Loading...
2021-02-02 City Council - Full Agenda-27801. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o Agenda Edmonds City Council V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 2, 2021, 7:00 PM DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021 2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Edmonds City Council Agenda February 2, 2021 Page 1 3. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Kathleen Barrett and Raphael & Marieka Miller PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment (45 min) 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. Recognition of Housing Commission's Work (10 min) 2. Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel" as a Permitted Use in the CW Zone (30 min) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda February 2, 2021 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/2/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 01-26-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES January 26, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 6.4, Council Code of Conduct, be removed from the Consent Agenda and added to Unfinished Business as Item 7.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marlin Phelps said he was making audience comment to warn the people of Edmonds about the affiliation with the Western District of Washington FBI. When he learned in 2015 what he being set up for, he began an email campaign to CNN.com which was the anthesis for a podcast by the president of CNN.com and former U.S. Attorney about the murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Wells, a coverup. Episode 3 details Scott Lee Kimball. He encouraged the Council to watch it, it takes less than 10 minutes to learn what the FBI and the Western District of Washington is truly capable of. Scott Lee Kimball, while being paid by the FBI, murdered four people. The podcast doesn't say that he pled guilty to those murders in a court of limited jurisdiction in Bolder County, Colorado and likely is not in prison. He encouraged the Council to understand what the FBI and people affiliated with FBI are capable of doing. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ROBERT SCARR AND ERIK MORRISS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is the employment agreement that she referenced at the last Council meeting that addresses compensation for Acting Chief Lawless. The current policy does not provide him a step increase and only provides 5% over his base wages. He is topped out in his normal salary and is not due to receive a step increase. The employment agreement would provide him a step increase in the Police Chief wage range where he is currently placed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the date that Acting Chief Lawless was appointed Interim Chief. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered his current interim appointment ended January 22nd and the newest interim appointment started January 23'. The prior appointment would have begun six months prior to January 22nd; she did not have the exact date. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the interim appointment began with a 5% increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained acting duty pay provides a 5% increase over an employee's current wage. Had Acting Chief Lawless been confirmed by the City Council after the Mayor appointed him, Councilmember K. Johnson said he would have received a six month step increase. Therefore, had the Mayor appointed him, he would be at a higher level than his current appointment. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it would have depended on what he negotiated for his pay if he had been the appointee. She assumed it would have been close to what he's making out of class. She agreed any employee hired into a new position receives a step increase after six months. Councilmember K. Johnson observed going from Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 6.1.a Assistant Chief to Police Chief would not have been lateral; he would have received some increase. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson said six months later, he would have had another increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed the policy provides a step increase after the six month probation is completed. Councilmember K. Johnson said six months after that, having been in the position for a year, he would have received another increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered potentially; if someone is hired in the first half of the year, they receive the step increase on January 1 of the subsequent year. If someone is hired in the second half of the year, they do not receive a step increase until the following January 1. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized the idea is after six months, an employee receives one step increase and at the end of the year, depending on the point in the year they were hired, they receive another increase. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that was accurate. Councilmember K. Johnson said theoretically if Assistant Chief Lawless had been hired for this position he would be three steps higher at the end of the year that he was appointed and confirmed. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed he would potentially be three steps higher. The salary ranges only go up to Step 7 and he is currently at Step 5. The proposed wage increase would place him at a Step 6. Councilmember K. Johnson said she will make a motion once other Councilmembers have had their questions answered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the policy for a temporary or conditional job offer, observing Acting Chief Lawless is a temporary employee and there is a separate policy related to step increases. She commented the power was out at her house and in the neighborhood. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the Acting Duty Pay Policy provides that any employee working in an acting capacity in a classification that is higher than the one they currently hold receives a 5% increase in pay. If for some reason their current wage on the salary schedule is so significantly below the acting range, they would at least get the first step in the pay range which can be more than a 5% increase if the employee moving into the acting position is in a much lower band. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained that was not the case with Acting Chief Lawless. The band for Deputy Chief is 19 and the Police Chief band is 21. Acting Chief Lawless was topped out on the Deputy Chief pay band at a Step 7 which equated to a Step 5 in the Police Chief band with a 5% increase. The language doesn't provide for a step increase as it does not contemplate that someone would get a step increase that's outside of policy. If someone is in an acting capacity and they received a regular step increase in their base pay, they would also receive a step increase in their acting duty pay to maintain the 5%. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Acting Chief Lawless had only two steps to go to be at the top of the Police Chief band. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed; he is currently at 5, it is proposed to provide him a step increase to Step 6, leaving only one more step as there are a total of 7 steps in the pay range. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Councilmember was interested in creating three steps which was not within the band. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed. Councilmember Olson commented an important facet for the Council to know and consider is the pay is not retroactive so there is some value in expediency and moving forward tonight as the new appointment has already started. Council President Paine asked if Acting Chief Lawless received a pay increase in his existing range, range 19, during this time frame. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered he has been topped out on that range for many years so he is not due any step increase in his regular base pay range. He has been a Deputy Chief for many years so he is topped out on that band. On January 1, he received the 2% wage adjustment that all Non -Represented employees received. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING COMPENSATION FOR ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS DURING THE REMAINING DURATION OF HIS ACTING ASSIGNMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to make a different motion. City Clerk Scott Passey said if the motion is vastly different it may be considered a substitute motion, but if it is a minor amendment, it would be an amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson said it would be a substitute amendment. As Councilmember K. Johnson began to make her motion, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating a motion could not be made when there was already a motion on the floor. The Council would need to vote down the original motion first. Mr. Passey advised another motion could be made that was a substitute for the original motion. Discussion returns to the main motion and any amendments, discussion then occurs on the substitute motion and the Council votes whether to substitute it for the main motion. Councilmember K. Johnson made the following motion in light of the fact that Acting Chief Lawless has performed his duties in an exemplary way during the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the fact that he has conducted himself in a calm, confident, and professional manner during the Police Chief recruitment: COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS BE AWARDED A MINIMUM OF A TWO STEP SALARY INCREASE. Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmember Distelhorst' restate his motion as she had not heard the entire motion due to interruptions. Councilmember Distelhorst restated his motion: TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING COMPENSATION FOR ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS DURING THE REMAINING DURATION OF HIS ACTING ASSIGNMENT AS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA PACKET TONIGHT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many steps were in the current employee agreement. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it was one step which equals a 5% increase in pay. Mayor Nelson asked about the process. Mr. Passey said if the motion to substitute is not changed or amended, the Council would vote whether to substitute Councilmember K. Johnson's motion for the main motion. If that motion failed, the main motion stands. Council President Paine said some fast math regarding the second motion indicated it be an additional $4,000-$4,500 for the remaining six months, the difference between Step 6 and 7 of Range 22 according to the employment agreement. Ms. Neill Hoyson offered to calculate the exact difference. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether there were any issues with proposing something like this. She assumed it was a little unusual but asked if it was so out of the ordinary that issues may be discovered later. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered Mr. Lawless is not required to serve as the Acting Chief if he is not paid a wage he is willing to work for. If he were unwilling to work for a particular wage and the Council approved the wage he was asking for, there was nothing improper about that. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there were any issues with the two-step amendment. Mr. Taraday answered there was no cap; other than staying within the approved salary scale, he was not aware of any City policy that prevented the Council from approving the substitute motion. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 6.1.a with Mr. Taraday; there is nothing the Council would run afoul of as far as policy. What the Council is considering is outside of current policy which is why the Council is addressing it via an employment agreement rather than current policy. The Council can choose to compensate Mr. Lawless in the manner they wish to and there is no issue as long as it is within the pay band established for the Police Chief. With regard to Council President Paine's question, Ms. Neill Hoyson said the additional compensation for 6 months for 2 steps rather than 1 step would be $4,187. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of Councilmember K. Johnson's motion was to increase Acting Chief Lawless from Range 22 Step 5 to Range 22 Step 7. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that was how she understood Councilmember K. Johnson's motion, rather than a 1-step increase to take him to Step 6, a 2-step increase to Step 7. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for that motion. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if he could withdraw his motion or should it be handled in the way Mr Passey previously stated. Mr. Passey advised it would be in order to withdraw the motion. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember K. Johnson said she believed this Council owed a debt of gratitude to Acting Chief Lawless. This would be one way in which the Council could express that gratitude while still acknowledging that the City was headed on new path for a Police Chief. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. 2. COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.2) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND 6.2.A TO REMOVE "AVOIDING AGGRESSIVE" SO THAT THE SECTION READS "USING RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE AND AATOIDING AGGRESSIVE TONES." Council President Paine recalled this had been voted on at the last meeting and questioned what had changed. Councilmember Buckshnis answered nothing had changed, she and Councilmember Olson discussed this due to her concern this was extremely subjective and Councilmember Olson suggested she present it to Council for consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said aggressive tones can be defined in many different ways. She was concerned the new code of conduct was very subjective and the most subjective was aggressive tones. She observed Councilmembers, the Mayor and others can say someone is using aggressive tones because it is a question of definition. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said use of aggressive tones has been one of issues the Council has had in the last I1/2 years. She agreed it was subjective, but it would be up to Council to decide whether they believed an aggressive tone was used or perhaps it was the individual themselves. She did not support this amendment to the code of conduct. Councilmember Olson recalled one of things the subcommittee discussed and was included in the finishing language of the code of conduct was that it be something the whole body was behind. In the final analysis, if this such a sticking point and something that members were significantly opposed to, it would be better for the order to remove that item. She expressed support for removing the language. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the phrase begin with "use" rather than "using" as that was correct grammar. She preferred the statement read, "use respectful language." Unless someone can provide an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a example of an aggressive tone used in the last year or the problem this language seeks to solve, it was her opinion that no one had been beyond the range of appropriate behavior. Council President Paine pointed out the Council had just approved the minutes that included the discussion from last week; there was a 3-4 vote on this same amendment last week. She questioned whether this motion was proper. She heard what Councilmembers were saying, but the Council voted to include "avoiding aggressive." Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Passey if the motion was proper. Mr. Passey advised Councilmember have the right to pull items from Consent because it implies unanimous consent; items can be pulled for a separate vote. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification, if a specific element had been voted on during a previous meeting, it can be revisited by pulling it from the Consent Agenda and voting again. Mayor Nelson said that was his understanding. Councilmember Distelhorst said he hears the conversation and was surprised. Being respectful and civil along with other language in the code of conduct about inflammatory and insulting language, conduct and decorum was expected of the Council, in business or in a volunteer organization. He hoped that everyone could follow that language and decorum. He worried when conversations strayed into what has happened in the past, as one of the goals of the subcommittee was to have a global document that was not based on past experience but a document that would apply now as well as in the future and keep Council in its conduct focused on policy, decorum and working toward solutions. He was struggling slightly, especially with the self -enforcing nature of the document; he did not expect that Councilmember would continually be sending emails entitled code of conduct reminder, but rather that this would be a self -reference guide much the same as the Council uses Robert's Rules of Order. Councilmember Buckshnis said this new code of conduct is too subjective, it sets the stage for retribution by a simple majority and can create a tribunal setting. Resolution 1306 that covered the Mayor, Council, boards and commissions and working groups was sufficient despite the fact the reason for this new code of conduct was never stated. In her opinion, the reason to divert to this very subjective and expansive code of conduct was to define that Councilmembers can put themselves in jeopardy, particularly those in the minority and she has seen that happen. She did not support this code of conduct because it was far too subjective and the biggest issue was the reference to aggressive tones. She pointed out that is not addressed in Robert's Rules and she preferred Resolution 1306. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out Robert's Rules of Order, which the Council has previously adopted, includes a chapter on tribunals and trials of Councilmembers and, therefore, it was not contemplated in the code of conduct. The subcommittee had not considered that other than recognizing it existed in Robert's Rules. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO STRIKE "THE CITY ATTORNEY" IN THE CHAPTER HEADING OF 6.2, SO IT READS, "CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she thought that had been done last week. Councilmember Distelhorst answered it was removed from 6.2.1), but not from the title of 6.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO STRIKE UNDER 6.E THE LAST WORDS, "OR OTHERWISE INTRUDING ON THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS." Councilmember K. Johnson said this was too broad a statement. It is the Mayor prerogative to tell the Council what they can and can't do. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this language provides clarity to the Council's responsibilities. She received more complaints last year regarding Council's abrupt interaction with staff such as walking into offices and demanding staff do certain things. This clarifies for Council that that is not their role. She encouraged Councilmembers to vote against removing this language. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO STRIKE 6.3.E, THAT DISCUSSES WHEN ATTENDING A NON -CITY SPONSORED EVENT, MEETING, CONFERENCE OR OTHER ACTIVITY, COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL DO SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ONLY. Councilmember K. Johnson explained when she attends many events, she is there because she is a City Councilmember and is expressing that point of view. She is not there as Kristian Johnson, citizen of the City of Edmonds, but as an Edmonds City Councilmember. She said her experience should provide some weight to this. Due to COVID, many Councilmember have not had the experience of going to meetings, conferences or other activities, but she guaranteed when they attended, they were there as a Councilmember, not as an individual. Council President Paine commented she reads 6.3.E differently, to her that sentence means a person is acting as their own self as a Councilmember and not representing the full Council and she believed that was the interpretation during abundant discussion last week. This same motion was made last week and the situation has not changed. She did not support deleting that section. Councilmember Distelhorst said he had the same understanding, recalling a lengthy discussion last week where the section was reworded to make it clearer. Including "Councilmembers shall do so" clarified that a Councilmember was representing themselves as an individual Councilmember and not the Council as a body. What the maker of the motion stated is consistent with the language in this section; a Councilmember represents themselves as a Councilmember, but were not representing the Edmonds City Council. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND 6.3.E, TO READ "...SHALL DO SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER CAPACITY ONLY...". UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented during the BLM rally, a Councilmember spoke and indicated they were representing the City which can lead to a dangerous situation. This amendment may resolve that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CODE OF CONDUCT AS AMENDED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT #2 HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is an amendment to the employment agreement with Maureen Judge that addresses her continued employment for 2021. As with past renewals of this employment contract, it goes from February 1 of the current year through January 31 of the following year. Her evaluation may have been completed; if not, the Council can still choose to proceed with the agreement. Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated administration drafting the employment agreement and asked whether that was a legislative role that should be handled by the Council President. Council President Paine explained said she asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to put this on the Council's agenda and make the presentation about the changes to the contract to ensure it was in compliance with standard practices for Non -Represented employees. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled as a contract employee previously, Ms. Judge did not have benefits. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she is a full-time regular employee and receives benefits in the same manner as other Non -Represented employees. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was proposal, and asked whether she received benefits in the past or was she strictly a contract employee without benefits. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it appears she has always had access to City benefits. The one difference in her contract is she accrues vacation leave at a higher rate than a Non -Represented employee based on years of service; she accrues leave at 10 hours/month which is higher than she would receive based on her years of service if she were a regular Non -Represented, non -contracted employees. There is no proposed change to that in the proposed agreement amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council previously agreed to provide the legislative/administrative assistant a higher leave rate versus a higher salary. Her evaluation has not been completed but is in process. She has heard only good things about the Council's legislative/administrative assistant. This last year has been monumental due to her assisting with the training of four new Councilmember during a pandemic. Ms. Judge has put energy into making everyone feel welcome and assisted and her evaluation will reflect that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTRODUCTION DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 6.1.a Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien commented this is the long awaited tree regulation update. He reviewed: Urban Forest Management Plan 0 2014/2015 Tree Code Update ■ Did not have policies in place to support code update 0 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan Tree Regulations Update Goals o Improve tree retention with new development on private property o Implement low impact development principles o Establish a Tree Fund o Other updates ■ Definitions ■ Existing permitting process ■ Penalties Related UFMP Goals o Goal 1 —Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan. These tree regulations in and of themselves will not meet the no net loss policy. C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs o Goal 3 - Incentivize planting trees on private property A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds Draft Tree Regulations o New Chapter 23.10 ECDC ■ Exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, violations o New Section 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility o New Chapter 3.95 ECC Tree Fund ECDC 23.10.020 - Definitions o Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) -Diameter of tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground o Significant tree —A tree with at least 6-inch DBH o Protected tree —A tree identified for retention and protection, or a replacement tree required during development of a site ECDC 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development o Short Subdivision (up to four lots) o Subdivision (five or more lots) o New multi -family development o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single- family house o Tree removal on developed site not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 ECDC 23.10.040 - Exemptions o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means o Removal of trees for utility maintenance o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park's Department Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a o Routine landscaping and maintenance ■ Trees previous topped can be topped to previously topped level o Exemption with supporting documentation ■ Hazard Tree Removal ■ Nuisance Tree Removal ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited o Removal of protected trees unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees o During permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition activity o Trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in Chapters 23.40 —23.90 ECDC Trees and Development o First retain existing trees o Second replace trees that are removed o Third pay for trees removed but not replaced ECDC 23.10.060.0 — Tree Retention Requirements o ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention for Proposed Development Development Retention Requirement New single family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site o Retention Priority ■ Priority 1 —Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas, trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH ■ Priority 2 —Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function, other significant native and nonnative trees ■ Priority 3 —Alders and cottonwoods • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement o Replacement required for each significant tree removed o Number of required replacement based diameter of trees removed: ■ 6 inches to 10 inches DBH —1 replacement tree required ■ 10.1 inches to 14 inches DBH —2 replacement trees required ■ Above 14 inches —3 replacement trees required • ECDC 23.10.080.E — Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu o A fee -in -lieu may by allowed after consideration of all other options o $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees required to satisfy the replacement requirement but not planted o Paid into the City's Tree Fund • ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title o The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design o Provide flexibility during subdivision design to aid in tree retention o Setbacks ■ No street setback less than 15 feet Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a ■ No rear setback less than 10 feet ■ No side setback less than 5 feet o Lot size may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone o Coverage on individual lots may be increased as long as the overall coverage allowed by the zone is not exceeded o Allow variations in access widths Chapter 3.95 ECC — Tree Fund o Funding Sources ■ Revenue from Chapter 23.10 ECDC: fee -in -lieu or civil fines ■ Civil penalties from critical area violations ■ Donations or grants for tree purposes ■ Other monies allocated by the City Council o Funding Purposes ■ Tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds ■ Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional ■ Paying for services that support urban forest management and health ■ Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City ■ Purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes o Funds from fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting (added by Planning Board) ECDC 23.10.030 - Permits o Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 processed as Type I permit o Planning Board receptive to the Council referring consideration of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed from a single family lot without critical areas in a given period. (Removal of trees on private property a controversial topic during previous Tree Code proposal and will require more staff to administer such a policy) o Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties o Civil Penalties ■ Economic benefit derived from violation ■ Appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or larger ■ $1,500 for trees less than 12 inches DBH o Aiding and Abetting: Tree cutter equally liable as property owner • Development Examples o Next five slide are examples of implementing the draft regulations o Compare the fee -in -lieu tree fund payments with other development fees o City Impact Fees ■ Traffic - new single family residence $6,249.14 ■ Parks - new single family residence = $2,734.05 o Utility Charges ■ Water — %" meter = $5,050 ■ Sewer — new single family +$4,417 o Credit is given for existing development 1. New Single -Family Development 0 15 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 5 Trees o Tree Retained — 6 Trees o Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a o Required replacement trees not planted 22 o Tree Fund Payment $22,000 o Retain one additional tree and plant three more ■ $16,000 Tree Fund Payment o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450 2. Short Subdivision — Four Lots 0 41 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 12 Trees o Trees Retained — 13 Trees o Assume 3 Trees/lot — 12 Trees o Required replacement trees not planted — 58 Trees o Tree Fund Payment - $58,000 o Retain 8 additional trees ■ $37,000 Tree Fund Payment o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $55,351 3. Subdivision —Ten Lots 0 90 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 27 Trees o Trees Retained — 20 o Assume 3 Tree/lot — 30 o Required replacement trees not planted — 98 o Tree Fund Payment - $98,000 o Retain 1 additional tree and plant 4 per lot ■ $85,000 Tree Fund Payment o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $129,151 4A. Conservation Subdivision Design (Standard) 0 153 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 46 Trees o Trees Retained — 15 Trees o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees o Required Replacement trees not planted — 315 o Tree Fund Payment - $315,000 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801 4B.Conservaton Subdivision Design (Flexible) 0 153 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 46 Trees o Trees Retained — 62 Trees o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees o Required Replacement trees not planted — 202) o Tree Fund Payment - $202,000 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801 5. Multi -Family Development —10 Unit Apartment 0 8 Trees Predevelopment 0 25% Retention —2 Trees o Trees Retained — 0 Trees o Required Replacement Trees —18 Trees o Tree Planted — 36 Trees o Tree Fund Payment - $0 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $38,595 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 6.1.a Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board talked a lot about the fee -in -lieu program including changing the replacement ratio or the dollar value per tree to be paid into the fund. The Planning Board felt it was important to have a higher cost as an incentive; if there is a cost for trees not planted, developers will make a greater effort to retain trees rather than pay the fee into a tree fund. The Planning Board considered different levels of flexibility, but forwarded a recommended with a higher dollar value. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing on the tree code is scheduled for February 2nd.. The Planning Board minutes are included in the packet. The Planning Board forwarded other recommendations along with the tree code. Comments raised at the Planning Board included view issues which are not addressed in this code and removal of trees on developed properties without critical areas. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating many people have stated the round robin format is inefficient and ineffective. The Council just passed a code stating Councilmembers should not dominate a meeting. She suggested the Council vote whether to do round robin or not. There may be Councilmembers who do not have questions and it is an ineffective method of handling Zoom meetings. Rather than taking time to ask if Councilmembers have questions and some replying they do not have a questions, she preferred Councilmembers ask questions and not use the round robin format. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the round robin format was presented to Council during training on Robert's Rules of Order. Further, it keeps one or two Councilmembers from dominating the conversation and not allowing others an opportunity to speak. She concluded round robin was a fair way to allow everyone to participate and not be dominated by Councilmembers who get their hands up quickly and have multiple questions. Council President Paine preferred round robin for at least the first round of questions to ensure all voices were heard. Councilmember Olson agreed with Council President Paine, doing round robin for the first round of questions followed by Councilmember raising their hands to ask questions. Mayor Nelson concluded the format would be round robin for the first round and then try individual Councilmembers and see how that goes. Councilmember Olson thanked staff, recognizing that this has been a huge project and the proposal is a great start. She was surprised at the tree retention; she thought if the 30% was met, there would not be fee versus the proposal which includes a fee even if the retention requirement was met and exceeded. She asked Mr. Lien to address that as well as comment on what other cities have done. Mr. Lien displayed the following: • Other Jurisdictions Retention and Replacement Requirements o Lynnwood ■ No specific retention requirement ■ Replacement based on "tree units" derived from diameter of tree cut ■ Fee -in -lieu option: ■ $187 per tree ■ $106 per tree if site cannot support required number of replacement trees o Shoreline ■ 20% of significant trees required to be retained, 30% if critical areas are present ■ Replace required if more required percent of trees are not retained Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 6.1.a ■ Up to three trees are required for tree removed depending on tree size ■ No Tree Fund or Fee -in -lieu option o Redmond ■ 35% of significant trees required to be retained ■ One to one replacement required for each significant removed, except landmark trees (30" dbh) required to be replaced at 3:1 ■ No tree fund, but fee -in -lieu to cover the cost of tree replacement Mr. Lien explained other cities have fee -in -lieu of programs but it was more tied to when the tree retention requirements were not met. Tree requirements vary from coverage, percentage of significant trees, and tree units cut. In the proposed code, the fee -in -lieu is for any tree cut. The Planning Board discussed that and the reason they had a fee for every tree not replaced was the overall no net loss goal in the UFMP. Trees are removed with development, if only 30% are retained, 70% are being cut. When a tree is cut, it should be replaced and larger trees replaced with a different ratio. The intent behind the Planning Board direction was by requiring a fee -in -lieu and those funds used to purchase trees for planting in the City of Edmonds, that was one way to help achieve the no net loss goal. Councilmember Olson recalled in one of the examples a higher number of trees needed to be replaced than had existing on the lot before it was developed. That seemed extreme and almost punitive. She understood development was taking down big trees and replacing them with smaller trees, but to expect the developer to have more trees than were on the original lot seemed a little odd. Mr. Lien said in every instance more trees were required to be replaced than existed previously due to the replacement ratio. On most of the examples, a lot of the trees were over 14 inches in diameter; for every tree 14 inches in diameter, 3 replacement trees are required to be replanted. Councilmember Olson asked if that was done in other cities or was it only in Edmonds. Mr. Lien said for the fee -in -lieu of for trees that cannot be planted, the proposed flat fee was different than other jurisdictions. Lynnwood has a flat fee of $208. In most other jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu of was the cost of purchasing and planting the tree. Parks indicated the cost to purchase and plant a tree is approximately $350. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Lien, Ms. Hope and the Planning Board; any time there is a 275 page agenda item it is clear a lot of work across many months has gone into it. Observing a public hearing was coming up, he highlighted things he appreciated such as all the comparisons of different types of properties and developments from single family to multi -family to apartments and how those impacts are handled, low impact development, and creative solutions that work for both housing and the environment. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the desire was to get some code in place and then look at the other issues or include regulations for existing developed properties now. Mr. Lien said he will take direction from the Council, but when this started the largest complaint was clearcutting when properties are developed so that was addressed first. Removal of trees on all properties was a point of contention during the last tree code update so the first step was to address tree retention with development via this code, but the Planning Board's recommendation indicted a desire to have that issue forwarded back to them. More will need to be done to meet no net loss. Other things to consider next include a heritage tree program which would recognize significant trees throughout the City, looking into incentives — financial incentives that can be provided to property owners to retain trees on a site such as reduction in the City's portion of property tax, reduction in stormwater utility fees, etc. Development Services Director Hope said staff considered the most critical issue; the thing that came up most was what happens with trees as development occurs. Staff focused primarily on that and closely related issues such as a tree fund, recognizing that rather than take another 6-10 months to address all the other issues that could be included in a tree ordinance, focusing on the critical issue, recognize there are Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 6.1.a more issues, but adopting these regulations that focus on concerns that have been raised and direction Council has already given staff. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the team that developed the code as well as for the packet, noting the Planning Board minutes are extremely valuable. She was hopeful some things could be remanded back to the Planning Board. Private property is a hot topic, but consideration needs to be given to tree canopy and no net loss. In Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery, the tribes are talking about net ecological gain. She asked what percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property would be considered. Mr. Lien answered this code does applies to development on private property. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the code applied to development, her question was in regard to existing homes. Mr. Lien answered his research found there have been an average of 10 subdivisions (short subdivisions and formal subdivisions) per year over the last 10 years. He did not now how many vacant properties had been developed with a single family home. There has been a lot of redevelopment that this code would apply to as well. to He displayed a table from UFMP that shows the existing canopy coverage as of 2015: Canopy Cover Summary The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: • 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and woody shrubs (525 acres) • 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground • 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy is unfeasible • 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying vegetation • 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) • From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from 32.3% to 30.3% • Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of 3,495 acres • Private residential properties have most of the canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12,9%), and commercial (4.1%) properties. • Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) Mr. Lien noted private residential properties have most of the canopy (81%), followed by public (12.9%) and commercial (4.1 %). Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the examples in the presentation, expressing hope that when the housing stock changes, instead of 10 big houses, there would be more. She was hopeful LID will also have a positive impact on tree canopy. Council President Paine said she was on the Tree Board during the last effort that included single family residential option; the joke was people were out with pitchforks or chainsaws. She was glad this was being presented to Council. One of the things that most concerned her and others in the conservation community was the loss of canopy cover, the loss of contiguous canopy cover and wildlife corridors. She asked if better protections for groves and contiguous canopy cover were added along with elements in draft code, would that put the brakes on having this coming together. She asked how adding protections for groves and the understory rather than just single specimen trees would change the draft tree code. She recalled the UFMP called for maintaining 30% canopy cover. She expressed interest in an annual update on the canopy cover to provide metrics to judge against. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.060.C, Tree Retention Requirements, commenting retaining trees in a grove is better from an ecology standpoint as well as survivability of those trees (less subject to windthrow). He referred to the retention priority in ECDC 23.10.060.0 noting on some sites, all the trees are in the developable area. When developers are Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 6.1.a looking at a site and working with the City, the highest priority is given to big trees and trees that form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical area as well as larger trees. Priority 2 is small tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around the perimeter, trees that perform a screen function. Priority 3 are the non -desirable urban trees (alder and cottonwoods). With regard to wildlife corridors, Mr. Lien said most are associated with other critical areas such as streams which are protected by the CAO. In the RS-12 and RS-20 zones in north Edmonds, there are larger properties due to the presence of critical area slopes. The tree code together with the critical area code provides more protection for habitat corridors. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked staff for the presentation and for their dedication to updating this code. She appreciated many part of the draft, particularly the prioritization of LID. This has been a long process and during that time a lot of tree canopy has been lost. Edmonds prides itself on its climate action goal of 1.5% or less from preindustrial levels and trees play a critical role in carbon sequestering. Instead of no net loss, she suggested a goal of net ecological gain. To meet the 1.5% goal, the City will have to gain back some of what has been lost. She suggested this code mirror other efforts by setting a higher goal. Mr. Lien referred to the development of the UFMP which includes a no net loss goal as well as discussions around what the City's goal for an overall canopy cover should be. The City was at 30% in 2015; should that be the goal or should it be 40%. If the goal is higher, that policy needs to be established by Council before code is drafted. If the Council wanted to retain trees on developed single family property, the Planning Board has discussed a coverage requirement. The way the code is currently drafted, a site with no trees is not required to retain any trees and they do not have a replacement ratio. Mr. Lien explained at least one Planning Board Member was interested in establishing a coverage requirement. For example, should there be a 30% coverage requirement versus a 30% retention requirement. There are many ways jurisdictions establish coverage, some do tree credits based on the size of trees, basal areas, density, etc. If the Council wanted to consider a net ecological gain or a specific canopy coverage goal for the City in the future, the policy would need to be established first and then consider code language to meet that. In addition to code, consideration should be given to incentives to encourage people to retain trees on their sites. Education is a big part of that; for example, a large healthy tree within a certain distance of a house is not necessarily a hazard tree. A more holistic approach that includes education, incentives, tree vouchers, etc. will be required for a net gain. Ms. Hope said the goal for the canopy matters less than the actions taken to improve the situation. It is impossible to determine the exact canopy, but there can be a goal to do better. It can be addressed by code as well as incentives, special programs, planting the right tree, etc. It needs to be looked at holistically, recognizing this is an important start but it is not the end. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for the much anticipated tree code, commenting staff and the Planning Board have done an excellent job. She asked how it was envisioned the tree fund would be spent, where and on what. Mr. Lien displayed the slide regarding Chapter 3.95 ECDC - Tree Fund which identified funding purposes such as tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds, paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional, paying for services that support urban forest management and health, acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City and purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes. He noted the addition by the Planning Board that funds for the fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting, was added before he prepared the examples. There could be a significant amount of money paid into the tree fund if the fee - in -lieu of program was structed the way it was proposed. If there continues to be ten subdivisions per year that are similar to the examples, there could be $200,000 in the tree fund in a given year which equates to a lot of tree purchases. He suggested the Council consider whether those funds could be used for preserving wooded areas as well. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a Mr. Lien said he understood the Planning Board's intent to require funds from the fee -in -lieu program be used to purchase trees for planting, but that could be a significant dollar amount and there were only so many places to plant trees within the City. He recalled some citizens commented on the importance of tree canopy in the northwest and suggesting rather than only using the funds in Edmonds, they could be used to participate in other programs such as Mountain to Sounds Greenway. He was uncertain restricting the fee -in -lieu of program to purchasing trees for planting was realistic. Councilmember K. Johnson liked the idea of acquiring, maintaining and purchasing wooded areas as that may create opportunities over time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Lien's comments about civil penalties and his reference to a clearcutting incident that occurred on a weekend. It was her understanding that that landowner never paid a civil penalty. Mr. Lien said they paid at least $100,000 for that tree cutting. A settlement agreement was reached with the developer on that site. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled it was considerably less than what the current policy required. Mr. Lien answered not with the policy that was in place at that time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the landowners were charged the value required by the policy in place at that time. Mr. Lien answered he was not 100% sure, that occurred in 2003 before he came to the City and he did not recall exactly what the fines were or how many trees were cut. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled it was in 2011. Mr. Lien said Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may be recalling a different incident than he was. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her question was whether landowners were charged for the cost of clear cutting. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties slide, noting the penalties are not a straight up flat fee. Civil penalties are determined by the economic benefit derived from violation, appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or higher, and $1,500 for tree less than 12 inches DBH. Assessment of fines in the past was not simply the maximum; a number of things are considered when assessing fines such as did the property owner know it was a violation. If they were told they could not cut a tree(s) and did it anyway, that property owner might get a higher fine. If a property owner flat out did not know what they were doing and they were responsive to staff when they were made aware of the violation, they would receive a lower fine. There is some subjectivity in fines. The fines listed in ECDC 23.10.10 are the maximum fines but each situation is different. With regard to tree replacement, Councilmember Olson said the Planning Board also considered a tree bank option, trees could be planted elsewhere if there was not a place within Edmonds. She recalled a Council comment about obtaining an annual tree canopy assessment, pointing out that is a big expense and was probably too often for the City to afford. The moratorium that the Council put in place awaiting the tree code puts a great sense of urgency on the Council. There is more than one way move forward and lift the moratorium which was motivated by development; one way would be to support the proposal related to development and then develop a plan for addressing other issues and modifying the code in the future. With regard to tree replacement, Council President Paine asked when a large Doug fir or big leaf maple in good condition was removed, were equivalent trees supposed to be planted or could it be a tree like a dogwood which would not provide the same canopy. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement, explaining if a 30-inch Douglas fir was cut down, there was no equivalent replacement tree which was the reason for different replacement ratios; the larger the tree, the more replacement trees. Over time the trees will grow into big trees but whatever is planted to replace a large tree will not be the same. He compared it to mitigation ratios within wetland and critical area, an impact to a wetland is required to be replaced at a higher ratio. For example, the proposed code requires 3 replacement trees for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.a the removal of one tree above 14 inches. He concluded there was not a straight apples to apples comparison because a big tree cannot be planted. Council President Paine agreed a big tree could not be planted but pointed out planting two small dogwoods would not result in the same canopy as if a large tree were retained. She noted the replacement tree list encouraged planting of native trees. Mr. Lien said the tree code does not mention what type of tree should be planted. The concept of right tree in the right place was discussed during adoption of the UFMP. If a 100-foot tree is cut in a view area, the residents uphill may not be happy if a 100-foot tree is replanted and a 25-foot tree may be the right tree in that situation. The code could state native trees are preferred, but not everyone wants native trees when landscaping their property. Council President Paine commented replacement trees planted as part of redevelopment or new development may not provide similar canopy. Mr. Lien said this code is based on numbers not coverage ratios. A developer retains 30% of the number of trees on the site. That somewhat equates to coverage, but different tree species provide different coverage. For example, a big leaf maple may not grow as tall as a Doug fir, but the coverage of a big leaf maple is times a Doug fir. Conversely an evergreen weeping Alaskan cedar hardly provides any canopy and will add little to the coverage. Snohomish County has a coverage requirement that requires calculating the coverage in 20 years based on the species of tree planted. That type of code is more difficult to implement. Ease of implementation of the code needs to be balanced with understanding. There are many ways to look at it, the proposal is a straight retention requirement. Ms. Hope said sometimes replacement trees provide more canopy. There are a lot of considerations, whether the trees are in the right place to avoid interference with utilities, etc. Rather than micromanage each site, it seemed if there were good incentives, education and a requirement to plant trees, a reasonable balance could be found. Council President Paine said she truly understood the importance of placement. She had house fire because a tree rubbed on the power line and caused an electrical fire. With regard to replacement trees, Mr. Lien recalled the Tree Board has been working on a tree list that can be provided to property owners with tree heights, canopy spread, etc. That is one of the education pieces for right tree, right place. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to packet page 130 under exemptions, Item E states "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone." If a tree had been topped improperly, for safety reasons it may need to be topped back to the previous point; she asked if that was "may" or "must." She suggested rather than providing a flat exemption, there could be an incentive to regrow topped trees. She asked if that was a possibility. Mr. Lien provided an example of a single stem evergreen tree such as Doug fir or hemlock; when those trees are topped, they do not grow back the way they should and there are large lateral branches that are not as secure and become a safety issue. That is why trees that have been previously topped can be topped to the previously topped level. If a tree has not been topped and it is on a property that is not exempt it cannot be topped; that is considered cutting a tree. There are a number of trees in the City that have been topped and re -topped and it is a matter of safety and health of the tree to maintain it at that height. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this area grows a lot of evergreen trees and few of them have actually been planted. They self -seed sometimes in the wrong place, but they are magnificent, grow well, and love the soil, conditions and rain. She supported encouraging native trees whenever possible. Ornamental trees are no comparison for the height, coverage or beauty of a native tree. She expressed concern with ECDC 23.10.040 exemptions that allows for the removal of trees on an improved single family lot without critical areas. She frequently hears chainsaws in her neighborhood where people are removing trees on improved single family lots and she wanted that practice to be controlled. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson's comment about getting something approved. She was also interested in getting a timeline from the administration about working on other aspects such as no net loss. Since the last tree canopy assessment occurred in 2015, she knew of at least 7 pocket forests of Doug firs that had been removed. She expressed interest in having a new tree canopy assessment done. She also had concerns with some of the exemptions such as nuisance trees and the director being allowed to make decisions. For example in tree replacement, the direction may consider smaller -size replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited. This is a good start, but the City's tree canopy needs to be monitored and hopefully enhanced and the ecological net gain improved. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the timeframe for addressing other aspects of the code to address no net loss, tree canopy, etc. Mr. Lien advised that was not on his schedule yet. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that needed to be figured out. Although the priority was tree retention with development, she wanted a promise from the administration on a timeframe for other aspects of the code. Ms. Hope answered staff will be working on that, but had prioritized the most crucial things. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the housing issue will also play a part in this. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 3. TITLE 19 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES Development Services Director Shane Hope commented there is a lot of technical information on this subject. She explained the building codes are updated approximately every three years. The City follows the state rules and guidelines and are very similar to other cities. Building Official Leif Bjorback • Adoption of 2018 International Codes o Building and Fire Codes are contained in Title 19 of the ECDC o Building code updates normally on 3-year cycle ■ Delay due to state integration with national code ■ Delays due to COVID19 0 2018 building and fire codes effective statewide February 1 • Edmonds building and Fire Code o Objectives of the update ■ Maintain compliance with state requirements for adoption by February I ■ Maintain alignment with the base (national) codes ■ Align with the standards and practices of mybuildingpemit.com ■ Provide minor clean-up Sample Code Changes 0 19.00 International Building Code (IBC) ■ Requirements for medical gas rooms moved from the Fire Code into the Building Code ■ New requirements for Mass Timber construction ■ Gender neutral restroom facilities allowed in lieu of separate facilities per Washington state amendment 0 19.05 International Residential Code (IRC) ■ Heat detectors now required in garages in new homes ■ Washington state adopting Appendix Q, standards for tiny houses ■ City of Edmonds adopting Appendix E, standards for manufactured homes 19.10 Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) o Minor modifications to clarify the applicability of this chapter to only the North Edmonds ESLHA Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 6.1.a o Clarifications to project posting requirements Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer reviewed the following sample code changes: o 19.25 Fire Code (IFC) ■ Minor changes to sprinkler room access ■ No significant changes to fire sprinkler requirements ■ Clarification of high rise definition Mr. Bjorback continued his review of sample code changes: o 19.30 Energy Code (WSEC) ■ In general, buildings will be required to be more energy efficient ■ State energy code is moving toward achieving the legislative goal of 70% reduction in fuel consumption in buildings by 2030 Ms. Hope advised staff is seeking Council adoption of the ordinance so the City is in line with the state requirement of February 1st Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Bjorback for answering the questions she emailed. She did not see anything about tiny homes in the code, only manufactured and mobile homes. Mr. Bjorback referred to 19.05, the adoption language for the IRC includes an adoption of Appendix Q which is newly adopted language regarding tiny homes. Ms. Hope assured it did not change the zoning code, only the building code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the ESLHA in north Edmonds. Mr. Bjorback displayed a map of the North Edmonds ESLHA that has been in the development ordinance for many years. The last time that ordinance was revised was 2006 or 2007. The update did not change the regulations, it was just clarifying the application of that chapter and minor clean-up. The map of neighborhood in the northern tip of Edmonds encompasses 100-110 residential properties. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the definition of a high rise building, a building with an occupied floor or rooftop located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of a fire department vehicle access. She asked if that was a regular fire truck. Fire Marshal Fitterer answered it was a ladder or fire truck. Occupied floor can be confusing; if there is a roof top garden and/or a gathering area on top of a building, that top floor is an occupied floor. Even if there are no actual rooms on the top floor, if it can be occupied by the public, it is an occupied floor. With regard to energy savings, Council President Paine asked what that meant when building a new home or multi -family complex. Mr. Bjorback answered in every 3-year cycle, developers are required to build to higher efficiency standards. This time it will encourage developers to use things like heat pumps for the heating system. The thermal envelope of a house can only be insulated so much or the air leakage tighten up. In addition to the prescriptive minimums, the code now looks for additional energy credits that can be achieved by picking from a list of options such as a heat pump, having heating equipment within the thermal envelope, high efficiency plumbing and fixtures, etc. The mandate established around 2005/2006 by the legislature was by 2030, a 70% reduction in energy use would occur in new homes and other buildings. This is related to realizing that goal. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there appeared to be significant changes in the international swimming pool and spa code as there was a lot of new language. Mr. Bjorback answered there was new language in the ordinance, however, there was really no change in the requirements for swimming pools. The language comes from the state adopted language so it was included in Title 19. Including that language makes it clearer where find to regulations for swimming pool facilities. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 6.1.a COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CITY'S BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REPORTS 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed the Snohomish Health District reported yesterday that for the first time since early November, case counts have dropped from the highs of 400+/100,000 to 253/100,000 in a two week period. That is good news, but unfortunately because Snohomish County is linked with other counties in the state recovery plan where hospitalization numbers have gone up, there would not be any change in reopening. The governor announced today the federal government pledged a 16% increase in vaccines coming to Washington. Approximately 1.5 million Washingtonians quality for the vaccine but do not yet have access because there is not yet enough available. Work continues at all levels to get more vaccines sooner. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was elected vice chair by the bipartisan Snohomish Health Board. One of their goals will be to continue to fight the pandemic and continue to provide information to the public. Today the new President signed an executive order for racial equity and justice. That sets the tone for a better future as a community. There are a couple of groups in Edmonds who continue to spew hate and misjustice by putting signs on telephone poles, yard signs, threats, comments on social media, letters to the editor, etc. The message from President Biden is about everyone working together to move forward in a progressive manner. She read a quote by John F. Kennedy, "Let us not despair but act. Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future." She encouraged everyone to move forward into the future as has been seen in national politics to provide a working together approach to get out of the pandemic. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Dean Olson and the Diversity Commission for captions on the meeting display, a welcome addition for anyone hard of hearing. She thanked Dave Rohde for bringing her a new and improved iPad today; for the first time in two months she can read from her iPad. She thanked Council President Paine along with everyone else who made this accommodation possible, commenting she was very grateful. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was very happy with what President Biden was doing. She acknowledged several first including Kamala Harris, the first woman, first African America and first Asian American Vice President; Senator Maria Cantwell became the chair of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, impressive in a male dominated senate; Janet Yellen was confirmed as the first female Treasury Secretary; Arvil Haines was selected as the Director of National Intelligence; and Lloyd Austin was the first African American appointed to Secretary of Defense. As Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said, change is coming and it is wonderful that people who have worked so hard for so long are being recognized. She summarized she was hopeful for 2021. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' message, not the Republican answer, not the Democratic answer but the right answer, commenting that was a great motto for the Edmonds City Council. Councilmember Olson offered her condolences to members of the community who have suffered as family members and friends of young people who have committed suicide. The isolation of the pandemic has exacerbated life's challenges and mental illness. She hoped everyone was doing their best to keep each other safe from the pandemic and as safe as possible from the downfalls of isolation. To anyone listening who might be in that circumstance and feeling isolated, she assured people were thinking and caring about them and hoping sooner rather than later that with the news of the vaccine and it's availability things will get better. Councilmember Olson encouraged people not to volunteer for additional stress or self-imposed stress. As a liaison to the Housing Commission, she appreciated their hard work, but it was true that due to COVID there had been less engagement that would have been ideal and the City will do its best during the next phase to engage and communicate. It is not a finished process; the Housing Commission's recommendation will come to Council to be vetted. She thanked everyone for participating at the Housing Commission and she looked forward to participating in the next steps and hearing from the public. Council President Paine expressed appreciation for everybody's comments. She reminded that the state legislative session begins tomorrow and she encouraged the public to contact legislators about the issues they were passionate about. Because the legislature will be meeting remotely, there is an electronic system for the public to express their thoughts and interest on bills. Spring is around the corner and there is a lot of renewal going on. In her circle of friends, five babies have arrived plus another in two weeks. A lot of good things are happening that may be surprising because people have been sticking close to home. She expressed her appreciation for staff s dedication and diligence, commenting tonight was the culmination of a lot of hard work. Councilmember Distelhorst said seeing the case rate drop is definitely encouraging; seeing new strains show up is a little discouraging. He urged the public to be as diligent as ever by staying home if possible, masking or double masking and using KN95 masks on essential trips, and staying 6 feet away even outside wearing masks. It is encouraging to hear that more vaccines are coming but the rollout is bumpy. For the sake of your neighbors and businesses, play your part in getting us back on track. Councilmember Distelhorst reported on the Recovery Taskforce meeting; the City will be sending out more multi-lingual information to businesses in the City to promote federal funding they may have access to as well as distributing more compostable containers to food establishments to help support takeout for local restaurants. He thanked Councilmember Olson for her comments, pointing out that a major part of staying healthy is mental health, especially for children. This Saturday Sno-Isle Libraries has a free online event, "How to Recognize Anxiety and Depression in Kids." Further information is available by googling Sno-Isle Libraries and "Issues That Matter." For anyone with youth in their home who are struggling, he assured support is available. The City's WeCare.Edmondswa.gov webpage is still available and has free 24/7 online, phone and text message resources. He urged everyone to look out for their children and their friends and neighbors' children and to stay safe and healthy. Councilmember L. Johnson said it was recently brought to her attention that the local girl scout council is struggling during these times and have made a number of sacrifices including selling certain properties to stay afloat. Even though they're struggling, they have prioritized the public and the scouts' health by have choosing to forego door-to-door or onsite cookie sales that fund girl scout programs. As a long time girl scout, former leader, daughter of a girl scout leader and the wife of a boy scout leader, she knew the value of those programs. Scouts are doing all they can to continue to offer programs to kids safely during these Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 times. If girl scout cookies, boy scout popcorn or other club sales were something people would expect during normal times, she encouraged those who are able to search out those programs and make a purchase or donation to help youth and to help programs continue. She questioned who could not use something as small as girl scout cookies showing up on their doorstep via a no contact delivery. Student Rep Roberts urged the public to be safe, practice social distancing and wear masks to ensure the case counts continue to drop. Recovery from the pandemic depends on us all and we must all work together for our future. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 6.1.a Public Comment for 1/26/21 Council Meeting: From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:37 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment on Draft Tree Code 1. First and MOST OBVIOUS Comment - WHERE'S THE SCIENCE? Trees are an integral part of our natural environment and any/all decisions (i.e., codes, ordinances, regulations) on removal and/or replacement should be based on BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE!! The draft rule has percentages, diameters, etc. with NO scientific or societal basis for those metrics. What are the metrics in the draft code based on? Where is the rationale and calculations that resulted in the metrics chosen in the draft tree code? What tree protection and canopy goals/objectives will or will not be achieved? How will the level of tree removals authorized by the draft code affect the ecological services that native trees provide? 2. Will the "Intent and Purposes" of the draft tree code be achieved by the prohibitions set forth in the draft tree code, or will the exemptions and replacement requirements (as drafted) make that impossible? Is it really the intent of this draft rule to implement the City's Urban Forest Management Plan? One of the goals of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan is "no net loss to overall tree canopy." Unless there are analyses (as stated above) that indicate otherwise, the draft tree code appears to fall way short of that goal and will more likely result in continued significant loss of tree canopy. 3. Is this draft code consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under Environmental Quality, states: "Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.a "So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non -sustainable approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system." Any/all allowances in the code for tree removal must take into account the "ripple effect." We are already seeing the "ripple effect" in the Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek watersheds where land development practices have caused HUGE erosion and flooding problems in our creeks. 4. What percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property in Edmonds could potentially be removed under this draft tree code? The Council and the public must be provided the answer to this question before it proceeds to a public hearing on the draft tree code. 5. Starting off the draft code with "blanket exemptions" to all of the prohibitions and requirements is BAD NEWS for trees in Edmonds. The entire exemptions section should be DELETED. If there are necessary exemptions for social or safety reasons, they should be specifically described under the appropriate provision in the code. Further, there should be an accompanying document that explains exactly why and where the exemption is necessary and how such exemption affects achievement of the goals of the UFMP and Comp Plan. 6. "One size does NOT fit all" - the draft rule needs to address differences between the watersheds in Edmonds. More tree protection should be provided in environmentally sensitive watersheds (such as Perrinville and Shell watersheds) that will be further damaged with every large tree removed (i.e., the ripple effect mentioned above). Further, the remnant wildlife corridors provided by trees and tree canopy in Edmonds should be afforded more protection to preserve the wildlife. Thank you to those Council members that are actually listening to public comments and making informed decisions by requesting additional information from staff and asking staff to make necessary changes to the draft code BEFORE it goes to public hearing. From: STEVE WAITE Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:15 AM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Code, City Council Review (2/26) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a Hello Kernen, Might you include my comments below for the City Council 2/26/21 meeting: City Council Members, The Draft Tree Regulations do not consider the accommodation of solar access, either passive or active, on a single developed lot, *. Sustainable energy practices should not be mutually exclusive of the natural environment. Adopting solar access will allow reasonable use of property, while still balancing holistic ecological concerns. I ask that you consider this issue for inclusion into the Tree Code. Thank you, Steve Waite, Edmonds *The concept of solar easement was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes (10/18/20), but that referenced only adjacent properties with no further discussion or consideration. From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:43 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Code Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson; The proposed tree code that you will hear about tonight is a good start. It covers about one third of what a good tree code should cover. The proposed tree code does a good job of addressing private undeveloped lots when they come up for development. But, the proposed code does nothing to address the already developed residential lots. That is where most of our forest canopy grows and where it is being cut down. Little cuts lead to big tears. I hope the Council will take the time to fix this proposed code. Get it right. Address all the trees in Edmonds. Get a sustainable self funding tree planting program set up. Tree replacement planting is the key to a good tree code. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a We gotta realize that more and more trees are gonna come down; for all the usual reasons. Our commitment should be to planting replacement trees for every significant tree lost. Any tree, any place, at any time for whatever reason should have multiple replacement trees planted. I've looked at other tree codes in neighboring cities. They all try to control and/or mitigate the loss of tree canopy on private land. The attempts at "control" include: fees, permits, inspections, penalties, "fees -in -lieu -of", and endless enforcement issues. Attempted control of privately owned trees leads to public resentment because of added expenses and hassles. It leads to cries of "private land rights!". Whereas, "mitigation" recognizes and acknowledges the loss of forest canopy, which leads to action. Positive and cooperative action. We can all agree to the idea of planting new trees, just as long as they're not in my way ! We all recognize the environmental benefits of forests. And it's a lot less hassle and cost to City staff. I encourage the Council to not "kick this can down the road." Let's just do it right the first time. (Oh, no wait, the second time!) Let's take the time to institute an all encompassing and self sustaining Tree Code that actually fulfills the UFMP goal of "no net loss." Let's institute a "Lost Tree Notification" system. You just notify the City of when you are cutting down trees. Then the City can replant multiple "of kind" tree saplings. We can advertise this program through the City water bills, local media, pamphlets and city groups. All tree replanting and retention efforts should occur in Edmonds first; through tree vouchers and lower storm water bills. But it may require us participating in a local tree preserve, such as the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Initiative, in order to fulfill our obligations. It will feel good to do it right. We need it. A sense of accomplishment. Let's do it! An all encompassing, self sustaining and meaningful Tree Code. For our future. Thank you for your consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 7:55 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: The proposed Tree Code Update In order to have an effective overall tree code, special emphasis needs to be placed on sites that are unique in topography, have steep slopes, deep ravines, wetlands, and more importantly are the headwaters and drainage system of a local stream. With that in mind, my focus was to review the proposed code in that context. The following is a summary of conclusions with respect to the proposed Tree code update. 1. The "Conservation Subdivision Design" regulation on page 13, references20.O75, the ECDC chapter on Subdivisions. As currently written, there are no provisions indicating that the 30% tree retention limit and all other tree related regulations in the proposed tree code are applicable to this section. The Conservation Subdivision should be included with other subdivisions on page 7 where retention requirements are listed. 2. There are no provisions for any of the following monitoring plans that are necessary to verify compliance of the tree related regulations. a. Construction phase monitoring to assure all tree retention and protection plans are being followed. b. Tree replacement monitoring plan to assure compliance of the tree replacement plan. c. Post development inspection plan to assure the replants are being properly maintained by the applicant and to check for trees that have not survived and need replacement. Semiannual monitoring should be conducted for at least the first two years after planting occurs. 3. The monitoring of the construction site, pre -development, during development, and post development needs to be done by a qualified professional. 4. Monitoring by a licensed arborist is warranted for any development requiring a tree plan. An arborist should be onsite to make certain all the tree related regulations are being followed 5. Any Tree Replacement Plan needs to include the number of replacement trees, size and species being planted, and a " tree spacing" requirement to avoid over planting. If the replant site is over planted the survival rate will be adversely affected. The size of the replacement tree at maturity is an important spacing factor. Tree replacements should be of same species removed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a 6. Item 4 "Property lines" of the Tree Protection Measures should include the statement that the applicant shall be required to install a fence barrier along the adjoining property line to cordon off and protect those trees on the adjoining property. Verification of this protective measure needs to be included in the pre -construction site meeting. Thank you, Duane Farmen Seaview resident From: Shannon Roeder Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 6:53 PM Subject: Edmonds Tree code being discussed 1/26/2021 To: <council@edmondswa.gov>, <publiccomnent@edmondswa.gov> I am writing to the Edmonds City Council to provide input regarding the Tree Code that is being discussed 1/26/2021. 1 have lived in Edmonds since 1986 when I purchased my home in the Seaview neighborhood. One if the reasons I purchased a home in Edmonds was due to the extensive canopy of trees especially in the wooded areas near my home. I want to make sure that the Edmonds City Council takes the right actions to preserve our wooded areas, keeping our urban forests, especially the Seaview / Perrinville Wood. As I understand it, one of the original tasks of the Edmonds Tree Board in 2010 is to, "preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees in parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur", and encourage Edmonds citizens to become "active stewards of the urban forest." Moving to the Urban Forest Management Plan the focus should be to "maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage" through updated tree regulations. I fully support and urge the Edmonds City Council to adopt a policy of no net loss to overall canopy coverage, ensuring protection of trees in environmentally critical areas, and establish a "tree bank" fund to cover the costs of plantings and other tree programs. I believe that Seaview/ Perrinville Wood fits the description of an area needing protection in a critical area. Please do not waste any time in preserving Seaview/ Perrinville Wood and other such areas within Edmonds. Thank you for considering my input regarding the Edmonds Tree Code. Sincerely, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a Shannon L Roeder Norman J Hawker From: ACE President Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:07 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: From the Board of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds As the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission concludes this Thursday, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) thanks the Commissioners and alternate Commissioners, for volunteering their time, committing to this aspirational process. Understandably, the process was made more difficult for all involved due to Covid-19 restrictions, mandating virtual meetings and eliminating the original promise of neighborhood meetings throughout all of Edmonds. The Commission did, however, offer one in -person Open House and survey before Covid restrictions, followed by 3 more surveys combined with 3 prerecorded virtual Open House viewing options, and one Zoom Webinar. ACE followed with optimism and had high hopes for this 16-month process. However, we are concerned that input the Commission received at each public engagement touchpoint, in the form of hundreds of questions, comments, emails and feedback from local folks, was disregarded. Edmonds' citizens were not given their promised place at the table in this citizen -driven process. The Edmonds City Council formed this Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) via Resolution No 1427 which stated in part: "...options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation." In addition, an expanded timeline was created "to enable direct citizen involvement in this important process." Neither Edmonds' Development Services Director Shane Hope, who is in charge of this Commission, nor the contracted consultant group, prioritized citizen input although it was solicited by the Commission as each round of its proposed policy ideas were put forward. Commissioners should have been better directed to consider and incorporate citizen feedback, particularly as it often overwhelmingly contradicted policy ideas put forward, such as adding duplexes, triplexes, and townhome developments into single-family neighborhoods citywide, local sales tax increases, and most disturbingly, the elimination of current single-family zoned Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a neighborhoods. CHC policies will be voted on this Thursday. We are concerned that, if these policies receive the votes in the Commission to move forward, the Planning Board and City Council will be asked to vote on many policy ideas that discounted and ignored community input throughout the process. Examples of lack of response to questions/comments by the public are as follows: 26 families in one neighborhood targeted as a "Transition Zone", wrote a letter to the Commission, Council, Mayor and Tree Board, outlining concerns about losing the single- family character of their neighborhood. They were told their concerns would not be discussed openly by the CHC, with one Commissioner saying: "Historically inequities develop because you have a group of people that feel more privileged to be vocal for multiple reasons... holding a special discussion on letters we received not in the context of all of the feedback that we've gotten feels like we're perpetuating that sense of privilege." • The above example, coupled with the 78% in the first survey who agreed that it is important to preserve single-family zoning, is evidence that citizen input has, selectively, been dismissed by the CHC. • The above further indicates that one Commissioner's use of the subjective term "sense of privilege" has influenced how citizen input is addressed by the Director, who controlled the public engagement process with the paid public engagement consultant. • Although there were 68 citizen questions and comments posed live by written option only at the January 7, 2021 online Open House public outreach event, only 8 questions from the attendees were selected by the Staff/consultant to be discussed. • There is no indication that there has been, or ever will be, a public response to any of the remaining 60 questions/comments. • Before Covid restrictions, Edmonds' citizens were encouraged to make in -person comments on record at live meetings. After Covid restrictions, citizens were instructed to engage with this Commission's process only via email to the CHC. These emailed comments were seldom discussed during CHC meetings, resulting in no transparent public record of these emails, not even in the meeting packet or notes. Examples of citizen input being discounted or ignored are significant enough to red flag unanswered questions about CHC recommendations to Council, to be finalized at their January 28, 2021 meeting. Some of ACE's clarifying questions are: Where is the evidence that urbanized density in single family neighborhoods will drop property values and thus create more affordability? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a • Has the CHC received significant feedback and support from our community to justify citywide up -zoning of all single-family zoning in Edmonds, as their specific "Inclusionary Policy" recommends? • Why, under the Director's leadership, have they facilitated a discussion by the CHC of relaxing State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) guidelines in the context of developing affordable housing options in Edmonds? • In support of relaxing SEPA thresholds, one Commissioner stated: "SEPA is used by people who don't want housing built in a location. It's weaponized by people who don't want housing and poor people, or people who aren't homeowners, or whatever other NIMBYBS." How are the biased terms "weaponized" and "NIMBY" of use in a thoughtful discussion of SEPA thresholds? • What evidence has been presented to the CHC that the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) project at Westgate has provided affordable housing that justifies 12-years tax- free on ALL 81 residential units, in exchange for 20% so-called "affordable" units? • Given the fact that our code has been in need of a re -write since 2000, why is the Development Services Director facilitating introduction of "policy options" that would require drastic alteration of existing inadequate code? • What evidence has been provided by the Director/Staff that our existing Chapter 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units code, is insufficient to both retain single family quality and provide additional affordable housing? There are points where Edmonds' citizens agree with the CHC, such as concentrating density closer to transit and conveniences, simplifying code language, creating low-income home repair programs and other creative ideas. Greater collaboration between Edmonds' citizens and the Housing Commission should have been facilitated by the Director, Staff, and the consultant group to have further developed those common ideas. As we move forward, ACE encourages open, transparent processes -a true back and forth discussion -about this critical issue: what is the best way to add additional types of housing in Edmonds and what will Edmonds look like in the future? ACE recognizes the hard work of the Citizens Housing Commission. We sincerely hope that there will be further extensive citizen engagement as the Commission's final recommendations move to the Planning Board and City Council. We also ask any steps taken by Council on this issue be paused until we can again gather in person. Board of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds CC: Citizens Housing Commission, Development Services Director, Edmonds City Council, Planning Board, Edmonds Tree Board, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a "References: Resolution 1427: Resolution+1427+(1).pdf (squarespace.com) Code 20.21 ADU: Chapter 20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (codepublishing.com) WA State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA): Chapter 220-600 WAC: Link to CHC 1/14/21 meeting SEPA discussion begins at 1hr26min: Video Outline - Edmonds, WA (iam2.com) From: Will Strong Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 1:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trees Please remove all unstable trees on Olympic view drive , also on 80th ave from 18100 block to 186th total hazard .Consider this a formal notice of unsafe road to travel on from 184 th and 80th to 186th as there are many trees that are about ready to fall on to road. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 6:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Comments for January 26, 2021 City Council meeting Please see below a June 13, 2012 email that informed that ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. I informed that: This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. 1 informed that: I've actually witnessed a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 (i.e. location of tree covered areas) on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. I said: This must be fixed! In April of 2012, 1 had emailed City Attorney Jeff Taraday that: 3. ECDC 20.75.040(C). A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.htmi plat at the applicant's option. Section 20.75.050 does not discuss a preliminary plat map. It discusses lot line adjustments. The reference should be to Section 20.75.060. Here we are in 2021 and ECDC 20.75.040.0 still contains the same error. Why aren't citizens respected and listened to when citizens try to help? Subject: My General Requests of the Tree Board Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:29:18 -0700 To the members of the Tree Board, Thank you very much for allowing me to discuss the City's Code related to trees during last week's meeting. Much was discussed, but I believe the main point is that there is often a conflict between development rights and tree protection under the City's Code. I believe that accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process coupled with proper application and enforcement of the City's Code by Mayor and staff will greatly assist the protection of valuable trees in Edmonds. As such, my general request of the Tree Board is twofold: 1. Please strongly encourage the City Council to closely review the City's tree related Code and make corrections and IMPROVEMENTS where necessary. I believe that the Code needs to be strengthened related to accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process. For example, ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. I've actually witnessed a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 6.1.a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. This must be fixed! A second example is found in ECDC 20.75.060.N. This Code Section states that the following shall be shown on the plat: The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director. There are two problems here. First of all, there is no such position as planning director. Secondly, even if there was a planning director, why should the disclosure of the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas be subjective? I believe leaving such an important Code requirement optional and subjective gives the applicant and the City a potential excuse for failure to disclose trees on preliminary plats. I believe the more accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process the better! I think accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas on adjoining properties is also very necessary. 