Loading...
2018-04-11 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 11, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he supports a strong, aggressive and assertive Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). Deforestation is a worldwide problem, and he encouraged those interested to Google "worldwide deforestation" to see statistics to support this claim. He specifically referred to the World Wildlife Fund Report, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization Report and the Nature Conservancy Report. He commented that environmentalists like to stress the need to "think globally and act locally." The UFMP is the City's opportunity to do just that. He recalled that, last summer, he had the opportunity to place informational placards on downtown streets in Edmonds as part of the Citizens Tree Board. This effort made him realize how few tree -streets there are in Edmonds. The City could do much better planting trees on the public arterials. As a teenager, he moved from the Ravenna area in Seattle to Lake City (1970s). At that time, they were making the streets wider (2 to 4 lane roads). He specifically noted 15' Avenue NE and 125r' Street NE where planting trees was part of the street program. At the time, people made fun of the small, spindly trees that were planted, and a number of them were vandalized. However, the city kept replacing and maintaining them, and they now have magnificent tree -lined arterials. This occurred because someone had the foresight to insist that the trees be planted at that time. The UFMP is intended to be a long- range program, and it will take many decades for the fruits of their labor to be shown. Mr. Phipps voiced support for the tree bank idea. He has a problem when developers chop down all of the trees on a lot to start with a clean slate. The City needs to have a program in place that requires that every tree that was cut down during development must be replaced with another like tree. These trees could be planted in areas that would not block views or encroach on development, but they would provide the same environmental benefits. He suggested that the City should save open spaces as much as possible and create more parks. The open spaces are disappearing fast in Edmonds, and he is a proponent of planting more trees in our public parks. He summarized that he is in favor of an aggressive tree planting program in the current parks and on the arterial streets. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the written Development Services Director's Report. Board Member Lovell asked the name of the new Architectural Design Board Member. Ms. Hope agreed to provide that information after the meeting. Board Member Lovell said he missed the robust report on housing that Ms. Hope provided at the Board's March 281 meeting. He asked if the PowerPoint presentation is available for the Board's information. Ms. Hope agreed to pass this additional information on to the Board. She noted that staff is in the process of creating new a PowerPoint presentation that will be provided to the City Council next week. Board Member Lovell asked the next steps in the process of creating a Housing Strategy. Ms. Hope said her expectation is that a draft strategy will be available very soon, including input provided by the Board at their last meeting. A public open house will be held in May to present the draft housing strategy and accompanying data, strategies and ideas. The draft strategy will come before the Planning Board again for a work session and a public hearing, and then the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Rather than adoption by ordinance, the Housing Strategy will be a plan that sets out high-level strategies and goals. Board Member Lovell noted that potential strategies have come up in discussions that infer that zoning and/or code revisions will be needed. Ms. Hope agreed that some of the recommendations discuss code changes that might be needed later, but exactly how the code should be changed will be a subsequent discussion as part of the implementation stage. Chair Monroe noted that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) will be reviewing the ground floor requirements of the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone. He asked staff to talk about the process for this review. Ms. Hope said the EDC has raised concern that development has not occurred in some parts of the downtown because the ground floor height requirement is such that only two stories of development is possible. The EDC has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to consider potential changes to this requirement. If the City Council decides an amendment might be appropriate, the matter will be remanded to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. She emphasized that the City Council has not made any decisions yet, and the Council Committee that first heard the proposal suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission needs to weigh in on whether or not the proposal should move forward. INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Ms. Hope introduced Ian Scott from Davey Resources Group and Keeley O'Connell from Nature Insight. Although Davey Resource Group has been the lead consultant, the two have worked together as a group. She recalled that, overtime, there has been a lot of discussion in the City about trees and potential ordinances and policies that address trees on both private and public property. The consultants are present to present the draft UFMP. She noted that Board Members were provided a link to the draft plan, itself. The process will provide opportunities for public input as the plan moves through the process, and they would welcome the Board's input, as well. Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group, commented that the UFMP is still in draft form, and they are still having dialogue with the City about how to best present the priority of the goals and the associated cost levels. He explained that the plan was divided into three key elements, which he described below: 13% • Tree Resources. Mr. Scott advised that an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment was performed to determine that there was an approximately 30% tree canopy covering the City. When looking at the potential, perhaps some of the existing areas of grass and vegetation could become trees to create a potential tree canopy of 57%. Board Member Lovell asked if there is information in the plan for how the City could get to the 57% canopy, and Mr. Scott said no. It is based on the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, looking at the existing tree canopy, as well as areas of grass and vegetation. Some small elements of the percentage have been excluded, so the number does not quite equal a cumulative of the two; but it does put a bookend on the amount of canopy the City could potentially have. Board Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 2 Member Lovell said that, in theory, if the City were to convert all grass and vegetation to tree canopy, they could reach a total of 57%. Mr. Scott agreed, but commented that would be a tall ask and only identifies the maximum possible. The numbers were intended to provide a place to start the conservation. Mr. Scott advised that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property (83% residential and 4% commercial). When the City looks at what it can actively do to manage trees, it can most directly impact the 13% on public property. There are limited resources to influence the remaining tree canopy. However, the goals in the plan address opportunities to influence both private and public property. Mr. Scott said that, using the assessment, they were able to prioritize planting opportunities throughout the City. Because the assessment was a spatial exercise, the scale ranges from very low to very high. For example, the red areas were recommended as high value planting locations based on relationship with wildlife functionality, the urban heat dial -in effect, and proximity to impervious surfaces. These are areas the City can look at to reduce forest fragmentation and have a focus on where to plant trees. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that most of the red area is located on the downslope along 9t1i Avenue where a lot of trees have been removed. Mr. Scott advised that slope was not a factor in the priority planting map. Board Member Rubenkonig asked for more information about the terms "migration" as it relates to the wildlife habitat corridor. Mr. Scott said the wildlife habitat corridor is one of the important elements to an urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the City's creeks flow west, and she questioned what creek wildlife would be following in this corridor, which runs north/south. Mr. Scott clarified that the red area identifies potential locations where trees could be planted to become canopy and does not necessarily relate to a stream corridor. In addition to significant public concern, the Tree Board identified this area as a place where view is an issue. It is not the intent to say that trees must be planted in this location. However, the City should consider these locations if they want to get the most value out of the environmental services that can be provided by trees. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that this is an area where a significant number of trees have been removed to preserve and/or create view (top of 91 Avenue and Emerald Hills) and now this report provides a fiscal cost to the City of the loss of said trees which reduce stormwater management costs. Mr. Scott advised that, in addition to the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, the consultant has prepared a cost estimator, which is software his company developed as a way to provide clients with an estimate of how many trees may need to be planted in order to modify the existing canopy. He will work with the City to provide more information about how to establish planting goals in the future. Mr. Scott pointed that a number of other cities have done advanced exercises in inventorying trees, and this will be addressed in the set of goals contained in the draft UFMP. However, the City has very limited documented knowledge about its urban forests. The Urban Tree Canopy Assessment provides a solid baseline. Municipal Resources. Mr. Scott advised that the consulting team talked to a variety of staff members throughout the course of the project. He referred to the table that was created to look at a variety of City services, ranging from permit intake, to parks and maintenance activities, and even Tree Board activities. They came up with an estimate of how much time a typical staff member might be engaged in these activities and services in any one week. The intent is to create a benchmark in the document for going forward with goals to provide an increased number of services relating to urban forestry. Currently, the bulk of the energy seems to be within the parks and public tree maintenance (40-60 hours per week). Mr. Scott advised that in 2017, the City spent an estimated $7.74 per capita on urban forest management. This is well above the Tree City USA designation requirement of $2.00. It's also above the national average of $7.50. However, through this process, they discovered that a large amount of this budget is founded on principles of reactive management. The City's current management strategy relies on citizens to contact the City, followed by a City inspection, and then the City spends money to deal with problems. With a proactive management approach, a citizen could contact the City and the City could refer to its existing data base to learn more about a tree and advise the citizen about the plan for addressing the problem. The proactive management approach lends itself to a budget that is also proactive. Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 3 Chair Monroe asked what "volunteer activities" entails. Mr. Scott answered that this includes park programs and City contributions to tree planting projects. The bulk of the 348 trees planting were accomplished via community projects. Ms. Hope added that the City provided trees for planting projects, and it also provides some funding for the Tree Board and tree planting events. City staff also helps with the volunteer activities. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the number of trees removed represents those that were removed on a contractual basis. She noted that the removal cost per tree is roughly $1,500. Mr. Scott said most is contracted tree removal work, as the City does not maintain a bucket crew for tree removal. He noted that the budget and financial information was collected and presented to the National Arbor Day Foundation for the Tree City Grant application. Mr. Scott advised that the estimate of benefits comes from the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. The City's expenditure of approximately $300,000 per year provides about $1.5 million in estimated benefits from trees. That means that for every $1 the City spends, they receive about $5 in environmental service and benefit from trees. This attests to the value of service that trees provide to the community. He referred to the introductory elements of the plan, which describe the benefits of trees. The intent is to help the City recognize, in more formal language, that trees are important to the community. It gives foundational strength to the plan, itself. Chair Monroe said it seems difficult to get a dollar value for the benefit. Mr. Scott agreed but said it has gotten easier. He explained that his company uses a suite of software tools that are based on scientific models and developed by the Department of Agriculture. This information is now more accessible, and it is easier to do the math behind how a tree provides its benefits. He said if the City were to have a full inventory of the City -owned trees, the environmental services and benefits could be more specific. But the Tree Canopy Assessment at least gives them a place to start talking. Community Resources. Mr. Scott said the City has an active Tree Board, and they have achieved Tree City USA Status. He has also heard of projects being conducted in partnership with Earthcorp. The plan introduces other non- profit resources that the community can engage with. These include the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forterra, the Municipal Research Service Center, Futurewise, and the University of Washington. Connecting with these various resources and agencies that have the same agenda for having a sustainable urban forest in Edmonds is something that a strong plan should have. Cities can leverage these relationships and they can be a source of funding, human resources, advocacy, etc. Mr. Scott advised that an open house was held and community surveys were launched in May and June of 2017 to collect feedback from City residents. About 175 people responded to the survey, with 40% from the downtown bowl, 15% from Seaview, and 29% from other neighborhoods. This public engagement is critical to the success of the plan and will continue. From the public feedback to date, they learned that people find the trees to be valuable primarily for the air quality and wildlife benefits. Although stormwater measures high, it is not necessarily recognized as an important value. However, people care about the quality of the air and believe that trees beautify the City. One key thing the City could do to satisfy public interest is maintain its current level of service. Many people expressed satisfaction, in general, with the level of service the City provides. However, a priority effort should be made to take care of hazardous trees and keep the parks and streets reasonably safe. Planting more trees in public spaces is a high priority item from a public perspective, and there was strong support for limited regulation of trees on private properties. Many felt the City could improve its on -site resources and public outreach to help people learn to be good stewards of the trees they own and care for. Using all of this information, Mr. Scott said the consulting team and staff came up with a set of goals for each of the three elements. However, they are all interrelated. This allows the City to work towards multiple goals at the same time. He reviewed the goals as follows: • Tree Resources. The main theme behind the Urban Forest goals is to get more information about the Urban Forest asset, itself. You can't manage what you don't know. Getting more awareness of where to plant trees and the correct species diversity are important. In the plan, it codifies that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment should be done every 10 years. The plan emphasizes planting the right trees in the right places and planning and proactively managing tree removal. It is also important for the City to know where it is losing trees in the coming years through general mortality. Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 4 • Municipal Resources. Mr. Scott said these goals are designed around improving leadership and alignment of objectives in the City. There are currently three different departments in the City that touch trees: Community Development, Parks and Public Works. One of the key parts of these goals is to encourage the City to establish an inter -departmental working team so that their municipal forestry efforts are all aligned towards the plan and its goals. Other actions and outcomes include establishing tree inspection cycles and providing some consistency in tree management decisions. Chair Monroe referred to Goal M-8 and asked how the current regulatory framework would be changed and why. Ms. Hope said the City has long recognized a need to update the regulations. Tree regulations have been scattered throughout different parts of the code, and there are better ways to bring them all together. They have learned new information and new terminology that needs to be incorporated, as well. She emphasized that the proposed plan is not intended to be an ordinance or code. Therefore, it will not say exactly what should happen. However, it is also clear that the current codes need to be updated as they pertain to trees. Goal M-8 basically says they need to update and clean up the code and incorporate the proper terms, but it does not say they will make dramatic adjustments to the code requirements. Mr. Scott added that the intent is to update the code to incorporate best available science. It is important to update codes to stay current with knowledge, and this is also a key element of any long-range plan. Chair Monroe summarized that the first step would be to survey what they are doing now and understand where the holes are. Board Member Lovell recalled that when the Board reviewed proposed code changes relative to trees a few years ago, the crowd became agitated. This plan was not acceptable to either the City or the residents. At that time, it was agreed that an UFMP was needed before considering any changes to the codes and regulations. The code amendment process was terminated at that point, and the City engaged a consultant to prepare a draft UFMP. He summarized that the UFMP is just a plan. If the City Council decides that code changes might be appropriate, that process will follow. However, the need should spring from the UFMP. Chair Monroe asked if the consultant has done an inventory of the City's current tree regulations. Ms. Hope said they know where the regulations are and something about them, but they haven't reviewed them to identify exactly what needs to be done. That will be part of the next step. Mr. Scott noted that Goal M-5 is similar to M-8 and calls for updating the Street Tree Plan. This makes it clear that the City should routinely update all of its policies, codes and plans. • Community Resources. Mr. Scott advised that community goals are designed to strengthen partnerships between the City, non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, etc. The goal is to provide a foundation for these groups and organizations to participate in urban forest management in the City. The City has received positive feedback on the establishment of a tree bank fund. One of the common challenges is that when cities obligate developers to replant trees on properties, they don't have the room for them. Creating an avenue where the trees can be planted somewhere else or a mitigation fund where trees can be planted in other locations is a high value goal in the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig cautioned that Mr. Scott expressed the viewpoint that it is up to the developers to decide when and where trees will be planted. Whereas, in most jurisdictions, the area where trees need to be planted is set aside before the lots are ever created. She said she does not believe the plan is intended to imply that it will be up to developers to decide whether to plant trees or pay money into a fund. The City's regulations address tree protection requirements in several places, but the staff and community have raised questions about whether the language is consistent, clear and adequate. While she would value a tree bank, she is more interested in addressing this concern. Mr. Scott said the community has also expressed interest in developing a Heritage Tree Designation as a way for the community to recognize important trees in the City. Again, he said the goals in this section are intended to strengthen partnerships within the City so that urban forestry is properly funded and the objectives can be obtained. Mr. Scott explained that once the UFMP has been adopted, it is expected to have a 5 to 10-year cycle before it needs to be revised again. It is always meant to be a long-term vision. The plan indicates an end date of 2048, but that is farther than initially intended. This will be corrected in the draft. It is supposed to be forward thinking for the next 20 years, with the expectation that the City will implement annual action strategies and monitor how things are going via urban forest reports. Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 5 Yearly updates could be coordinated and provided by the inter -departmental group, and the Tree Board could report its progress, as well. Community satisfaction surveys should also be conducted to evaluate how the plan is doing, identify what elements are popular, and then make adjustments. The action strategies identified currently in the plan are suggested actions to meet the plan goals, but new information may come to light through routine inspections of trees or an assessment of one of the parks. As this new information becomes available, the plan should be updated accordingly. Mr. Scott said the draft UFMP was presented to the Tree Board on April 5', and an open house is scheduled for next week to introduce the plan in a public forum and answer citizen questions. The public hearing process will begin in May, followed by revisions to the plan prior to presenting it to the City Council in June. Board Member Lovell referred to a memorandum he sent out to the Board with his notes from the Tree Board meeting that he attended. He said one of the key points made at that meeting was that before any revisions