Loading...
2018-05-09 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 9, 2018 Vice Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Nathan Monroe, Chair (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Board Member Lovell urged members of the public to read the minutes from the April 11' meeting where the draft Urban Forest Management Plan was presented to the Planning Board for discussion. He advised that the City Council would take all discussions into account, including the Planning Board minutes, when making a final decision. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2018 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director Report that was provided in the Board's packet. Board Member Lovell inquired if the City Council took action to approve a professional services agreement with a Homelessness Response Project Consultant. Ms. Hope reported that Kone Consulting was selected as the consultant, and work is moving forward. However, there are still some contract details that need to be worked out. Board Member Crank reported that Snohomish County recently implemented a Paine Field Airport Commission. She asked if a City Department will be watching this commission as meetings start to occur that pertain to Edmonds. Ms. Hope answered that her department has not been requested to follow the commission, but she will check to see if another department has been given this responsibility. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Activities Report, which was included in the Board's packet. He commented that the PowerPoint presentation provided in the Staff Report to illustrate 2017 development activity was interesting, and it was helpful to see photographs of what has been or is being built. Ms. Hope said she is pleased the Board found the information interesting and noted that there is a lot of development activity going on right now. She concluded that 2017 was a strong year for development in the City, with the most building permits ever issued in a single year. The Board requested that the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the public via the City's website, and Vice Chair Cheung noted that it could already be accessed via the Planning Commission's May 9' meeting agenda packet. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Mr. Shipley explained that the UFMP is intended to guide the management of trees in Edmonds, with a particular focus on trees on public lands (rights -of -way, parks, etc.). The plan includes a description of the value of trees, as well as information on tree management and the tree canopy in Edmonds. It provides a number of goals and objectives for urban forest management, including goals and objectives related to public education and outreach. He introduced the consultant, Ian Scott from the Davey Resource Group, who was present to provide an overview of the proposed plan. Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, explained that the long-range strategic goals provided in the plan are intended to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: • Tree Resources are the trees on both public and private properties. The Urban Forest Asset Goals are intended to improve the urban forest resources over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. • Municipal Resources include City staff from Development Services, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. The Municipal Resource Goals are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. • Community Resources include the tree board, volunteers and non-profit organizations. Community Resource Goals are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The Community Resource Goals are a key component to the success of the plan. Mr. Scott advised that the planning process for the draft UFMP included an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment, which provided a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds. The study identified an average tree canopy in Edmonds of 30.3%. If all areas with grass and other vegetation are included as possible locations for trees, the City has a theoretical maximum canopy of 57.4%. However, it is important to keep in mind that private owners control the majority of the tree canopy (83%), and there are currently few regulations to limit tree removal. Only about 13% of the existing tree canopy is on public lands, and the City has a very limited knowledge about the condition or number of these existing trees. Mr. Scott explained that the UTC project provides the City with new tools for planning into the future. The results were used to prioritize planting opportunities around the City and understand how to manage the forest fragmentation to benefit wildlife. Going forward, the City can better manage software tools such as UTRACE, which can help estimate how many trees need to be planted to affect tree canopy into the future and where these trees should be planted. The City can also start connecting its information about trees to the iTREE suite of urban forest software tools to uncover ways to optimize the environmental services provided by trees. He advised that the Priority Planting Analysis provided in the plan identifies an estimated 1,619 acres of priority tree planting space where trees could be planted to expand the urban forest canopy. However, a number of citizens have raised concern that planting trees in some of these locations could result in a loss of view. While view is an important consideration, other factors (i.e. steep slopes and wetlands) were also considered when identifying the probable high priority areas. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 2 Mr. Scott said concern has been raised about whether or not the iTREE software is applicable in Edmonds. However, at this point, it is the best available science available to look at the environmental service provided by trees. The software was developed by a consortium across the country and is used as a resource both nationally and internationally. As new and better science becomes available, the UFMP will allow the City to take advantage of this new information. Mr. Scott displayed a table which outlines the common urban forestry activities that a city might engage in. The table establishes a benchmark around how City staff currently spends its time related to each of the activities. Implementing the goals and objectives in the plan will likely require changes in these numbers, and the table will need to be updated as work is reprioritized into other areas and/or additional staff is added. He also shared a table outlining how the City currently spends money related to urban forestry. He summarized that in 2017, urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita or a total of $319,542. A minimum of $2 per capita is required in order for the City to maintain its Tree City USA status, and the national average is about $7.50 per capita. The 2017 numbers were higher as a result of the UFMP project, and the City's average in previous years was likely about $3.50. Mr. Scott said it is estimated that the urban tree canopy provides about $1.5 million in benefits to the City annually. That means for every $1 the City invests in urban forestry work, the community yields almost $5 in environmental benefits. The introductory section of the UFMP describes the benefits that trees provide. Cities with street tree inventories can be more specific about these benefits. In the absence of this information, the plan provides examples of the street tree species that are recommended in the City's Street Tree Plan. Some residents have requested that Douglas Fir and other large native trees be added to the plan. However, the focus of the UFMP is to help improve the City's management of trees and that is why it focuses on street trees. Mr. Scott advised that as far as community resources go, the City already has a Tree Board in place, and the City has obtained the status of Tree City USA. Another fundamental element of the plan is to encourage more partnerships and public engagement in the management of the urban forest. As the current tree canopy is significantly weighted towards private properties, partnerships and community outreach will be essential to move the plan forward in a unified direction. About 175 people responded to the community survey, and the majority of them were from the bowl area or other neighborhoods associated with a view. Most voiced concern about private property rights and how the plan might impact their ability to maintain their views. However, the goals contained in the plan are much broader than views and they allow freedom for private property owners to manage trees according to basic environmental rules, city requirements, and their own decisions. Mr. Scott said the public also voiced concern that the plan needs to have more science, and the goals called out in the plan are designed to provide this additional information. As they learn more about the City's urban forest, the plan can be updated accordingly. He emphasized that the plan is not meant to be a research document, but a planning document for the City moving forward. Mr. Scott specifically referred to Urban Asset (UA) Goals UA5 and UA8, which call for managing species diversity and encouraging tree species diversity. Because these goals are closely related, they were combined into a single, more -meaningful goal. He explained that a number of the Municipal Goals contained in the plan are designed to encourage better cooperation amongst the various City departments so that consistent decisions are made. Community Goal (C5) calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. However, it is important to understand that this program would be voluntary for interested property owners to get a tree recognized for its stature and significance to the community. One advantage of the program is that subsequent property owners would at least think about what made the tree so significant to the community before making a decision to take it down. Mr. Scott said another important aspect of the plan is that it establishes a foundation for adaptive management over the next 5 to 10 years. As the City implements, monitors and evaluates the goals over time, adjustments can be made to the strategies for implementation. The intent is that staff would provide routine reports moving forward, with additional community surveys to gauge the success of the plan's implementation. It is anticipated that new science will become available, and the City can establish better objectives to accomplish each of the goals based on this new information. Mr. Scott reviewed that the draft plan was presented to the Tree Board on April 5' and the Planning Board on April 11'. An open house was conducted on April 19t1i. Following the public hearing, the Planning Board will be asked to forward a Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 3 recommendation to the City Council. Revisions will be made to the plan based on community and Planning Board feedback, and the goal is to present it to the City Council for a public hearing and discussion starting in June. Ms. Hope observed that creating the draft UFMP has been a long process, and there are still some clean up work and additional background information that needs to be done. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed 21 goals represent a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of creating a tree inventory, getting organized, keeping track of tree conditions, etc. He asked if the City Departments responsible for this additional work have made plans for implementation or if they are waiting until after the plan has been adopted. Ms. Hope answered that representatives from the Parks, Public Works and Development Services Departments have all been involved in the process and provided detailed input relative to the proposed goals and objectives. Before the plan is presented to the City Council for approval, they are hoping to at least identify the estimated costs associated with implementing the goals and objectives. Some of the objectives can be implemented at little or no cost to the City, such as establishing interdepartmental relationships, but an actual inventory of trees on public lands will be a large project. If the plan is adopted, the City Council will look at the projects and identify priorities. The intent is to implement the plan in phases over time. Ms. Hite advised that, from