Loading...
2021-01-27 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/93282361794 Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. 1. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived 2. Approval of Minutes A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5247) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve meeting minutes from January 13th, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: • PB210113 (PDF) 3. Presentations A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5258) Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Updates Background/History Planning Board Page 1 Printed 112212021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda January 27, 2021 N/A Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • 2020 Accomplishments - Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dept (PDF) • Planning Board Presentation - Dept Update - 2021-01-27 (PDF) B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5259) Parks, Recreation & Open Space 2022 PROS Plan Presentation Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • 2022 PROS Plan Presentation - Planning Board 2021-01-27 (PDF) • Planning Board PROS Plan Presentation Memo 2021-01-22 (PDF) 4. Audience Comments 5. Administrative Reports 6. Public Hearings 7. Unfinished Business 8. New Business 9. Planning Board Extended Agenda A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5257) Review of Extended Agenda Background/History The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda (PDF) Planning Board Page 2 Printed 112212021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda January 27, 2021 10. Planning Board Chair Comments 11. Planning Board Member Comments 12. Adjournment Planning Board Page 3 Printed 112212021 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/27/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve meeting minutes from January 13th, 2021 Narrative January 13th, 2021 Draft meeting minutes attached Attachments: PB210113 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom January 13, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Daniel Robles Conner Bryan, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG Board Member Rubenkonig read the following statement: "Tonight, I say goodbye to the grand experience of serving on the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board with all of you. I've been prepared for being removed from the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board since Mike Nelson was elected Mayor. It is a peculiar emotion being called out by the City Council and the Mayor for removal from the Board. I found the process poorly conducted and fraught with wrong facts. How did it happen that four out of eight position terms were expiring in one year? The proverbial red flag should have gone up in the air, but many party to board appointments did not act. This was disappointing. Why didn't they act to protect the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board? The inaction led me to share the situation with the local newspaper, My Edmonds News, on December 28' Maybe you are wondering why would the Mayor and City Council fire a standing Board Member. Usually when a citizen volunteer opts to continue serving the City of Edmonds on a board, commission and/or committee, as I did, it is considered to be a plus for the City. If my having a dissenting opinion to a standing mayor was a consideration for dismissal, then past Mayors Fahey, Haakenson, and Earling had plenty of reason to not renew my Board appointments, but they did not. I'd like to believe they valued discourse, including disagreement. Throughout my 14 years, starting in 1996, our youngest daughter was three years old, I committed to serving the people of Edmonds, not the elected officials. Allow me time for a quick back story. As a stay-at-home mom, like many women in our community, I gave volunteer support to many non-profit groups during the years of child Q Packet Pg. 5 raising. Getting back into my profession took 16 years, but my citizen volunteer work on the Architectural Design Board helped me keep my mark in the game. Ten years later, I was asked to apply for the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, and here I am six years later. I have thoroughly enjoyed and greatly benefited from Board work and the years of challenge, including serving with male -dominated boards. Being voted as chair and vice chair of both boards showed Edmonds can support women as leaders. Now, here I am wanting to share my farewell remarks to this fine City Board. I'm proud of how we have been proactive on affordable housing, elevating it to a City concern. And we have been very attentive to the concerns of the community about the Urban Forest Management Plan. Each of us has a framework in which we look and analyze the known facts. I describe mine as a sailing ship, navigating rough seas to a safe harbor. My life experiences inform my perspective, the rigging. Some of those experiences are shared by others, raising children in troubling times, pushing hard to change careers, starting a business during the recession, and reinventing oneself for work. Not easy life experiences. Why am I sharing this? Because I am defending the Planning Board's ability to also help the City move through a very difficult and necessary time of cultural change. In order to help the community move through difficult times requires a ship to befitted out to navigate the rough seas. Navigating relies on a crew of others to safely move forward, and that is how I witnessed the Board handling challenging issues. Another back story. In my first years on the Architectural Design Board there were plenty of contentious issues, plenty. Emotions reigned high at the meetings, and police monitored those sessions. I encountered strong push back from the Director of the Port of Edmonds, the then City Attorney, and the ten all -male City Council. At three w separate occasions, each of those men took the time to talk to me and explain that their push back was not personal. My response, it feels it. It took me more years than I'd like to share to understand what they were saying to me. In essence, it was `when we meet on opposites sides of an issue, I'm doing my job and I expect you to do the same.' I now know dissention and discussion is key to the best decision. I slowly learned to not take opposition so 0 personally. When I've been on the dais listening intently to citizens, I know they have the right to talk and to disagree. I champion their right to do so. The need for rigorous rules of engagement is vital for Edmonds. I valued o each and every opportunity to listen to the community, and I valued each and every opportunity to discuss (to really Q- Q. argue) with all of you, my fellow Board Members. Q I learned not to take public engagement personally. Yet, being fired, is just that. It is personal. I campaigned for M the Mayor's opponent. Opposition to this mayor is something he appears to take personally. In my experience, o opposition, dissention and disagreement, when shared in discussions and deliberations, leads to the best decisions m possible. But that is not what he or his partisans on City Council are looking for in an appointment. This upsets my a sensibilities on behalf of all of Edmonds. My parting words to you fine people, I hope you, as an Edmonds Citizen Planning Board continue your history of conducting yourself in the arena of discussion and debate. Listen to the d words of Joseph Joubert from 1754 to 1824: It is better to debate a question without settling than to settle a question without debating it.' Carry on making the tough decision on behalf of we, the citizens of Edmonds. Thank c�v you for your time of service. And now, according to ECC Section 10.40.020(A)(4), I congratulate Roger Pence, Q previously referred to as alternate to the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, in his new standing as Position S. I leave you to conduct necessary citizen business as members of the Board. " All of the Board Members thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her service. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA A discussion of the Planning Board Membership Roster was added to the agenda, and the remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Marjie Fields, Edmonds, commented that many Edmonds citizens are relying heavily on a new and improved Tree Code to stop the constant clear cutting that always seems to accompany development. Unfortunately, it appears that the current Tree Code draft is not designed to achieve the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) goal of no net loss of tree canopy. Lacking an analysis of various measures in the draft, such as exempting private property, it will not actually be possible to determine what will be gained or lost. She cautioned against the Planning Board finalizing their recommendation on the Tree Code without an accompanying examination of the implications for each restriction and exemption. Will the exemptions and restrictions increase, reduce or maintain tree canopy? Without this data, she doesn't think it is possible to evaluate the Tree Code. She asked them to take more time before making a recommendation. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, observed that a Tree Code should address all of the trees in the City, not just a small minority of them. The draft code only addresses 3% of the residential land in Edmonds (the land that is currently undeveloped). He reminded the Board that the stated intent and purpose of the draft code is to implement the goals of the UFMP, which is to enhance and retain or no net loss of our forest canopy. He expressed his belief that the draft code is inadequate to perform the stated intent and purpose. The draft code would have been much more useful if enacted 10 years ago when there was more undeveloped land. Now there is only 3% of the land that is undeveloped. As time goes forward and more development occurs, the code will have less and less impact to the point where it will have no impact at all. He said he was very disappointed to see the relaxation of the tree replacement criteria. There aren't that many large trees in Edmonds, and he would encourage the Board to go back to the criteria of the previous draft. Every significant tree lost to development should require multiple replacement trees. That is the gold standard of forest management and tree replacement strategies. Mr. Phipps stressed that if the code is going to be codified, it should be meaningful and address all of the trees in Edmonds. He noted that 80% of the forest canopy is on developed lots, but the draft code totally ignores these trees. He cautioned against the Planning Board passing forward this empty and insignificant Tree Code. The current draft is simply a token and symbolic effort to make the Board feel good. It does very little to stop the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He emphasized that a flawed result would be worse than no code at all because it gives the impression that something was done. The code, as written, will do very little to decrease the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He asked the Board to spend more time on the Tree Code before making a recommendation to Council. Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he spent 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and was involved in doing a draft tree ordinance, which hasn't been adopted yet. The commission spent a lot of time looking at what other communities are doing in the region and country. He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, he noted that Portland, Oregon requires that developers save all trees 20 inches and larger. If they are removed, they must be replaced inch -for -inch. They established a replacement fee of $350 per inch of the tree removed. Folsom, California's tree code is based on the idea that the larger the tree, the greater its value in terms of providing ecoservices to the city. He said he provided a copy of Folsom's study, noting that they recently adopted a fee of $250 per inch for trees that are removed. They estimate their cost was $389 per tree, based on not just the acquisition and planting, but also tree maintenance. The draft Tree Code requires a 2-year bond, and the City of Seattle's proposed ordinance would increase the bond requirement from 3 to 5 years. The consensus is that, with climate change, it is not enough to plant trees. They must be maintained, and a much larger time frame is needed to make sure this happens. While requiring native species for replacement trees is good, they must also keep in mind that climate change is affecting a number of native species, making their survival difficult. Mr. Zemke commented that if the City proceeds with the proposed replacement requirement, which uses increments of 8 inches, he strongly recommended they add an additional category to require four replacement trees for trees that are 32 to 40 inches in diameter and five replacement trees for trees that are 40 inches or greater. He emphasized that the Tree Code should recognize the significant benefits that the larger trees provide. It will be a long time before the replacement trees will provide the same benefit. He noted that, as proposed, the Tree Code would only apply to tree removal associated with development. However, Portland requires permits to remove trees on all private properties, as does Lake Forest Park, Kirkland and a number of others cities in the region. Chris Yake, Edmonds, asked when the video from the meeting would be posted, and Mr. Chave said it should be available within a week. Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a John Marante said he is a past resident of Edmonds and now works for a developer. He was participating in the meeting to observe what is going on with the Tree Code. Nancy Winston, Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds and is very concerned about how strong the City's commitment is to make sure that future development is not just clear cut. She is a concerned citizen and a tree lover. Nicholas Capos, Edmonds, recalled that he attended the public hearing for the previous Tree Code update. The proposal was very controversial and there were so many opinions that some of the attendees continued their discussions in the parking lot until 1 a.m. He voiced concern that, since that time, the process has gone underground even though the outcome will impact everyone who owns property with trees. He owns property with a home and a large number of trees that he cares very much about. However, he believes the proposed regulations would be onerous and severely restrictive. He reviewed that the UFMP outlines the following goals: • Incentivize the planting and protection of trees on private property. • Create a program for giving away trees or tree vouchers. • Establish a property tax rebate or stormwater utility rate reduction for properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy. • Implement other techniques that provide financial recognition to the benefits of tree planting and protection. • Provide resources to the community to educate and inform them of tree planting and care. • Provide signage and other information about significant trees. • Establish a Tree Board. • Develop community education materials. • Participate in original tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to volunteers. • Report annually to the City Council. Mr. Capos referred to Question 17 of the survey the City recently conducted regarding the Tree Code, which asked, "When private properties are developed or improved, trees on property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction? " Of the 167 respondents, 53.89% answered yes. Eight did not respond to the question, 17.95% indicated that the City should not concern itself with trees on private property, and 28% weren't sure. If you subtract the number of people who didn't respond, you end up with a 51 % majority that favor requiring property owners to preserve trees on private parcels. That is not much of a majority. He summarized that this incredible set of restrictions, fines and fees can eventually financially impact every property owner in Edmonds that has trees. While it starts off with developers, the stated goal is to apply it to developed private properties, too. The impact could be thousands of dollars per lot. He said he wants to build a house for his disabled son on the lot next to him. By the time he pays the building fees, stormwater fees, and tree replacement fees, he could be looking at $75,000 to $80,000 before any construction can start on the house. Again, Mr. Capos voiced concern that the issue has gone underground and hasn't included the institutional discussion about taking away private property rights. He has paid property taxes on his trees for 25 years, and he felt it was a violation of his property rights for the City to tell him what he can and cannot do with them. He suggested that this entire subject needs to receive a much wider vetting to the public. The meetings haven't been published in any of the local newspapers, and no information has been disseminated to the property owners via the mail. Only 12 people were present at the last meeting to comment on a proposal that would have a deep financial impact to property owners into the far distant future. Richard Ellison, Seattle, said he is a semi -retired, part-time adjunct instructor at community colleges in the region. He said he believes it is very important to protect trees on private property. They are part of the environmental infrastructure. He voiced concern that the general way of doing things continues to allow more and more loopholes for developers to remove the largest trees. While he is glad the City is trying to categorize trees in a fashion, there needs to be a better definition for trees between 6 inches and a specimen tree. Trees that are 12 inches in diameter and greater provide a lot of habitat and canopy. They are looking at summer record heat and fires, and cities need to plan for a future of climate change. They need to figure out how to preserve the large trees and still allow more housing to be developed. He suggested that one option is to allow taller buildings or to allow development to be reconfigured on lots so that trees can be saved. Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 Mr. Ellison also encouraged the City to prohibit tree topping. Trained professionals know how to create a view through a tree canopy without creating hazardous tree conditions in the future. He also encouraged the City to do as much planting as possible. He noted that the larger trees capture a lot of rain and slow the stormwater runoff so it doesn't get into the system as quickly. The City of Seattle is currently paying people to build cisterns for free on their properties in an effort to collect water during heavy rains so it doesn't all come into the stormwater system at once. He suspects that Edmonds is also experiencing problems with stormwater runoff. Rather than having to build additional infrastructure to capture the runoff, Edmonds should retain the existing large trees that are doing an excellent job. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Vice Chair Crank asked if canopies for outdoor dining will become standard in the downtown. Mr. Chave said the City Council adopted an interim ordinance, which provided some new standards for streeteries and outdoor dining. Business owners are starting to submit applications, and he suspects there will be more as time goes by. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Chair Rosen thanked the members of the public who provided comments regarding the draft Tree Code. He also reminded the Board Members that they have received a number of written comments since the public hearing on December 9'. Other people have expressed their opinions via letters to local newspapers, etc. According to his count, the Board has heard from 96 citizens regarding the draft Tree Code. He emphasized that the citizen voices have been heard by the Board and will influence their recommendation. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He reviewed the UFMP goals that are addressed in the draft update as follows: • Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft Tree Code covers all of these topics. • Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. While this goal was taken under consideration when the draft Tree Code was developed, it is understood that the regulations, in and of themselves, cannot achieve no net loss of canopy within the City. The City will have to do other things, such as education. The Tree Board is doing a good job of education and outreach but more work is needed. • Goal LC — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The draft regulations will supplement the City's Critical Area Regulations. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. The draft regulations will establish a Tree Fund that will be funded by penalty fees and the fee -in -lieu program. • Goal3.A —Have a program ofgiving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. Mr. Lien recalled that, following the December 9' public hearing, the Planning Board requested additional information about the proposed tree replacement ratios and Snohomish County's coverage approach. He referred to the tree replacement requirements in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.080. As proposed, replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed and the replacement ratio would be based on the diameter of the tree removed. At the public hearing, he provided a number of examples of how the replacement ratios would apply and the resulting fees into the Tree Fund. While he felt the fees would be too high, the Planning Board did not seem concerned. He suggested other options, including modifying the replacement ratio or modifying the dollar value per tree for the fee -in -lieu. The Planning Board indicated they wanted to retain the $1,000 fee per tree, but they were willing to consider an alternative replacement ratio. As requested by the Board, he shared a chart showing how the updated alternative replacement ratio compares to the previously proposed replacement ratio: Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 Previously Proposed Replacement Ratio (Option 1 Updated Alternative Replacement Ratio (Option 2 6 to 10 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required 6 to 14 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required 10.1 to 14 inches DBH* -- 2 replacement trees required 14.1 to 24 inches DBH* — 2 replacement trees required Greater than 14 inches DBH* -- 3 replacement trees required Greater than 24 inches DBH* — 3 replacement trees required *Diameter at Breast Height Mr. Lien reviewed the four examples that were provided at the December 9' public hearing again to illustrate how both Option 1 and Option 2 would impact the Tree Fund payment required for new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. In each example, he pointed out the number of existing trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments. He also provided information showing how the required Tree Fund payments would compare to Parks and Traffic Impact Fees. He summarized the following: • New Single -Family Development — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 22 to 19, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $16,000 to $13,000. Park and Traffic Impact fees would be almost $9,000. • Four -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 58 to 50, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $58,000 to $50,000. Park and Traffic Impact fees would be almost $27,000. • Ten -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 98 to 84, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $98,000 to $84,000. Park and Traffic Impact Fees would be almost $63,000. • Conservation Subdivision Design — Applying the current zoning regulations, Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 315 to 222, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $315,000 to $222,000. Applying the proposed conservation subdivision design regulations would allow a lot more trees to be retained. Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 202 to 141, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $202,000 to $141,000. The park and traffic impact fees for both options would be about $33,000. Board Member Monroe asked how the park and traffic impact fees are calculated. Mr. Lien responded that the City only has two impact fees (traffic and parks). For new single-family residences, the traffic impact fee is $6,249 per unit and the park impact fee is $2,334, and credit is given for existing homes. In the examples he provided, the fees were calculated based on the number of new residential units being constructed. He explained that both fees were established based on a lengthy analysis, and the City's fees are about average compared to other jurisdictions in the area. Board Member Monroe commented that the traffic and park impact fees are the same for each unit regardless of design, whereas the draft Tree Code is intended to influence behavior and incentivize developers to retain trees. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that a fee of $10,000 to $20,000 per unit sounds appropriate. He would like the fee to be high enough that developers are encouraged to reconfigure lots to save trees whenever possible. If the fee is not high enough, most developers will simply choose to pay the fee and fold it into the price of the home. Mr. Lien pointed out that the proposed subdivision design flexibility would allow developers to cluster the lots and retain the existing trees. Board Member Monroe summarized that Option 1 is more conservation minded and would make it more difficult to remove trees, and Option 2 would be a more liberal approach. He said he leans towards being more conservation minded, making it more difficult to remove trees in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained that Option 1 would likely result in fewer trees being removed. If more trees are retained, the potential fee -in -lieu payment would go down. If developers want to reduce the amount required for the Tree Fund, they will find a way to retain and/or plant more trees. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE REPLACEMENT RATIO. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bryan said he supports Mr. Zemke's idea that the replacement ratio categories should be expanded to require more replacement trees when trees greater than 32 DBH are removed. This would reduce the potential canopy loss in the City without further complicating the code. Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Board Member Robles observed that the traffic and park impact fees are flat fees, property taxes are based on the assessed value of the home, and, as proposed, the tree replacement fee would be based on the size of tree. He asked if there has been any discussion about basing the replacement fee on the value of a property. For example, a higher replacement fee might be appropriate if cutting down trees exposes a view and significantly increases the value of the homes that are built. On the other hand, the higher fee might not be appropriate for development of low-income housing. Mr. Lien said the Board did discuss this concept, but he is not sure how it could be implemented. He explained that when subdivision applications are reviewed, staff does not require specifics about the homes that will be developed. Implementing the concept would require appraisals with each application to identify the potential value of the property after subdivision and development. Chair Rosen suggested that the Board should focus on taking action on the current motion, recognizing that Board Member Robles' idea could be presented as a separate item for discussion at a later time, as appropriate. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board review Snohomish County's Coverage Approach. He met with Board Member Rubenkonig following the meeting to get a better understanding of what she was recommending. He noted that the draft code includes a retention requirement. However, if there are no trees on a site, there would be no retention requirement. Snohomish County's approach requires 30% coverage post development. Developers are required to retain 30% of the canopy coverage. If replanting is required, a 30% coverage would be required at the end of 20 years. Snohomish County's code doesn't include a definition for canopy coverage, but it appears to mean the w portion of the site covered by a vertical protection of the tree crowns as expressed at a percentage of the area of the site. That means that, looking down on the site, the tree canopy needs to cover 30% of the site. You could have a single tree with a E large canopy that covers 30% of the site or you could have two or three trees that provide the same amount of canopy. The coverage requirement is calculated based on the area of the circle and allows credit for retention of certain trees. o Mr. Lien said he drafted some regulations based on Snohomish County's model. He kept the same percentage requirement o (30% for new single-family and subdivisions and 25% for multifamily), but changed from "retention" to "canopy coverage." Q- Q. The table on how to measure tree canopy was copied from Snohomish County's code. There would be two options for Q measuring the existing tree canopy: Option 1 would require a tree survey, measuring the canopy of each tree and calculating M the total area; and Option 2 would require an aerial estimation. Calculating the required new canopy would depend on the species of the trees that are replanted. A developer would need to calculate the radius of the canopy of each proposed tree at o 20 years maturity and multiply the area by the number of trees to be planted to obtain the total canopy area. m a Mr. Lien cautioned that Snohomish County's model would be difficult to administer. It is much easier to count the number of trees than to calculate the canopy of each of the trees that are removed and replanted. The Snohomish County code offers d credits for existing trees, for example: • Individual significant trees retained on a site shall be counted at 125% of the total actual canopy area. r Q • For clusters or stands of five or more trees, each tree shall be counted at 150% of the actual canopy area. • For clusters or stands of five or more significant trees, each tree shall be counted at 200% of its actual canopy area. • Retained trees located within no more than 20 feet of a rain garden or a bio-swale on site shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy area. • Retained significant trees qualified to receive flow control credits shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy area. Mr. Lien noted that the Snohomish County Model doesn't have a replacement requirement like what is proposed in the draft Tree Code. If implemented, the replacement ratios discussed earlier in the meeting would need to be eliminated from the code. The fee -in -lieu program could be retained for situations where the coverage requirement could not be met on site, but it would be complicated to apply. For example, a developer could avoid paying a fee -in -lieu by planting one big -leaf maple with a large canopy instead of multiple other tree species with smaller canopies. Mr. Lien summarized that, if the Planning Board wants to pursue the Snohomish County model, it would take at least one more meeting. While he drafted initial code language, he would need to review the rest of the code to identify other sections that would be impacted. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Lien to share staff s recommendation regarding the Snohomish County Model. Mr. Lien said he prefers the draft Tree Code for ease of implementation. The Snohomish County Model would be very complicated to administer and require more work on the part of developers and staff. Board Member Monroe asked if staff believes the Snohomish County Model would be consistent with or go beyond the UFMP goals. Mr. Lien answered that the Snohomish County Model would be consistent with the UFMP goals, but the draft Tree Code would also be consistent. The difference is that the Snohomish County Model would require trees to be planted as part of development even on properties that have no existing trees. The draft Tree Code would not. Board Member Monroe observed that implementing the Snohomish County Model would likely result in a net gain, which goes beyond the UFMPs no -net -loss goal. Mr. Lien agreed it would result in a net gain for properties that have no trees. Vice Chair Crank asked if the Snohomish County Model would be better from a long-term standpoint as opposed to a short- term standpoint. Mr. Lien referred back to the example he shared earlier of a typical 4-lot subdivision with an existing canopy coverage of about 40%. Applying the draft Tree Code, the end result would likely be a 30% canopy coverage plus a $58,000 payment into the Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund must be spent on tree planting within the City of Edmonds. He suggested that the proposed Tree Code would result in more trees being planted because of the fee -in -lieu program, which would likely go away if the Snohomish County Model is adopted. Vice Chair Crank recalled that in past conversations there appeared to be a consensus that the City's code should be in line with Snohomish County's code. However, doing that might result in more work for the staff. The question is, would the w extra work be worth it. Mr. Lien responded that most of the cities he researched did not use a coverage requirement approach. Some have a density requirement and others use a tree retention approach similar to the draft Tree Code. Some jurisdictions use a tree credit approach, as well. Vice Chair Crank summarized that the City of Edmonds wouldn't be the 2 "odd person out" if they were to implement the draft Tree Code. o Chair Rosen said there appears to be consensus amongst the Board that the approach outlined in the currently draft Tree Code o is appropriate. The remainder of the Board concurred. Q- Q. a Mr. Lien concluded his report by reminding the Board that the draft Tree Code update was primarily focused on retention M with development. The primary complaint the City has received over the years has been about properties being clear cut when developed. He acknowledged that the draft Tree Code does not implement all of the UFMP goals, and more will need o to be done to implement the UFMP. Potential ideas include pursuing more incentives and education opportunities and the m creation of a heritage tree program. The draft Tree Code is intended to implement the first goal of the UFMP, which is to a develop tree regulations to retain more trees with development. d Board Member Monroe asked if it is fair to say that if the City Council wants to pursue tree regulations for already developed private properties it will come back to the Planning Board for consideration and a recommendation. Mr. Lien answered c�v affirmatively. Q Chair Rosen asked if there would be additional opportunities for public input after the Planning Board forwards its recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered that there would be another public hearing at the City Council level. As per the current schedule, the draft Tree Code Update would be introduced to the City Council on January 19'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 261 BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT TREE CODE UPDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Rosen invited Board Member Robles to comment further on his earlier suggestion that the tree replacement requirement could be based on property value. Board Member Robles said he has been pondering the citizen input and how to distribute the impact in a more justifiable way. He suggested the discussion would be more relevant if and when the Board considers tree replacement requirements for private properties that have already been developed. He shared an example of a neighboring property owner who cut down several significant trees to create a view, which enabled him to sell his property Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a for a much higher value. Vice Chair Crank pointed out that the City cannot legislate behavior. Board Member Robles agreed, but potential solutions might include incentives and education. He commented that the draft Tree Code Update is a good first start. CLIMATE GOALS PLANNING — STATUS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION Mr. Lien reviewed that the goal was to update the Climate Action Plan in 2020. The pandemic postponed the update, which is now scheduled to occur in 2021. The City has hired a consultant, Environmental Science Association (ESA), to help draft the plan. ESA has already completed the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and created the tracking tool that was previously presented to the Planning Board. In addition, the City has consulted with Cascadia to assist with the public engagement program. Cascadia has been helping with the Citizen Housing Commission. Mr. Lien reported that, currently, staff is working to develop a website that is specific to the Climate Action Plan Update, which should be live by January 21 st. An article on the Climate Action Plan Update will be published in the City's next quarterly newsletter, and a virtual open house will take place in February to re -introduce the topic to the public. A community workshop is scheduled to occur in March, and the City will also kick off an on-line survey in March. Following the open house, workshop and survey, ESA will begin drafting the update. He said he anticipates a second workshop in the fall, with the goal of having a Climate Action Plan Update that is ready for City Council review by the end of 2021. He will provide regular updates as the process moves forward. Chair Rosen commented that, as work continues on the Tree Code and Climate Action Plan, it is important to consider the efforts of the Housing Commission, the Tree Board, the Climate Protection Committee, the Conservation Advisory Committee, Architectural Design Board and the City Council. The work from all of these groups is interconnected, and they all need to work together to address the City's goals. Mr. Lien said all of the groups mentioned have been identified as stakeholders in the Public Engagement Plan, and staff will reach out to all of them. Tackling the issue of climate change will touch on all aspects of society. In addition to code changes, people will have to make personal decisions. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Board Member Pence noted that there has been a problem with keeping track of the term expirations of each of the Planning Board Members, and it resulted in a situation last month where, according to the staff report, the terms of four of the eight Planning Board Members expired at the end of 2020. The that established the Planning Board is very clear that only two terms expire every year; but somehow, monitoring the terms ran askew. He suggested the Board get it back on track with the original code so that two terms expire each year. He said he sent the Board Members a screen grab of a roster that was created by Board Member Rubenkonig with some help from Ken Reidy. He invited staff to review the roster for accuracy and share their ideas for addressing the problem. The Board could continue the discussion at the next meeting. Chair Rosen asked the best way to address the situation. Mr. Chave responded that for the past 10 years, the current system has tracked each of the 4-year term limits. He said he reviewed the original ordinance that identified term expirations for each year, with new terms starting on January 1 st. At least half of the current positions track with the original ordinance, but some got off track. He suggested that the discrepancy likely has something to do with replacing members mid-term or moving people into expired terms. He noted that there are a variety of options to address the problem, but it will need to be sorted out by the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney. Board Member Cheung asked who is responsible to track term expirations. Mr. Chave explained that the mayor makes recommendations and the City Council affirms the appointments, so the responsibility is shared. Over the past 10 years when appointments were made, the terms and expirations were usually clearly stated. Board Member Pence recalled that, when he was appointed to the Planning Board by Mayor Earling 1.5 years ago, nothing was said by anyone at any point as to his term on the Board. He didn't have the presence of mind to inquire at that time. He reviewed all of the paperwork associated with his appointment and confirmation and found nothing about the term. Member Pence said he understands that it is up to the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney to address the problem, but he asked if staff would provide a recommendation. Mr. Chave indicated he couldn't answer that question because he hasn't been part of the discussions. Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a Chair Rosen summarized that Board Member Pence's original concern was getting the term expirations back on track. However, he also voiced concerns related to communication and who is responsible for addressing the problem. If the Board's primary concern is getting the Planning Board Member Roster straightened out so it is consistent with the original intent of the code that established the Planning Board, he recommended the Board send a request to the Mayor asking that the terms be clarified and standardized consistent with the code. Vice Chair Crank thanked Board Member Pence for bringing the issue forward. She agreed with Chair Rosen that addressing the problem will be an administrative task. Other than understanding the accurate terms, there is no need for the Planning Board to be involved in the matter. She asked that staff update the roster as needed and present it to the Board at the next meeting. Board Member Cheung suggested that it would be helpful if the roster that is provided on the Planning Board page of the City's website indicated what position each person serves in. This might make it easier to track the terms. Chair Rosen summarized that the Board is asking the City Council to clarify the terms, identify start and end dates of each term to bring them into compliance with the code and then document the roster. Board Member Cloutier recalled that historically when the Board elected new officers at the end of the year, staff provided a roster of Planning Board positions and term dates. This should become standard practice for the Board. The remainder of w the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said he has used the roster over the past 10 years, and the rosters have tracked with the actions the City Council has taken when appointing new members. Board Member Cloutier suggested they could add another column to the roster to verify the years of rotation. 2 0 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA 0 L Chair Rosen reviewed that the January 27' meeting agenda will include an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural a Services Department and a presentation on the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan update focus Q recommendations. The February 10' meeting agenda will include a presentation on a potential code amendment to allow M unit lot subdivisions in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, as well as a review and discussion on code update work (EV Charging Charging). c N M Mr. Chave announced that the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance on outdoor dining on private property, and a the issue will come before the Planning Board in the near future. d Board Member Pence pointed out that the Planning Board typically holds a retreat each year where they consider the Board's long-term activities and agenda. However, the retreat is not currently listed on the extended agenda. Chair Rosen said he 2 intends for the Board to meet with the City Council in February or March to discuss their priorities and how they will impact Q the Board's extended agenda. Mr. Chave said that, generally, the Chair and Vice Chair meets with staff to review the schedule and identify an appropriate date for the retreat. Typically, the retreat takes place in the spring. Chair Rosen said he would work with Vice Chair Crank to set up a meeting with staff to discuss the retreat and report back to the Board. Board Member Robles pointed out that the Planning Board page on the City's website needs to be updated to reflect the leadership changes that were made. He asked if the student representative has been added to the list to receive Planning Board entails. Mr. Bryan said he has been receiving Planning Board entails. Mr. Chave agreed to make sure the website is updated. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rosen referred to the disgrace that recently occurred at the nation's capital, as well as other state capitals. He said it was a horrible day for our country, and we are better than the violence, sedition and insurrection that took place. We cannot tolerate this type of behavior, and they must put an end to it. They must also put an end to the racism that was clearly on display on that day. Monday is Martin Luther King Day, and he encouraged each of the Board Members to work on creating a community that is free of hatred, injustice and poverty. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a Chair Rosen emphasized that, from his count, there are 17 boards, commissions and committees, adding up to 144 community members who volunteer to serve. He recognized that they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council, and their job is to provide them good information so they can make good decisions. The value of the volunteer groups is incredible. The volunteer force is the secret sauce that is the engine of a good community. On the Planning Board, the hourly rates if the City were paying for their service would run to at least $500 an hour. It would seem the City should create an environment where they recruit and retain the best possible talent and that they feel appreciated. We failed recently and we can do better. Chair Rosen thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her incredible service. She was passionate and showed up and will be missed. Chair Rosen commented that being part of a community means showing up and participating, just like the individuals did tonight regarding the Tree Code. He encouraged members of the public to show up and have an opinion at public workshops and hearings, to serve on the boards, commissions and committees, and to run for office. It works better when the load is shared. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Bryan announced that January 27' will be his last meeting as student representative to the Edmonds Planning Board. He said that while representing the youth of Edmonds on the Planning Board over nearly the past 2 years has provided him with valuable professional experience and the satisfaction of community involvement, it has become clear that he no longer intends to pursue a career in urban development. Consequently, he wishes to devote his time to activities that align more closely with his interests. Moreover, he felt it would be unfair for him to maintain the position when there are undoubtedly students in the community who could engage more meaningfully with the Planning Board with respect to their own professional aspirations. He thanked all Board Members and City staff for the experience and wished the Board and City success in the future. Board Member Robles commented that Mr. Bryan did a great job as student representative. He served his community and was as good if not better than any student representative. He thanked him for his service, and invited him to rely on Board Members for recommendations in the future. Board Member Monroe welcomed Board Member Pence as a Planning Board Member rather than the alternate. He said he would miss Board Member Rubenkonig, who had passion and a breadth of knowledge that lined up will with the Board's goals. He complimented Chair Rosen for a well -run meeting. Lastly, he said he has been impressed by Mr. Bryan's professionalism as he shared his viewpoints on a host of issues. Board Member Cheung also thanked Mr. Bryan and said he was the best student representatives the Board has had. He was sorry to see him leave the Board. He encouraged him to find other opportunities where he could share his skills with the community. He said he was surprised to learn that Board Member Rubenkonig was leaving the Board, especially on such sad terms after serving the community for a number of years. She has been a great voice on the Board. He said he is looking forward to having Chair Rosen and Vice Chair Crank lead the group. Vice Chair Crank also thanked Mr. Bryan for his service on the Board. She agreed with Chair Rosen's comments. As someone who works with non-profit organizations, she understands that volunteers are the lifeblood. They need to treat all volunteers with the respect they deserve. She was not happy to be the person that had to tell Board Member Rubenkonig that her time was over. It was a surprise for all of the Board Members. She expressed her hope that they can learn to do better in how they serve one another. Vice Chair Crank echoed Chair Rosen's comments about what has been happening in our country. It is not the way she wants the country to go into 2021, but she anticipates it may get worse before it gets better. They also need to look locally, and treat each other well. She received two very disturbing images on social media during the meeting. It makes her sad that there is bad behavior in Edmonds. They must remember that bad behavior is everywhere and Edmonds is not exempt. They need to call it out and address it as they see it. She hopes the community can get better from the inside out. She also Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 1 I Packet Pg. 15 2.A.a reminded them that Monday is Martin Luther King Day, which is typically a day of service. Obviously, the pandemic limits the amount of physical service they can do. She wrote a letter to My Edmonds News, providing some great suggestions for things that can be done while in your home, either by yourself or with family members, to challenge the equality and equity piece they are trying to all do together. Board Member Pence agreed with the comments made by his fellow members. However, he expanded on the comments made by Vice Chair Crank about the problems in Edmonds and the need for much more vigorous conversation. The community needs to be talking about the issues amongst themselves on something more substantive than the comments read under My Edmonds News articles. He doesn't have an easy proposal for accomplishing that, but they need to work at building the civic energy of the City more. This can be done by people talking amongst themselves using the technologies that are available since they cannot meet together. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Q Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 16 3.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/27/2021 Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Updates Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The two attachments for the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department include the 2020 Accomplishments memo and a Dept Update PowerPoint presentation. Attachments: 2020 Accomplishments - Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dept Planning Board Presentation - Dept Update - 2021-01-27 Packet Pg. 17 3.A.a MEMORANDUM 'n�. 18yV To: City of Edmonds Planning Board From: Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Director Date: 1/22/2021 Re: 2020 Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Accomplishments In a very challenging year, the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department remainded resilient, creative and dedicated to providing maintenance, programming and services to the Edmonds community through unprecedented times. I am pleased to present the accomplishment highlights of the Department as follows — Administrative Division: • Hired a new Director who started first of April 2020 • Completion of the Waterfront Redevelopment project (December 2020) • Development and implementation of new Distance Learning Support Program (LEAP) • Completed Marina Beach Park design to 30% and applied for $1M in RCO grants, scored #1 for ALEA program with $500,000 award pending, and top 25% for Local Parks, but depending on Legislative allocation, probably not funded. • Developed phase reopening "Play it Safe" Plan outlining park amenities and their return to full operation • Launched a Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Facebook page and grew audience to nearly 400 followers in 6 months • Development and staff support of the new Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee (MCAC) • Facilitated a return to operation for the Edmonds Farmers Market to include compliance with the Snohomish County Health Department • Distributed more than 500 free masks at various events • Contacted all 65 long-term care facilities in Edmonds once per week for 6 months • Updated the Youth Commission Ordinance, recruited and seated 6 new members • Ongoing staff support and guidance of the Cemetery Board, Edmonds Arts Commission, Creative District Advisory Group, Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee and the Youth Commission City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Packet Pg. 18 3.A.a Parks Maintenance Division: • Maintained essential services despite COVID impacts o Prioritized public and staff safety, sanitation and preservation of assets o Split crews into two shifts with separate start times o One crew member per vehicle, no shared equipment o Enhanced park usage due to staying local led to significant increase in litter and garbage responsibilities. o Doubled sanitation of public restrooms once reopened • Repaired the Yost Pool grates, replaced CO2 injector and pool covers • Dayton Street Utility Project — Parks installed new irrigation and landscaping at 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th and Dayton Streets. • Sold out of flower baskets sponsorships for the first time in many years, beautiful showing of both flower baskets and corner parks • Painted 100 crosses for Veteran's graves at the Edmonds Cemetery • Developed a virtual "Walk Through Time Tour" for the Cemetery Recreation Division: • Hired Recreation Coordinator to program and facilitate City usage of the new Waterfront Center • Offered 47 virtual classes and programs following COVID shutdown (Paint