2. Petition and respectfully request that the Mayor and his staff be diligent in the application and enforcement of the City's Code related to trees. For example, valuable healthy trees located in critical areas should not be lost to development because the trees weren't disclosed during the application process. Vesting is supposed to be based in equity. It is not equitable to gain vested development rights as a reward for not disclosing trees as required under the City's Code. For example, development applications should be deemed incomplete if the application fails to disclose the required trees and tree covered areas. Thank you very much for your hard work as members of the Tree Board. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ken Reidy Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/2/2021 Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #245927 through #246014 dated January 28, 2021 for $997,675.29 and wire payments of $626.46 and $417.67. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 01-28-21 wire 01-28-21 wire 01-29-21 Packet Pg. 39 6.2.a vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245927 1/28/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun vi INV-2-7745 INV-2-7745 - EDMONDS PD - STRAP y JUMPSUIT NAME TAPE E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0( a 2 PATCH INSTALL/ REMOVAL 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.0( '3 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.4' INV-2-7952 INV-2-7952 - EDMONDS PD - MCIN7 N Y DANNER KINETIC BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 169.9E u 10.1 % Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 17.1('sa INV-2-7953 INV-2-7953 - EDMONDS PD - TRIMB BAYLY HAT RAIN COVER O 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.0( > 10.1 % Sales Tax o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 0.4( a INV-2-7954 INV-2-7954 - EDMONDS PD - STRAP Q JUMPSUIT - BADGE VELCRO 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 r 10.0( N PATCH INSTALL N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 3.0( c 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.3" •9 INV-2-7955 INV-2-7955 - EDMONDS PD - SUTT( U BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 880.0( CONCEALABLE CARRIER E t 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 80.0( TRAUMA PLATE Q 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.0( EXTERNAL CARRIER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.0( SAFARILAND ID PANEL Page: 1 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245927 1/28/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 245928 1/28/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0( y HEAT PRESS EDMONDS PD E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0( a 2 NAMETAPES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0( .3 2 VELCRO 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0( RADIO CASE Y 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.2,1 CUFF CASE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.0( E TOURNIQUET POUCH 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 _M 36.0( 10.1 % Sales Tax o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 134.4E INV-2-7956 INV-2-7956 - EDMONDS PD - SUTT( o 5.11 ATAC BOOTS a a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 99.9� Q 10.1 % Sales Tax r 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.1( N INV-2-7957 INV-2-7957 - EDMONDS PD - T. SMI N INSTALL CPL CHEVRONS - 3 SHIRT c 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.0( 10.1 % Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.8, 2 INV-2-7958 INV-2-7958 - EDMONDS PD - DISPC }; DISPOSABLE CUFFS 100/BOX 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 120.5( E 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 12.1; Total : 1.949.5: Q 41000 WWTP:1/20/21 PEST CONTROL SEI 1/20/21 PEST CONTROL SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0( Page: 2 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245928 1/28/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 245929 245930 1/28/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 138111387 138111388 138111389 138111390 138111393 139111391 139111392 1/28/2021 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-2113 6.2.a Page: 3 PO # Description/Account Amoun 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.5E E Total: 80.55 a ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 3 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 27.5E ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I y 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 27.5E U ALARM MONITORING - FS #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 34.1, •� ALARM MONITORING - FS #17 U ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST, o 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 78.3< '@ ALARM MONITORING FOR MUSEU 0 ALARM MONITORING FOR Museum a 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.0E Q FIRE INSPECTION - FS #17, MUSEI fire inspection for fire station #17, N 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 55.4, N Fire Inspection - Museum 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 35.0, N Fire Inspection - Public Safety E 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 153.3z 2 ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT U ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 a� 50.7' E ALARM MONITORING FOR PUBLIC ALARM MONITORING FOR PUBLIC f° 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 112.5( Q Total : 703.71 APA-MEMBERSHIP (MCLUGSTON) APA membership (MClugston) Page: 3 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245930 1/28/2021 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (Continued) 328906-2113 245931 1/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1992074497 1992079733 6.2.a Page: 4 PO # Description/Account Amoun 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 533.0( APA-MEMBERSHIP FEES E APA Membership ($424) & Subscriptii a 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 468.0( Total: 1,001.0( 3 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS c FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS y 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.0, PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS E PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6" p PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS '@ 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1 " o PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS a 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1 " Q PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1 " N PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS N 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1 " PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS N 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0E E 10.4% Sales Tax '6 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1; 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6z E 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6z 10.4% Sales Tax Q 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6z 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6z Page: 4 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245931 1/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6' E 1992079734 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT a FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� 3 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( 10.4% Sales Tax N 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 Y 0.9 1 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.9£ E 1992083792 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.1E o 10.4% Sales Tax �a 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.3E o 1992088977 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE a PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Q 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' r PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE N 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' N PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE c 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' N PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1 u PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE }; 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1 - PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ um 10.4% Sales Tax Q 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1 ; 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6z 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 5 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245931 1/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 245932 1/28/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 6 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) N 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6, ED 10.4% Sales Tax E 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.61 a 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6, .3 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6" cm 1992088978 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT Y FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� FLEET DIVISION MATS E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.9; o 10.4% Sales Tax �a 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.9E o Total: 233.7, a Q 120038 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area Printing713 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 49.8E N UB Outsourcing area Printing713 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 49.8E N UB Outsourcing area Printing713 E 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 51.4( 2 UB Outsourcing area Postage 713 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 139.1, UB Outsourcing area Postage 713 E 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 139.1 10.1 % Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 5.0, Q 10.1 % Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 5.0z 10.1 % Sales Tax Page: 6 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245932 1/28/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 5.1 Tota I : 444.7 , 245933 1/28/2021 001527 AW WA 7001874308 W WTP: 3/1 /21-2/29/22 PRANDOLPF- 3/1/20-2/29/21 PRANDOLPH MEMBE 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 242.0( Total : 242.0( 245934 1/28/2021 002100 BARNARD, EARL 8 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 617.000.51.589.40.23.00 1,576.5� Total: 1,576.55 245935 1/28/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1221246 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 411.40 GA FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 411.40 GP 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 426.4< 1223591 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 765.40 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 765.40 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 814.9z Total : 1,241.3 , 245936 1/28/2021 075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT 122020 PUBLIC DEFENSE FEES DECEMBER PUBLIC DEFENSE FEE 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 716.6, Total: 716.6, 245937 1/28/2021 077243 BPAS 1000771291 BPAS PARTICIPANT FEES - JANUAF JANUARY FEES 001.000.39.518.61.49.00 324.0( JANUARY FEES 111.000.68.542.61.49.00 139.5( JANUARY FEES 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 27.0( JANUARY FEES 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 31.5( Page: 7 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245937 1/28/2021 077243 BPAS (Continued) JANUARY FEES 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 JANUARY FEES 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 JANUARY FEES 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 JANUARY FEES 001.000.41.521.22.23.00 245938 1/28/2021 076378 CAMFIL USA INC 30205729 WWTP: PO 477 FILTERS PO 477 FILTERS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 26024232 CANON 5250 contract charge 01/2021 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 contract charge 01/2021 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 contract charge 01/2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 bw meter usage 12/2020 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 clr meter usage 12/2020 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 clr meter usage 12/2020 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 clr meter usage 12/2020 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax Total Total 6.2.a Page: 8 Amoun 31.5( E �a a 58.5( 3 31.5( c �a 243.0( Y 886.5( U t E M 2,111.7E Z 0 219.6, �a 2,331.31 o L Q Q 167.6� N 0 N 20.9E 0 0 20.9E E 2 9.2£ U c a� 62.3, E t U 7.7� .r a 24.8� 7.7� Page: 8 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 9 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 2.9£ 5D 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 2.9f a 26024234 CANON 2501 F contract charge 01/2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 26.4z bw meter usage 12/2020 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 2.8f Y clr meter usage 12/2020 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 18.4, 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 26024235 PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON' o 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 307.5< �a 26024237 BLDG - MONTHLY COPIER CONTR/ o Bldg copier (SN: QNR12044)- L a 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 35.5E Q 10.4% Sales Tax T 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.6� N 26024238 PLANNING DEPT MONTHLY COPIEI c00.i Planning Dept Copier (SN: QNR1186: 0 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 44.4( N 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 4.6" U 26024239 P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' }; P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 114.1 £ E 26024240 PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi Q 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 62.7� 26024242 CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC contract charge/meter usage 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 580.9( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 10 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax (D 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 60.4, E, 26024243 FLEET COPIER a Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 50.1; 3 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 5.2' 26024245 CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC contract charge/meter usage 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 22.0E 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 26024246 COUNCIL CANON MONTHLY LEASE Monthly contract o 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.4, �a Color Meter Usage o 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 3.2E 0- B/W Meter Usage Q 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 1.2, r 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 3.2, N 26024248 WATER SEWER COPIER c Water Sewer Copier N 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 69.3, . Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 69.3< }; 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 7.2' E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 7.2' Q 26024249 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 91.2, PW Office Copier for Page: 10 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 245940 1/28/2021 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 245941 1/28/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 11 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) N 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 51.7, PW Office Copier for E 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 51.7, a PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 36.5" .3 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 36.5" PW Office Copier for Y 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 36.4� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 9.4� E 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 _M 5.3f 10.4% Sales Tax o 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 5.3E 10.4% Sales Tax o 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 3.8( a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 3.8( r 10.4% Sales Tax N 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 00 3.7� N Total : 2,197.2F c N 001 STATE LOBBYIST JANUARY 2021 State Lobbyist January 2021 _E 2 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 U 3,750.0( }; Total: 3,750.0( E 6165188 HP 80OW HOT PLUG POWER SUPF HP 80OW Hot Plug Power Suppy Kits 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 521.1( Q 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 54.1 6425359 ADOBE ACROBAT PRO DC Adobe Acrobat Pro DC - city 70 Page: 11 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245941 1/28/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC (Continued) 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 7,700.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 800.8( 6635953 SYMANTEC FILE SHARE ENCRYPT Symantec File Share Encryption 1/11, 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 976.11 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 101.5, Total : 10,153.7; 245942 1/28/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY299052 WATER - COMPRESSED CARBON [ WATER - COMPRESSED CARBON 1 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 76.7, 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.9E Total : 84.7( 245943 1/28/2021 066134 CITY OF ARLINGTON 1/15/21 EVOC FEE FOR ARLINGTON AIRPORT - M AIRPORT RENTAL FOR EVOC 10/1 E 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 144.6( Tota I : 144.6( 245944 1/28/2021 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3-M019 E182PO - 2021 FORD POLICE INTEI E182PO - 2021 FORD POLICE INTEI 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 45,539.0( 8.4% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 3,825.2E Total: 49,364.21 245945 1/28/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 21-4064 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1/12 , council meeting minutes 1/12 and 1/1 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 734.4( Total : 734.4( 245946 1/28/2021 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS FY 2021 2021 ECA SUPPORT Page: 12 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245946 1/28/2021 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS (Continued) 245947 1/28/2021 060401 EDMONDS HARBOR INN INC 245948 1/28/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE PO # Description/Account 2021 ECA Support 001.000.39.575.20.52.00 Total 623 WWTP: DKORSTAD 1/13/21 1 NIGH DKORSTAD 1/13/21 1 NIGHT STAY 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Total 0I� 2017 2036 gik3I 2044 WWTP: PO 481 STAPL 3.25" PO 481 STAPL 3.25" 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 WWTP: PO 481 ADHESIVE PO 481 ADHESIVE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: BIT DRILL, TAPS PM SUPPLIES: BIT DRILL, TAPS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 WWTP: PO 481 SPRAY PAINT PO 481 SPRAY PAINT 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: BRUSH, STAKE FLA PM SUPPLIES: BRUSH, STAKE FLA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.2.a Page: 13 Amoun m 50,000.0( E 50,000.0( a a� 3 118.9( 118.9( N U as 4.5� E U 0.4E o �a 0 8.5E a a Q 0.8� N 0 12.1; 0 E 23.1, 2.4- Page: 13 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245948 1/28/2021 076610 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued) 245949 1/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 3-03575 3-07490 3-07525 3-07709 3-09350 3-09800 3-29875 3-38565 6-00025 6-00200 6-00410 6.2.a Page: 14 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total : 66.8( LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S m E LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' �a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 58.6( CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL = CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 3 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 471.8( c HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F N HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F Y U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 109.8, LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9z 2 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S o LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S '@ 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9z o LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i a LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i Q- Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 109.8, " LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R N LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R ao 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 N 58.6( LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / c LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9z SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c _M SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z E MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER MARINA BEACH PARK tea, 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 207.7E Q FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,007.2E BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF Page: 14 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245949 1/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 428.7� E 6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS a ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 804.9, .3 6-01127 WWTP: 11/15/20-1/14/21 METER 2D 11/15/20-1/14/21 METER 2088: 200, 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 203.0� 6-01130 WWTP: 11/15/2-1/14/21 METER 94" 11/15/2-1/14/21 METER 9439: 200 , t 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 23.7.E 6-01140 WWTP: 1/15/20-1/14/21 METER 501 1/15/20-1/14/21 METER 5010484: 20 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 2,068.2E o 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER �a CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER o L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 203.0� a 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT Q CITY PARK PARKING LOT .r 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 T 1,652.0( N 6-01280 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK 00 N CITY PARK SPRAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 0 315.6E N 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL E PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL 2 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 U 354.9z }; 6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 309.6E 6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I fd CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I Q 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 309.6< 6-02745 VETERANS PLAZA VETERANS PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 254.0, Page: 15 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245949 1/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 16 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 6-02885 DOWNTOWN RESTROOM DOWNTOWN RESTROOM E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 430.9, a 6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER FAC SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 309.6: 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 611.8z 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI t HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 203.0( 6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER p 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 382.0E �a 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER o SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 309.6' Q 6-04425 SEAVIEW PARK .r SEAVIEW PARK 04 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 689.2- N 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER T- SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER c N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 460.5" E 6-06040 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF @ 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z 6-07775 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER E MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 402.5" 6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER Q YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,566.0E 6-08525 YOST POOL YOST POOL Page: 16 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245949 1/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 315.6E Total: 14,902.2° 245950 1/28/2021 074437 EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION WA 2021-01-COEDRETMED 01 RETIREE DUES Q1 RETIREE DUES 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 1,530.0( Total : 1,530.0( 245951 1/28/2021 064079 EVERGREEN FIRE & SAFETY INC 94460 WWTP: PO 476 EYE WASH, BURN I PO 476 EYE WASH, BURN PUMP S 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.8E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.4, Total : 36.2 245952 1/28/2021 078281 FRITCHMAN, TIFFANY 2005706.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 64.0( Tota I : 64.0( 245953 1/28/2021 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 162168 UNIT 86 - TIRE UNIT 86 - TIRE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA STATE TIRE FEE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 245954 1/28/2021 012370 GREENSHIELDS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 1-101218 PM SUPPLIES: HI -LIFT JACK, SLINC PM SUPPLIES: HI -LIFT JACK, SLINC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total Page: 17 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245955 1/28/2021 074804 HARLES, JANINE 245956 1/28/2021 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 245957 1/28/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 5277295 7 245958 1/28/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7024299 245959 1/28/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET 245960 1/28/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 0551893666 0551895111 0551902310 3439124 PO # Description/Account PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES FOR Jf Photography Services for January 20; 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Total TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI Tourism Promotion & Marketing, Web 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Total PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 COVID TESTING SITE HONEY BUCI COVID TESTING SITE HONEY BUCI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Total PRINTABLE MULTIPURPOSE CARD Neenah Paper Printable Multipurpose 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.2.a Page: 18 Page: 18 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245960 1/28/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.8' Tota I : 30.0' 245961 1/28/2021 076828 INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC W210114 WWTP: TRACEABLE SCALE/BALAI` Traceable Scale/Balance Calibration 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 260.0( Total : 260.0( 245962 1/28/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10081789 FLEET - WORK LIGHT FLEET - WORK LIGHT 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 49.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 5.1 Total : 55.05 245963 1/28/2021 015280 JONES, KENTON 6 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,595.3< Total: 2,595.1 245964 1/28/2021 068677 KONECRANES AMERICA INC 154418349 2021 INSPECTION 2021 INSPECTION 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 850.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 88.4( Tota I : 938.4( 245965 1/28/2021 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 01112021-01 01112021-01 - DEC 2020 - EDMONE DEC 2020 CAR WASH CHARGES 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 45.6' 01112021-02 DECEMBER 2020 CAR WASHES UNIT 15 CAR WASH DECEMBER 20 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 5.01 Tota I : 50.7( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245966 1/28/2021 078282 LAFON, SARA 245967 1/28/2021 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 245968 1/28/2021 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 245969 1/28/2021 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 245970 1/28/2021 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 245971 1/28/2021 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 20 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 2005707.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: ( (D 001.000.239.200 60.0( E Total: 60.0( a 4865034 SHREDDING SERVICES 12/20 shredding services for december 202 3 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 17.9E shredding services for december 202 y 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 17.9E U Total : 35.9( t 80500317918 UNIT 66 TIRES E UNIT 66 TIRES f6 U 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2,862.4E o WA STATE TIRE FEE '@ 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 6.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax a 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 297.7( Q Total : 3,166.1E " February Cigna FEBRUARY 2021 CIGNA PREMIUM; T 00 February 2021 Cigna Premiums N 811.000.231.550 13,085.6� c Total: 13,085.65 E 51911740 WWTP: PO 500 EYEBOLTS, GASKE U PO 500 EYEBOLTS, GASKET TAPE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 c 160.2( Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.3E 10.4% Sales Tax Q 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 17.6z Total : 187.Z 71162 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES & Pl. Page: 20 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245971 1/28/2021 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC (Continued) FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES & PL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 882.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 91.& Tota I : 974.7f 245972 1/28/2021 078118 N.NAOJ OTF NAOJ OTF N.NAOJ CONTRACT FOR ARTI OTF N.NAOJ CONTRACT FOR ARTI 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.0( Total : 500.0( 245973 1/28/2021 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 6001917 PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.8E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 22.7E Total : 241.6' 245974 1/28/2021 024001 NC MACHINERY SECS0704382 UNIT 57 - PARTS/ STEERING CYL UNIT 57 - PARTS/ STEERING CYL 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 732.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 76.1 E Total : 808.4' 245975 1/28/2021 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010627993.001 WWTP: PO 489 REACTOR PO 489 REACTOR 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,695.1 E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 176.3( Total : 1,871.4E 245976 1/28/2021 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 3169608-00 CITY PARK BUILDING - AIR COMP F CITY PARK BUILDING - AIR COMP F 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 414.6( Page: 21 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245976 1/28/2021 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 43.1 , Tota I : 457.7, 245977 1/28/2021 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 774 PLANNING -PROF SVCS Planning Board Minutes- 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 456.0( Total : 456.0( 245978 1/28/2021 070306 OBERG, WILLIAM 4 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,828.8f Total: 1,828.8f 245979 1/28/2021 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 68767021 PRE -PLACEMENT DRUG TESTING PRE -PLACEMENT - REYES 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 49.0( 69683185 DOT PHYSICAL RECERT PHYSICAL RE-CERTS (REYES, BRC 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 309.0( PHYSICAL RE-CERTS (REYES, BRC 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 103.0( 69999972 DOT PHYSICAL RECERTIFICATION DOT RECERT - CRAWFORD 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 103.0( Tota I : 564.0( 245980 1/28/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-111796 E176PO - PARTS/ BOLT E176PO - PARTS/ BOLT 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.9f 10.4% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 0.7' 3685-111869 UNIT 51 PARTS/ FUEL CAP UNIT 51 PARTS/ FUEL CAP 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.7z Page: 22 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245980 1/28/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.4' Tota I : 22.85 245981 1/28/2021 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO 100400246738 PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,951.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 411.0( Total : 4,362.9E 245982 1/28/2021 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00100429 UNIT 66 - PARTS UNIT 66 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 572.5z Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.1- 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 63.3( Total: 671.9° 245983 1/28/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 220023412418 WWTP: 12/21-1/21/21 METER 0003� 12/21-1 /21 /21 METER 000390395 20 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 2,788.8' Total : 2,788.& 245984 1/28/2021 076935 PULSE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC 3504 INV 3504 - EDMONDS PD P-3 RADAR - GHD-20922 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 625.0( Tota I : 625.0( 245985 1/28/2021 075770 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC 7900 0440 8030 3286 QUADIENT MAIL POSTAGE mail postage 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 4,000.0( Total: 4,000.0( 245986 1/28/2021 075822 QUADIENT INC 16263296 QUADIENT POSTAGE SUPPLIES Page: 23 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245986 1/28/2021 075822 QUADIENT INC (Continued) ink and solution for postage machine 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 364.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 37.9E Total: 402.8E 245987 1/28/2021 078283 REINTEGRADO PHOTOGRAPHY LLC 1,492 LIVESTREAM SERVICE - 1/21/21 M� Livestream Service - 1 /21 /21 Mayor's 001.000.61.557.20.49.00 250.0( Total : 250.0( 245988 1/28/2021 078279 SALVINO, RONALD CPLREFUND CPL RENEWAL REFUND - EDMONE CPLREFUND 001.000.322.90.000.00 21.0( CPLREFUND 001.000.237.190 21.0( Total : 42.0( 245989 1/28/2021 078280 SANDSTROM, KIM 2005704.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 64.0( Total : 64.0( 245990 1/28/2021 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 5 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,735.0( REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 5,700.0( Total : 7,435.0( 245991 1/28/2021 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B12878758 DEC-2020 CLOUD SERVICE CHARC Dec-2020 Cloud Service Charges 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 698.3E 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 72.6< Page: 24 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 245991 1/28/2021 071655 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP (Continued) 245992 1/28/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-408889 245993 1/28/2021 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1705920 245994 1/28/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3264 245995 1/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 200260271 200398956 200611317 200651644 6.2.a Page: 25 Description/Account Amoun Total : 770.95 UNIT 86 - PARTS E E UNIT 86 - PARTS �a 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 383.7, 10.4% Sales Tax L 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.9- 3 Total: 423.6: r- �a PM: FLOWER PROGRAM SOIL PM: FLOWER PROGRAM SOIL 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 t 860.0( U 10.4% Sales Tax E 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 89.4, 2 Total: 949.4' o PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT > DECEMBER PUBLIC DEFENSE COP o 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 CL 29,548.4, Total : 29,548.4, Q PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- T N PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.8� c YOST POOL YOST POOL E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 604.0( 2 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : }; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,102.2E E LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V U LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 211.1 , PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 781.2� Page: 25 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245995 1/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 26 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 200714038 SEAVIEW PARK (D SEAVIEW PARK E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 20.6" a 200723021 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 28.5z 200739845 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 21.5� u 201184538 HICKMAN PARK t HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.1( 201197084 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK p 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 89.1 z �a 201327111 PINE ST PARK o PINE ST PARK a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.8� Q 201431244 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC .r PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC 04 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.8� N 201441755 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME N 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 271.7E E 201453057 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS @ CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 68.0( 201551744 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / E SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,498.& 201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 103.0 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 391.4' Page: 26 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245995 1/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 27 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 391.4( E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 391.4< PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 3 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 391.4< PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 391.4( Y 202250627 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.7z E 202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 99.1; o 202291662 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1, 7a CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 , o L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,926.7z a 202439246 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER Q CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER .r T 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,242.9' N 202540647 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 00 N SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.3, N 203652151 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 E FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 2 U 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 400.4, }; 204425847 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 118.0z 220216386 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF Q 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 125.61 222704280 WWTP: 12/17/20-1/19/21 METER 1( 12/17/20-1/19/21 METER 10001353 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 31,022.3< Page: 27 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245995 1/28/2021 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 245996 1/28/2021 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 245997 1/28/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 1900077925 2020-6633 245998 1/28/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Release of Lien 245999 1/28/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Purser, Rob 246000 1/28/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE Feb-21 6.2.a Page: 28 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total : 49,817.41 ACCT# 30000075 E E Advanced Contact fee on jointly owne 512.000.31.518.87.41.00 244.7E Total : 244.71 .- 3 INV 2020-6633 - DEC 2020 - EDMON c 178 BASE RATE DAYS @ $103.25EA fd 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 N 18,378.5( 39.83 BOOKINGS @ $126.97EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 5,057.2- 49 MED SPEC HOUSING @ $59.33E E 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 2,907.1, 27.33 MENTAL HEALTH @ $143.25 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 0 3,915.0, '@ 13.5 VID CT HRS @ $199.29EA o 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 2,690.4, a Total : 32,948.3: Q RELEASE OF LIEN FOR FINANCE r release of lien N ao 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 180.0( N release of lien o 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 180.0( Total : 360.0( SHORT PLAT: ROB PURSER FOR P short platt: rob purser for planning 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 192.0( E Total: 192.0( FEB-2021 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA Q Feb-2021 Fire Services Contract Payi 001.000.39.522.20.41.50 654,236.4, Total : 654,236.4, Page: 28 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 29 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246001 1/28/2021 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 101908/4 WWTP: LKRESTEL2021 UNIFORM. LKRESTEL 2021 UNIFORM ALLOW/ (D 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 239.1.E E 10.4% Sales Tax a 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 24.8, Total: L 264.0, '3 246002 1/28/2021 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 8679 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR JAI\ c Social Media Services for January y 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 550.0( U Total : 550.0( t 246003 1/28/2021 076324 SUPERION LLC 305422 SUPERION FUSION ANNUAL MAINI E Superion Fusion Annual Maintenance f6 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 2,205.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax '@ 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 229.3E o Total: 2,434.3: a a 246004 1/28/2021 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 127555 DEV SVCS MONTHLY COPIER CON Q Dev Svcs Monthly contract charge for N 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 175.0( ao 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 18.2( c Total: 193.2( 246005 1/28/2021 078203 TOTAL TESTING 54232 MICROSOFT CANDIDATE TESTING U ENGINEERING ADMIN TESTING 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 c 400.0( a) Total: 400.0( E 246006 1/28/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 48899618 WWTP: PO 478 - 1/8/21 SOD. BISI. PO 478 - 1/8/21 SOD. BISULFITE Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,840.5( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 191.4- Page: 29 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 246006 1/28/2021 071549 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC (Continued) 246007 1/28/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9871156173 PO # Description/Account C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total Total 246008 1/28/2021 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8803412513 WWTP: PO 480 STATICMASTER PO 480 STATICMASTER 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8803483540 WWTP: PO 480 TOT SUSPENDED PO 480 TOT SUSPENDED SOLID Sl 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total 246009 1/28/2021 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 213063 INV 213063 - CS 21-919 - EDMOND,' TOW PASSAT - CS 21-919 - 1.51-IRS 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 213073 INV 213073 - CS 21-1938 - EDMONE TOW BLACK FORD - CS 21-1938 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.5% Sales Tax 6.2.a Page: 30 Amoun 2,031.91 C m E �a 121.6E L 324.6- c �a 10.2E N Y 10.2E 41.0( •� 507.71 0 �a 0 508.8E a a Q 52.9, " N 0 70.0, 0 7.2E E 639.0E .M z c a� 276.0( t �a 28.9E Q 184.0( Page: 30 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 31 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 246009 1/28/2021 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 19.3, Total: 508.3( 246010 1/28/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 12043650CR FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES (RETURNEI FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES (RETURNEI 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -105.6( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -10.9£ 12078282 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4,486.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 466.51 12101442 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 68.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.1 Total : 4,912.0F 246011 1/28/2021 064800 WEHOP 643569 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 191.