a Parks Department perspective, the UFMP will be a foundational plan for the City going forward. She appreciates that the consultant has addressed the concerns raised by citizens to date as the plan is polished up. She observed that a number of residents have expressed their love for trees. The Parks Department loves trees, as well, and 348 new trees were planted in 2017. However, it is also important to keep in mind that only 13% of the tree canopy is located on public lands. The need for protecting and even increasing the tree canopy must be balanced with other environmental needs, as well as the budget, view protection and private property rights. There is a robust conversation happening in the community as the UFMP has been presented to the public, and she encouraged people to keep all perspectives in mind as they work to come up with a balanced approach that makes sense for the City. Ms. Hite commented that the goals identified in the draft plan are very ambitious. Short of regulating trees on private property, the plan gives some tools for the City to provide public education and try to influence behaviors. The City does not currently have this capacity. As the plan moves forward, perhaps the City could provide more funding for public outreach and education. The Tree Board does a great job with public education, including a new brochure, but the City could do a lot more. She summarized that the Parks Department supports the goals presented in the plan and believes they will go a long way to help maintain the urban forest. Regarding the proposed arborist position, she advised that the Parks Department recently supported a staff member to get certified to be an arborist, and she now works for the City in that capacity, performing tree evaluations on both private and public lands. While this is not an arborist-dedicated position, it is a value add for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the UFMP is a structure in which Edmonds can look at its urban forest canopy. A focal point of the plan is evaluating and assessing the existing tree canopy. Once this information is available, the City Council can decide if further action is needed in addition to what is already being done concerning trees and vegetation in Edmonds. A lot of items could be added to the plan, but perhaps the City is already addressing them and they just need to be finetuned. For example, there are industry practices associated with street trees to discourage conflict with sidewalks. These are practical standards that the City applies now, but providing an approved street tree list would clarify the issue further. Perhaps it is a matter of framing the information so it gets out to the community. Ms. McConnell said that, in the past, inappropriate street trees were planted. These trees are causing problems with the sidewalks and other infrastructure and need to be dealt with. The Engineering Department was hoping the UFMP would provide additional direction. While preserving and/or enhancing the tree canopy is important, it is also important to recognize that some trees are creating unsafe pedestrian conditions. These trees need to be replaced as part of the overall infrastructure goals. When development occurs on private properties, the City requires frontage improvements, and it may be necessary to remove some trees that are causing damage to existing infrastructure. When planting new street trees, it is important to consider the species, as well as provide a planting strip that is wide enough to accommodate the tree's future growth. The Public Works Department is working with the Parks Department to update the Street Tree Plan to address these types of issues. The UFMP will provide helpful guidelines for the overall City goals, and this will enable staff to work at a more detailed level to make sure the goals are implemented appropriately. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 4 Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that an approved Street Tree List could also be a valuable tool for private property owners to ensure that trees planted in neighborhoods meet the industry standard. She suggested that the benefits provided by the Street Tree Plan need to be better communicated to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig recognized that the City is already doing good things on behalf of trees and will continue to do so in the future. The UFMP will result in additional future actions. However, the focus of tonight's discussion is regarding the goals and policies in the draft plan. A specific action plan will be addressed at some point in the future after the UFMP has been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Hope referred the Board Members to the written public comments that were attached to the Staff Report and/or forwarded to the Board Members via email. Vice Chair Cheung confirmed that the Board Members received the public comments and read each one prior to the meeting. Board Member Crank referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. Having lived in a community that had a Heritage Tree Designation Program, she observed that a lot of work was required by staff to review petitions from private citizens who wanted to save significant trees that were deemed diseased and/or dangerous by an arborist. It would be good if the City's certified and licensed arborist could handle all of the cases. However, based on the number of petitions the City might receive, it may be necessary to have a full-time arborist on staff. Ms. Hope responded that the City has discussed the concept, but they are not ready to propose a specific program at this time. She agreed that some cities have done a good job, but other programs have resulted in a lot of hassle with little value. Mr. Scott explained that the method for evaluating the risk of a tree to cause injury or harm to individual properties has improved. For example, the risk assessment method approved by the International Society of Arbiculturists provides an objective method for evaluating trees. Board Member Robles asked about the City's method for allowing property owners to report on the condition of existing trees on their properties. He also asked how citizens