Night, Writers' Workshops, Parent and Me Music, Dog Training, Yoga, Pilates, Circuit Training, Strength Training, Personal Training, Kidz Love Soccer, Skyhawks Sports) • Partnered with 4 local businesses to offer outdoor fitness classes at parks (Twist Yoga, Milton Yoga, Barre3, Wolfgram Health and Fitness) • Operated 24 summer camps for youth implementing COVID safety measures (Skyhawks, Kidz Love Soccer, Sound Salmon Solutions and Pilchuck Audubon) • Offered rain garden information sessions in partnership with Public Works • Partnered with 2 outdoor preschools operating at Yost Park (Quiet Heart Wilderness Preschool and Magnolia Forest Preschool); ran Meadowdale Preschool at the Meadowdale Club House and supported Edmonds Montessori and Main Street Kids in the Frances Anderson Center. • Tripled attendance to our annual Bird Fest event with more than 1,400 people attending from all over the country thanks in large part to it being virtual and mentioned in the New York Times Arts & Culture Division: • Held the 35th annual Write on the Sound writers' conference virtually for the first time. With expanding to four day, the more than 180 participants included registrations from a wider variety of states and some from England, Canada and Australia. • Although live free summer concerts were canceled, five concerts of the Hazel Miller Plaza series were recorded for Edmonds and shown on the City TV station and You Tube. • A virtual community open house on 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor was held with a follow up survey which had over 240 respondents. • Worked with organizations on use of awarded Lodging Tax funds and impact of COVID. Packet Pg. 19 3.A.a • Development of one-time 2021 program for arts grants which encourage focus on inclusion and accessibility for all in our community. • Eight varied On the Fence exhibits were installed for 2020 on three fence sites. • Initiated remote selection process for finalists for Civic Park art project. • Issued call for artists and commissioned four new artworks for hanging flower basket poles. • Sponsored two workshops for artists led by Artist Trust. • Worked with Historical Museum to develop content for new informational panel. Packet Pg. 20 3.A.b 04 Parks, Recreation Cultural Service:-. Department UpdateCO Planning Board to January 27, 2021 rr rr Q Packet Pg. 21 3.A.b Presentation Overview • Since July 22, 2020 • Parks Maintenance and Projects • Recreation Programming • Cultural Arts Services • Upcoming L U Ca r- 0 L N Y L a N 0 N O N 0 0 L a L co rr Q Packet Pg. 22 3.A.b Administrative • COVID-related facility and program decisions New program development • Budget process (operating and capital) • Advisory Boards (5) support • RCO Grant Applications ($1M) • Edmonds Marsh Critical Area Permit <3> �a L a.+ U 0 N Y f0 a N r O N O N 0 0 a` a 0 CO rn c c a t f6 Q Packet-Pg. 23 3.A.b Parks Maintenance/Small Capital Projects • Maintenance Division/COVID Impacts • Increased level of service • Holiday Lighting • Edmonds Museum Art installation • Chamber of Commerce sign installation rr Q Packet Pg. 24 3.A.b Capital Projects • Waterfront Redevelopment Project <5> J iJ z Packet-Pg. 25 3.A.b Recreation Programming • Programs • 47 virtual classes/programs (BirdFest — 300%) • 24 summer camps • 4 outdoor fitness programs • Park -based scavenger hunt/Marty the Mouse • Online CRAZE publication F__ • Waterfront Center programs • LTCF (65) weekly calls C Z A- SC.AVENG; R HUNT . Edmonds Parks. P-a non & Cultural Services CRAZE WINTER 2021 L U 06 r_ 0 i V d f ' N Y L a ADVENTURES OF MARTY N THE Hill IV#Y MOUSE o FrJiiow Maq as he-r1isds Some N ok his aritQ cLest i��rts N �n EdP o�ipar�! , Adventure starts December 15 and ends +� January 15. Follow the story and clues for a chance to win from a prize drawing - NOW! Packet Pg. 26 3.A.b Recreation Programming • LEAP (Distance Learning Support Program) • October — current • 2020 CARES and Verdant funding 2nd — 6t" grade • Academic support • Day camp • Pods • CARES funding (2020) • Free/qualify (7) Ji���]o - �c�LSa�0 T LEARNING ENHANCEMENT & ACTIVITIES PROGRAM ' A safe, super,;sed, and supportwe ' G, r enviranmen[ for dis[a r.ce ieareicg r / 5 ' Packet Pg. 27 3.A.b Cultural Arts • 35t" Write on the Sound (virtual) • Recorded Hazel Miller Plaza free concerts series • Virtual Open House — 4t" Avenue Cultural Corridor (240+ respondents) • 2021 One-time community art grants HAZEL MILLER VIRTUAL SUMMER rh►ur_ VDT-C July 23, 4pm Aug 13 4pm L U 06 _ O i V d N Y L a N 1 N O N d 0 Prn O R C O ►rir fhlr (liildrrn'� Sllegera SoFwwrilrr )roaprr Lrpak Fulll Woist to July 25, 10.30am & 4pm Aug 16. 10:30am & 4pm i July 2& 4pm Aug U. 4pm d July 30, apm Aug 20, 4pm L WIN Plagpfirr Sri& { [peal JIM".. & %Wilig "Corirerts will also 6e O Aug 2, if]30am & 4pm availahle on -demand at a future date m Aug 4� 40rn on the City's YouTuhe Channel Aug 6, 4pm EA,y►Oy � ��pF tC L _s N a r c a� V r Q Packet Pg. 28 3.A.b 2021 Upcoming <9> ML • 2022 PROS Plan • Civic Playfield project bid • Salmon Safe Certification • Cemetery Columbarium Phase II project • (New) Indigenous Peoples Day Event and Art project • Recreation programming and facilities rentals as per Reopening Plan �l big ,4,.�--•.ram`_ ' _ _ _ _ _ - - tea..._ _ _..�,� � - Packet-Pg. 29 3.A.b Questions/Comments? Q Packet-Pg. 30 3.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/27/2021 Parks, Recreation & Open Space 2022 PROS Plan Presentation Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The two attachments for the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department include the 2022 PROS Plan Presentation to the Planning Board and the PROS Plan Presentation memo. Attachments: 2022 PROS Plan Presentation - Planning Board 2021-01-27 Planning Board PROS Plan Presentation Memo 2021-01-22 Packet Pg. 31 3.B.a 2022 Parks,, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Update Planning Board January 27, 2021 a� U fC Q W C , N Q 0 06 C O r R d L c,> NN� 1.6 Y L a Packet-Pg. 32 3.B.a Presentation Overview Purpose/Process Current PROS Plan 2022 Plan Scope Plan Advisory Group representative Recommendations for plan scope and focus? Member of advisory group? Packet-Pg. 33 3.B.a Purpose of a PROS Plan • The Plan is a 6-year guide and strategic plan for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails and recreation opportunities in Edmonds. • Policy Strategy Guide • Built on Public Process • Communication Tool • Grant Eligibility <3> a� �a a Cn c a O 06 r- O L c,> NN� 1.6 Y L a N O N O N L R O m of a 0 M a c a O M IL N N O N C E t V f0 Q Packet Pg. 34 3.B.a PROS Plan Components • Goals and objectives • Capital Improvement Program (CIP) • Implementation strategies • Strategic focus based in three areas — • What are our strengths? • How should we serve our community? • Where should we focus our efforts? Packet Pg. 35 3.B.a General Process of a PROS Plan Update Public Involvement (5) Community engagement - advisory group, stakeholders, public meetings, events, surveys, correspondence, online communications, etc Y L a N N O N N r O O N L 'a R O LL m of C a c O c m a� a c a 0 (D E t ci f0 Q Packet Pg. 36 3.B.a Current PROS Plan History • 2008 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan • 2014 PROS Plan • 2016 Update Related Plans • 2009 Aquatic Facility Study • 2014 Community Cultural Plan 2019 Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) 2017 City's Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan included by reference)Urban Forest Management Plan • Capital Facilities (20-year/projects) EWI City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan 4 1 A"Fwhbx� Lb��Mxv a) U a c m a O otS 0 L a N O N O N 0 m a 0 M d aL a O w IL N N O N C d E t V <C r Q Packet Pg. 37 3.B.a Current PROS Plan — 4 Sections 1. System Need • Existing system • Habitat • Community needs SYSTEM MAP .. �.•w... �.� �.wr�.',. (7) .y 114 Mile Access Park Site 112 Mile Access School Site Packet Pg. 38 3.B.a a) U a d a Current PROS Plan — 4 Sections 2. System Concept, Goals & Objectives 1) Collaborations and Leadership A 2) Parks and Open Space W i Q3) Shoreline Use and Access V ,° 4) Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation ra 5) Recreation Programs and Activities 6) Cultural Services 7) Park Operations and Maintenance O M L U Goal 1: Lead collaborative efforts to fulfill the community's needs for par recreation and cultural services. � L a Goal 2: Provide an interconnected park system that offers a wide variety of year-round recreation opportunities and experiences in harmony with r Edmonds' cultural identity and the natural environment. c N O Goal 3: Preserve and expand opportunities for public access and enjoyment of the shoreline in Edmonds. a O m Goal 4: Preserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat .� conservation, recreation, and environmental education. IL Goal 5: Provide recreation opportunities and experiences to promote a healthy, active and engaged community year-round. ° �a Goal 6: Provide arts and cultural opportunities and experiences to c promote an engaged and vibrant community. aL r_ Goal 7: Provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all a parks and related public assets in Edmonds. Cn O .,,_ r�, W a \�� N N O J N `C I R9� d E t V f0 Q Packet Pg. 39 3.B.a Current PROS Plan — 4 Sections 3. Action Plan • Recommended Projects and Initiatives • Prioritization 4. Funding Plan • Capital Projects • Ongoing Operational Impacts • Implementation Timeline • Funding Strategy • Funding Sources <9> Gucf 4. Afnfuruf Reavrrrcc end No6ftot Corrs•rvotio ,.A Inv .n -d rlac.ify na. 1 wcfnir .M heh —:.d M die perk orate 4A C•nduoan iMerrnauen re ,.