are made to the plan, there needs to be a public discussion at the Council level. Ms. Hope clarified that it was suggested that no substantive changes be made to the plan prior to City Council review. At this time, they are not talking about substantive changes. The revisions going forward are intended to clean up the language, provide additional photographs, correct data, and make some technical adjustments. They are not proposing changes that would alter the recommended goals and actions. Board Member Lovell asked if the draft UFMP would be updated to incorporate feedback from the Planning Board and Tree Board. Ms. Hope answered no, unless a correction needs to be made. This presentation is intended to introduce the Board to the draft plan and give them a chance to ask clarifying questions as they begin to formulate their thoughts. The Board will conduct a public hearing to solicit comments from the public, and the public will also be invited to provide feedback at the open house. Following these public opportunities, the Board will make a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell emphasized that the City Council does not want any substantive changes made to the plan prior to their discussion. Ms. Hope agreed that one Council Member made that point. It has been her intent, as well, to not make any substantive changes to the goals and actions until the City Council has had an opportunity to view the plan. However, that does not mean the Planning Board cannot provide feedback along the way. Board Member Lovell said he does not have a clear understanding of the map that illustrates areas of priority planting. The map labels the priority levels as relating to potential acres of planting. The red area, indicated as very high priority, is 383.6 acres. Does that mean there are no trees there now so there is a great potential to plant more trees? Mr. Scott answered that all of the areas that are colored purple and red are areas where there are currently no trees. According to the data, these are eligible planting sites. Board Member Lovell also referred to the illustration depicting land cover and asked if the plan contains verbiage that explains why there are such heavily forested areas remaining in the City now, such as South County Park. Mr. Scott answered no. The illustration just indicates what is currently there based on the 2015 aerial imagery. Board Member Lovell said he visited the Edmonds Museum to do some research relative to trees in the City. There are several publications and an archive of historic photographs. For the first half century (1887 to 1950), a process of denuding the entire bowl took place as trees were harvested to create wood products. The map of existing forested areas makes it clear to him that, historically, loggers may have made these areas off limits or determined they were too difficult to access. From 1950 forward, the City expanded in population, industry, infrastructure, etc. and there were definite historic moves to acquire more upland area towards the east in order to preserve denuded slopes from erosion. He suggested it would be helpful for the public to have a better understanding of how the City got to its current situation relative to tree cover. He said he heard there was a period of time when the City was denuded of trees and someone decided to plant a bunch of Douglas Firs along the streets. Now they have monstrous trees which create a canopy, but also block views. Again, he suggested this is an element of the City's history that the public should be aware of. Mr. Scott cautioned that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment does not tell you about the quality and condition of the forest. The bigger next step is to get a better understanding of that. The UMFP does include a brief history of urban forestry and a history of the City, but it does not go into that level of detail. He explained that there are a lot of aging alders in some of the remaining forested areas, as well as over -mature trees that provide canopy currently but are falling apart. There are younger trees coming up to replace them through natural processes, but knowing what is at risk from development or mortality is a big next step. Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 6 Board Member Rubenkonig asked that the parks be identified on all of the maps included in the plan. The report speaks of the five parks, but the public needs to be able to see the parks on each of the maps. Mr. Scott said they prepared the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment prior to the UFMP, and the assessment map results provide more detail. He reminded the Board that the maps are available in GIS now for the City to overlay against any other kind of City demographic. This is a high value for the product. Chair Monroe referred to Table 2, which lists the common and scientific names, as well as the overall benefits of the trees. He said he looks forward to going to www.treebenefits.com to learn more about how they came up with the numbers. He noted that many of the trees on the list are not really common in Edmonds. Mr. Scott said the list came from the City's Street Tree Plan, which lists the trees the City recommends for use in the rights -of -way. Others have also suggested that the list should include Douglas Fir, Big Leaf Maples, etc., but these would not necessarily be planted in City rights -of -way. The list was meant to provide examples to illustrate that there are benefits to trees. Once the City has an inventory, a future UFMP could list the specific benefits of the top species of trees in the City. One message the list conveys is that bigger trees provide more value and making room for big trees in the community is something people should aspire to do. Ms. Hope added that this could be a potential implementation