology saves time and Expectations are Met money The city of Lenexa's commitment to "use technology to work smarter" meant that to be successful in this endeavor, we would need to put forth the time and resources to achieve a higher level of functionality than ever before. We expected to do more work in less time and with no additional staff. We expected that the overall time saved by city staff and savings in supplies and equipment usage, in a relatively short period of time, would more than compensate the cost of acquiring the laptops for this project. We expect to continue to realize a cost savings in the future due to the implementation of this project. We have met our expectations! The flow of communication between City Hall and Governing Body members is more convenient with everyone being "on line." The use of electronic mail has become our primary means of communicating important and timely information between city staff and the Governing Body. Staff time in the preparation of packet material has been reduced dramatically, it now takes only a few hours to prepare the electronic packet rather than a full day or more, and the staff member can work at their desk rather than stand at a copy machine. With the electronic packets, the Governing Body members find their material more organized and, therefore, more easily accessible than with the volumes of paper they would have to keep and haul around with them. They no longer have to mess with a paper filing system. if they desire to retain one or all items of a packet from a particular meeting, it is easily stored on their laptop or a diskette. Because Management Team members within the city have been provided with laptop computers, and because all city employees are connected to the network and have access to the electronic packet, means that the city has also gone paperless within our own organization. Literally, reams of paper are saved by not having to make paper copies. As an interesting note, when the city was still producing paper packets statistics for the December 16, 1997 council meeting show that 16 paper packets were generated, plus three partial packets for three council members who had already gone paperless; the packet was 167 pages long supporting 25 items in the agenda; the number of copies made were 2,672 for the full packet and 48 for the partial packet. A total number of 2,720 copies or the equivalent of over five reams of paper were used to produce this packet. It took two days to produce and copy this packet, including overtime for the preparer to come in on Saturday to finish the copying. The city has made significant accomplishments, but no other http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1/24/01 PAPERLESS PACKET PROJECT REPORT Page 8 of 8 accomplishment has provided more benefit to the organization in its technological advancement than the Information Systems strategic plan. The strategic plan provides direction for the utilization of technology into the next century, assuring the organization that its investment in technology will provide great rewards for years to come. commitmentlFuture Goals The city of Lenexa is committed to continue exploring technology in other uses for ways to maximize productivity. It is possible that other city board members (Park Board, Planning Commission, Arts Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, etc.) could be provided with laptops so that electronic agendas and meeting materials could also be provided for them. Eventually, we envision placing packet material on the city's Home Page on the Internet for access by not only Governing Body members and city staff, but by anyone who has internet access. takes willingness a Conclusion and team effort to make it this program work The Paperless Packet Project is a product of a unified team effort. Located within the Department of Administration, the Information Systems division assisted with the technical aspects of the project, and the City Clerk division pulls it all together into a readable and useable format. Of course, this city-wide effort could not be realized without the willingness and cooperation of the Mayor and Council to learn the equipment and the processes involved, and the city staff who support the implementation of this project. For more information about this project you can contact Sandy Howell, City Clerk/Director of Administration, at (913) 477-7518; or for more technical information about the city of Lenexa's information technology you can contact John VanNice, Information Systems Director, at (913) 477-7520. http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/public/pppreport.htm 1/24/01