� n��tt i Ed—da h ,A Co46orua o t•r4d�q �6r ,.E [Weeruc ,.,�n�• fie ��,y be rs�aM.D M.•i r.,. ,f P-v do ml�rmM= ,_C Srew .6e. pyk dk nbrmaeon ab ,li E•wer u.e. in rnaear .rc. u [o�s�d•. e= Ceedc HUU ineluaef Ne E Tablz 5-3: Irn lam¢ntatiott Ti-7m. layfleld as a City park rRedeveloping dmonds Marsh and dayligh t!ng Willow Creek arina Beach Park • Renovate the fishing pier 5-10 Years • Develop a sports field complex at the Former Woo dway High School In partnership with the School District • Acquiring/enhance Esperance Park • North -South and East-West bicycle and pedestrian connections across Edmonds Upgrade the Senior Center ears • Refresh the regional parks on the waterfront • Complete the waterfront path • Developing indoor aquatic center • Adding new parks to fill gaps In service Orkgoil Over the Life of This Plan • Expanding recreation opportunities at existing neighborhood parks, con•rr_rlty parts ancl school sites • In-pler-rer:ngthe 4';Avenue Cultural Corridor • F'nc:i_,ar,e;v waysto encourage local park use • Providing•: a rietyin programming at more park locations Integra:'ng art p-gects nto tl-e design and construction of improvements Packet Pg. 40 3.B.a Next Steps? PROS Plan Scope Input 5 City advisory groups Consultant Selection Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process Project Kick -Off <10� a e b y�� � a � r O N N Packet Pg. 41 3.B.a 2022 PROS Plan Scope and Focus Potential Focus Areas • Parks System/Facilities • Recreation Programs • Parkland Acquisition • Maintenance & Operations • Equity/Access • Other??? Discussion/Recommendations PROS Plan Advisory Group Representative a� �a a c a O 06 C 0 L c,> Y L a N O N O N 0 Co C a 0 fC C a c M IL O IL N N O N C E t V f0 Q Packet Pg. 42 3.B.a Questions/Comments? Packet-Pg. 43 3.B.b v EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES To: City of Edmonds Planning Board From: Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services CC: File Date: January 21, 2021 Re: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Presentation and Request for Plan Focus Recommendations Summary: The January 21, 2021 PROS Plan presentation to the Planning Board is to provide an overview of this planning project, solicit recommendations for the Plan's focus areas as well as recruit a Planning Board representative for the PROS Plan Advisory group. Potential Focus Areas For purposes of consideration and discussion, some identified possible areas of focus for the 2022 plan include: parks system/facilities, recreation programs, parkland acquisition, maintenance and operations, equity and access to programs and facilities. Staff is requesting recommendations from the Planning Board for areas of focus for the plan update. Feedback will be accepted during the January 27, 2020 meeting and for two weeks following the meeting. In addition, staff is requesting a Planning Board representative for the 2022 PROS Plan advisory group. It is anticipated this group will meet monthly, April through the end of the year. PROS Plan adoption is slated for February 2022. Background: The current 2016 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) plan which serves as a guide and strategic plan for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails and recreation opportunities in Edmonds is due for an update to reflect the ever - changing community needs and priority and remain eligible for grant funding. The PROS plan is a policy strategy guide providing goals and objectives, recommended initiatives and capital projects, and prioritization methods built on public process and also serves as a communication tool. The four primarily components of the current PROS plan consist of system need; system concept, goals and objectives; action plan and funding plan. Although elements of the Packet Pg. 44 3.B.b plan that are essential, focus areas can be determined on continually changing community priorities. System Need (Chapter 2) The system need is based on an inventory of city and other publicly owned parkland and recreation facilities, the related categorization, size, condition and amenities. This PROS plan also includes a Habitat inventory which identifies ecological diversity; marine environment, estuary, freshwater, upland areas native vegetation and forests and wildlife. Historically community level of service was based on acres per 1,000 population and this is included in the plan along with access and travel distances to parks and facilities, which is more relevant. System Concept, Goals & Objectives (Chapter 3) The system concept in the plan is to expand and connect recreation opportunities; capitalize on the unique identity of Edmonds; look forward to the big ideas that represent the future of Edmonds; and Steward and activate key community assets. The concept is supported by seven primary goals, each with objectives and related projects and initiatives. The goals are as follows - Goal 1: Lead collaborative efforts to fulfill the community's needs for park, recreation, and cultural services. Goal 2: Provide an interconnected park system that offers a wide variety of year-round recreation opportunities and experiences in harmony with Edmonds' cultural identity and the natural environment. Goal 3: Preserve and expand opportunities for public access and enjoyment of the shoreline in Edmonds. Goal 4: Preserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education. Goals: Provide recreation opportunities and experiences to promote a healthy, active and engaged community year-round. Goal 6: Provide arts and cultural opportunities and experiences to promote an engaged and vibrant community. Goal 7: Provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all parks and related public assets in Edmonds. Action Plan (Chapter 4 Packet Pg. 45 3.B.b Organized by goal are 86 recommended projects and initiatives along with implementation prioritization framework. These actionable items identify tasks that support the achievement of the plan goals. Funding Plan (Chapter 5) This section also includes a funding plan including a list of identified capital project and estimated cost which assist in the development of the Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and ongoing operational impacts. A related implementation timeline suggests priority short- and long-term projects. Included as well is a comprehensive collections of funding sources including city sources and options, grant opportunities and more complex approaches. History and Related City Planning documents There are a number of park and recreation plans, but the most recent include the 2008 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan, the 2014 PROS Plan and a related 2016 update, which is the current plan. Other plans related to this planning document include the 2009 Aquatic Study, 2014 Community Cultural Plan, 2019 Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) and the 2017 City's Comprehensive Plan. The PROS Plan is associated with the 2017 Comp Plan by reference. Packet Pg. 46 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/27/2021 Review of Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Review the Extended Agenda. Attachments: Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 47 oV 1014, Items and Dates are subject to change PLAHMNS BOARD Extended Agenda January 27, 2021 Meeting Item January, 2021 January 1. Discussion/Deliberation on Draft Amendments to City of Edmonds 13 Tree Codes (Tentative, if necessary) 2. Climate Goals Planning —Status Update and Discussion January 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Update 27 2. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Update Focus Recommendations February, 2021 February 10 February 24 1. Potential code amendment to allow unit lot subdivisions in the Downtown Business (BD) zones (File No. AMD2020-0003) 2. An interim Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled "Outdoor Dining," and a related section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC 1. Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging Packet Pg. 48 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Implementation / code updates implementing the UFMP 2020-21 2. Implementation / code updates implementing climate goals 3. Implementation / code updates addressing WA state roadmap 4. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners) 5. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates 6. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates 7. Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs) 8. Nonconforming buildings and redevelopment issues 9. Subdivision code updates 10. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 3. Joint meeting with City Council — March? 4. Development Activity Update 5. Joint meeting with EDC? Q Packet Pg. 49