interact with the City when they have questions about trees. Ms. Hope said that, typically, citizens either call or email City staff to report a concern or obtain additional information, and staff responds to each one. Ms. Hite added that her department gets quite a few calls and emails about trees in the parks, as well. She appreciates having the eyes of the citizens to help spot potentially hazardous situations and report them to the City. Board Member Robles commented that the City has a strong activist community regarding trees. He asked if the City has the capability to allow citizens to self -report tree assets and conditions on a centralized data base. Mr. Scott answered that work management software is available that allows citizens to self -report essential infrastructure, but trees are more difficult because they grow and appreciate over time. Because there is so much public interest in trees, software is available that allows people to look up trees to find out more information about them. This information could be made publicly assessible and potentially reduce the number of site visits needed by city officials responding to calls. Board Member Robles explained that there are ways, such as using a block change, which acts as a metronome that klicks off every data that goes onto the register. This concept could be used to the City's advantage to offer a token (a type of cryptographic coin) when private property owners report on their trees. Property owners could also earn tokens for preserving trees, and these tokens could be used when applying for permits in the future. Using this type of concept, the City could track trees and incentivize people to preserve them whenever possible. Ann Cade, Edmonds, said she missed the previous meetings where the UFMP was discussed because THE EDMONDS BEACON is delivered to her home on Thursdays, after the meetings had already taken place. She asked why a tree inventory is needed and what benefit it would provide to the City. She said her concern is not just about views, but about light and warmth. She does not want to live in a shoreline that is cold and void of sunlight as a result of too many large trees. She referred to a statement that was made at an earlier meeting, suggesting that other vegetation can provide similar benefits to those provided by tall trees. People can vegetate their yards and create oxygen exchange. While she considers herself to be a "tree hugger," she felt there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl. If the City wants to plant tall trees, she suggested that a strip of land adjacent to Edmonds Way would be a good location since they would not block views. Phyllis Becker, Edmonds, said she has lived most of her life in the Northwest. As any Northwesterner knows, the forest is the forest. The idea of an urban forest is an oxymoron. Forests have huge trees and existed in Edmonds 100 years ago. But now Edmonds is an urban center. She agreed with Ms. Cade that there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl area. She Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 5 felt that Douglas Fir and other large species are inappropriate in areas where view is a concern. These trees belong in the forest where they do better. There are millions of alternative species that could be planted that would not impact views. She said she currently has a small view that is precious to her and she would like it to be preserved. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, noted that this is the third time he has been before the Board to voice his concerns relative to trees. He agreed there is a lot to consider relative to views, but the Board should keep in mind that the majority of households in Edmonds do not have a view of the water. Most of the views people have are of trees, and trees are what brought him to Edmonds. He recalled that a few years ago, his neighbor cut down three huge Douglas Fir trees. While he previously could see only one neighbor from his deck, he can now see at least five homes. Removal of these trees directly impacted his property. Mr. Phipps commented that a lot of people love trees and the urban forest, and he suggested that Community Goal CI, which calls for establishing a tree bank, is the most important goal and key to answering the question of what tree canopy the City wants to have. Once this question is answered, the rest will follow. He said he hopes the City will choose to have a net gain in tree canopy and decide against allowing further loss. He noted that there are not many places to plant trees in the City, and he supports the recommendation of establishing a tree bank to avoid the controversy associated with views. As long as trees are planted somewhere in the Puget Sound basin, they would be environmentally beneficial to all. It does not necessarily have to take place in Edmonds. Almost 6% of the City's urban forest has been lost since 2005. It would be great if the City could require that a tree be planted for every tree that is chopped down to accommodate development. A tree bank program would allow the replacement trees to be planted outside of Edmonds where they won't impact views but would provide an environmental benefit. Mr. Phipps reminded the Board that 83% of the City's current tree canopy is on private property. Many cities have tree ordinances, including Lynnwood and Shoreline, that apply to private properties, too. Whether the City adopts a UFMP or a tree ordinance, it would be very important not to impact views from private properties. Tall trees should not be planted in the bowl area. He did not believe that the strip of land west of 9' Avenue on the west facing slope would be a politically viable place to plant large trees given concerns about view. That is why the tree bank concept is so important. Mr. Phipps voiced concern that development has resulted in wholesale logging of land. Once these forested areas are gone, they cannot be reclaimed. He would like the City's Parks Department to make a concerted effort to purchase more open space and forested land to preserve forever. The property east of Seaview Park (between Seaview Park and Perrinville) is a good example of forested land that should be