& 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.9E Total : 211.7E 246012 1/28/2021 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 7 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 167.5E Total : 167.5E 246013 1/28/2021 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 21-EDM0001 JAN-2021 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 18,062.5( Page: 31 Packet Pg. 70 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 246013 1/28/2021 070432 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC (Continued) 246014 1/28/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-007-4989 N*&1 iYW*K1.11 253-014-8062 253-017-4360 425-712-8347 425-776-3896 88 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 88 Vouchers in this report 6.2.a Page: 32 Description/Account Amoun Total : 18,062.5( SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) E E SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) >' �a 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.1, c TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES = TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 3 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.7- c TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES y 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 302.1 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE t TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.8 � . TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.9( p TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE '@ TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE > 0 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.0z a TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE Q- Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE N CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 74.8- FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF N E 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141.1( 2 Total : 903.1( c Bank total : 997,675.25 t Total vouchers : 997,675.25 a Page: 32 Packet Pg. 71 vchlist 01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 6.2.a Page: 33 Amoun Page: 33 Packet Pg. 72 6.2.b vchlist 01 /28/2021 10:03:08AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1282021 1/28/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun . . ui 0091 US BANK - EMILY c WWTP POSTING E 423.000.76.535.80.41.40 200.0( AMAZON PRINTERS a 001.000.22.518.10.35.00 198.4E .� AMAON - HR SUPPLIES 3 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 371.9, c EMILY IPHONE COVER ca 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 14.3, FMSCA D&AANNUAL FEE aD t 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 62.5( u 0091 US BANK - EMILY E AMAZON SUPPLIES - NOT NEEDEE 2 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 -220.7E c Total: 626.4E Bank total : 626.4E o a Q. Total vouchers : 626.4E Q N 00 N O L 3 r c m E U �a a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 73 6.2.c vchlist 01/28/2021 10:19:09AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1292021 1/29/2021 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun . . ui Feb 2021 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN( c 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - FebruE E E 001.000.39.542.64.45.00 417.E Total : 417.61 a a� L Bank total : 417.61 3 Total vouchers : 417.6 M U a� t U E 2 U 4- 0 �a 0 L Q a r N N O L 3 r c m E U �a a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 74 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/2/2021 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Kathleen Barrett and Raphael & Marieka Miller Staff Lead: NA Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Kathleen Barrett and Raphael & Marieka Miller by minute entry. Narrative Kathleen Barrett 410 Dayton St ($272.00) Raphael & Marieka Miller 110 Pine St ($30,260.84) Attachments: Claims for Damages - Miller Marieka Raphael - for council Claims for Damages - Kathleen Barrett - for council Packet Pg. 75 CITY OF E DMON [lS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM 6.3.a .CE I ED JOIN 25 2021 Date Claim Form J)j-V�; Iec1*ed bytj st}( Please take note that �h� l rxlil� j` !�4{ 1 lei- , who currently asides at mailing address home phone,_ work phone # and who resirjed at .�i p �t at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages against -e— M4 rst C 3Kr►�r�[�CS in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below DATE OF OCCURRENCE: (�LI iZI I � j�jjrr (,TIME: �f]�f 2IQyA LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: lI D �i 1l�- J-' V-C�YYI.D�G[J a �� 1114*01 :112 1 W0 I Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the,occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. •ram AL �.. i i � .. _ „_ . 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? �11Y_ *-flooA 1 50 Jo;n -��s no+& �Y If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: Yes No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 76 6.3.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, t�41 C�cZ- lam" U41 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that and information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. x Signature of Claimant(s State of WashingtonCounty of Sdsa�wkh I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that M.-A. t �A : U41 is the person who appeared before me, and saic person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses an( purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: FMy REW MAHINAY S� nature Notary Public X lie," e of Washington Title �� pointment Expires My appointment expires: '7-1-21 Jul 1, 2021 Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Forth Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 77 6.3.a Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. On December 21 st, 2020 our finished garage/basement was substantially flooded from overflow in the streets of Edmonds and the surrounding storm water drainage that was "backed up"/clogged. In the afternoon, at around approximately 2pm, my husband (Raphael Miller) was screaming to me from outside, "Help! This is N bad, this is really bad!" Approximately five minutes prior to this moment, Raphael was working at his E desk in his make shift (covid-19 times) office located in the garage/basement area. He c was on a Zoom meeting when he notice water coming into the garage, he then noticed it rising a couple feet up on each side fo the garage door and flowing in. He immediately got off his Zoom meeting and went to the door to see what was M happening. He opened the door and was met with a burst of water (up to his shins). He U slammed the door shut repeatedly, with his shoulder, numerous times to get it to shut (in a panicked state, trying to determine his next steps). He then grabbed his drill, in the c event that one of our property manholes and irrigation was clogged, so that he could L work quickly to unclog it. Once ready, he opened the door quickly again and tried to ,2 shut it behind him, but the water rushed in approaching waist height at this point and he could not get the door closed. Water quickly filled the garage, but he was able to get out. 1 then joined him (after he called out to me), to help him. Our first thought was to unclog our manhole (which had been cleaned out only 2 weeks prior, so we were puzzled by this), but while attempting to open the top of it (which was already 6 inches under water) we looked over at the corner of our property and saw water coming in from the creek below and roads beside it. (It should be noted, that upon inspection = after water had drained our property manhole was clear and unclogged as anticipated). At this point the water level in the area below (creek just West of our property) had risen approximately 15 feet to flood up into our yard and garage. We panicked after realizing how bad this actually was and raced to gather.any valuables possible o from the garage. We managed to retrieve some electronics, and quickly turn off the `o electricity to the building. We were very lucky that we used surge protectors for every y device plugged in on the ground and that Raphael was able to climb over various floating pieces of our garage to get to the power box. We were frozen by that point and began reaching out for help. We called 911 and they sent a police officer out, but he was unable to help us with our situation. We E called thew City of Edmonds multiple times to request assistance. They sent a single employee out with one long metal hooked pipe to be used to dislodge any debris a blocking the drainage. By this point, Pine St. was flooded and you could not longer have any visual of where a drain might be located. Firefighters arrived and they told us there was nothing they could do because if they pumped out any water it would flow right back into our home. We are across from the City Park, so one park employee spoke with us and suggested we get someone with better equipment to determine where the drain was located and free it. The gentleman from the City told us someone was coming with a boat to see if that would help them get close enough to the drain to Miller 110 Pine St. Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 78 6.3.a clear it. We later saw someone drive to the flooded area with a boat secured on the back of their truck, but they never unloaded it or used it in the previously discussed way. We continued to call for help, but the City of Edmonds told us they were inundated with calls and that there was nothing they could do for us, except provide us with empty sand bags (which was obviously not useful for our current situation, so we declined). I left a message asking if I could send pictures or video to show them what we were experiencing, but did not receive a call back. I then called flood remediation companies for help. They stated they could not help us until the water had receded, but we were placed on a waitlist and they would be ready to help as soon as that occurred. By the next day, the water had receded (the city drains located West of our property was draining, at least partially). and we began remediation immediately. The damages to material items were extensive, which I will list below: Garage/basement office area (see attached cost breakdown: $10,700 Hot water heater - $500 Leather Couch - $500 Punching gloves - $60 Gym mats - $200 Side tables (2) - $80 each = $160 Side chair - $500 Vintage Secretary Desk - $400 Children's clothing and shoes - $500 Mac Computer - $3,000 Freezer - $300 Small custom refrigerator - $300 PS4 - $400 Office chair - $100 Frames - $300 Artwork - $400 House paint buckets - $200 Christmas gifts: quad, hoverboard, children's toys - $1,000 Skill Saw - $300 Fans (4) - $100 Dehumidifier - $300 Small vacuum - $130 2 Car Garage Door - $2,000 External Garage Door - $400 Flood remediation - $4,348.78 Flood demolition - $1,962.06 Snohomish PUD increase for remediation service (24 hours per day x 7 days) - $150 Loss of wages from disaster-$1,050 Non -monetary valuables: Family photo albums - 20 total Miller 110 Pine St. Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 79 6.3.a Work files - 6 bankers boxes Estimate of Toal Loss (thus far): $30,260.84 We have requested the City of Edmonds look into the drainage in this location due to this horrible incident. Our initial contact has been promising, and we are awaiting further information from the storm water engineer manager. We have seen crews out at this drainage location clearing away debris (blackberry bushes) and unclogging the drain, which they stated, "Was partially clogged." We requested maintenance records, and as residents have not ever seen maintenance crews in that particular run off area. I have attached the email exchanges for your review. We moved to Edmonds approximately 5 years ago and have worked with the city's guidelines on our property as they pertain specifically to irrigation. We never imagined or anticipated the extent to which we would be required to irrigate our property, in fact we joked that we would have the driest grass in Edmonds due to the extent of work done. In short, we have abided by all of the requests, guidelines, and extensive work that has been performed on OUR property, therefore we expect surrounding roads and storm water drainage be held to the same rigorous standard to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. We were very lucky that my husband was able to get out safely, but things could have been different or it could have been any of our children in that position at that time without the quick thinking or same instincts which would have been devastating. We appreciate your time and consideration regarding this claim and are happy to answer any further clarifying questions if this seems helpful or necessary. N CU E M 0 L .0 N E M U 0 L .0 a o: Miller 110 Pine St. Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 80 RECEIV CITY OF EDMONDS JAN 2 0 2021 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Received by City Please take note that /\C�`i h 1 e_e..i, L - 3 a Yr a ++ who currently resides at_ mailing address, Same home phone # work phone # IV ZA , and who resided at S Ci. M e- at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages against ,� lk�Nj 0(r e&yyXP&S�— in the sum of $ 72 o c arising out of the following circumstances listed below, m a� DATE OF OCCURRENCE: I - `26?0 TIME: 'l to RM LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: �S. &Z- aC-ze, a� rn DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or dams e. �? V,,kk1 k,i nc� nmI r a K o Ci � % fo r ��c� air. Soak% e is - �--r 17r •ri�A `..s� ZA ok LJ���Cv — t4k�. Uta,tr ^r-z ii1[7ll�c _ i17ILQ) iw7� ty'ip_ ki-riXte'r- rM ` \e- -;'Lvne `.7,IC D11 G . + .z r ui c Li JAN LV"k.r--S i7w _ ['Alto- f rd4Lky1'-%w (attach an extra sheet for additional informati if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, Jo the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. s - 351 o� 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes —k- No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * License Plate # Type Auto: _ (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Form Revised 07/16/09 Driver License # Page t of 2 Packet Pg. 81 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * 1, OL being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. WA N X Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of St-ItDi--41 15 �-t I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that J�aTi4t-e)--6 L J�0-4-RMis the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (hel h�C jsigned this. ail tl►girfi�acknowledged it to be (hisdM) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. �� � OSTRAW41 1. r I Dated: ��Li;oMrt `i Signature A +' Title .� grj�►=�` My appointment expires: 1 Z'�' ' D(F W P �� 14mu��w``�. Please present the completed claim form to Form Revised 07/16/09 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Page 2 of 2 m a� E L 4- 1n E V Packet Pg. 82 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/2/2021 Public Hearing Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree code since September 2020, specifically at the September 9, October 14, October 28, November 12, and November 18 Planning Board meetings. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree code on December 9, 2020 and completed its review on January 13, 2021 with a recommendation to the City Council. Minutes from all the Planning Board meetings where the tree code was discussed are provided in Attachment 4. The City Council received an introduction to the draft tree regulations at the January 26, 2021 Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Hold public hearing and provide staff direction on any amendments to the draft regulation. Introduction The City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) in July 2019 which included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City (Attachment 2). Goal 1 of the UFMP is to maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage which included the following actions to achieve this goal: A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs Goal 3 of the UFMP is to incentivize protection trees on private property which included the following action: A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds Packet Pg. 83 7.1 In 2020 a code update process started to begin implementing these goals of the UFMP. On September 1, 2020, staff presented an outline of topics and possible concepts that will be explored during this update of the City's tree related regulations (Attachment 3). These broad topics include: Tree retention during development - Including: exploring low impact development principles that may provide more flexibility in development in order to retain trees, specific tree retentions standards during development, and providing incentives for tree retention Establishing a tree fund into which development contributions or tree penalties can be tracked and the proceeds spent on tree planting and preservation Reviewing penalties for illegal tree cutting Moving the main tree regulations for private property into the Natural Resources title of the City's development code Reviewing the existing permitting structure and exemptions for tree removal on currently developed property Draft Tree Regulations The primary focus of this tree code update is to develop regulations that will result in more trees being retained when properties are developed and requiring replanting for the trees that are removed. The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree regulations since October including a public hearing on December 9, 2020 and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council following the January 13tn Planning Board meeting. Attachment 1 contains the Planning Board recommended tree code. The draft tree regulations include: New Chapter 23.10 ECDC which includes exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention requirements, tree replacement requirements, tree protection measures, and violations. New Section within the subdivision Chapter 20.75 ECDC for conservation subdivision design which implements low impact development principals to aid in the preservation of more trees when a site is subdivided. New Chapter 3.95 ECC which establishes a City of Edmonds Tree Fund. Some highlights of the draft tree regulations include: Development single family properties not capable of being subdivide are exempt from the tree code, unless there are critical areas on the property Tree retention requirements for new development. The retentions requirements apply to (ECDC 23.10.060): o Short subdivision and subdivision application o New multi -family development o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of an existing single-family house o Tree removal not exemption by the tree code (ECDC 23.10.040) Retention and Replacement Requirements o New development must retain 30% of significant trees on site (ECDC 23.10.060.C) o Replacement is required for every significant tree that is removed (ECDC 23.10.080) o A fee -in -lieu program established if site will not support required replacement tree at a cost of $1,000 per tree (ECDC 23.10.080.E) Flexibility is proposed for subdivision design to aid in the retention of trees during development (ECDC 20.75.XXX) A Tree Fund is established (Chapter 3.95 ECC) o Tree Fund is support by the fee -in -lieu programs, penalties, or monies allocated by the City Council o Tree Fund may be used for: Packet Pg. 84 7.1 § Providing vouchers to individuals for purchasing and planting trees § Acquiring and preserving wooded areas within the City Public Comments All the written public comments received as of January 28, 2021 are provided in Attachment 5. Urban Forest Management Plan and Additional Tree Measures This tree code update is a first step in implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan. As noted above, the focus of this tree code update is to develop regulations that will result in more trees being retained when properties are developed and requiring replanting for the trees that are removed. These regulations are not intended to implement every goal identified in the UFMP and by themselves will not result in no net loss of tree canopy within the City of Edmonds. More actions by the City will be needed to implement other goals of the UFMP and move towards no net loss of tree canopy. The City is also in the process of updating its Street Tree Plan and conducting an inventory of street trees. Another next step that has been identified is establishing a Heritage Tree Program to retain exceptional trees throughout the City. Other future actions will include pursuing possible incentives for property owners who retain trees on their property. This could include property tax rebates (applicable to the City portion of property taxes), stormwater utility fee reduction, and/or other techniques that provide financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection. In forwarding its recommendation, the Planning Board recognized additional tree related code amendments may follow. Within the Planning Board minutes provided in Attachment 4, the Planning Board included other recommendations for the City Council's consideration beyond the tree regulations provided in Attachment 1. While recognizing this round of tree code update was focused on tree retention with development, the Planning Board also wanted to acknowledge the public comments received during the Planning Board's review (Attachment 5), particularly in regard to tree removal on already developed property and view related issues. Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations Planning Board Recommenation Attachment 2: Urban Forest Management Plan Attachment 3: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix Attachment 4: Planning Board Minutes 09.09.20 through 01.13.21 Attachment 5: Written Public Comments as 01.28.21 Attachment 6: Council Public Hearing Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 85 7.1.a Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose 23.10.010 Administration Authority 23.10.020 Definitions 23.10.030 Permits 23.10.040 Exemptions 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development 23.10.080 Tree Replacement 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title 23.10.090 Bonding 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.110 Liability 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; C. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; D. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; E. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; F. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; G. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of development. Planning Board Recommendation Page 1 of 14 Q Packet Pg. 86 7.1.a H. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the City of Edmonds; 23.10.010 Administering Authority The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. 23.10.020 Definitions A. Caliper —The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH. C. Developable Site — The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH). E. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. F. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. G. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. H. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. I. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. J. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. L. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Planning Board Recommendation Page 2 of 14 Packet Pg. 87 7.1.a M. Qualified professional — An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. N. Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height, theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. O. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional.. P. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries Q. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. T. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. 23.10.030 Permits A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter. Planning Board Recommendation Page 3 of 14 Packet Pg. 88 7.1.a B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit. C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. 23.10.040 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: 1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks Department. E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone. F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed with supporting documentation: a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited Planning Board Recommendation Page 4 of 14 Packet Pg. 89 7.1.a A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC. 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision 2. Subdivision 3. New multi -family development 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single- family house, and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Retention Plan An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense. Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees);; Size (DBH); iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.) Planning Board Recommendation Page 5 of 14 Packet Pg. 90 7.1.a V. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be required). iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080. c. An arborist report containing the following: i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions a. Phased Review i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements Planning Board Recommendation Page 6 of 14 Packet Pg. 91 7.1.a 1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows: ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site 2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One: a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH. 2. Priority Two: a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. Planning Board Recommendation Page 7 of 14 Q Packet Pg. 92 7.1.a E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity. 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. Planning Board Recommendation Page 8 of 14 Packet Pg. 93 7.1.a 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. D. Grade. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. Planning Board Recommendation Page 9 of 14 Packet Pg. 94 7.1.a F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.10.080 Tree Replacement A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement tree is required. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2) replacement trees are required. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site location. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. Planning Board Recommendation Page 10 of 14 Packet Pg. 95 7.1.a 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. 23.10.090 Bonding A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in subsection B. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties: 1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2. 2. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; Planning Board Recommendation Page 11 of 14 Packet Pg. 96 7.1.a b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s). f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. 23.10.110 Liability A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property Planning Board Recommendation Page 12 of 14 Packet Pg. 97 7.1.a owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following development standards: 1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that: a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet; b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet; c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced. Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total, coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for the zoning district in which it is located. 4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with the intent of city codes and standards. C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC 23.10.085. 3.95 Tree Fund Planning Board Recommendation Page 13 of 14 Packet Pg. 98 7.1.a 3.95.010 Tree Fund Established There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund." 3.95.020 Funding Sources Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC. B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC. C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and D. Other monies allocated by the City Council 3.95.040 Funding Purposes A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health; 4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational purchases; 6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting. Planning Board Recommendation Page 14 of 14 Q Packet Pg. 99 � - L f. : pw - r1- I �IMde I4W ' y`�� - r rT tie• - u :i r k ��i_ •lJY� � �� � i•ar i F . Urban Forest Mana'gement Plan July, 2019 A& Ho"I'l =k 7.1.b a Packet Pg. 101 7.1.b City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan July, 2019 '11C. 1 Sa" DAVEY#. Resource Group Prepared for: City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group, Inc. 6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A Atascadero, California 93422 Phone: 805-461-7500 Toll Free: 800-966-2021 Fax: 805-461-8501 www.davey.com/drg Packet Pg. 102 Acknowledgments CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS Shane Hope, Director, Development Services Carrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant Terri Arnold, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Debra Dill, Parks Senior Laborer, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Jennifer Leach, Environmental Education & Sustainability Coordinator, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager, Development Services Department Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, Public Works Department CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair Gail Lovell, Position 2 William Phipps, Position 4 Barbara Chase, Position 5 Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6 Vivian Olson, Position 7 Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt. CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - Chair Matt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1 Daniel Robles, Position 2 Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5 Alicia Crank, Position 6 Todd Cloutier, Position 7 Mike Rosen, Alt. CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Mike Nelson, Position 2 — Council President Diane Buckshnis, Position 4 — Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Position 1 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3 Dave Teitzel, Position 5 Thomas Mesaros, Position 6 Neil Tibbott, Position 7 OF EDP 0 DAMEY Resource Group I ')C. 18`)V Q Packet Pg. 103 Table of Contents Executive Summary Scope & Purpose Plan Foundation Introduction Community Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest What Do We Have? Edmonds' Urban Forestry History Regulatory Framework Regional Plans and Legislation Regional Urban Forestry Resources Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies Existing Urban Forest Practices What Do We Want? Stakeholder and Community Input How Do We Get There? Goals and Actions of the Plan How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Table of Figures Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Appendix D: Open House Summary Report r Q Packet Pg. 104 7.1.b Executive Summary Background & Purpose Urban forest simply means the trees in an urban area. An urban forest management plan is a long- term plan for managing trees in a city. The purpose of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan is to provide guidance for managing, enhancing, and growing trees in the City of Edmonds over the next 20 years. Special emphasis is placed on managing trees on public property and along the public rights -of -way. Public Involvement in Process Public involvement has been part of developing and finalizing the Urban Forest Management Plan. The involvement has included open houses, website postings, informal survey, press releases, and submitted public comments, as well as formal public meetings by the Tree Board, Planning Board, and City Council. Plan Overview and Conclusions Edmonds, like many cities in the Pacific Northwest, once had large stands of old -growth trees that included Douglas fir and Western red cedar. Most of these were logged off years ago and development of streets, homes, businesses, schools, churches, and additional settlement followed. In some places, new trees have grown up or been planted. For Edmonds today, tree canopy coverage is estimated to be about 30.3% of the total city area. Trees have many benefits, but also some challenges. Selecting the right tree for a particular location makes a difference in how the tree will perform and thrive. Appropriate planting methods and tree care are important too. The Cty has a program of planting and caring for trees in public places —such as City parks and along various streets. In addition, the City has regulations about certain aspects of trees on private property. Notably, Edmonds is certified as a "Tree City USA" city and supports an active Citizens Tree Board. The Tree Board, as well as City staff, helps provide public education and participation in volunteer events to plant trees. Throughout the community, many residents also value and take care of trees on their property. To promote future sustainability and urban forest health, thoughtful planning and actions are needed. The Plan identifies five long-range goals to help the City move forward. The goals are: 1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage 2. Manage public trees proactively 3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property 4. Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care 5. Promote "right tree, right place". Specific action strategies are identified to address each of the Plan's long-range goals. These would be implemented over time, as resources are available, to address priority needs. Furthermore, the Urban Forest Management Plan should be reviewed every five to ten years and updated as needed. 1 Scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 105 Overview The plan includes long-range goals and action strategies to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover. Publicly -managed trees along streets, in parks, and at City facilities are collectively referred to as the community urban forest. Privately owned trees are also considered part of the urban forest in this plan because of their function and contribution to the sustainability of the overall urban forest in Edmonds; however, the City recognizes that it has a limited role in the care of private trees. Recognizing the significance of environmental and socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP aims to: • Illustrate the value and benefits of trees. • Promote shared vision and collaboration between community residents. • Establish benchmarks and metrics to monitor the long-term success of management strategies. • Enhance the health and sustainability of the community urban forest. • Increase the vital benefits that the trees provide to Edmonds and the region. • Ensure that resources are in place to support the care and management of the community's trees. This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for the long-term and short-term in support of this purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to adequately manage community trees. It is intended to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the exploration and implementation of the actions as funding and resources permit. The development of the UFMP included a comprehensive review of existing policies and regulations, currentfunding and maintenance levels, analysis of the extent, condition, and composition of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns, and community input. Plan Foundation Spending any amount of time outdoors in Edmonds will reveal the abundant and diverse natural resources found within City parks and surrounding residences and businesses. Besides the obvious amenities available to a city on the coastline of the Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help people achieve the unique experience referred to as; "an Edmonds kind of day." All of the trees in Edmonds make up the City's urban forest tree resource. Without active management, this urban forest is at risk. What What Do We Do We Have? Want? How How Do q Are We We Get Doing? There? c a c as E c L 0 U_ c c� 2 L D N r c a a� E M U a r r Q Scope & Purpose 2 Packet Pg. 106 In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive Plan that formally recognized that the community places a high value on the conservation of the urban forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is intended to be an element that aligns in support of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP aligns with the intentions of, "providing a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Comp Plan, 2016). Thefollowing principlesfor urban forest management set the framework for the UFMP: • Optimize the ecosystem services provided by trees. • Control tree maintenance costs to the community. • Create pathways to stable and predictable funding. • Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with trees. The structure and organization of the UFMP are based on the understanding of what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This structure, referred to as adaptive management, is commonly used for resource planning and management (Miller, R.W.,1988) and provides a good conceptual framework for managing community forest resources. The plan development process involved a comprehensive review and assessment of the existing community tree resource, including composition, value, and environmental benefits. The process explored community values, existing regulations, and policies related to community trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders, internal and external, who played a role in the planning, design, care, and advocacy around the community forest. These stakeholders include the general public, City departments, the Citizens' Tree Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD). Each of these stakeholders contributed to the development of this Plan. What Do We Have? Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region, Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown in population, the forest has been urbanized and divided for parks, homes, and businesses. Recognizing the role of trees in the community and the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape Plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals for the community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015, elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy that has since been the source for many of the City's tree management decisions. In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest is generally understood to be required by the Growth Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017) The City Acres 6,095 Population 41,8 Land Cower Tree Ca nopyr 30% brass & Vegetation 27% 1 m pervio us Su Ffaces 34% Bare Soils 2% Open Water 7% Tree Canopy CDyer Maximum Potential Canopy S 7% Investment Tree Care Pigr Capita 714 .3 Scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 107 Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by the City's Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents define the reach of existing regulations and policies within which care for the urban forest is mandated: • Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental Quality Goal A - "...Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community -based environmental regulations." • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016) - Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation Goal 4 — "Preserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education." • Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest and increase tree canopy in Edmonds. • Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners. • Streestcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate Sustainable Practices. In redesigning the corridor, it is critical that the new interventions improve the street's performance. This includes enhancing the street environment and gateways for pedestrian benefits through an Urban Forestry program in the Downtown/Waterfront area. The urban forest is a combination of both public and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct control of and responsibility for are defined as the community tree resource. This includes public trees in parks, along rights -of -way, and around City facilities. Managing any resource begins with defining what is being managed and establishing benchmarks along with clearly defined goals and expectations. While public trees along major arterials and high - profile areas are well-known and routinely cared for by City staff, other public street trees are expected to be maintained by the adjacent property owner. Aside from individual development applications, the City does not have a method to take an inventory or track the history, status, or location of public trees. In addition, providing adequate care for trees requires a level of knowledge and a skill set that many property owners do not have. The planning process for this UFMP included an assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of historical change estimates that the City has lost 114 acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%. The primary challenges and opportunities for urban forest management are: • Private owners control the majority of tree canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit tree removal, except when the trees are associated with development or are within an environmentally critical area. • There is limited knowledge about the condition of trees in the urban forest. • There is an estimated 1,651 acres is theoretically available for planting to expand the urban forest canopy'. The views of scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds' identity as a community and require balanced consideration with the care of the urban forest. Scenic views are highly valued in long- established development. At the same time, appreciation of trees —especially "the right trees in the right place" —is a value shared by most residents. 1 This estimate is partly based on an analysis of low-lying vegetation areas. Q Executive Summary 4 Packet Pg. 108 Land Cover 7.1.b Water 7% Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover City Limits Tree Canopy Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation Impervious Surfaces Bare Soil Open Water 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Figure 1: Land Cover a Jr Executive Summary Packet Pg. 109 What Do We Want? The plan development process included substantial outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds' urban forest. Through open house forums and public meetings, the City has found an engaged set of residents with varying opinions on matters pertaining to the care of the urban forest. City Staff were also consulted during plan development, with City code and public safety being the main considerations when making tree care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive approach to tree management by performing work on trees as problems are discovered, but they also look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic public places. Open house forums and public meetings provided perspective on community interests and concerns about the urban forest. In general, stakeholders from both the community and City Staff share the following desired outcomes for the UFMP: • Preservation and Enhancement of Tree Canopy • Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the Community Tree Resource • Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and Habitat • Increased Outreach and Education • Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and Non-profit Groups • Strategies and Policies to Minimize Potential Tree Conflicts Executive Summary., Packet Pg. 110 How Do We Get There? The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan are proposed to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program through specific actions: • Urban Forest Asset Actions - which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. • Municipal Resource Actions - which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. • Community Resource Actions - which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. Goal 1- Maintain citywide canopy coverage How Are We Doing? The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching framework for urban forestry operations, policies, and programs. It presents a high-level review of urban forest management in the City, including historical context and an exploration of the benefits of Edmonds' trees. Building upon that information, the Plan connects the community's vision for the urban forest with appropriate goals and actions. This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a 20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of operational objectives. The success of the UFMP will be measured through the realization of goals and will be demonstrated through the health of the urban forest and increased environmental benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore, the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP will be how successful it is in meeting community expectations for the care and preservation of the community tree resource. Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro -actively Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on ovate p Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management. r Q 7 Executive Summary Packet Pg. 111 Introduction Trees play an essential role in the community of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve the local environment and lessen the impact resulting from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees can improve air quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature. In addition to these direct improvements, healthy urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were found to add an average of $8,870 to homes' sales price as well as reduce time on the market for home sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies on the business benefits of trees have shown how retail districts promote longer and more frequent shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban trees support a more livable community, fostering psychological health and providing residents with a greatersense of place (Kuo, 2003). Communitytrees, both public and private, soften the urban hardscape by providing a green sanctuary and making the City of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work, and play. The City has emphasized the importance of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so much so that public trees are defined as a valued community resource, a critical component of the urban infrastructure, and a part of the City's identity. Edmonds' trees are a valued community resource Community Early settlements were built in the City to access natural resources, where shingle mills became the primary industry. Although construction of the Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was expected to be the main source of growth in the City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the town grow and prosper. Edmonds' population, from 2017 State estimates, is 41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square miles. It is the third largest city in the county after Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is expected to be 45,550. The urban forest in this community is defined by its public and privately managed trees. Through parks and public rights -of -way, the City maintains a diverse population of trees intended for city streetscapes (typically nursery grown hardwoods), as well as native trees (naturally regenerating conifers and deciduous trees). Privately managed trees may be remnant forest trees connected with early logging history, naturally growing native trees and even invasive hardwoods. Community Vision for the UFMP Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of the City as an attractive, sustainable community for all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees as contributing to that vision and directs that an urban forest management plan be used as a guide for decisions on managing the forest resource, especially focusing on public land and rights -of -way. For private lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives to encourage good tree management practices. r Q Introduction 8 Packet Pg. 112 7.1.b Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate the effects of urbanization and development, which protects and enhances lives within the community. In general, there are five (5) important ways in which trees provide benefits: Water Quality, Carbon Sequestration, Energy Savings, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic benefits. Water Quality Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human health and wildlife, including salmon populations. Requirements for surface water management are becoming more stringent and costly for both developers and the City. By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into stormwater management planning, runoff volumes, peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need for constructing stormwater management facilities and the cost of treatment to remove sediment and other pollutants. Typical overview of waterfront homes in Edmonds. 