step. The list is meant to provide a big picture. They need to provide more outreach to the community to remind people about the value of trees. Vice Chair Cheung noted that the tree valuations were calculated based on a tree size of 13-inch caliper. He asked about the typical size of a newly planted tree. Mr. Scott said most often, trees purchased from a nursery have a 2-inch caliper. Vice Chair Cheung asked how long it takes for a tree to reach a 13-inch caliper. Mr. Scott answered that it depends on the species, but it could be 10 to 15 years. Vice Chair Cheung said he assumes that a 2-inch caliper tree does not offer anywhere the benefit of a 13-inch caliper tree. It will take 10 to 15 years before the benefit of the larger tree will be replaced. He asked if it is possible to calculate the immediate effect. Mr. Scott advised that the National Tree Benefit Calculator calculates the value based on zip code, diameter and species of tree. Ms. Hope cautioned that including the tree value information in the plan is not intended to provide exact numbers. The intent is to illustrate that trees not only have aesthetic value, but they also have practical value. For example, if trees can perform some of the stormwater infrastructure or provide shade so that air conditions can be used less, they have some tangible economic value. Board Member Crank requested more information about the public open house, and Ms. Hope answered that it will be held in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall on April 19' from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. A press release was issued earlier in the day, and she will make sure the notice is forwarded to the Planning Board, as well. Board Member Crank asked if there would be public outreach opportunities in other neighborhoods outside of the bowl. Ms. Hope said nothing is planned at this time, but they will give it some thought. She noted that it requires staff time and consultant participation, and the City's budget is limited. Board Member Crank observed that the UFMP would impact the entire City, yet some people in outlying neighborhoods may not be able to attend a downtown open house or participate in the on-line survey. Board Member Rosen asked for a reference point to indicate whether the City's current 30.3% tree canopy is good or bad. Mr. Scott said the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment provides a reference to other cities nearby that have completed a similar exercise. American Forest used to advise that every city should pursue a 40% tree canopy as a goal. However, they have since stopped because there was no rationale to support the goal. You want to set a canopy goal that makes sense for your community. They are currently doing a similar project with the City of Sammamish, which has a 48% tree canopy. It is really up to the City to identify the tree canopy it eventually wants to have. Ms. Hope added that it depends on the City's geography and patterns, as well. Some cities have large lots that are spread out and others are much more urbanized. Board Member Rosen observed that the answer to this question could have a real motivation on what people are willing to do. Understanding where we are is okay, but it doesn't really help in terms of a reference point or an ideal. He encouraged them to be bold in coming up with a goal based on geographic needs and aspirations as opposed to continuing to maintain the status quo. Ms. Hope said it will be important to identify exactly what it means to have a goal and what they will do about it. For example, would a 45% tree canopy goal require that they eliminate all upland views and replace all of the grass playfields with trees? Would they have to require that everyone plant trees in their yards whether they are wanted or not? Before choosing a goal, they must carefully consider whether it is realistic. Board Member Rosen commented that is how cultural change happens. For example, they now recycle because they decided it is worth the benefit. Ms. Hope agreed but cautioned that the goal must be realistic. In addition to setting a goal, they must also identify a means for obtaining the goal. It requires a balancing act. Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 7 Board Member Rosen noted that the draft plan is very robust, and he understands its implementation will be a marathon rather than a sprint. Given all that is included in the plan, he asked the staff and consultant to identify the three highest priority goals. Mr. Scott answered that inventorying all of the publicly -owned trees should be a high priority for the City, both for the liability they carry and because it is the easiest place to gain knowledge about the condition of the City's trees. The assumption in the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment is that if they protect the trees, the canopy will stay. However, trees also die from natural mortality. Change is going to happen, and it is good to know the condition of the existing trees, as well as what needs to be done to maintain them. He suggested the shortest step to the tree inventory would be to have City staff begin to formally document the condition of trees. Because 83% of the urban forest is on private property, Mr. Scott suggested that public outreach goals are critical to raise awareness of how to best manage trees. For example, citizens need to be made aware that activities such as tree topping is harmful to trees. While people are free to do what they want with their own trees, with better understanding, they may choose not to do things that harm them. Board Member Rosen commented that, regardless of the various reasons, trees will continue to die and/or be removed. Does the plan identify what the annual turnover rate should be in order to maintain the existing tree canopy? Mr. Scott