purchased by the City and preserved. He also stressed the need for the City to acknowledge the problems that street trees have created. Injuries have occurred when people have tripped over sidewalks that were raised by tree roots. Some research needs to be done to determine not only the appropriate species, but also the best planting practices. For example, the City of Seattle uses a double grate approach. The first grate is placed at the root level, and the second a foot higher at the sidewalk level. This gives the roots of the trees space to grow without impacting the sidewalks. Eric Soll, Edmonds, referred the Board to a letter he submitted prior to the meeting. He advised that since he and his wife moved to Edmonds they have planted a number of trees on their property without the benefit of any government interaction or education. The tree population in the United States is increasing due to a number of factors outlined in his letter. Because of government legislation, more trees are being saved in other areas. A lot of development is taking place in Edmonds because the Growth Management Act has restricted development opportunities in rural areas. Because development is being pushed to the urban areas, trees in the rural areas are being saved. Mr. Soll emphasized that the Board and City Council do not operate in a vacuum. They just underwent the largest property tax increase in recent memory. In addition, the library measure failed in Snohomish County and only narrowly passed in Edmonds. Government agencies must realize that people are getting tapped out in terms of spending money, and they should concentrate on traditional city functions. He urged the City to recognize that the good times will not last forever, and they should work to establish a rainy -day fund for future needs. Lastly, he said he is fine with the idea of people establishing Heritage Trees on their properties, but he does not want the City to require him to do so on his property. Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, said he also submitted written comments prior to the meeting. He referred to Ms. Hite's earlier comment about the need for a balance between the environmental benefits of trees and views. For his job he writes environmental impact statements, which takes a wholistic analysis of environmental benefits, including a section on aesthetics. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 6 A very important part of the environmental impact statement is the scenic value, which quite definitely includes views. He said he was born and raised in Edmonds and moved back six years ago after spending time in a variety of other locations. Most recently, he lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where there are not a lot of trees. He moved back to Edmonds because of the benefit of trees to the aesthetics of the area, but also for the view. You can travel around the country and will not find a similar view in any of the lower 48 states. It is a unique resource that needs to be considered as part of any discussion about aesthetics. Mr. Dimmick voiced concern that the science contained in the draft plan is weak and does not reflect the unique character of Edmonds. He urged the Board to reject the plan and hold the consultant accountable to produce a real plan rather than a cut and paste plan from other jurisdictions. The Plan needs to have a scientific basis with transparent numbers that can be cross- checked. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for 50 years. While she agreed that most people love the view of the water that is available in Edmonds, she was present to speak on behalf of the eagles and herons that roost and feed in the beautiful evergreen trees. This iconic image is as precious to her as the view of the water, which she also enjoys. She said she is in favor of the City finding any way to preserve the existing evergreen trees, and she is also in favor of no net loss and would like to see some gain. She said there are 7 huge trees on her property of the species that has been referred to as inappropriate in an urban setting. She hires an arborist to inspect the trees every few years to make sure they are safe and healthy. These trees continue to thrive and provide a great service to wildlife, and they are an important part of Edmonds. Val Stewart, Bellevue, said she was a citizen of Edmonds for 30 years before recently moving to Bellevue, which is known for being a "city in the park." The City of Bellevue has proactively planted trees, similar to what is being suggested in the draft plan for Edmonds. Bellevue currently has a lot of trees that help improve the quality of life for its citizens, and the parks are amazing. Bellevue is four times the sizes of Edmonds in population and land mass, but they have a 67% tree canopy in their parks. By comparison, the City of Edmonds has only 13%. She said she was shocked to learn that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property. Ms. Stewart expressed her belief that the draft plan is well put together, but she is concerned that there is not enough focus on the northwest ecosystem, which is very specific. She advised that she started the Students Saving Salmon Group at Edmonds Woodway High School, and they do water quality testing and help educate home owners about native vegetation on the streams. It is important that the plan encourage native trees wherever possible in the urban forest. She noted that there are currently five dominant trees species in Yost Park, which is the only park that shows what a native ecosystem should look like. That is where she takes students to teach them about native ecosystems in the urban forests. Ms. Stewart suggested the plan should encourage home owners to plant native trees in their yards, and there are a number of species that are smaller in size to avoid issues with view. Planting native trees on private properties would help bridge the fragmented forests throughout the community for the benefit of wildlife. She said she lived in Edmonds long enough to see the tree canopy diminish over time. As trees have been cut down, the amount of wildlife has also diminished. If this continues, the children growing up in Edmonds will not have a