9 Introduction Trees improve and protect water quality by: • Intercepting Rainfall —Trees intercept rainfall in their canopy, which act as a mini -reservoir. Some water evaporates from the canopy and some slowly soaks into the ground, reducing the total amount of runoff (Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy interception also lessens soil compaction, which in turn further reduces runoff. • Increasing soil capacity and infiltration — Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall and snowmelt resulting in slower percolation rates and increasing the filtration of contaminants (Xiao, et al., 2007). • Reducing soil erosion — Tree roots reduce the flow and volume of stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and other pollutants from entering streams, rivers, Lake Washington, and the Puget Sound (WA Department of Ecology, 2011). • Providing salmon habitat — Shade from trees helps to cool warm urban runoff, which poses a threat to anadromous fish, like salmon. Shade from trees provides lakeside and riparian habitat for salmon and cools water temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen, which is essential to salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012). Packet Pg. 113 Carbon Sequestration As environmental awareness continues to increase, governments are paying particular attention to global warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes the Earth's surface it is reflected back into space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the Earth's surface. Many chemical compounds in the Earth's atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane (CH), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO), water vapor, and human -made gases/aerosols. As GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back into space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature of the earth is resulting in changes in weather, sea levels, and land -use patterns, commonly referred to as "climate change." In the last 150 years, since large-scale industrialization began, the levels of some GHGs, including CO2, have increased by 25% (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces greenhouse gases. The carbon -related function of trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways: • Directly —Through growth and the sequestration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass. • Indirectly — By lowering the demand for air conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions associated with electric power generation and natural gas consumption. Stormwater runoff from streets needs to be controlled. Trees will slow and intercept stormwater, reducing the burden on stormwater infrastructure. Energy Savings Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation solutions to keep rates low for their customers, reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately, to be good environmental stewards. Energy services delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD). This organization recognizes how trees can reduce energy consumption and encourages Edmonds residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017). Urban trees and forests modify the environment and conserve energy in three principal ways: • Shade dwellings and impervious surfaces — Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed as 34% of the total land base (Edmonds, 2017). Shade from trees reduces the amount of radiant energy absorbed and stored by these impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the urban heat island effect, a term that describes the increase in urban temperatures in relation to surrounding locations (Simpson & McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also reduces the amount of energy used to cool a structure (Simpson, 2002). • Transpiration —Transpiration releases water vapor from tree canopies, which cools the surrounding area. Through shade and transpiration, trees and vegetation within an urban setting modify the environment and reduce heat island effects. Temperature differences of more than 97 (5°C) have been observed between city centers without canopy cover and more forested suburban areas (Akbari, et al., 1997). • Wind reduction — Trees can reduce wind speeds by up to 50% and influence the movement of air and pollutants along streets and out of urban canyons. By reducing air movement into buildings and against conductive surfaces (e.g., glass, metal siding), trees can reduce conductive heat loss. r Q Introduction 10 Packet Pg. 114 Air Quality Urban trees improve air quality in five fundamental ways: • Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and smoke) • Absorbing gaseous pollutants • Shade and transpiration • Reducing power plant emissions • Increasing oxygen levels They protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate matter (PM10), including dust, ash, pollen, and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in the tree canopy where they are eventually washed harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (0), nitrogen dioxide (NO), and sulfur dioxide (SO). Shade and transpiration reduces the formation of 03, which is created during higher temperatures. Scientists are now finding that some trees may absorb more volatile organic compounds (VOC's) than previously thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010). VOC's are a class of carbon -based particles emitted from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other human activities. By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce emissions from the generation of power. And, through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase oxygen levels. The needles of these douglas fir trees help improve air quality. Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic, and Health Benefits While perhaps the most difficult to quantify, the aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from trees may be among their greatest contributions, including: • Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics • Shade and privacy • Wildlife habitat • Opportunities for recreation • Reduction in violent crime • Creation of a sense of place and history • Reduced illness and reliance on medication and quicker recovery from injury or illness Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage of property values, through higher sales prices where individual trees and forests are located. In addition, trees and forests have positive economic benefits for retailers. There is evidence that trees promote better business by stimulating more frequent and extended shopping and a willingness to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf, 2007). Trees and forestlands provide important habitat (foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals, birds, and fish and other aquatic species, along with limitless opportunities for recreation, offering a healthful respite from the pressures of work and everyday stress. r Q 11 Introduction Packet Pg. 115 7.1.b Tree Selection related to Location and Other Factors Selecting tree species that are appropriate for the expected functions, maintenance requirements, and locations in which they are planted is important. Generally, native trees should be considered for planting or replacement whenever practical. Along City streets, relatively compact trees that add color and interest, without tending to upheave pavement, are typically desirable. An example is the Bowhall maple, which has been used in numerous street -side locations in Edmonds. When street trees are planted on the same side of the street as SnoPUD overhead power lines, additional caution is needed in selecting appropriate species. These poles also usually carry major communication lines. Such facilities are often located at the very edge of the City's rights -of -way or in planter strips between the sidewalk and the curb. Trees should be selected that do not result in the need for frequent topping or heavy pruning to keep them underneath the communication space on PUD poles, which can be as low as 15 feet above ground level. In large spaces, native coniferous trees may be very appropriate. Some of these species (such as Douglas fir) can grow very tall (up to 200 feet) and wide (30 feet). They are well -suited to the Pacific Northwest climate and have needles year-round. Also, various types of deciduous trees, including maple and oak, may be appropriate in large spaces. In view areas and in many relatively small spaces, lower -growing or less -spreading trees may be a good choice. For example, vine maples have colorful leaves in autumn and at mature height are generally no more than 15 feet tall. However, the branches of this species can spread wide, up to 20 feet. Other species, even fruit trees and small specimen trees, may fit well in settings where tree height or width needs to be limited. In critical areas where wildlife habitat exists, native trees should generally be chosen for planting. Depending on the type of habitat and space availability, such trees could include Western red cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and dogwood. A mix of large and small trees in a park. Introduction 12 Packet Pg. 116 Right tree, right place Factors to consider when selecting a tree to plant. Planting a tree is something that provide a sense of accomplishment and something to admire for decades. However, it is not a decision that should be made without careful consideration. When considering what tree to plant and where to plant it, one should remember the widely used phrase "Right Tree, Right Place." Choosing the right tree depends on many factors including soil type, climate, and the amount of space the tree will have both underground and overhead. It is important to choose a tree that does not require more space in the future than a site can provide. To avoid any conflicts with overhead obstructions (e.g., power lines, utility poles, buildings) or underground obstructions (e.g., pipes, building foundations), consider the tree's height, root growth, and shape at maturity. While above -ground growth is a little easier to envision, a tree needs plenty of room to grow underground too; tree roots can extend up to two to three times the width of the crown (the leaves and branches of the tree). Apart from the physical space available for a tree to grow, one may consider whether the property is in a view shed and how the tree at maturity will impact the views. Trees in streetscapes can grow into conflict with sidewalks. 1. The tree's purpose will impact the suitability of different tree species, whether used for shade, aesthetic beauty, wind protection, screening, or other purposes. 2. Size and location of the tree, including available space for roots and branches, affects the decision on which species to plant. 3. Crown form or shape varies among species, including round, oval, columnar, V-shaped, or pyramidal shapes. Consider how the shape of the tree works in the space available. Note on Native Trees: Edmonds was once covered in forests of old growth Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. While these trees were once the right tree in the right place, they often may not be appropriate for urban environments. In natural conditions, a Douglas fir can grow to more than 200 feet in height with a diameter of five to eight feet. While the City's parks and the larger zoned properties (12,000 — 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) primarily located in north Edmonds may provide sufficient growing space for these large native species, they may not be appropriate landscape trees within the Edmonds "bowl area" with its more dense development and view concerns. Tree roots lifting a sidewalk. 13 Introduction Packet Pg. 117 Trees and Views To some people, trees are the view and to others, trees block the view. The City of Edmonds is blessed with magnificent views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountain range. These views add to the quality of life here, as well as to property values. When views become obstructed, enjoyment of one's property as well as property values may be impacted. The City's Comprehensive Plan has many policies recognizing the protection of public views (views from parks or view corridors down streets and at street ends), but does not specifically address private view protection. Not all areas of Edmonds have views of Puget Sound and the Olympics. While a view shed study of the City of Edmonds has not been completed, the primary view areas are located in the Bowl and the properties on the west facing slopes of north Edmonds. When considering planting trees in these view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. Topping of trees for views is often the first consideration of landowners. However, topping is not generally recognized as good arboricultural practice. A topped tree requires periodic maintenance to maintain its reduced size. That can become expensive in the long-term. Also, conifers will often form a An example of skirting -up; the lower limbs on this tree have been removed to provide drivers with a clearer view. weakened top as the side branches all try to grow up. In addition, the cut top often becomes an entry site for decay organisms that weaken the tree and increase the danger of a top breaking in high winds. For broad-leaved trees such as maple, madrone or oaks, severe topping is even more damaging. It can seriously harm the tree's health and cause various safety hazards. While views are important, otherfactors such as critical areas must also betaken into consideration. The north Edmonds view shed is associated with significant slopes (potential landslide hazards are slopes 40% and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that has specific regulations that apply to development in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical area regulations. The mechanical and hydrogeological benefits which trees and other vegetation provide to maintain slope stability and reduce erosion are well documented. Tree maintenance activities that maintain the health of existing trees will also help maintain slope stability. A landowner should explore alternative options to tree removal or topping. Below is a list of several = trimming practices derived from Vegetation 2 Management: A Guidefor Puget Sound Bluff Property a Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in combination to create views without compromising a tree health or slope stability. as View -enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers 1. Windowing 2. Interlimbing r L 3. Skirting -up 0 c� • Note: In any pruning practice or combination, D 60% or more of the original crown should be ii retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The a removal of too much live foliage can reduce E the tree's ability to supply food to the roots, thereby weakening them. a • Windowing. This pruning practice allows a view "window" through the existing foliage of the tree's canopy. In pruning major limbs and r Q Introductior Packet Pg. 118 branch whorls, sections that obscure a view are removed. Many people find that this technique creates an aesthetically pleasing effect. • Interlimbing. The removal of entire branch whorls or individual branches throughout the canopy allows more light to pass through, as well as reducing wind resistance of the tree. This practice can be used in conjunction with windowing to improve views. • Skirting -up. Limbing the tree up from the bottom allows a clear line of sight. Instead of an obscuring mass of foliage, the tree trunk is the only object between you and the view. This technique is useful when the tree in question is located high on the bluff face or upon the tableland. Relatively more branches can be removed with this technique because the lower branches contribute less nutrients to the tree than higher branches. Pruning Broad-leaved Trees Pruning and trimming of broad-leaved trees is usually more complicated, especially for trees grown in the wild. Generally, short-lived species such as alder, willow and Bitter cherry are not worth pruning, while trees like madrona, white oak, bigleaf maple, and vine maple will warrant the expense. Crown reduction is one of the most common methods that arborists use to control the size of the tree and keep its shape perfect. This method involves reducing the foliage of the tree while still preserving the general structure of the crown; doing this successfully trims the overall shape of the tree and controls its size. In a general sense, limbs that are located on the uppermost portion of the tree canopy are cut shorter in order to decrease the tree's height. However, they are only removed to the next lateral growth to be able to ensure that they heal faster and grow again properly. It is highly recommended that only 20% or less of the tree's canopy should be cut at once in order to avoid the tree from suffering. Properties owners should consult a certified arborist prior to undertaking any tree maintenance activity. Challenges Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest requires the coordination of many different stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with many other elements of the city. This can result in conflict or challenges including: • Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure - Roots and branches of trees can damage nearby sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings. • Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to the community. Storm events, accidents, improper maintenance, and the natural death of trees can all create structural weaknesses for trees and the surrounding area. • View Issues - Edmonds is known for the majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is possible for trees to block these views if they grow too large or were planted in improper locations. • Maintenance - Trees are living infrastructure. As such, they require active and regular maintenance. Structural pruning, irrigation, and the management of pests and diseases are some critical maintenance practices that must occur to ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest. • Choice of Tree Species - Different tree species have different needs, growth patterns, and resistances to pests and diseases. A diverse palette of species improves the resilience of the urban forest. A tree with multiple stems may become a hazard without N r c as E a c m E U a r r Q 15 Introduction proper care. Packet Pg. 119 What Do We Have? To effectively manage the urban forest, it's essential to have knowledge and understanding of what exists today. This section lays the groundwork for the UFMP with historical context, current policies and practices and understanding about the existing state of the urban forest. History of Urban Forestry in Edmonds Trees have been an important part of the City's character and economy since its founding. However, to understand and manage the urban forest has depended upon which trees are beingconsidered and where the trees were located. This is evident from the various locations where trees are referenced in the City code as well as the variety of departments whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds had been designated by the National Arbor Day Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has had city staff in different departments managing tree issues within the City for decades. Recognizing the role of trees in the community and the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015, elements of this plan introduced tree care policy which has been the source for much of the City's tree management decisions ever since. In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board to assist in the development of tree ordinances and to encourage the planting and maintaining of trees. This is an early example of the City taking steps towards management of tree resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this board was a proposal to the City for updated tree - related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree codes, through a public comment period, were rejected in part due to public concerns about private property rights, but also because the City felt that it had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the recommended codes. From these related events, it's clear that the community has assumed an increasing level of care for the urban forest that would benefit from long- term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from the State and Federal Government for environmental stewardship requirements have also played a significant role in defining the level of care for the urban forest that exist in Edmonds today. Of special note are three policy sources that directly influence the management of urban forestry and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on the development and operation of Edmonds urban forest are discussed below. Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement. c FL c as E as c c� m L0 a_ c c� L D N c as E 0 a c a� E U 0 r Q Introductior 16 Packet Pg. 120 Growth Management Act (1990) In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique among states, the Act requires that municipalities prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide for growth and development in a manner that is locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines critical areas as: "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: a. Wetlands; b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d. Frequently flooded areas; and e. Geologically hazardous areas. The state of Washington requires the City of Edmonds to manage and protect it's critical areas. cif Common ground vegetation in wetland areas Cities are required to include the best available science in developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Further to that end, jurisdictions must review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances per an update schedule. Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps with the protection of the urban forest. The trees in the urban forest increase soil security to protect wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the branches and canopy provide ample real estate for wildlife to call home. It is important that the City plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole, not just critical areas. This notion is reinforced in Washington Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which specifies when classifying forest land resources that "Cities are encouraged to coordinate their forest resource lands designations with their county and any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities should not review forest resource lands designations solely on a parcel -by -parcel basis." Edmonds has established environmental qualitygoals in support of the legislation and in order to protect critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying policies for the jurisdiction's critical areas program. r Q Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas. 17 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 121 The Comprehensive Plan (2016) As an overarching guiding document, the Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions and plans into one cohesive document. The Comprehensive Plan is structured by element, then goals, then policies. The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These elements include goals and policies that can be directly supported through this UFMP. These are the community sustainability elements of the plan and include goals and policies associated with: • Sustainability • Climate Change Goals and Policies, including support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US Mayor's Climate Change Agreement • Community Health • Environmental Quality The urban forest is a key component of the community sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks to protect environmental quality and sets the first policy (A.1) as to: Ensure that the city's natural vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced..." A.2 sets to protect and retain the urban forest, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. This includes techniques such as tree retention, which should be integrated into land use and development codes. As the urban forest grows, so too does the habitat and environmental quality. The community culture and urban design element's implementation involves tree policy as well. In this element, the streetscape section defines the many ways that trees enhance the community: "Trees are an asset to the community. They help absorb stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife, clean pollution from the air, and give both summer shade and aesthetic pleasure." In this way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the policy commitment to Community Health, through the preservation and expansion of the urban forest. Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006. The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a "Complete Streets" program which accommodates the needs of all users along streets, including a safe space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree management component. This section concludes with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. The community sustainability element also includes two other sections that are interconnected with the urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas. Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate change, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No. 1130. A crucial component of these climate change policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with several benchmarks: 1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green -house gases in the state to 1990 levels; 2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; 3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon through many ways including; reducing energy demand forshaded buildings, acquiringcarbon dioxide for the photosynthesis, and sequestering carbon. The potential for carbon sequestration is determined by maximum tree sizes, lifespans, growth rates, and tolerances to urban stress. Therefore, growing long- lasting and healthy trees directly contributes to the success of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan climate change goals. r Q What Do We Have? 18 Packet Pg. 122 7.1.b The PROS Plan (2016) The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the management and development of Edmonds' parks, recreation and open spaces, and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. The PROS plan has been regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves. Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan on a six -year cycle, in alignmentwith the requirements of the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility for federal and state grant programs. To this end, the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is also an important tool in meeting Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and achieving the important citywide goals outlined in the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically addresses urban forestry. Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access to natural resources for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education. The eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting areas with critical habitats and natural resources. Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective 4.5, which states "Expand the urban forest and increase tree canopy in Edmonds". Under each goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal 4 is: "Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners." This demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the people of Edmonds as manifested through existing official documents addressing the urban forest and urban tree canopy. 19 what Do we Have? Purchasing of Forested Properties The City's policies with regard to the acquisition of open space (including the potential purchase of forested properties) are contained with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land acquisition is included in the capital project budget and the PROS plan notes that "expansions of the parks system will target the gaps identified in this plan and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds, this approach will require vigilance and proactive pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities for both parks and open spaces. The City's inclusion of this item in the capital projects list recognizes the importance of swift action when rare property acquisition opportunities become available." A specific policy addressing the purchase of forested properties could be considered for adding to the PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining the City's tree cover through the selective purchase of forest properties as opportunities arise. Forested properties can be valuable acquisitions to maintain City's tree cover. Packet Pg. 123 Summary Considerations for Planning These documents demonstrate the existing regulations and policies within which care for the urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope defined within these documents that the values of the Edmonds community, and Washington State at large, require that urban forest management include strategies to improve the care and conservation of all trees. This includes updating the Street Tree Plan, consideration for improving and preserving trees near waterways, critical areas, habitats, and on private parcels. Equipped with this policy background and mandate to manage the urban forest, it's essential to plan with as much knowledge about the community tree resource as possible. The PROS plan (2016) has specific goals for the City to steward the urban forest. Community Tree Resource Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights -of - way and around City facilities are the community tree resource. These trees can be the most actively managed population by the City and provide the best indicators to showcase its vision of a well -managed and sustainable urban forest condition. A well -managed urban forest is healthier and more resilient to pests, disease, and climate fluctuations. As a result, a well -managed urban forest is also more cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve over time, managers revise their strategies for individual tree species based on past performance and emerging prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds, are often a combination of well -adapted, high-performance species mixed with some species that may be less desirable and require more attention. There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree resource management that no single species should represent greater than 10% of the total population, and no single genus more than 20% (Clark et al, 1997). Achieving a diverse population of trees can help to minimize detrimental consequences in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or other stressors that can severely affect an urban forest and the flow of benefits and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) are both examples of unexpected, devastating, and costly pests and pathogens that highlight the importance of diversity and the balanced distribution of species and genera. Current operations in the City that care for the community trees do not keep suitable records of their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP. Publictrees along major arterials or high -profile areas of the City are well-known and routinely cared for by City Staff, but as an overall management tool, the City does not maintain data about these trees as a collective inventory of their green infrastructure assets. Managing for appropriate tree species can help control maintenance costs, reduce damage to infrastructure, and manage the need for pest and disease control measures. c IL c m E as c R L 0 U_ c cC D N c as E 0 a c a� E U 0 r r Q What Do We Have? 20 Packet Pg. 124 Tree Canopy Cover The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is the driving force behind the urban forest's ability to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al, 1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits. Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from above. Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy is critical to developing and implementing sound management strategies that will promote the smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds' urban forest and the invaluable benefits it provides. In addition to understanding the tree canopy as a whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is often categorized by the amount of fragmentation. Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy will vastly improve when there is less fragmented canopy, and there are more linkages between multiple patches of forest. These categories of canopy include: • Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists within and relatively far from the forest/non-forest boundary (i.e., forested areas surrounded by more forested areas). • Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests and relatively small clearings (perforations) within the forest landscape. • Patch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small -forested area that is surrounded by non -forested land cover. • Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests, and large core forests and large non -forested land cover features, approximately 328 feet. When large enough, edge canopy may appear to be unassociated with core forests. The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment in June 2017 using a heads -up digitizing approach and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf -on aerial imagery captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall assessment does not distinguish between publicly -owned and privately -owned trees because trees provide benefits to the community beyond property lines. The results of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy within Edmonds. The data developed during the assessment becomes an important part of the City's GIS database. It also provides a foundation for developing community goals and urban forest policies. With these data, managers can determine: • The location and extent of canopy over time (tracking changes) • The location of available planting space (potential planting area) • The best strategies to increase canopy in underserved areas • The data, combined with existing and emerging urban forestry research and applications, can provide additional guidance in two ways: • Finding a balance between growth and preservation • Identifying and assessing urban forestry opportunities. An example of perforated canopy in a park setting. N r c as E a c a� E M U a r Q 21 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 125 7.1.b Canopy Cover Summary The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: • 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and woody shrubs (525 acres) • 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground • 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy is unfeasible • 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying vegetation Ak � yr� i f f � y �• lee J! ,y ' y 41-- 4 x*i. +r ,;' �Y + '�r- 1� — #— „�r7ir y� 71."'' a Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds "bowl" area. • 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) • From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from 32.3% to 30.3% • Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of 3,495 acres • Private residential properties have most of the canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and commercial (4.1%) properties. • Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) What Do We Have? 22 Packet Pg. 126 Land Cover 7.1.b Water 7% Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover City Limits M Tree Canopy Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation 22 Impervious Surfaces Bare Soil Open Water , 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 2.3 what Do we Have? Figure 1: Land Cover a Packet Pg. 127 Canopy Fragmentation As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds' existing UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the distribution of canopy (Figure 3). The overall health of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and humans to interact collectively as a whole. Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy will vastly improve by creating linkages between multiple patches of forest. Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable management tool due to the i mportance of Edmonds' critical areas and environmental stewardship. The analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes the following: • 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy * 8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy • 55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy * 26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy 7.1.b c aD c aD E Q a� y� lie I Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top) leads to isolation and declining habitat quality. # 2 F* ' ... - E { + ,1 S * CU LL CM _ ` •+`', +�*-,.. 'fir Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest. - � Q What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 128 Forest Fragmentation P;;trh Forest /0 Core Forest 10% Perforated Forest 8% Edge Forest 26% Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Ifs I : -;. : . Pt" ;A I DR DAYT NST, MAIN Si "A"i T S T City Limits V Core Forest 2XTHST 1 8 Edge Forest W Patch Forest Perforated Forest xien+sT 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation 2.5 What Do We Have? -i !7CJH ST I Packet Pg. 129 7.1.b Park Canopy Cover The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Figure 4). Edmonds' parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%. Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site and size. Edmonds' largest park, Southwest County Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and an average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second-largest, Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres of canopy cover, which represents 93.5% of the land area. The high canopy cover of Yost Memorial Park reflects that it is one of the few areas of native vegetation that remain in Edmonds. The park contains mixed stands of douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), sitka spruce (Piceo sitchensis), western red cedar (Thujo Canopy cover in Post Park. plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy (9.9 % canopy cover). Of the four largest parks (Southwest County, Yost Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%). However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not currently near maximum potential canopy. An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the parks where there is a much larger gap between current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. The 5 biggest parks are listed in Table 7 of this section . r a What Do We Have? 26 Packet Pg. 130 Tree Canopy By Park Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks =011 i .. . Southwest Ikunty Park 118.55 117.05 Yost Memorial 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45 Park ach Padrale ii 54 25.16 98 Southwest - County Park Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66 Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 Hutt Park Hummingbird Hill Park Yost Park. Edmonds City Park Edmonds Marsh Under IS% 15% - 30% 30% - 45% 45% - 60% _ Over 60% 0 27 1, i N tj A Miles Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park What Do We Have? Meadowdale Beach Park -'-Seaview Park v' Sierra Park * Maplewood Park —Pine Ridge Park r Q Packet Pg. 131 7.1.b Critical Areas The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations. The GMA states that critical areas include the following categories and ecosystems: • Wetlands • Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas; and • Geologically hazardous areas Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree canopy can reveal the important relationship that trees provide in the conservation and protection of these environments. Two critical area designations are especially important to urban forest management in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep slopes (Tables 8 & 9). Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority habitats and species that have been identified for conservation and management. DRG analyzed the relationship between forest fragmentation and the following priority habitat and species list categories: • Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding and Refuge) • Nesting Habitat (great blue heron) • Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon) • Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle) • Wetlands Area Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife. In Edmonds, most of the biodiversity areas and corridors are in core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest. This is congruent with what theory would suggest, because corridors are continuous areas of habitat. Nesting habitat for the great blue heron is comprised of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre - nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area, habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests. In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to reduce human noise pollution during the breeding months (February - September). Nesting habitat in Edmonds is located primarily in non -forest areas (58%). This value warrants further investigation to determine optimal canopy levels. Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78 Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118. 16.53 51.36 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21 Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 0.51 1.76 59.36 What Do We Have' 28 Packet Pg. 132 Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in -stream physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.). However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly influenced by watershed processes beyond the waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road location and maintenance, watershed hydrology, and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non -forest areas. The second largest forest fragmentation category for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%). Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined by areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies of water and generally buffered from human activity (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area located in edge type forests of Edmonds. However, nest trees are often among the largest trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in 18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest. Around wetlands, the Washington Department of Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from adjacent land uses (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland - dependent species that require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers could be described by their canopy fragmentation, where 73.6% of wetlands were classified in non -forest areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge forest, with only 2.2% in the core forest. The protection of steep slopes against landslides and erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the prevention of soil erosion: • Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing absorptive and evaporative losses that reduce rainfall available for infiltration. • Roots extract moisture from the soil which is lost to the atmosphere via transpiration, leading to a lower pore -water pressure. • Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear strength. It is important to understand the significance of steep slopes because of their influences on local wildlife and habitat quality. For example, increased erosion can negatively impact spawning salmon by increasing sediment and particulates in streams and other water bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation that prevents erosion protects critical habitat for wildlife. Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees, 66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious, 19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil. Table 4: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 0.54 21.42 10.76 58.64 8.65 Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97 43.40 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80 Wetlands Area N r C m E a c m E U a r r Q 29 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 133 Considerations for Planting Opportunities Edmonds' existing tree canopy covers 30.3% of the City, and decision -makers can set a target canopy cover goal to pursue. Regardless of the canopy coverage goals established by the City, the following are planting opportunities that may be pursued in order to maintain and potentially increase the existing canopy coverage: • Incentivize tree planting on private property. • Increase canopy with tree planting in areas of patch and fragmented canopy to reduce forest fragmentation and improve wildlife habitat and corridors. • Conducting outreach to the community as an important tool for engaging public interest and support. • Define goals and identify actions that will support these goal(s). • Develop clear policies and standards to meet the 30% native vegetation requirement codified by ECDC 23.90.040.0 (Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels) in undeveloped (or redeveloped) Subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream or stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland buffer. Park trees in Edmonds. Currently, forestry operations in the City do not document the community tree resource according to industry best management practices. A public tree inventory is important because it provides information on species diversity, forest age, and relative performance of different tree species. An inventory that is maintained with continued updates also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban forest managers have the following opportunities: • Establish and continually update a public tree inventory. • Integrate maintenance cycles with the public tree inventory database. • Study genus/species compositions to ensure best -management diversity recommendations are being followed. r Q What Do we Have? 30 Packet Pg. 134 Existing Urban Forest Practices There are three departments within the City of Edmonds that have influence over the management of the urban forest; Development Services (DS), Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRC). Although they share and communicate any issues related to tree care and urban forest management, decision -making authority is determined based on the location of the trees. There is no specific staff person or leadership team with overarching responsibilities for guiding the management of the entire urban forest in Edmonds. Tree Maintenance Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree life, but is especially critical for young trees as they benefit from early structural pruning and training. Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground Table 5: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest Management in Edmonds tnL Permits for Tree Removal Trees on Private Development Permits for Tree Property Services Pruning Permits for Tree Planting Hazardous Tree Parks, Inspections Trees in Parks Recreation and Tree Pruning g Cultural Tree Removal Services Tree Planting Public Works Hazardous Tree Trees within and Utilities Inspections City Rights -of- (with Parks' Tree Pruning Way assistance in Tree Removal mmmng�' downtown) Tree Planting , 31 what Do we Have? level with minimal cost when a tree is young. However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into very expensive structural issues and increase the risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may be impossible to correct the issue without causing greater harm. Over -mature trees require more frequent inspection and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage when it is most beneficial and cost-effective. At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related to trees are identified by City Staff, work is prioritized based on existing and available budgets. Planning associated with tree management on public properties is minimal with priority attention given to ensuring the successful establishment of new tree plantings and responding to hazardous tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department performs certain routine tree inspections and provides limited proactive maintenance activities (typically associated with the care of trees after planting to encourage successful establishment). Within City rights -of -way, tree issues are uncovered as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks and streets, where trees are only identified when infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly, in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance when safety concerns are observed through routine park maintenance activities. r Q Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for public safety. Packet Pg. 135 7.1.b Tree Maintenance Budgets The majority of tree maintenance costs are accounted for as general line items through the parks department budget. As part of the annual Tree City USA application, departments will summarize their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds' urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita, which is more than the minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA designation and more than the $7.50 national average reported by the National Arbor Day Foundation. Documented Edmonds' expenditures have been in the range of $3 per capita in prior years. Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds' urban forest produces about $1,567,000 in environmental benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of approximately $319,542. Service Levels To assess current urban forest workload and staffing levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were identified as persons who work with tree issues on at least an intermittent basis every week. From those who are involved with forestry issues or operations on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were identified with a quantifiable amount of time each week working with trees or tree -related issues. Table 6: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures Urban Forestry Items MR Expenditure Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848 Tree Maintenance $79,779 T Management $62,771 Volunteer Activities JL _M $134,579 TOTAL $319,542 Vdget Per Capita $7.74 UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000 Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental cooperation. These general conclusions about the shared responsibilities among staff resources at the City are very important when the City evaluates future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently, no one single position is designated as a Full -Time Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry. Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels City Services UrbanCommon Related Activities Hours per Development plan review for Permit Intake compliance with tree protection codes 2 and Review Public inquiries (online, phone, and counter) Code Investigating and resolving Enforcement & tree complaints Complaint Investigating and resolving 2 infrastructure damage Investigation complaints Tree planting and Parks & Public establishment Tree Structural pruning on smaller 40-60 Maintenance trees Inspection and identification of hazardous trees Contract Managing contract tree crews 1 Management Emergency Community Service Requests 0 Response Response Management Urban Forest Management Comprehensive Plan stewardship (Long-range) Federal, state grant <1 Planning procurement Tree City USA applications Volunteer events Community Coordinated tree planting Education Action Neighborhood association 1 and Outreach support Website content and public education Tree Board Addressing public issues 1 Meetings related to trees r Q What Do We Have? 32 Packet Pg. 136 Staff Training The science of arboriculture, and the management of urban forests are domains that are increasingly recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials are increasingly requested by many municipalities as evidence of competency. Bachelor's degrees in Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences, and Horticulture are often the base requirements for leadership roles in urban forest management. Professional credentials can also demonstrate competency, with the most widely accepted credentials in Washington State coming from the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Image of a tree with a co -dominant branch defect (middle stem). The city has access to trained staff qualified to provide expertise for identification of these tree safety risks. The City provides on -going training to any staff handling tree maintenance equipment, including chainsaw, chipper, and lift -truck safety. Stakeholder interviews revealed that landscape maintenance workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on structural pruning or tree care. The following is a summary description of staff resources and training within individual City departments: • In Development Services, staff are trained to interpret ordinances related to trees, but rely on reports by ISA certified arborists when necessary to render decisions. Staff within development services have backgrounds in Urban Planning and one (1) person with has an advanced degree in Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists within development services staff. • The Department of Public Works and Utilities has a director with advanced degrees in Biology and Aquatic Biology. In addition, the department has engineers on staff who can successfully consider relevant tree issues in terms of asset and infrastructure management, but tree care expertise is not required for any staff in this department. Tree related issues are resolved based on previous experiences and through hired consultations with ISA certified arborists when necessary. • The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has two staff members who provide expertise on urban forestry topics. a The first is an ISA certified arborist who is referenced by all City departments and citizen groups for opinions on the best practices associated with tree care. There is also a staff `o a_ member who has an advanced degree in Forest Ecology who works with citizen groups on tree planting and stewardship projects. D N r Tree Acquisition and Quality Control The City's approach to acquiring trees is not guided a by any formal standard practices that ensure the a quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are M planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties r managed with new trees. Q 33 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 137 Tree City USA The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit conservation and education organization founded in 1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow. It is the largest nonprofit membership organization dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards of quality urban forestry management: maintaining a tree board or department, having a community tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day. Currently, the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542.20 towards total community forestry expenditure, and with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has recognized this per capita investment, as well as recognizing the City of Edmonds' community tree ordinance and observance of Arbor Day. Native Trees Trees native to the Pacific Northwest are well -suited to our climate. They also tend to provide good habit for local wildlife. Many native trees, both coniferous and broadleaved, are part of the City's urban forest. They are currently encouraged in public and private plantings but not necessarily required, except in designated critical areas for wildlife habitat and/or wetlands. More information about native trees and their value is likely to be part of an upcoming round of community education in Edmonds. Cone from a douglas fir. (Photo by Peter Stevens CC BY) An example of some native trees for the Pacific Northwest include the following,: Broadleaved Trees • Big -Leaf Maple • Black Cottonwood • Oregon Ash • Pacific Willow • Red Alder • Vine Maple Conifers • Douglas Fir • Grand Fir • Noble Fir • Shore Pine • Sitka Spruce • Western Hemlock • Western Larch • Western Red Cedar • Western White Pine 1 A more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F Leaves of a big leaf maple. What Do We Have? 34 Packet Pg. 138 Major and Emerging Diseases and Pests Another important aspect to tree maintenance is staying alert to managing emerging diseases and pests that can be costly to control with individual trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest, addressing both potential and actual problems is critical. Further information on the pests and diseases that threaten the forest ecosystems in Washington can be found at: • USDA's Forest Service website • Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook • Collier Arbor Care website —Top 20 Tree and Shrub Problems in the PNW • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Health Among the many diseases and pests that affect trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to the following: Diseases • Laminated Root Rot (LRR) is the most important disease affecting Douglas -fir caused by the fungal pathogen Coniferiporia sulphurascens. In young stands regenerated following harvesting, dead or missing trees will be associated with large stumps. These decayed trees will serve as an inoculum source for neighboring trees to become infected, as their roots grow in contact with infected stumps/roots. Fungal growth invades the heartwood and sapwood, resulting in reduced uptake of water and nutrients, with weakened support of the upper portion of the tree. Infected trees are susceptible to windthrow, and there may be trees in a group in various stages of decay and dying. Live trees with LRR display symptoms of shortened terminal growth, sparse foliage, smaller needles, chlorosis (yellowing) and stress cone crops. Trees can fall over before developing obvious symptoms, or die standing. The disease is very difficult to manage in an urban setting (USFS, 2017). • Armillaria Root Rot (ARR) affects the roots of numerous tree species, notably Douglas -fir and other Firs and Pines, as well as many hardwood species. Armillaria ostoyae is the primary fungal pathogen in the Pacific Northwest, although A. mellea can also be involved in tree decline and mortality. ARR disease is usually associated with stress conditions, particularly drought. The fungus survives for many years in infected stumps, roots and organic matter in the soil. Honey -colored mushrooms are typically produced at the base of infected trees in the fall. Typical symptoms include chlorotic foliage, distress cone crops, significant resin flow, decline and death. The fungus typically produces black shoestring -like structures called rhizomorphs on the bark at the base of the tree or in the soil (OSU, 2018). • Verticillium Wilt (VW) is a serious disease of m many tree hosts, but is especially problematic on Maple species. Verticillium dahliae is a a soil -borne fungus that persists in the soil for a decades. The fungus infects roots and grows L into the xylem where it colonizes the vascular a elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores) _ plus defense compounds produced by the Z host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the a flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting results, and is exacerbated during periods of a - drought. Leaves on one side of the tree affected by VW or on one branch suddenly wilt and die. Subsequently, other branches will wilt as the disease progresses. Excised branches will have vascular discoloration which is diagnostic of the disease. Infected trees may survive for years o or die within weeks. Once infected, a tree will _ not likely recover and will require removal. Tree injections of fungicides are not usually effective (OSU, 2018). N r c • Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the E foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. a SNC is known as a "cast" disease because it causes the premature shedding of needles (or E casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree U crowns and reduced growth. Although it is Q 35 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 139 called "Swiss" needle cast, the fungus is native to the Western United States throughout the range of Douglas -fir. SNC disease symptoms include chlorotic needles and decreased needle retention, resulting in sparse crowns and reduced diameter and height growth (OSU, 2017). Mortality from the disease is considered rare, but tree care and maintenance of this disease can be expensive and necessary in an urban setting. • Leaf Blight (LB) is a serious disease affecting Pacific Madrone caused by the fungal pathogen Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis. At least a dozen fungi can cause leaf spots and dead areas on leaves; this is probably the most significant cause of damage to the host. Older, lower leaves are infected by spores disseminated by wind or rain during wet weather in the fall. Trees located in creek bottoms, valleys and the forest understory are most susceptible to LB. If wet weather persists, infection may be severe and result in significant defoliation. Under these conditions, the fungus can also infect green shoots. Pruning dead branches to provide better air circulation and raking and destroying fallen leaves will help to reduce fungal inoculum and subsequent infection (OSU, 2008). • Anthracnose (A) affects a wide variety of shade trees, especially Maple, Oak and Sycamore. The closely related fungi Discula (Maple, Sycamore) and Apiognomonia (Oak) are the causal agents of the disease. The disease is favored by warm, wet springs and several rounds of infection can occur, each defoliating the tree, resulting in a tree much more prone to subsequent drought stress. Lesions on the leaves are typically associated and limited by the veins, resulting in discrete necrotic areas. In particularly susceptible trees under ideal environmental conditions, twig cankers can also develop. It is important to rake up and destroy fallen leaves, prune out twig cankers and water trees during dry periods (OSU, 2018). • Sudden Oak Death was discovered in California in the mid 1990's, has spread into southern Oregon (2001) and was found (and has subsequently been contained or eliminated) in a small area in Kitsap County two years ago. The causal fungus Phytophthora ramorum primarily infects species of Oaks, but can also infect a wide range of other hosts, including Camellia, Rhododendron, Blueberry and other landscape plants. The fungus is waterborne and can be spread in streams or other forms of moving water. Symptoms on Oaks include bleeding cankers on the trunk, dieback of the foliage and mortality. Symptoms on other plants can vary from leafspots to leaf blight to twig dieback, but do not usually result in death of the host. Quarantines are in place to prevent further spread of SOD, largely from nurseries (COMTF, 2019). Insects • Asian Long -Horned Beetle (ALB), is an invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety of trees in the United States, eventually killing them. The beetle is native to China and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start to show about three to four (3-4) years after infestation, with tree death occurring in ten to fifteen (10-15) years depending on the tree's overall health and site conditions. Infested trees do not recover, nor do they regenerate. There are a broad number of tree species this insect will feed in and most common deciduous trees in Edmonds are at risk. • Tent Caterpillar (TC) is a serious defoliator of broadleaf trees and shrubs in most areas of the western U.S. Tree hosts include Red Alder, Cottonwood, Willow, Ash, Pacific Madrone, and many fruit trees. White silky tents appear soon after bud break. As the larvae grow in size, the tents also increase in size. Individual branches near these tents are totally defoliated. Entire trees may be defoliated by TC. After feeding has been concluded, the larvae will turn into moths within a cocoon. Eggs are laid on the twigs and branches where they overwinter in protected masses. Individual tents can be physically removed, preferably in the early morning hours when the larvae are contained in the tent (USFS, 2008). r Q What Do we Have? 36 Packet Pg. 140 • Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid (CSGA) is a serious pest of Spruce and Douglas -fir trees. It swarms in the spring when the new needles emerge. Crawler nymphs form galls at the branch tips. These galls are initially green, becoming red and eventually dry out. These affected branches cease their growth, and if enough branches are affected, the tree may be killed. White cottony specks will also cover the entire branch. Trees with fewer galls may be unsightly and foliage can be discolored and distorted. Most outbreaks of CSGA do not warrant control measures (NRC, 2015). • Pine Bark Adelgid (PBA) feeds on the bark of pines and spruce. They form cottony or wooly masses on the twigs, branches or trunk. Heavy infestations will turn the entire area white. Small trees will be severely affected, resulting in chlorotic needles and stunting or premature death. Small egg clusters are laid in the early spring by the adults. Crawlers move to other areas of the tree or to other trees nearby. PBA can be removed by hand, preferably done when the infestation has just begun (OSU, 2018). • Bronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging pest in western Washington that has migrated from eastern Washington in recent years. Periods of extended summer drought have weakened birch trees and made them more susceptible to this pest which can severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic leaves and sparse upper branches are the first symptoms that homeowners usually notice from BBB attack. Close examination will reveal lumpy bark and half -moon - shaped beetle exit holes (WSU, 2008). Symptoms of BBB Include Dying Top 37 What Do We Have? • Douglas -fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a moth found in Western North America. Its population periodically erupts in cyclical outbreaks (Wickman et al., 1998). Outbreaks of the Douglas -fir tussock moth appear to develop almost explosively, and then usually subside abruptly after a year or two. The caterpillars feed on the needles of Douglas fir, true fir, and spruce in summer. Forestry management to prevent tree damage from tussock moth outbreaks include four activities: early detection, evaluation, suppression, and prevention. These four activities must be well integrated to ensure adequate protection from the pest. • Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed hundreds of millions of ash trees in North America. The EAB is a destructive, non-native, wood -boring pest that exclusively kills both stressed and healthy ash trees 2-3 years after infestation (NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native to Northwestern Asia. EAB larvae feed on the vascular tissue of trees and populations grow exponentially. This pest has been identified as moving slowly into the Western U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest for ash tree populations. • Other Diseases and Pests. Information on specific diseases and insects that damage trees in our region have been identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Current online information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/ ForestHealth. A. Asian Long -Horned Beetle B. Bronze Birch Borer C. Douglas fir Tussock Moth D. Emerald Ash Borer r Q Packet Pg. 141 7.1.b Regulatory Framework The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several components relevant to urban forestry in the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. These regulations are designed to: • Authorize the power of government to manage the urban forest • Define street trees and, as appropriate, municipal responsibilities for their care • Enumerate tree related fees and penalties • Create regulations associated with tree clearing on private land • Require tree protection during construction • Classify critical areas or buffers These different regulations cover tree related topics on a range of land types, and all influence the direction and management of urban forestry programs. The following summaries outline the chapters and sections of city code. Authorization of Power The legitimacy of Edmonds' city government to manage forestry domains and the definition of those domains fall under the authorization of power: • Chapter 18.45 provides for the City's Planning Division Manager to direct and enforce City codes related to land clearing and tree cutting on public land and private property. It exempts Public Works, Parks and Fire Departments in specific situations where safety is an issue. • Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director of Public Works to enforce and inspect work done to maintain City street trees in healthy condition, or remove trees from the public right-of-way as necessary. • Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree Board, made up of Edmonds City residents in order to encourage civic engagement for active stewardship of the urban forest. The powers and duties of the Tree Board are to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council as appropriate on tree related matters. Street and Public Trees The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible for the planting and maintenance of public trees. These trees are on public property parcels or select locations in the rights -of -way. Other planting strips are the responsibility of adjacent land owners: • Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction and maintenance, declares that the responsibility is with the abutting property owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent planting strips. This includes all tree care. • Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the regulation of street trees and trees on public property. All street trees are managed by the Public Works Department and require permits for all persons who wish to plant, remove, prune or otherwise change a tree on a street, right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, or other public place. This code chapter also includes language defining abuse and damage to street trees. Tree Related Fees and Penalties To facilitate compliance and remediation for disregarding public tree codes, the City provides penalties as a punitive deterrent: • Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive discretion for trees that are damaged from disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for trees less than 3" and $3,000 for trees larger than 3". Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use, including public right-of-way. What Do We Have' 38 Packet Pg. 142 Private Land Clearing Land clearing on private property is often a critical challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry canopy goals. Individual private property rights and objectives of private landowners can frequently be at odds with the community aspirations for the urban forest. • Chapter 18.45 contains regulations associated with trees on private properties for land clearing and tree cutting. This code provides for a variety of purposes that would preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the City and prevent indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees. This chapter also implements policies of the State Environmental Policy Act. It provides special exemptions in 18.45.030 for improved single-family lots, partially improved single-family lots or certain unimproved lots, allowing private property owners in these categories to maintain or remove trees at their discretion without permits. Additionally, these land clearing codes provide exemptions for utility vegetation maintenance or tree work by City departments when situations involving danger to life or property are found. Tree Protection During Construction As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees. Regulations to protect trees during construction are a mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are developed. • Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are being retained during a land development project are also protected. The codes describe the protected area on a site as being within the drip -line of the tree and attempts to limit damage to trees by controlling the impact to trees within this area. Critical Areas and Buffers Washington State has special laws to protect critical areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable and environmentally significant areas. Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections and management requirements for trees located near wetlands, streams, or steep slopes. Tree pruning or removal is restricted or prohibited without a report from an ISA certified arborist, ASCA registered consultant, or a registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for replacement trees. Challenges One of the more frequent complaints related to tree removal in the city is when properties are developed or subdivided. While a goal of the City's code is that "trees should be retained to the maximum extent feasible," other applicable development regulations help determine what is feasible. There are regulations that prescribe how wide driveways and roads must be, how far the development must be from the edges of a property, location of utilities (water, sewer, gas, and power) that must be installed underground, and stormwater requirements that require the installation of stormwater facilities. As a result, when one of the larger properties in the City that contains a grove of trees is developed to meet the many regulations and needs, sometimes only a few trees are located outside of the development footprint. Trees that were once stable in their grove, are susceptible to wind throw and become hazardous when isolated on their own. Where a tree was once the right tree in the right location (one tree protected in a larger grove), it may no longer be the right tree in the right location (an exposed tree on the perimeter of a lot) following development. As the City considers updates to the development �° code, updates should provide more ways to encourage greater tree retention when properties are developed. An example may be to provide options for reduced interior setbacks that would allow houses to be clustered and thus provide an opportunity to avoid trees where otherwise development would be placed under the regulations a in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an update to consider may include evaluating the required width of access easements. M r r Q 39 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 143 Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 7.1.b L Qi Q 0 a- 0) M a Developed single-family property, no critical areas present Developed single-family property, critical areas present Removal of hazard trees in critical area Prune or trim trees Multi -family property and Planned Residential Developments with approved landscape plan Commercial Property Tree removal with development Trees in right-of-way Street trees No review, no permit required Yes, review and permit required if tree in critical area or critical area buffer Review required, but no permit No review, no permit Yes, review and permit required Yes, review and permit required Yes, review included with land use or development permit. Yes, review and permit required Yes, review and permit required Prune or removal of park I No permit trees No notification required, but suggested to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement Response Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff decision with notice) Documentation of hazard tree by certified arborist, or clear documentation of dead tree. Replanting required at 2:1 ratio Topping considered same as tree cutting or removal unless retopping of a previously approved topping Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision, no notice) Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision no notice) Tree protection measures required for7 trees to remain A right-of-way construction permit is required for any party other than the City of Edmonds to perform any removal or trimming of trees located within the City rights -of -way Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision, no notice) 7 The City's Parks Department maintains trees within the City's parks. While no permit is required, tree removal and replacement must be consistent with the Citv's critical area regulations a What Do We Have? 40 Packet Pg. 144 Regional Urban Forestry Resources Regional urban forestry resources are organizations that provide services to aid in the protection, maintenance, and development of the urban forest. These range from active volunteer groups in the City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state and federal government agencies. Some of the organizations and programs described below have been used by the City. Others may be good choices for the future. Edmonds' community volunteers helping to remove ivy and improve forest health. VITA HNGTON COMMUNITY FORESM Washington State Urban and Community Forestry Program Under the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to Washington's cities and towns, counties, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is: "To provide leadership to create self-sustaining urban and community forestry programs that preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for public benefits and quality of life." A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of financial assistance programs including; Community Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of financial assistance, their availability in a given year, and their associated dollar amounts are dependent on continued funding through annual grant allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF communicates events, educational opportunities, and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter. The Washington Community Forestry Council advises the DNR on policies and programs. The program does this by teaching citizens and decision - makers about the economic, environmental, psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees. The program also helps local governments, citizen groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy trees throughout Washington. The council was established under RCW 76.15. N c as E a c m E U a r r Q 41 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 145 FORTSRRA FORTERRA Green City Partnerships The Green City program helps urban communities in the Puget Sound region effectively steward their natural open spaces through best practices. FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term plans, and community -based stewardship programs to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in our urban environments. Specific services include: • City-wide forested park and natural area assessment • Strategic and restoration planning • Volunteer program development and guidance • Education and training for volunteers • Restoration tracking systems • Green City outreach and community engagement • On- the -ground stewardship projects and event support The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core goals: • Improve the quality of life, connections to nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities by restoring our forested parks and natural areas • Galvanize an informed and active community • Ensure long-term sustainable funding and community support These unique public/private partnerships bring together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders to create a sustainable network of healthy forested parks and natural areas throughout the region. im rFO' S C LocalGoverTueTt Municipal Research and Services Center The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local information from parks and recreation departments, land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations to promote and manage urban forestry resources. Example resources include local urban forestry programs in Washington State, legal references, and related articles. A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars. r Q What Do We Have? 42 Packet Pg. 146 7.1.b future wise Futurewise Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent sprawl to protect the resources of communities in Washington State. Futurewise was founded to help support implementation of Washington State's Growth Management Act, and to focus on preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions and development. Futurewise provides data analysis and research, community and environmental planning and policy development, community engagement and outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy, legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services are all provided through strategic collaboration with businesses, governments, community organizations, and nonprofit partners. Wetland stream flowing through Edmonds. w COLLEGE of the ENVIRONMENT The University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional center to integrate student, faculty and community interests in ecological restoration and conservation. Students in the program are required to complete capstone projects, where students of different academic backgrounds work together to complete a local restoration project. Students learn how to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration project while working in teams. The Capstone spans three academic quarters beginning in the fall. Communities collaborate with the program to develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the community and excellent learning experiences for the students. * ;4,�-11, 43 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 147 7.1.b EarthCorps EarthCorps is a human capital development program where corps members learn leadership skills by working collaboratively, leading community volunteers, and executing technical restoration projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration events, monitor plant growth, adapt management plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and communities to offer volunteers who are passionate about conservation and restoration. The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on- Forested park canopy in Edmonds. Forested park canopy in Edmonds. going, locally -based, expert care for one of the City's key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown to include three more sites: Brackett's Landing, Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park. The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and how to perform actions that improve the ecological health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents. Actions include removing invasive weeds such as Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas in need of water retention and weed suppression, and replanting with native plants to foster greater biodiversity. r a What Do We Have? 44 Packet Pg. 148 Urban Forestry Practices: Case Studies In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that there are urban forestry practices emerging from other municipalities that could eventually add value if developed within the City. Through stakeholder interviews and discussions with City Staff, three urban forestry practices were selected as important for further consideration in implementation of this UFMP: Tree Banks (orfee in -Lieu programs), Heritage Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This section explores some examples around how other cities have adopted these programs. Tree Banks - Fee -based alternatives to tree replacement Often in the course of urban forest management, there can be logistical challenges associated with replacing trees at the same site where trees are removed. An increasingly common solution is to provide developers and residents with the opportunity to pay fees in -lieu of meeting their landscaping requirements. Providing a fee orfinancial guarantee option creates a system for funding tree planting projects or even more sophisticated landscape restoration projects that improve the overall health and condition of the urban forest. Precedence for this option can be found at the National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in - lieu fee program as: • "A program involving the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements... Similar to a mitigation bank, an in -lieu fee program sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in -lieu program sponsor." Snohomish County Here, the government provides options for permit applicants to engage the county, their own contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is not possible at the proposed project site: 'Applicants may choose to perform the off - site mitigation work on private property either themselves or through their own contractor, subject to all other provisions of Section 30.62 SCC, or applicants may enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with the County pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 under which the County will perform the mitigation work on public property within the same sub -drainage basin or watershed resource inventory area (WRIA)." (POL-6210 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING OFF -SITE MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER SCC 30.62.330) The following cities are examples of fee in -lieu programs related to urban forestry. There is some variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as where the funds collected get administered. City of Redmond The City of Redmond calculates fee in -lieu to include the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee also includes all costs associated with establishment care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations: • RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement Fee A fee in- lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the Administrator after careful consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an offsite location. i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base fee times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements Q 45 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 149 of this section. The tree base fee shall cover the cost of a tree, installation (labor and equipment), maintenance for two years, and fund administration. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal Permit. Fees collected under this subsection shall be expended only for the planting of new trees in City -owned parks, open spaces or rights - of -way. • http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond- wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid=005.009&fil e=doc-005.009-pid-80.pdf City of Renton The City of Renton has much more limited code language. Fee in -lieu options are still at the City's Community volunteers pulling weeds and improving forest health in Edmonds. discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and installation. No funding for establishment care is required in this code. However, the code does directly designate the funds to be allocated to the Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides more discretion to the City with how the funds get allocated: • RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When the Administrator determines that it is infeasible to replace trees on the site, payment into the City's Urban Forestry Program fund may be approved in an amount of money approximating the current market value of the replacement trees and the labor to install them. The City shall determine the value of replacement trees. http://www.codepublishing com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/RentonO4O4/ Renton0404130.html r Q What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 150 City of Port Angeles 7.1.b City of Seattle The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in -lieu option, but it only appears to relate to street tree replacement requirements. Another distinction in this code is the fee is determined by the Community Forester (a city staff position): • PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree requirements in previously developed area. In addition to the above requirements, the following also apply: Where new street trees cannot be planted due to portions of rights -of -way having been previously paved or otherwise rendered unsuitable to plant trees, a fee -in -lieu of planting is required. Such fee shall be determined by the Community Forester per City Policy and deposited into the Community Forestry Fund. https://library.municode.com/wa/port_angeles/ codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT11STSl_ CH11.13STTR_11.13.050STTRENRE Heritage Tree Programs - Recognizing Historical Significance of Trees In many cities around the nation, trees are often recognized for their historical significance to the community. This recognition is commonly referred to as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These programs provide communities with a way of officially recognizing trees, and with the recognition, can offer a variety of benefits to the community, including: • Increasing public awareness of trees and the urban forest • Drawing attention to and protecting unique and significant trees • Reinforcing how trees are a key component of a city's character and sense of place • Engaging citizens with the purpose and activities of a city's urban forestry program • Encouraging public participation in the identification and perpetuation of heritage trees throughout the City In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program that eventually became co -sponsored by the City. Seattle's program provides the broadest set of categories for designating a tree as a heritage tree. Trees can be designated according to the following categories: • Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity. • Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age, its association with or contribution to a historic structure or district, or its association with a noted person or historic event. • Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community. • Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting. City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had a heritage tree program in place since 1998. Unlike Seattle, which already regulates the care of exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on private property, the City of Vancouver uses this designation to protect trees on private properties where tree removal permits would not ordinarily be required. This is a voluntary program for private property owners, thus protecting the rights of the property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/ publicworks/page/heritage-trees). City of Lynnwood Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined in municipal code. Although many aspects of this program are similarto other cities, theirspecific code language binds all successive owners of the tree to the protection obligations within this designation. This language has the added benefit of ensuring long-term protection and care for the tree unless it is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070). 