said it will depend on the size of trees planted and getting a stronger sense of the mortality rate. With the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and the City having knowledge of what properties have already been developed, it can identify where the highest risks of development are. The strength of the UFMP will come from increasing the City's knowledge of the asset, itself. Board Member Rosen observed that, as reflected in the conversation, there is a lot of interest about price tags and the return on investment. Trees have a huge value, and it helps to demonstrate all the other rolls that trees play and that they do to offset real costs. However, having done a lot of work on conservation education and social change, it can also become more about "what's in it for me." Adding a price tag to trees can take them out of the category of being a community value. For example, some people can afford to water yards regardless of how short the water supply is. It's a double-edged sword that has bitten us in the past because it is hard to go back. He cautioned that this approach has tremendous value, but it has hurt other conservation efforts in the past. Mr. Scott appreciated Board Member Rosen's observations. Board Member Cloutier observed that it is not likely that anyone will want to plant a fir tree in the areas identified in red on the map because they are view corridors. It will always cost the property owner far more than the benefit derived from the tree. The question is how the City can meet them halfway. For example, could the UFMP include trees that are smaller than full size. While large trees create a good canopy, the underbrush, small bushes and fruit trees can still provide shade, a little bit of water retention, and some wildlife protection. Although these other options do not provide the full scope of having Alders all the way up, that is not going to happen in the view corridors. Instead of giving up, they need to come up with a mitigated plan for these areas. Mr. Scott recognized this concern, as well. He suggested that the City utilize the U-Trace software to model how much canopy could be created if they only planted small trees in the high -priority areas. He said the consulting team would work with City staff to create the bookends. However, this will be part of the action strategies rather than documented in the plan. If they want no net loss, they must learn more about mortality rates and how change is happening in the existing forested areas and then set the objectives. Board Member Cloutier suggested the plan will need to be explicit about how to handle areas where view is of primary concern. For example, he lives in a house with a view. While he loves trees, he doesn't want a tree in his backyard that blocks his view. He will plant small things instead, which is better than nothing. It is important that the plan identify a way for property owners to do that. Board Member Lovell reminded the Board of the Comprehensive Plan policy to preserve public view corridors and suggested that the UFMP must be congruent with that policy. Ms. Hite agreed and said she intends to review the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to make sure the UFMP is consistent. Mr. Scott added that the UFMP is meant to sit under the Comprehensive Plan and should be aligned with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is pleased with the direction the City is heading to create a UFMP. However, she is concerned that, in the three years since the public hearing on the Tree Board's recommended tree plan, 10 trees in her small neighborhood of nine lots have been removed. This has compromised her grove of trees, and she no longer has a wind screen Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 8 from the east, south or west because evergreens have been taken down. Only one tree has been replanted. She is unhappy about this for many reasons. Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that when the City decided to move forward with a UFMP, one of the first premises made was that most of the relief that could be found in increasing the tree canopy is on private land. Some of the goals that have been presented in the plan support that premise. She appreciates that the plan points out that there is an economic cost to the City of having no trees, and that the plan provides some economic numbers for what these costs might be. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the UFMP is a great report, and they have a lot to work with. She looks forward to future hearings; and hopefully, the public will weigh in, as well. The UFMP is necessary. Until they look at the public land, they really can't look at best management practices for private land. Mr. Scott said the UFMP may not work in all neighborhoods, but perhaps the City could have a program that provides trees for private property owners to plant on their lands. Having a UFMP in place will also help the City become eligible for grant funding to support programs of this type. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that they are moving in the right direction. She wants the tree canopy to increase, and she would like to have a figure to target. However, she recognized that this will have to come later. At this time, they need to establish the facts to support efforts going forward, and the draft UFMP does just that. Vice Chair Cheung said most people appreciate trees, but there is concern when talking about regulating trees on private property. Given that 83% of the tree canopy is located on private property, he suspects many people will become concerned if the City attempts to regulate trees on private property. It is important to recognize that the areas of greatest influence are going to be on private property. However, rather than telling private property owners what they can and can't do with the trees on their properties, the City should focus on education efforts that encourage people to maintain their existing trees and plant new trees. He said he does not believe that the cost benefit information contained in the plan will have a significant impact on a property owner's behavior. The plan should provide specific information about the tangible benefits of trees on individual private properties. Mr. Scott said the plan explores the concept of requiring business licenses for arborists and working with people who do tree cutting in the City. A lot of other cities have codes that slow down the cutting because a homeowner is required to get a permit first. Having these additional requirements would affect change and encourage good stewardship of trees on private property. Ms. Hope said another idea she discussed with the consultant is making sure that arborists and tree removal companies clearly understand the City's regulations. This could help prevent some of problems that come from random tree cutting. Vice Chair Cheung questioned how the desire to have more trees will influence the City's ability to provide affordable housing options, which is another issue the Board is currently working on. While the UFMP might help save trees, it might also result in increased housing prices in certain areas where tree preservation is required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that a discussion on potential code amendments related to permit decision making is tentatively scheduled for April 25'. Mr. Lien indicated that he will not likely be ready to move this discussion forward at the next meeting, but it should come before the Board in the near future. Chair Monroe asked Mr. Lien to work with Mr. Chave to determine if there are other agenda items for the April 25' meeting or if it should be cancelled. Board Member Lovell noted that the extended agenda identifies a public hearing on the draft UFMP on May 91, and the intent is to solicit input and feedback for the consultant. He voiced concern about moving forward with the public hearing given the comment from Council Member Buckschnis at the Tree Board meeting about the need for the City Council to review the draft plan before any changes are made. Mr. Lien emphasized that no substantive changes would be made to the plan based on public and Board feedback, but that does not mean the Planning Board cannot make recommendations relative to potential substantial changes the City Council should consider when the plan is presented to them. Board Member Lovell suggested that one of the major areas of concern in the plan will boil down to what kind of influence the plan and potential outgrowths from the plan will have on private property owners. These elements hung up the last proposal, and the same thing could occur again if they aren't careful. He asked for suggestions about how the plan, as it currently exists, can help facilitate a smoother transition or provide provisions for private properties. Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 9 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the March 215t Economic Development Commission meeting. At the meeting, Heartland, the consulting firm hired to complete the Five Corners Feasibility Study, made the same presentation that was provided to the Planning Board in February. The Commission will recommend to the City Council that the Five Corners Subarea Plan go forward. A Commission subgroup reported that a memorandum to the City Council is currently being prepared to recommend that the City look for alternative locations for civic facilities so that current facilities in the bowl area can be made available for higher economic uses. The Commission agreed that a lot of robust community involvement and study will be needed before any changes can be made. Also at the meeting, there was a short report that was recently made to the City Council regarding the economic impact and contribution of art to the City and community. The report has been deemed positive, and a steering committee has been formed to move to the next step of having the City designated as a creative district. In the roundtable discussion at the end, Port Commissioner Bruce Faires talked about the upcoming season of Puget Sound Express, a whale watching operation that is home ported at the Edmonds Marina. He reported that the business has grown significantly, and Puget Sound Express has invested in a new and larger boat that will also be moored at the Edmonds Marina. Commissioner Faires invited the Economic Development Commissioners to share their ideas for how the whale watching operation could be made a permanent economic element of the City. One idea is to set up a viewing facility with educational displays for people waiting to get on the boat. Another idea is to work with the retail and restaurant community to create a brochure that offers discounts to Puget Sound Express customers. The Port is interested in hearing other ideas, as well. He advised that he plans to attend the April 181 meeting, too. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there has been any discussion about using a type of green fuel, such as bio-diesel, for the new vessel. Board Member Lovell answered that the vessel would use diesel fuel. He shared some of the details of the new boat. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the Port plans to approach parking problems associated with all of the customers. Board Member Lovell answered that parking was not part of the discussion. However, the Port is studying the potential of entering into a development agreement to construct a parking garage on its property, but the discussions are in the early stages. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning Board Minutes April l 1, 2018 Page 10