connection to wildlife unless they go to a park. She agreed with the plan's emphasis on education and outreach to help local citizens see and understand the reasons to plant native trees where they can. Ms. Stewart suggested that the plan should make note of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program that received certification about 10 years ago after 104s of Edmonds residents certified their yards and made a commitment to provide food, shelter, water and a place for wildlife to raise their young. She suggested that this community effort needs to be revived, and this could help improve the canopy on private lands. Lastly, Ms. Stewart referred to a statement in the plan that "tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity. " It is important to understand that when a 100-year-old tree is taken down, it will take many human generations to replace its ecosystem function. Vice Chair Cheung closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Rosen thanked the residents for sharing their thoughts and concerns with the Board. Their comments are important and do matter, and the Board is listening. In listening to the public testimony and reading the written comments, it is clear that the public wants it all. They want to preserve views of water and trees, create biodiversity, protect and improve Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 7 water and air quality, protect property rights, and provide habitat for wildlife. They seem to like trees as long as they don't get in the way of anything. He commented that not all factors are equal, and the Planting Priority Analysis Map was created with the right perspective in mind. It was a noble effort to identify areas where trees could be planted to increase the canopy. Everyone can likely agree that they don't want houses to slide down the hillside, and this requires stabilization whether by trees or some other method. Board Member Rosen said he would advocate for increasing the tree canopy over a no -net -loss approach. He would encourage a more sophisticated goal setting specific to preservation. While this will be a heavy lift, the plan is a good place to start. The plan identifies a vision and strong goals and objectives to implement the vision, and course corrections can be made at every opportunity based on new information, changing conditions, etc. He felt the plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs stronger goals, and perhaps they could be stated differently. Additional scientific information is needed to clarify the problem and solutions. The plan speaks only about trees, yet there is a variety of vegetation that can help the City accomplish its goal. The need exists and it must be addressed or the consequences will be severe and significant. Board Member Lovell observed that implementing the goals and objectives called out in the plan will involve a significant amount of staff time. He agreed with Board Member Rosen that additional study is needed in some areas. There has been a lot of feedback with respect to narrowing the tree species down to be more applicable to the environment. Questions have also been raised about whether or not it is realistic to increase the tree canopy, and he is not sure there is a universal belief or understanding that the tree benefit calculations will actually work. He agreed with the finding that a tree inventory is needed to document the existing tree canopy. A number of people commented on the importance of view preservation, but it must be noted that there are more views than just of the water. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to preserve public views, which means they need to be careful what they plan for the view corridors. Board Member Lovell referred to Municipal Goal M6, which calls for creating a dedicated Urban Forest/Arborist staff position. He also referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. While they all understand it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the City to regulate what private property owners can and cannot do on their properties, there are things the City can do to educate about maintaining and planting trees. For example, would it would be possible for a full-time arborist to be on call to address situations where a private property owner wants to remove a tree that is blocking a view or is a nuisance? It seems like there should be a process and some type of inspection done by a professional to identify the appropriate way to handle the situation. Board Member Lovell observed that, typically, a development plan for multi -family residential development will take advantage of as much area as possible, and the tendency is to clear-cut the lot and then replant after development is finished. If the City is serious about preservation and the importance of maintaining the mature trees, there should be a process whereby each site is looked at with respect to the potential retention of trees. He also expressed his belief that the City should renew or bump up its efforts to address street trees that interfere with sidewalks and other infrastructure. Board Member Robles commented that risks and hazards are quite easy to manage if there are adequate standards in place. However, you must first identify the risk exposure, as well as the probability and consequences should it happen. This all starts with some form of inventory. It does not need to be a complete inventory; it could even be as sample inventory. They have a strong citizen base and people who are interested in trees but no way to receive their input. There are a lot of tools available to receive comments on a shared -data base and to incentivize certain behaviors. He cautioned that before the City considers additional regulations, it should try to incentivize desirable behaviors. Understanding technology is necessary to learn what is available, and he hopes the City can look forward rather than backward to take advantage of these new tools rather than creating additional regulations that end up infringing on private property rights. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the plan contains a set of facts and information, some of which came from other jurisdictions. The City Council will have to ultimately decide whether or not the facts are true and applicable to Edmonds. They must also decide if the current tree canopy is sufficient or not. Decisions need to be made about whether it is a serious enough issue to adopt the UFMP and preserve or increase the tree canopy. In the comments from the public, as well as the information presented in the plan and in the Staff Report, she particularly liked the following ideas: • Licensing companies providing tree cutting services to limit the scare tactics of storm damage control. • Providing incentives for private land practices to increase the tree canopy. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 8 • Overseeing a regulatory overhaul of the tree -related ordinances. This could include a review of the development regulations to increase the preservation of existing trees and reviewing the landscape provisions to promote improving and increasing the tree canopy. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other cities, such as Redmond and Kirkland, have used more stringent tree policies to successfully create larger tree canopies than what currently exists in Edmonds. Again, she said it will be up to the City Council to determine whether or not the plan contains the facts and describes the seriousness of what is taking place in Edmonds. She said she heard some very interesting points that are shaping her view a bit differently, and she appreciates the ability to see things from a variety of perspectives. Vice Chair Cheung commented that there are a lot of competing priorities to consider. Most people do not hate trees, and most do not cut them down for fun. Trees are typically cut down to accommodate development or because they are creating a hazard or causing damage to property. In addition to increasing the tree canopy, these other factors must be considered to ensure pedestrian safety and to protect properties and infrastructure. Most of the tree canopy is located on private property, and the City must balance the need to preserve trees with the need to protect private property rights. He said a number of large trees have been removed on private properties in his neighborhood over the last five years. One was growing into a home and damaging the structure, and another was covering the sidewalk and creating a dangerous situation. Again, heh said people usually have a reason for cutting down a tree. Education and guidance on how developers and property owners can build around a tree rather than remove it would be helpful. Perhaps the City could provide examples of how projects were accomplished without removing significant trees. Vice Chair Cheung cautioned that the City must be reasonable. It cannot put such strict regulations in place that developers cannot build in the City. He reminded the Board of ongoing discussions about the need for affordable housing and placing additional restrictions on development could be counterintuitive to this effort. He said he also has some concerns about how scientific the report is. He summarized that a lot of people are passionate about trees, and others are more passionate about views or development. They need to be respective of all and recognize there is not a clear solution. Hopefully, they can come up with a plan and goals and objects that balance all of these interests. Board Member Crank said the UFMP process has been an interesting experience for her, coming from living 16 years in a Tree City with a similar plan in place and seeing the spectrum of how community members respond to it to actually being on the side of creating and putting a plan in place. As the plan develops, she hopes that it will be user-friendly. Those who have weighed in on the issue to date have been more highly invested than the average homeowner will be. The everyday person will not spend as much time and energy to review the plan and see how it would apply to them. As the plan goes from draft to permanent, it is important that it be drafted to be as user-friendly as possible. The education process needs to be easy to understand and ideas need to be presented in a way that does not require a lot of time and energy to understand. It needs to be user-friendly to the majority of the City's population. Board Member Lovell asked about the next step in the process. Ms. Hope said they initially anticipated presenting the plan to the City Council, along with the Board's recommendation, on June 19', but this might not be possible. The Board is scheduled to continue its discussion on May 23'. In the meantime, staff will work with the consultant to update the plan and provide additional background information. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 9 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Cheung advised that the Board's May 23rd meeting agenda will include a continued discussion and possible recommendation on the draft UFMP, a discussion about the next steps on code updates to permit decision making, and an introduction of the draft housing strategy. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Student Representative Livingston commented that there are a lot of mature trees around the Edmonds Woodway High School and not a lot of space to plant new ones. It would be great if the existing trees could be retained. The Board received a lot of good comments from citizens about potential places to plant trees in Edmonds to enlarge the canopy. They are currently not at the maximum canopy, and there were a lot of good ideas about how it could be expanded. Board Member Robles commented that a lot of things are working well in the City, and he enjoys seeing it everyday as he works in downtown Edmonds. The new construction is very attractive. Board Member Lovell announced that he would attend the Economic Development Commission's May 161 meeting Board Member Crank announced that she was appointed to the Paine Field Commission Airport Commission. A tour of the existing facility is scheduled for June 1st, and the commission's first meeting will take place on June 2111. She said she looks forward to participating on the commission and reporting back to the Board on what is happening. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 10