47 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 151 Arborist Business Licenses - City of Lincoln Ensuring Best Practices in Tree Care Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require a general business license to work as an arborist. This is not uncommon, but many cities are now recognizing how the complexity of city codes associated with tree care and the expectations of the community necessitate special licensing for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care industry professionals and researchers in the science of arboriculture routinely convene as the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community has companies that are adequately trained and qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing that ties the business with these organizations is increasingly popular. The following cities were selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of different approaches for arborist business licensing: City of Herrington • Herrington, KY — Businesses that practice arboriculture must submit an application to the City for a Tree Contractor license. The application identifies the business as practicing arboriculture and requires proof of sufficient insurance (http://www.cityofherington.com/ pview.aspx?id=32514&catl D=547). Community engagement on urban forestry is important to encourage tree retention on private properties. • Lincoln, NE — In Lincoln, applications for tree services and arborists not only require proof of insurance, but also proof of ISA credentials or a tree worker test administered by the parks and recreation department. http://Iincoln.ne.gov/ city/parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm City of Denver • Denver, CO — Denver has two classes for their "Tree Service License." This is a distinct feature of their licensing process. Licenses can be issued to businesses working on "Large Trees," which require workers to leave the ground, or an "Ornamental" license, designed for companies doing landscaping work on small trees that do not require an aerial lift. https:H www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/ Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-license- info-packet.pdf City of Spokane • Spokane, WA — Spokane has a commercial tree license that businesses must secure if they are doing work on public property trees (e.g.,street trees and park trees). https://my.spokanecity. org/urbanforestry/permits/ What Do We Have? 48 Packet Pg. 152 Incentives - Encouraging Tree Retention on Private Properties From the urban tree canopy assessment, it was determined that the majority of tree canopy in the city is privately owned and managed. For cities to manage their urban forests, collaboration and voluntary commitments on the part of private property owners can be a beneficial strategy that encourages desirable tree care and retention practices. (Note: In some "incentive programs," cities have first established by code minimum tree density requirements for private properties and then used incentives to allow property owners some flexibility in retaining the minimum tree density). The following are example methods that cities, counties, and states have used to incentivize desirable tree stewardship on private property: City of Portland Portland, OR — The City of Portland has a "Treebate" program which provides a one-time credit on individual utility bills for planting a tree in a residential yard. The amount of credit depends on the size of the tree. (Certain types of trees are excluded from the program.) https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/ article/314187 Brevard County • Brevard County, FL— In Brevard County, incentives were created to encourage tree preservation as they relate to landscaping requirements during development. This code language incentivizes by providing credits for exceeding tree canopy density, preserving native trees of significant size, or vegetation of special concern. These credits reduce the tree re -planting requirements otherwise associated with development projects. (Code Sec 62-4344). http://brevardcounty.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ appid32777_ch62_artxiii_div2_sec62-4344 City of Rocklin • Rocklin, CA — In an effort to preserve its native oak population, the City of Rocklin established incentives in their code. Projects that save 25% or more of the surveyed oak trees receive expedited processing by the Community Development department. In addition, development projects can have traffic mitigation and capital facility fees deferred from 3 months up to 12 months depending on the trees being saved. http://www.rocklin.ca.us/ sites/main/files/file-attachments/oak_tree_ preservation_guidelines.pdf State of Hawaii State of Hawaii — In an effort to encourage the care and maintenance of trees determined as "exceptional", residents can deduct up to $3000 per tax year for their costs associated with tree care. The code language has an additional limitation that this tax deduction can only be allowed once every three years. (HRS 235-19). http://files.hawaii.gov/tax/legal/hrs/hrs_235.pdf When the City of Edmonds updates its development regulations, incentives for tree retention and tree planting should be considered. These may include: Tree bank Tree bank funded by development. Developer pays X dollar for each significant tree removed during development into a tree bank. This "incentivizes" tree retention because the developer may find ways to maintain trees rather than pay into the tree bank. Tree bank could be used to supply property owners with certificates to purchase trees to plant on their property. Tree bank funds could be used towards purchase of forested properties when they E become available. a c m E M U a r r Q 49 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 153 Development flexibility to maintain trees • Allowing reduced interior setbacks may allow more flexibility in home placement and provide opportunities for tree retention. • Allow for deviations from access and road width requirements to allow more flexibility in design and home placements. • Encourage low impact development techniques which promote tree retention. Heritage Tree Program • Develop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program to recognize unique or special trees as a way to recognize stewardship of the urban forest by local property owners. Further consideration of the above —and any additional —ideas should be explored in more detail as part of the code update process in the near future. Summary Considerations for Urban Forest Practices Historical practices and regulatory requirements provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular, the City has special authority over property it owns or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to direct the City's urban forest management activities. Instead, the City has multiple departments that are guided by codes and policies for site -specific decisions without overarching strategic level guidance of the forest. An example encountered by public works staff is when a tree removal is being considered. One tree may need to be removed and replaced for safety reasons, but additional trees may get removed and replaced to maintain the aesthetic of the streetscape. Without overarching urban forest strategies, removals of trees for simple rights -of -way improvements can be seen as reactive solutions resolved through political discourse instead of planned practical decisions for city managers. This reactive approach to urban forest management also extends to the tree care budget. The City does not maintain sufficient tree related information (such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry benefits models show how trees in Edmonds provide environmental and economic benefits that are much greater than their reactive management costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage this disparity and direct forest management toward proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree maintenance pruning, and tree inspections. With approximately 13%ofthe City's entire tree canopy in public ownership, other methods to encourage or require tree planting/protection will be needed for the community to have influence over tree care in the remaining 87% of the forest. Some strategies that have been engaged in at other municipalities include the fee in -lieu programs to support variances in any tree replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs that protect special trees, and arborist business licensing to encourage best practices in tree care, and incentive programs. The City's policies with regard to the acquisition of open space (including the potential purchase of forested properties) are contained with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land acquisition is included in the capital project budget and the PROS plan notes that "expansions of the parks system will target the gaps identified in this plan and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds, this approach will require vigilance and proactive pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities for both parks and open spaces. The City's inclusion of this item in the capital projects list recognizes the importance of swift action when rare property acquisition opportunities become available." A specific policy addressing the purchase of forested properties could be considered for adding to the PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining the City's tree cover through the selective purchase of forest properties as opportunities arise. Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued and greater engagement, the City may realize more grant -funded opportunities, volunteer resources, and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve its urban forest management goals. Q What Do We Have? so Packet Pg. 154 7.1.b What Do We Want ? Stakeholder and Community Input Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency stakeholders. Connections and relationships that develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes of the urban forest outreach process. This provided a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds' urban forest. As community awareness and actions associated with urban forestry move forward, it will be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the value of their contributions to their community in the trees that grow around them. Stakeholder Interviews In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting met with several municipal and regional urban forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews occurred over two days and included urban planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree board representatives, and City staff leadership. Their valuable contributions guided the framework of the UFMP. Virtual Open House Throughout the development process, the City hosted a website that provided community access to the planning process. In addition, the website provided access to videos of public presentations, surveys, and invitations for public comments. This approach provided further opportunities for public input outside of scheduled community meetings. Community Meetings The first public meeting was held with the City of Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board on May 4, 2017. During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values about the urban forest were explored with members and visitors in attendance. Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall to share information about the UFMP development process and gather input from community residents. The open house included a presentation and a brief discussion with the audience to answer clarifying questions. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster boards. Each poster board contained a broad topic followed by initial suggestions generated through the prior stakeholder interview process. Attendees were invited to express their opinions using dots (where green = a positive "vote"/ agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/ hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative "vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion). Attendees were invited to use as many dots of each color as necessary to express their opinion of each suggestion on each poster board. In addition, each poster board provided an area for Additional Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered to the poster board for other attendees to review and "vote" on. A third meeting which was with the Planning Board, occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity to solicit public participation early in the UFMP development process. The results of these public meetings helped the City to understand the needs and concerns of the community and guide the development of the online survey. 51 what Do We want? Packet Pg. 155 Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for community engagement. — — What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 156 Online Community Survey As part of the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey was developed with the intention of understanding and benchmarking Edmonds' community values and views on the urban forest. It was not conducted as a statistically valid study but as one to guage community values and get public feedback. Survey data was collected online. The survey platform only allowed one survey response per household to control for multiple entries from a single respondent. The survey closed in September of 2017 with 175 responses having been gathered through the summer (Appendix C). Responses increased following the public open house and a presentation to the planning board. Although the intent was to gather feedback from a broad representation of the community, 40.9% of the respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had less than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3% of the combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not affiliate within the survey -defined neighborhood groups. The results showed how seventy-five percent (74.9%) of respondents "strongly agree" that public trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents "agree" or "strongly agree" that Edmonds needs more public 40 % 35% 30% 25 % 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Improved Air Quality Edmonds' fountain and traffic circle trees. trees. The most popular location for more trees is in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf courses (11.2%). When asked to rank the environmental benefits most valued from the urban forest, respondents expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least important at 4.6% (Figure 4). Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Carbon Storage Energy Savings Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Environmental Benefits Other 53 What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 157 7.1.b View of street trees at 5th Avenue South and Main Street. On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees as the most important intangible benefit, followed by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then 40 35 30 25 20 15% 10% attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic benefit (Figure 5). Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit 50 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0/o Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded Attractive to Shaded Improve retail Increased Property Passive recreation Shaded Parkin Trails,sidewalks, Residents streets/Buffer areas and Values and bike trails from vehicles neighborhoods Intangible Benefits c M a c W E 0 c CU r Cn L 0 U- c M L N r c 0 E t R r c m E L V R Q What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 158 7.1.b In general, respondents are satisfied with the current level of maintenance, with 69.8% saying they "Agree" or "Strongly Agree." When asked to rank various options for the level of maintenance that public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to receive hazard maintenance (Figure 6). Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would like to seethe City help preserve trees on private property. Education and outreach were considered the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property, with 79.0% of respondents identifying these as their preferred methods. Respondents were asked to select the types of education and public outreach they would like to see offered by the urban forestry program. The most popular educational materials were website resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks (55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%). Street tree along Main Street. Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the (Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear) but not necessarily every tree) Maintenance Expectations 55 what Do we want? None -Keep them natural Packet Pg. 159 7.1.b Summary Considerations for Public Outreach Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further improve the urban forest through increased public outreach and community engagement. Public engagement on urban forestry issues has demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied with the City's activities on public property, but prefers to have the City only provide guidance and education as opposed to regulation when it comes to stewardship of trees on private property. There is general agreement from survey respondents that trees impact views for many residents, and the issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds' identity as a community. Scenic views are also considered a property right of long-established development. At the same time, appreciation of trees —especially "the right trees in the right place" —is a value shared by almost everyone. Private property trees have canopy that can shade public streets. Street trees along 5th Avenue. r Q What Do We Want? 56 Packet Pg. 160 How Do We Get There? Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of Edmonds will be able to enhance management of the urban forest through implementation of actions recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based on the precedence established by the City with other long-range planning documents. Additionally, growing and improving Edmonds' urban forest are slow processes. Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and anotherten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity. For this additional reason, it is essential that urban forest planning consider at least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired state of the urban forest. The five (5) long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan will guide actions and activities that address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: • Urban Forest Asset Actions, which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next twenty (20) years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. To accomplish this, most activities will increase the amount of information the City maintains about its urban forest resource. This includes activities like routine tree canopy assessments and a public tree inventory, both of which are fundamental to management and are substantial expenses to an urban forestry program requiring significant consideration. • Municipal Resource Actions, which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. The common activities for accomplishing these goals center around developing policies that promote routine tree inspection and formalized tree management strategies for City -owned trees. The results will encourage the City to improve its awareness and mitigation of tree hazards and eliminate barriers to effective urban forest management. • Community Resource Actions, which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The activities coordinate with the public and encourage the participation of citizens and businesses to align with the City's vision for the urban forest. The research into current and historical efforts in urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the understanding of the urban forest resource as well as improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations. The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al. (2011) were used as a standard to assess the current urban forestry practices in the City, and provide the management reference necessary to frame the following recommended goals for this plan. Each action contains time designations which estimate the anticipated timeframe for completion of the action/activity once it is started. N c as E a c a� E U a r r Q 57 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 161 Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can obstruct the view, but can also be the view. How Do We Get There? 58 Packet Pg. 162 Urban Forest Management Plan Goal 1 Goal 1- Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success with this objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees and a deeper understanding of the population of trees on private property. The following actions will support this objective: A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan. C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas D. Develop a voluntary heritage tree program E. Enforce city regulations on tree cutting Reach out periodically to tree maintenance and landscaping firms to make sure they know Edmonds' requirements for pruning or removing trees F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage J. Periodically review and, if needed, update Urban Forest Management Plan (generally, every 5-10 years) 7.1.b Goa E Time On -going 1 Year On -going 3-5 Years On -going 3-5 Years On -going On -going 10 Years, On -going 5-10 Years, On -going r Q 59 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 163 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 2 Time Goal 2 - Manage public trees proactively The city has identified opportunities within this plan to improve its risk management associated with trees and create better pathways for community engagement. The following actions will support this objective: A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties On -going and ROW B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to On -going monitor the health of public trees and make decisions on their care C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example, On -going along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically 5-10 Years, On -going E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the On -going health of public trees F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff On -going person to guide approach and activities G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to 3-5 Years, On -going help ensure: i. Age and species diversity; ii. And suitability of species to location H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees, 3-5 Years, On -going consistent with best management practices I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property 1 Year, On -going and rights -of way J. As part of City -sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate On -going trees in rights -of -way and on City properties K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management On -going for City properties and right-of-way (ROW) r Q How Do We Get There? 60 Packet Pg. 164 Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 3 Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective. A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of: i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection. C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees Time 3-5 Years, On -going 3-5 Years, On -going 1 Year, On -going 61 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 165 Urban Forest Management Plan Goal s Goal 4 Time Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care The city recognizes the importance of the privately managed tree population in the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The following actions will support this objective: A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees 1 Year B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to: 1 Year, On -going i. Develop community education materials; ii. Participate in or initiate tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to citizen volunteers iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees 1 Year, On -going and to provide guidance on tree selection and management How Do We Get There' 62 Packet Pg. 166 Urban Forest Management Plan Goal 5 Goal 5 - Promote "Right tree, right place" Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when o balanced combination of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees ore growing in suitable spaces to maintain views, support wildlife (pollinators, birds, mammals, etc) and provide optimum environmental services. The following actions will support this objective: A. Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds of local settings i. Indentify: large native tree species that can spread out in large spaces; low -growing trees in view corridors, trees with appropriate root systems near sidewalks and underground pipes. ii. Provide lists of suitable trees to support pollinators and backyard wildlife habitat. B. Identify key areas to increase canopy and: i. For any such private properties, encourage appropriate tree planting or other techniques; and ii. for any such public properties, consider and take action to appropriately plant trees or otherwise increase canopy. C. Identify and plan for the care of unsuitable trees and, as necessary, for pruning or removal when they are potentially damaging to people, buildings or infrastructure D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation to be planted in critical areas, especially near streams and other wildlife habitat areas E. In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should be planted to be compatible with the street environment 7.1.b Goa E Time 1 Year 1-3 Years On -going On -going 1-2 Years r Q 63 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 167 7.1.b How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring the success of planning strategies. It is intended that the Plan serves as a living document. As new information becomes available, this section of the UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine plan updates, annual reports, and community satisfaction surveys. 5-10 Year Plan Update (Plan 2023) The UFMP is an active tool that will guide management and planning decisions over the next twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress and integration into an internal work plan. The UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates are intended to be flexible in response to emerging opportunities, available resources, and changes in community expectations. Therefore, each year, specific areas of focus should be identified. This can inform budget and time requirements for Urban Forest Managers. Annual State of the Urban Forest Report This report, delivered annually, should include numbers of trees planted and removed by the City, and any changes to the overall community urban forest. It will serve as a performance report to stakeholders and an opportunity for engagement. The report is also an opportunity to highlight the successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling blocks. This information can be integrated into urban forest managers' Annual Reports and used to pursue additional project support and funding from state agencies and Tree City USA applications. Community Satisfaction The results of the UFMP will be measurable in improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals and actions will support better tree health, greater longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However, perhaps the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP will be its ability to meet community expectations for the care and preservation of the urban forest resource. Community satisfaction can be measured through surveys as well as by monitoring public support for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan. Community satisfaction can also be gauged by the level of engagement and support for urban forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest stakeholders will help managers ensure activities continue to be aligned with the community's vision for the urban forest. How Are We Doina' Packet Pg. 168 7.1.b Appendices Appendix A: References Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139-148. American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org Bennett, M. and Shaw, D. 2008. Diseases and Insect Pests of Pacific Madrone. Forest Health Fact Sheet EC 1619-E. California Oak Mortality Task Force, 2019. https://suddenoakdeath.org. Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017. http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/ CensusScope, 2012, "CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data." www.censusscope.org Ciesla, WW.M. and Ragenovich, I.R. 2008. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 119. Western Tent Caterpillar. USFS. City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens' Tree Board. City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington. City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Edmonds, Washington. City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/ Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997. Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/3/3d/Agri I us_a nxi us_1326203.j pg Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 2015. Natural Resources Canada. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313). Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and Urban Planning. Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/ Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington State Department of Commerce. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_ forestry_programming.pdf Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, "Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?" State of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using and Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 65 Appendices Packet Pg. 169 7.1.b Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflets, 2017 - Laminated Root Rot. USDA Forest Service https:gapps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot Heisler, G.M., 1986, "Energy savings with trees." Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25. Hartel, D, 2003, "GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets", 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information. Hollingsworth, C.S., editor. 2019. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect (accessed 31 March 2019). i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of Environmental Management. 45:109-133 Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. http://www. sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816 Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117. Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367. a Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special Section. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155. a Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. c E http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/ a, Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org y The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/ m o a_ Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Emerald Ash Border. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. N http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown a� E Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded Q Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast. http://sncc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17 t PNW Plant Disease Handbook r Q PNW Insect Handbook Appendice- 66 Packet Pg. 170 7.1.b Pscheidt, J.W., and Ocamb, C.M., senior editors. 2019. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease (accessed 31 March 2019). Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/ Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pol lution.html Simpson, James, 2002. "Improved estimates of tree -shade effects on residential use," Energy and Buildings 34, 1067-1076. Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 2000. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting. In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference; Seattle Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112. "Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1." Trees Near Power Lines I Residential I Snohomish County PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219. The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP). https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/ U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. "Green Roofs," Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy Management Program. Washington Department of Ecology, 2011— Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.html Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externalreviewdraft_june152009.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use Elementl). Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing, http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/ebl380e/ebl380e.pdf Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas -Fir Tussock Moth 86. https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/ Wolf, K.L. 1998, "Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho -Social Dimensions of People and Plants", University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1. Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers Research Review. 14, 3:39-43. Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential scale. Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188. Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188 67 Appendices Packet Pg. 171 7.1.b Appendix B9. Table of Figures F'iures Figure 1: Land Cover Classes Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations Tables Table 1: Benchmark Values Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Table 4: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Table 5: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds Table 6: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 5,23 24 25 27 53 54 55 3 27 28 29 31 32 32 40 Appendice- Oa Packet Pg. 172 7.1.b Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Introduction: The survey questions provided a public feedback opportunity during the early stages of plan development. They were designed to solicit input from residents and businesses in the City of Edmonds and help guide the plan development by understanding about how respondents. The questions were arranged into 4 groups: • How do you value trees? • Your opinion about public trees. (City managed trees on streets and in parks) • Your opinion about private trees. (privately managed trees) • Who are you? (Simple Demographics) While providing valuable information, the results of this survey should not be interpreted to be a statistically significant survey representing all of Edmonds. 175 individuals responded to the survey (0.4 percent of the Edmonds population) and the geographic distribution of respondents was not a control factor, as a result the survey responses may include an over representation of view properties. However, these responses do represent views of many citizens who are particularly interested in the management of the City's urban forest. Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5) the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 = least valuable): Improl' Quality Energy Savings FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Carbon Storage Wildlife Habitat Other 69 Appendices Packet Pg. 173 7.1.b Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Strongly Agree 74.86% 131 Agree 21.71% 38 lisagree 2.29% Strongly Disagree 0.57% 1 kot sur ° Not Sure 0.57% 1 ther (please specify) 0.00% 0 Question 2 (Extended) 36.W 4.57% 21.715/o 64 8 38 5.14% 9 13.71 / 24 14.29% 26.86% -M 47 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 9% 18 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 36.00% 63 28.57% 50 25.71% 45 22.29% 39 12.57% 22 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 49.71% 87 P175.71% 10 29.71% 52 10.86% 19 0.00% 0 175 2.88 175 3.3 0 0 C 0 IL C a� E a� C 0 U. C N C 0 E t V r+ Q �.i C d E t t1 a Appendices 70 Packet Pg. 174 7.1.b Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8) the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1= most valuable and 8 = least valuable): Attractive to Residents 14.86% 26 21.71% 38 16.00% 28 13.14% 23 Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29% 60 21.14% 37 14.86% 26 14.29% 25 21.71% 38 17.14% 30 Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 24.00% 42 11.43% 20 2.86% 5 Shaded Parking 3.43% 6 8.57% 15 9.71% 17 rove r reas and neighborhoods 4% 9 104k29% 18 12.57% 22 13.71% 24 Increased Property Values 4.00% 71 5.14% 9 5.14% 9 9.71% 17 Passive recreati 4.00 9 6.86% 12 12.00% 21 Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14% 23 16.00% 28 12.00% 21 16.00% 28 Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds' public trees. Answered 60 Skipped 115 Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City's urban forest program? Please check all that apply. have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City Other (please specify) 71 Appendices Packet Pg. 175 7.1.b Question 3 (Extended) rGIF1• 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86% 12 2.29% 4 1 -- 5.39 7.43% 13 2.86% 5 2.29% 4 2.86% 5 -15 6.29 9.71% 17 9.71% 17 4.57% 8 1.71% 3 17.71% 31 29.71% 52 8.57% 15 19.43% 34 175 3.03 43% 34 18.29% 32 14.29% 25 6.29% 11 175 4.25 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 40 29.14% 51 175 3.05 3% 27 20.00% 35 21. 14.86% 26 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.29% 11 175 4.89 Answered 175 Skipped i Question 5 (Extended) 36.69% 62 23.67% 40 52.07% 88 14.79% 25 12. o AnswereT .• Skipped Appendices 72 Packet Pg. 176 7.1.b Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue with trees in the public rights -of -way. Daily AM 13.02% 22 Weekly 11.83% 20 10.65% 18 Severa I Times A Year 34.32 % 58 Never IL30.18% 1 Answered 1691 Skipped 61 Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees? wx,-- & IWL9- Weekly 4.14% 7 onthly % 5 Several Times A Year 41.42% 70 Never 46.15% 78 Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees? L. :: ° 9 Weekly 2.96% 5 Monthly 5.92% 10 Several Times A Year 43.20% 73 Never 42.60% 72 73 Appendices Packet Pg. 177 7.1.b Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds' public trees. Strongly agree 10.65% 18 Agree 59.17% 100 Disagree 11.83% 20 Strongly Disagree 8.88% 15 Not Sure L 9.47% 16 Answered 169 Skipped 61 Appendices 74 Packet Pg. 178 7.1.b Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable) None -Keep them natural Best possible care (all trees should look good) Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear) Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees. jjWngly Agree AMMV.87% 6& Agree 28.99% 49 isagree 17.16% 29 Strongly disagree 5.33% 9 not sure ilMEW Answered 169 Skipped Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply. a 59.17% 100 Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36% 102 Sareetscapes 59.17% 100 Golf Courses 11.24% 19 p;ovvWwn 7M.60% Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77 dmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34 Other (please specify) 17.75% 30 Answered .• Skipped 75 Appendices Packet Pg. 179 7.1.b Question 10 (Extended) 3.55% 6 8.88% 15 10.06% 17 25.44% 43 45.56% 77 6.51% 11 169 1.92 15.38% 26 9.47% 16 21.89% 37 26.04% 44 23.08% 39 4.14% 7 169 2.67 6.51% 11 24.26% 41 27.81% 47 26.04% 44 10.65% 18 4.73% 8 169 2.89 52.07% 88 26.04% 44 14.20% 24 5.33% 9 1.78% 3 0.59% 1 169 4.22 21.89% 37 30.18% 51 23.08% 39 12.43% 21 8.28% 14 4.14% 17 169 3.47 _ a� E _ a� E a a� 0 U _ 0 2 Z �a U) _ 0 R a� m m m L L _ �L 2 c,> a _ IL _ m E 0 _ CU r Cn m L 0 U- _ R L N r _ d E t V fC r-+ a _ E r r a Appendices 76 Packet Pg. 180 7.1.b Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban forestry program? Please check all that apply. Seminars and workshops IL 44.38% 75 Interpretive trails and displays 59.76% 101 62.72% 106 Online videos (e.g. YouTube) 24.26% 41 tree Informational brochures 43.20% 73 ther (please specify) 11.83% 20 Answered .• Skipped 61 Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public trees. Answered 40 Skipped 135 Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply) Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41 Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15 Tree debris i 12.65% ■ Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114 Canopy loss IM 57.83% 9 31 Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120 Other Concerns(please specify) %% Appendices Packet Pg. 181 7.1.b Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select any from this list any statements you agree with. Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98% 20 Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37% 29 Trees near my property block views 29.34% 49 Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66% 113 �es nea 59.28% 99 1 want more trees near my property 25.15% 42 have no trees near my property 0.60% 1 1 don't agree with any of these statements. 2.40% 4 Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction? 'IF Answer .. Yes. The City should require property owners to preserve trees on private parcels where ,reasonably possible. M& 53.89% 90 No. This City of Edmonds should not concern itself with trees on private property. 17.96% 30 Not sure. This issue is more complicated. 28.14% 47 a a� E a) c CU r a� L 0 LL 0 R L N r C d E t V fC r-+ a E r r a Appendices 78 Packet Pg. 182 7.1.b Ordinances, Rules or Regulations Other (please specify) Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property? Please select as many as apply. Education and outreach 79.04% 132 information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34% 49 Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74% 48 Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09% 92 35.33% 59 22.75% 38 Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private property. ditional Comments Answered ., Skipped 131 Question 20: Which gender do you identify with? Male i Female Gender Diverse Prefer not to answer 28.66% 47 59.76% 98 A1.83% 3 9.76% 16 79 Appendices Packet Pg. 183 Question 21: What age group are you representing? 7.1.b W Under 18 0.00% 0 18 to 25 1.22% 2 26 to 35 4.27% 7 36 to 45 11.59% 19 46 to 55 21.34% i 56+ 61.59 % 101 Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below. Downtown/The Bowl Westgate Five Corners Perrinville Meadowdale 40.85% jMjj 7.32% 12 x 8.54% 14 4.88% 8 4.27% 7 Seaview 15.24% 25 Lake Ballinger HWY 99 3.05% 5 ther (please specify) 14.63% 24 Answered 164 Skipped ill Appendices 80 Packet Pg. 184 Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply) 7.1.b M am a resident of Edmonds M 95.12% 156 1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98% 18 Own a business in Edmonds 6.71% 11 appreciate public trees 72.56% 119 planted public trees as a volunteerAMMIN 18.90% 31 1 help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98% 18 J[have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees X15.85% 26 None of the above 0.61% 1 81 Appendices Packet Pg. 185 7.1.b Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) Answered 33 Skipped 142 Appendices 82 Packet Pg. 186 7.1.b Appendix D: Open House Summary Report On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input from citizens. The open house included a presentation by Ian Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and A from the audience to ask clarifying questions. The presentation provided attendees an overview of Edmonds' urban forest, an introduction to what will be included in the Urban Forest Management Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has completed to date. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion boards where a broad topic was introduced on each board followed by initial suggestions generated through the prior stakeholder interview process. Attendees were invited to express their opinions using dots (where green= a positive "vote"/ agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/ hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative "vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion). Attendees were invited to use as many dots of each color necessary to express their opinion of each suggestion on each board. In addition, each board provided an area for Additional Suggestions where attendees were invited to write down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note and adhere it to the board for other attendees to review and "vote" on, as well. Lastly, a confidential and anonymous option was provided for attendees to provide comments and feedback by writing their thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index cards that were placed inside a box and not shared at the public meeting. The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link for attendees to give additional feedback through an online survey. That survey can be accessed via the home page on the City of Edmonds website, under the "What's New..." section: • https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ EdmondsUFMP Local media provided public announcements of the open house leading up to the event: • http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/ rem inder-open-house-managing-citys-tree- cover-set-june-22/ • https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/ open-house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city- s-tree-cover/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines My Edmonds News covered the open house and provided a news story and video of the presentation to the public: • http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public- asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban- forest/ • http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now- video-open-house-plan-manage-edmonds- urban-forests/ 83 Appendices Packet Pg. 187 7.1.b nnininn Rnarrl ffl • \A/hat train hanafitc rin vnii mnct nnnrarinta? A. Improved Air Quality 1n MRW B. Energy Savings 4 0 0 Reduced Stormwater Runoff 14 ■ 0 D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0 E. Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0 F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0 G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails 4 0 3 H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4 I. �Increasecl prop 7 2 3 J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0 K. Additional Ideas Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade- calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi -class (untreed neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- "the projects" 0 0 0 don't get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams; coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland desertification City revenue increase with more views 0 0 0 Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1 c IL c m E m c CU M m L 0 U- 0 R L N r C d E t V fC r-+ a E M r r a Appendices 84 Packet Pg. 188 7.1.b Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are preferred/valued? A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps) i. Species selection Tre iii. Tree pruning Interactive tree selector V. Irrigation olunteer opportunities B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter) Species selectio ii. Tree planting Tree pruning iv. Irrigation C. Hands-on (Wormshops, seminars) i. Tree planting Tree pruning iii. Irrigation Volunteer opportunities 2 _0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 3 = 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0 Lleighborhoo or education and outreach 0 MTMMT Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0 Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property - amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe 0 0 story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and onlineirc culationl New name needed 0 0 0 85 Appendices Packet Pg. 189 7.1.b Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees in Edmonds? A. Trees blocking my view 11 L-1 9 B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7 M Tree debris in a # 1 5 D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3 K Canopy loss F1 1 3 F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3 G. Additional Concerns Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows developers to completely clear treed lots for development 1 0 0 (residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban Fomeone who would be willing to negotiate oTelp mediat between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps 1 0 0 to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the 0 0 0 establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation 0 0 0 - is removed for development 3 This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which a are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we c a 2 0 0 have chosen to reside- as the "view". Trees are very connected to the idea of "the commons" in which we have not much E a� I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated additional concern. CU r a� L ***Note: for this opinion board: 0 U- Green dots = concerned c Red dots = not concerned N r C d E t V fC r-+ a E r r a Appendices 86 Packet Pg. 190 7.1.b Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer for Dublic trees? A. None (keep them natural) 4 2 B. Best possible care (all trees should look good) 7 1 3 Mlearan� (keep sidewalk street ear) —I= 1 1 D. Take care of hazardous trees 10 2 0 lolistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) 3 0 F. Additional Ideas In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need 0 0 0 process to effectively deal with dangerous trees. Utilize/ plant and replace trees that "heave" the sidewalks. ie- avoid trees that interfere with built environment. 2 0 0 Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash tree 0 0 Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property owner's views are protected. As a first step/tonight's meeting working together to protect environment as well as property 0 1 0 owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode. There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote "Agree" directly on the note itself. 87 Appendices Packet Pg. 191 7.1.b Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees planted? A. Parks s 10 0 0 B. Open Spaces 10 0 1 C. Commercial proper} 9 2 0 D. Streets and medians 7 3 2 r- E. Parking lots 0 F. Private properties 8 1 1 F. Additional Ideas Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all 1 0 0 arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool a Appendices 88 Packet Pg. 192 7.1.b Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree M planting and preservation on private property? A. Free (or low-cost) trees 10 - 0 0 B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care 3 0 0 company C. Education and Outreach 16 0 0 D. Tree planting events 5 0 0 JE. Additional Ideas Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees 3 0 1 when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot. Education- slow but steady sot at folk begin to know that alll the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for "views" 0 0 0 we can cut out our lungs. Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order 3 0 0 to keep both trees and preserve view. City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:i 3 0 0 Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and streamside property management more important than public 0 0 0 meetings for general public) c IL c m E 0 c CU r m L 0 U_ 0 R L N r C d E t V fC r-+ a E r r a 89 Appendices Packet Pg. 193 7.1.b I R +ra 5 1 1, W}�at tree benefits do ynu Trost. What types of outreach and 3. What is Are your biggest appre[ipte? education are preferred valued? concerns) For trees in Edmovids? F~ E #G* w*ra#r..#4rrlt•f,r*#dlk+nr,ranrN,rneX A. Eleoii.M. rS•Igr.pni.c t[il W8+ekThrtcrs•eoi3le.i, aLliunks,• Youtube, ARRO .A.7-:, d4-Qe-rr A.aasblockingmy- view # wa • 0000 060 0 'ZiAq st q a. Trots srodig my yam QN Y. Irri�aiq.,• N a.evwrsl= o* • ••**a # � � �# a� '"'�t•di T —d B. Hard Copy {pamphj&s, bteW11eNeFFj#0 i. Sp«.r.Uk", -Oa 6 �r. Inlpunp„ [- Nowts-OnMorkshop . SeminnFF}0• .. Tr.. PI.." a hx FL—mp A rrkwlvP Iv. NW-1—r La** -a-- I•s6,r,o lsi h �rdylyygs 6. Ad d iGgnal Ides r — . F C. Sraa C�fbFjB in my yard 9 0 • •• # D, Henllhy WOMTUF4 tFdM%baing ramorad * • 00 • # e :1501 F. Canopy loss # 00 iv0a 00 F. lasF atwildlite habiJhM •• • ai*# # a •09 sib* • 0 # " G. Add Ilional Consamf � ZZ-7-2 • W LL �TwF --------- = - -- "— IV [areAeilsruty ChF4Yaocli q ME 4. What level of maintenance would You prefer for public trees? A. NoneIKeep fhc—pturalj i 8. Besrp4fFibl� cure {atkffaas sha,rld lank goad] • C. Clearance only Ikaap sidewalks d• i"e+, drar]i • D. Yoko Gar¢ 4f I —dosri Ira— E. Hausa Plant He6l%Cwe1Isnprow the .,bon reresl, but rat neclFFoAly eresy rreej ##/ # • a IM F. Add6ona11deas _ 6. What are the Kest ways to encourage tree planting and 5. Where would you like to see more preservation on private property? trees planted? A Fri for low -cosh Trees J� A. Parks ® #**i #*#+ aP40 Spaces C. cct x creial Prapwias. • i# Is •# ## D. Streeri and Medium # f# # E. Parking Lori % : is # P0'v #0 • 041 G. Additional ldeaF • 6L Infarntio6on about how to hire a plrafemskmal Irea care (crnpany C. Edsxcdion and Ouhaurh # D. Tree Plpnl;ng Evenis #0"• E. Addiiianalldeas r a Appendice.,, vV Packet Pg. 194 Additional anonymous comments: Change name "Urban Forest"- bad impression, oxymoron. Suggestion- Best plant/tree for Best location • Wondering what is/can be done to encourage people to maintain views for neighbors around them? • Let's separate view areas from non -view areas. Right tree for right location. I am concerned about safety regarding older trees in both private and public spaces. We have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood that lose branches with most wind storms. Who watches out for the health of those trees and probability of danger? Most people would have no idea where to begin, let alone be able to afford to do something like hire an arborist. (signed J Thompson) Questions from the public asked during the presentation: Question regarding how the 30% canopy cover was determined- comment that that number seemed really high. Wondering if there is a uniform process used by all cities. Made comment that grants were judged by how much canopy a City had. Asked for clarification on what the process that was used to determine 30% canopy cover. • Question asking for clarification of the intention of the UFMP- to handle City trees (as stated in an early slide) or is it actually expanded to handle private trees too. Commenter asked for clarification on defining "what is a tree"- a 30ft lilac ... is that a tree? A big rhododendron- is that a tree? • Commenter referring to tree planting suggestions (provided an sign in table on yellow paper)- had a question about why is there not any evergreen on that suggestion guide? Commenter asked question regarding tree topping being preferable to cutting a tree to the ground. Expressed concern over making a "blanket rule" that tree topping is bad or not preferable. Question regarding information on what kinds of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a fir versus an oak- and where is that kind of data available at? Question referring to the chart shown in thetn L presentation comparing Edmonds with other ,° cities- does that chart take into consideration c� view property- does it differentiate where there are view properties and where there are not? cm Commenter suggested that a significant portion of the City [of Edmonds] has views. E a c a� E U a r r Q 91 Appendices Packet Pg. 195 7.1.b Attendance City of Edmonds: • Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council • Shane Hope, Development Services Director • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities Director • Kernen Lien, Senior Planner • Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager • Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager • Brad Shipley, Planner • Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff Project Team Members: • Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group • Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group • Keeley O'Connell, Nature InSight Consulting Members of the public: • Approximately SO Appendice- 92 Packet Pg. 196 7.1.c 2020 Edmonds Tree Regulations Update —Topic Matrix Topic Existing Code Possible Amendment Concepts Tree Retention ECDC 18.45.050 notes that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible." One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. The City could explore regulations The critical area code has a 30% retention of native vegetation requirement for that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed properties in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones being subdivided if associated with landslide beyond an established threshold, developers may be required to pay into the Tree Fund. hazard areas, streams, or wetlands (ECDC 23.90.040.C). Apart from the 30% native vegetation requirement in the critical area code, there is no specific tree retention requirement for properties within the City of Edmonds. Low Impact Development Low impact development (LID) in the City development code is primarily related to One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are stormwater management. ECDC 18.30.010 (definitions related to stormwater code) cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. One way to maintain more trees on defines low impact development as "a stormwater and land use strategy that strives to the site is to employ LID planning principles in the subdivision process. Current subdivision and zoning standards do mimic predisturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, not allow much flexibility and by the time the required access, setbacks/developable area, and utilities are applied evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site to a site, often must of the trees end up being removed. Some flexibility during subdivision design that may be planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a explored include flexible setbacks (e.g. modify interior setbacks while maintaining standard exterior setbacks), project design." However, low impact develop principles may be applied much broader, cluster developments, flexible lot design (altering lot width and/size requirements while maintaining the underlying for instance ECDC 24.90.030 (shoreline master program definitions) defines LID zoning density). principles as "land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on - site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff." Tree Fund The City of Edmonds currently does not have a dedicated Tree Fund Establishing a Tree Fund will be part of the update. Tree Fund management will likely be established in a new chapter located in Title 3 ECC. How money makes it into the tree fund and what the funds may be spent on will have to be explored. Potential funding options include tree cutting violation penalties, dollar amount per tree removed during subdivisions (see Tree Retention), or deposit for replacement trees not planted to meet retention requirement (see Tree Retention topic). Tree fund could be used to issue tree vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in the City, funding tree education activities, or other tree related activity. Incentives There are currently not incentives to retain trees or plant trees within the City code. The Urban Forest Management Plan included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property which included: A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of: i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection. C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees Allowing more flexibility during development of site, such as discussed in the LID topic, also provides an incentive to retain more trees during development. Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 197 7.1.c Topic Existing Code Possible Amendment Concepts Tree Definitions ECDC 18.45.040 currently defines tree as "any living woody plant characterized by one Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a "significant tree", "protected tree", "landmark tree", "heritage tree", or "street tree". Additionally, some multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown." jurisdiction except certain species of trees from their tree regulation requirements (such as red alder). Tree definitions will be explored. Permits/Tree Cutting Review for Currently exemptions from permitting requirements are located in ECDC 18.45.030. The disparity in application fees and process between existing single-family and multi-family/commercial properties Existing Developed Properties Generally speaking, developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt should be addressed. from tree cutting permits. If there are critical areas present and the tree is not determined to be a hazard tree (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b) then a permit is required to cut The current exemption list contains some dated language and inconsistencies with the critical area code. As such a tree (which includes topping). When a permit is required on single family properties, the exempt activities should be reviewed. Another exemption consideration should be given to nuisance tree it is a Type II staff decision with notice. Type II permits cost $1,010 ($970 application removal. For example, a tree that is not considered a hazard tree but continually damages sewer lines or is buckling fee plus $40 technology fee). In addition to the application fee additional costs may a driveway with its roots may be removed without a permit similar to a hazard tree. include arborist reports and/or critical area reports such a geotechnical report. For existing multi -family and commercial properties tree cutting is reviewed a Type I design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Type I permits cost $315 ($275 application fee plus $40 technology fee). If critical areas are present, additional reports may be required. Hazard tree removal does not require a permit, but does require review by staff. There are no City fees associated with a hazard tree removal review, however there is cost to an applicant to hire an arborist to document the tree as a hazard tree. Penalties/Fines Violations and penalties for tree cutting violations are currently contained in ECDC The code currently defines a tree as any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many 18.45.070. Base penalties may be assessed accord to the size of the tree; civil penalty branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed in an amount not to exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 crown. The critical area code also permits the removal of trees less the 4 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) as for a tree three inches or more. These fines are trebled if the tree is located in a critical an allowed activity. Given the current code includes penalties for trees that are smaller than the definition of tree area or the right-of-way for a maximum fine of $9,000 per tree. and trees which may elsewhere in the code be removed from critical areas as an allowed activity, the penalty section should be review and evaluated to establish an appropriate penalty for violation of the City's tree cutting regulations. Any penalties assessed could be deposited in the Tree Fund account. Code Location Tree and vegetation management is spread throughout Edmonds Community Title 18 ECDC is primarily related to Public Works requirement. Since Chapter 18.45 ECDC is related to tree Development Code (ECDC). Primary tree code is located in Chapter 18.45 ECDC — Land regulations on private property and administered by the planning manager, a new chapter (Chapter 23.10 ECDC) Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. Other tree and vegetation regulations are contained will be created in Title 23 ECDC Natural Resources to house the main tree related code chapter. Other potential within Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC critical area code, the Title 24 ECDC — Shoreline tree related code amendments may be applied to Chapter 20.75 ECDC — Subdivisions that would allow flexibility in Master Program, and Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements. subdivision design to encourage more tree retention as noted in the LID and Tree Retention topics. Page 2 of 2 a Packet Pg. 198 7.1.d Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Ferguson questioned the FIRM, itself, which the Board cannot address. Ms. Ferguson also went into detail about how the 50% substantial damage rule might impact her property should a major flood event occur. Her understanding of the current code is that Ms. Ferguson could address the situation via the nonconforming rules or pre-emptively having her property added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lien explained that if the property is certified as a historic structure, the 50% substantial damage rule would not apply. He noted that certain criteria would have to be met in order for a property to be on the register, and not all old houses are historic. Board Member Rubenkonig said a financial investment would also be required for Ms. Ferguson to pursue such a process. Mr. Lien said the application for placing a property on the City's register is free, and there are benefits associated with the designation. He explained that the register is a voluntary program, and properties that are nominated for the register must meet certain criteria. If a property on the register does a major renovation, there is potential for tax breaks. However, before any work can be done, properties on the register must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the work does not impact the historic aspects of the structure. Mr. Chave emphasized that the criteria for inclusion on the register is fairly strict, and age is not a sole determinant. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Ms. Ferguson raised a good point, but it has less to do with the proposed ordinance. She agreed that the City hasn't assessed the historicity of Lake Ballinger, and she is concerned that this needs to be attended to. She recognized that is a conversation for another time, but Ms. Ferguson presented some well -stated concerns. She asked if the Board Members feel that Ms. Ferguson has enough options and is in a position to handle any future event. Chair Robles expressed his belief that all of the bases were covered regarding this concern. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TREE REGULATIONS CODE PROCESS UPDATE Mr. Lien recalled that the Board previously reviewed proposed tree code amendments, but they were tabled until the City adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He advised that the City adopted the UFMP in July of 2019, which N included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City. At that time, the City Council authorized staff to hire a part-time code writer to assist with rewriting the Tree Code. This effort was stalled due to a number of factors, including the pandemic c Mr. Lien referred to the table provided in Attachment 1, which outlines the broad topics and possible concepts that will be explored while reviewing and updating the City's tree -related regulations. He explained that regulations that impact tree retention are scattered throughout the code, and the items in the table are listed in priority. He reviewed the items as follows: Tree Retention. One of the primary concerns the City has heard over the years is when properties are subdivided and/or developed, all of the trees are cut down to accommodate development. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45.050 requires that trees be retained to the maximum extent feasible, but "feasible" is often difficult to determine. The Critical Area Regulations is the only section of the code that has a tree retention requirement. Properties within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that have steep slopes, streams or wetlands associated with them are required to maintain or establish a 30% native vegetation. The City could explore regulations that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed beyond an established threshold, developers could be required to pay into a Tree Fund. Low -Impact Development. Low -Impact Development (LID) in the City's code is primarily related to stormwater management. However, LID principles may be applied much broader. Other ideas to consider include flexible setbacks, flexible lot sizes, clustering of houses, reduced road width requirements, etc. For example, you could allow clustered development or a reduced setback to potentially preserve trees on a site. He shared an example of a property in Edmonds that was subdivided and explained how the access and utility easements, as well as the building footprints, impacted the number of trees that had to be removed from the site to accommodate development. He explained how LID principles could have been used to allow a greater number of trees to be retained. Staff will be asking the Board to consider what flexibilities could be provided in the code to potentially result in more trees being retained when a property is developed. Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 199 7.1.d • Tree Fund. The City doesn't currently have a dedicated Tree Fund. A Tree Fund could be used to issue tree 0 vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in the city, funding tree education V activities, and other tree -related activities. Potential funding options will need to be explored further, but could 0 include tree cutting violation penalties and developer fees based on the number of trees removed for development. 0 =a • Incentives. The UFMP included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property. It included: a program to give away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds; exploring the establishment of a co property tax rebate, stormwater utility fee reduction or other technique to reward properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover; and developing a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners who maintain a certain amount or type of healthy tree. c • Definitions. Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations can be applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include significant trees, protected trees, landmark trees, heritage trees and/or street trees. Some jurisdictions also regulate certain species of trees (such as red alder) and exempt them from the tree regulation requirements. i H • Permits/Tree Cutting Review for Existing Developed Properties. Currently, permits are required to cut trees in the City. Developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt from tree cutting permits. If there are p` critical areas present and the tree is not determined to be hazardous, a permit is required. The permit is a Type 11 Permit (staff decision with notice) and the application fee is $1,010. For existing multi -family and commercial L properties, tree cutting is reviewed as a Type I design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping requirements. The application fee is $315. The disparity between the cost of tree permits for single- family versus multi -family and commercial properties should be addressed. a • Penalties/Fines. Currently, the base penalty for tree cutting violations is assessed based on the size of the tree, and the civil penalty is not to exceed $1,000 for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree that is three inches or N more. The fines are tripled if the tree is located in a critical area or the right-of-way. Currently, the code defines a tree as having a caliper of six inches or greater, but the Critical Area Code permits the removal of trees less than 4 inches as an allowed activity. The tree cutting fines should be evaluated and updated to be more consistent with the t definition of trees. 0 L • Code Location. Currently, the main tree code is in ECDC 18, which is primarily related to Public Works requirements. Because the tree regulations on private property are administered by the Planning Manager, a new N chapter will be created in ECDC 23 (Natural Resources) to house the main tree -related code chapter. Other tree c regulations would also be scattered throughout the code. For example, allowing more flexibility in subdivision 0i design to encourage more tree retention would be located in ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions). c Mr. Lien advised that this presentation was intended to provide a broad overview of the project, and the Board will begin its discussion in more detail on October 14'. He advised that the Citizens Tree Board was briefed on the code update topics at its August 6' meeting, and it will be consulted periodically as the code specifics are developed further. Chair Robles noted that the topics of "tree zones" or "tree districts" were not included on the list. He asked if this concept has been dropped from the discussion or if it would come up later. Mr. Lien said it was not identified as an individual topic of discussion. However, when they look at tree retention with development, the percentage of trees to be retained might be different based on the zone or area of the City. Board Member Cheung observed that trees are a topic the public is passionate about. He suggested that the City advise the local newspapers and My Edmonds News of the scheduled discussions so that the public is not surprised at the last minute. He suggested they solicit ideas and comments from the public throughout the process, and the public should also be invited to all of the meetings where the topic is discussed. Mr. Lien agreed to work with the City's new Public Relations Officer to outline a public outreach plan that gets the public engaged early in the process. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, generally, an assessment of the health of a tree will be made by a certified arborist. One of the overriding issues within the different jurisdictions that have tree codes is the dependence on the Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 200 7.1.d professional field to neutrally make these decisions. She asked if there are codes from other jurisdictions that the Board c should review as examples. Mr. Lien advised that at the end of 2020 the City hired a firm to review codes from other V jurisdictions (Kirkland, Redmond, Snohomish County, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Issaquah and Everett), and this information p will be provided to the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig said from the viewpoint of her land -use consulting business, she .N is pleased by the direction that Snohomish County has taken to protect trees. She recognized they are now talking about > saving what trees they can, but they haven't been saving the best of what there was. They are now in a situation of trying to 0 dry a line in the sand. While they don't want to lose more trees, they acknowledge that some will be lost due to other co considerations. In the future they want to look at replenishing the tree inventory. Mr. Lien said that "no net loss of the overall tree canopy" is identified as a policy in the UFMP. rn c Chair Robles asked if the discussion would include outlying ideas that have never been done before. He's seen it happen where someone comes up with an idea that is so unique and/or interesting, but they can't do it because no other jurisdictions has done it previously. He said he doesn't believe that is a good approach, and he asked how willing the City is to adopt ideas that come from the brilliance of the citizenry. Mr. Lien responded that he is open to any brilliant idea. All of the W jurisdictions get ideas from each other, but Edmonds is also willing to go first if a good idea comes up. d L Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many citizens in Edmonds have spent good money maintaining the tree canopy on their private properties. The City has discussed potential incentives and an appreciation for what they are doing on behalf of the City. There are people who are very invested in what the Board will propose, yet others will look at the issue differently. a The City has an opportunity to improve the percentage of its tree canopy, and she felt they should establish a goal. She L recalled that the Board previously talked about the need to get a better assessment of what remains of the City's tree canopy. She asked if that will be part of the process. She likes having a benchmark that enables the City to determine whether or not = the codes in place are leading the City in the right direction or if other measures are needed. Mr. Lien said the current benchmark is contained in the UFMP. A coverage analysis based on 2015 Lidar mapping identified a a 30% canopy coverage in Edmonds. The UFMP notes to report on the canopy coverage at least every 10 years, and Council N Member Buckshnis has mentioned this recently, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the 30% tree canopy coverage compares to other cities. Mr. Chave replied that the information was provided in the UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like this comparison to be part of the discussion. She referred to a recent critique in the local paper saying that, as good as the City's parks are, compared to other cities, they don't have the percentage of parkland acreage. If the City were to increase its public land, they could more readily establish a tree program that would increase the tree canopy on city -owned properties. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles referred to a letter the Board received from a citizen regarding Meadowbrook Park. He asked when would be the best time for the Board to respond to the concern that was raised about people abusing the park. Mr. Chave said the letter was forwarded to the City Council, and the City Council may direct the Parks Board (Planning Board) to look into the issue at some point in the future. Chair Robles reviewed that the September 231 meeting agenda will include a report on development activity, a joint meeting with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee, and a status update and discussion on climate goals planning. The October 14' meeting agenda will include a discussion on Development Code work (electric vehicle charging infrastructure and tree codes). The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will present an update to the Board on October 28'. The first meetings in November and December will also include additional Development Code work, and the second meetings in November and December will be cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles reported that he and Vice Chair Rosen met recently with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee. He recalled Board Member Rubenkonig's recent comment regarding her concern of having City Council Members participate on the citizen advisory committees and commissions, and observed that the meeting felt different than the Board's joint meeting with the City Council. He said he believes the Board's role will be to guide the committee as to how it interfaces with other Planning Board Minutes September 9, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 201 7.1.d November 101. The City Council will hold a public hearing, as well, and the goal is for them to be adopted along with the budget. Board Member Cheung asked if the City has considered providing power outlets on the fishing pier. Ms. Feser answered that there are power outlets and lighting on the pier. However, the system can be tripped by large number of squidders on the pier with powerful lights and heaters. There is limited capacity and access to the outlets, so people do bring small generators. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Planning Board spent a lot of time contributing to the Civic Park Master Plan. She expressed her belief that the plan is good. However, she asked why the "rain garden" was changed to a "stormwater garden." Ms. Burley answered that it was simply a designer's interpretation of how the area would function to filter stormwater. There was no change to the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig said she loves that the view terraces are still part of the plan for the hillside. This area will provide a nice, long perspective of being able to look out on Edmonds. However, she asked when the scramble wall was added. Ms. Burley said the scramble wall was part of the originally -approved master plan. Given that it is one of the more costly elements of the plan, it is being bid as an alternate to ensure the park can be developed with or without it. Board Member Pence asked if the City has done a survey of which areas are short of parkland. A survey would allow the City to target future land acquisitions to address these shortfalls. Ms. Feser said they would use the current PROS Plan as a a guide. There is information in this plan that reflects the community's priorities for land acquisition. She has also proposed i that the City adopt a Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan to further identify the community's priorities for land acquisition. The plan would provide criteria and outline an evaluation process for consideration of potential land = acquisitions. Geographic distribution of resources should be a key piece of the plan. Edmonds is primarily built out, so there •2 is a lot less opportunity to purchase additional parkland and/or open space. Board Member Pence asked how long it would 3 take to get the Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan in place. Ms. Feser said a chunk of the project a could be done in house, but statistically -valid community engagement will be a key piece of the project. The community N engagement piece for the Land Acquisition Strategy could be done concurrently with the PROS Plan update. She estimated it could take up to a year to complete the community engagement work. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that a budget of $200,000 per year for land acquisition isn't a lot given the high cost of land. Ms. Feser agreed. She explained that funding is needed for site surveys, appraisals, and other projects that are part of the City's due diligence process. The funding could also be used as leverage for grants. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on a Tree Code update in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the downtown. Mr. Lien said the goals for the Tree Code Update are to focus on private property, improve tree retention with new development, implement low -impact development principles, and establish a Tree Fund. Other updates included in the process include reviewing the definitions, existing permitting process and penalties. Currently, there is a disparity between the cost associated with tree -cutting permits required for single-family development versus multi -family and commercial development. Mr. Lien referred to UFMP Goal 1, which calls for maintaining or enhancing citywide canopy coverage. Actions related to this goal include: • Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 202 7.1.d • Adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS Plan. • Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. • Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs. Mr. Lien referred to the draft Tree Code (Attachment 3). He explained that, currently, the tree regulations are in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45 (Public Works), and staff is proposing to move the bulk of these regulations to a new chapter ECDC 23.10 (Natural Resources). This new chapter would address exemptions, permit processes, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement and violations. A new section would also be added to ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions) titled, "Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility." The new section would use the low -impact development principles as a way to retain more trees with development. Lastly, a new chapter would be added in Edmonds City Code (ECC) 3.95 (Funding) that would establish the Tree Fund. Mr. Lien said the Tree Code is scheduled for review at every Planning Board meeting through the end of 2021. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. His goal is for the Board to focus on two or three sections of the code at each of the meetings. Board Member Monroe asked if the intent of the code is to effect only new development or to address how people manage trees on their own property. He suggested there should be a distinction between a developer who wants to clear cut a parcel versus a private property owner wanting to cut down a tree he/she doesn't like. Mr. Lien said one of the main purposes of the Tree Code is to address tree retention associated with development activity. The code would apply to new subdivisions, multi -family development, new single-family development on large lots, and tree removal on developed sites that are not specifically exempted. The intent of the code is to retain more trees when development occurs. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled an issue that came up years ago with the Architectural Design Board. A property owner N on Olympic View Drive wished to harvest a forested property that she owned, and there was nothing in the code to prevent ri that from occurring. Eventually, the entire property was developed, but no plans were in place when the property was clear cut. She asked if the draft Tree Code would address situations of this type. Mr. Lien said forest practices are allowed by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. However, you do not typically see forest management in the City of Edmonds. Provisions in both the current code and proposed code would prohibit clearing of a site for the sake of sale or o future development. s Board Member Cheung asked how the public would be informed about the potential changes prior to the public hearing. Mr. Lien said staff would work with the City's new Public Information Officer to get the news out. The issue could also be raised at Mayor Nelson's upcoming neighborhood meetings. Board Member Cheung suggested that the City Council should be advised that the Planning Board will be working on the Tree Code in coming weeks. Mr. Lien said he made a presentation to the City Council on the broad update and mentioned that the issue would be on the Planning Board's agendas through the end of the year. Mr. Chave noted the extensive amount of material that was provided to the Board. He suggested the Board Members could forward comments and questions they want addressed at the next meeting to staff via individual emails to Ms. Martin and Mr. Lien. Chair Robles asked if the Board's discussions should follow the matrix of high-level issues that was provided by staff or the start by reviewing the highlights and changes to the code. Mr. Lien said the matrix he presented at the Board's September 9"' meeting identifies the broad topics that are included in the Tree Code. Moving forward, he would rather focus on the actual draft code language. Chair Robles suggested that the Board should review the draft code language and be prepared to start discussions at their next meeting. Mr. Lien commented that the Board's October 28' meeting will include a public hearing on the CFP and CIP, so their work on the Tree Code will be limited. However, their November meeting would focus solely on the Tree Code. He noted that November I I' is Veteran's Day, so it is likely that the Board would need to hold a special meeting on November 18'k'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 91h Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 203 7.1.d Mr. Lien said the City Council is anxious to start their review of the Tree Code. The December 9' public hearing could be an opportunity to solicit initial comments and ideas from the public, and the Board may want to have another hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council in early 2021. Chair Robles said he anticipates a great deal of public participation at the hearings, and he is concerned that there won't be enough time to disseminate the draft code to the public prior to the hearing. He asked if staff anticipates a lot of opposition from the public. Mr. Lien said he tried to draft a balanced Tree Code that implements the goals and policies in the UFMP. He was present at the public hearing for the previous draft Tree Code and heard the comments and concerns that were presented by the public. He suggested that the first public hearing in December could focus on the concepts in the Tree Code to make sure the Board is heading in the right direction. Board Member Cheung suggested that staff prepare a summary of the topics and potential changes that are discussed at each of the Board's study sessions. This would provide helpful information for the public to review prior to the public hearings. Given that the public hearings will be virtual, he suggested that publishing summaries of the proposed language and the Board's discussions and soliciting written comments from the public before the hearings would be appropriate. Alan Mearns, Edmonds, suggested that the City publish articles in the local newspapers to introduce the UFMP goals and polices and the long-term vision the Board will be working on. The next step could be to publish summaries of the Board's discussions as they study the issue and prepare for the public hearing. This approach would essentially warm the community up to the subject, with a big focus on the goals and objectives. Chair Robles commented that having an adopted UFMP with clear goals and policies in place will be a significant benefit as the process moves forward. All of the controversial issues that were raised regarding the previous draft Tree Code have been settled by the UFMP. The only argument that remains is the issue of view versus forest. He supports Mr. Lien's recommendation to break the discussion into sections. Mr. Lien agreed to meet with the Chair and Vice Chair to establish a schedule for the upcoming discussions. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the public hearing on the previous draft Tree Code was very productive. N The outpouring of concern was made very clear to the Planning Board. The community was listened to, and the Planning Board learned a lot. The UFMP, which was eventually adopted by the City Council, took form from that engagement. Chair c Robles agreed that the UFMP was the correct outcome of the previous public process. a 0 Mr. Lien noted that the UFMP was included in the Board's October 141h meeting packet and he doesn't plan to attach it to s future packets. The actual code language will be the focus of discussions going forward. Chair Robles encouraged the Board c Members to download the UFMP to their files for future reference as the process continues. N R REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA o N Chair Robles reviewed that the extended agenda for the remainder of the year will focus on the Tree Code. However, a 3 public hearing on the draft CIP/CFP is scheduled for October 28th. The Board agreed to reschedule their November 11`h meeting to November 18'. � L PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 00 a Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. c 0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS a Board Member Pence voiced concern with what happened with the Planning Board recommendations on the Comprehensive r Plan amendments related to properties on 9th Avenue North and in Perrinville. The Planning Board went through a thorough a0i process and made recommendations that were different from the staff recommendations, and he assumed that staff would t present the Planning Board's recommendations to the City Council. Subsequent to the staff's presentation to the City 0 Council, a letter to the editor was published in My Edmonds News on October 31 pertaining to the proposed amendments. Q There were numerous comments, several of which took the City to task for only presenting the staff s recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Board recommendations were downplayed or not discussed at all. He reviewed the agenda Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 204 7.1.d Board Member Monroe summarized that, as per staffs response, he shouldn't be concerned that the $17 million cost of the project has been allocated to the stormwater fund. Staff will spread the cost out to include regional funding rather than relying primarily on the stormwater rate payers to foot the bill. Mr. English clarified that it is not the intent that the project be funded solely by the stormwater fund. While it is a stormwater project, the CFP notes there is unsecured revenue for the project. This unsecured revenue will come from grant sources, and the project will be funded by multiple sources. Board Member Rubenkonig concurred with Board Member Monroe's concern about adding burden to the stormwater fees that the citizens of Edmonds pay for. Board Member Monroe is the point person on the Board when it comes to looking for budget items for capital projects. She hopes the City Council will consider his comments and particularly look at the burden that is being placed on the citizens via their stormwater management fees. She understands the staff s point of view, and she trusts the City staff will continue to pursue grants. But Board Member Monroe's point is well taken and should be carefully considered. She recalled that the City Council has considered funding options for this project in years past, including whether or not to float a bond issue. Board Member Cheung asked staff to respond to the comment letter that was submitted by Mr. Phipps, a representative of Save d Our Marsh. Mr. English said one of the suggestions was to move the project from the stormwater fund to the park funds. The other comment was to stop work on the project until the ownership issue is resolved. He explained that the two projects scheduled for 2021 are small, and there is no proposal to move the design forward in 2021 other than potentially looking at another alternative alignment. There has been a lot of input from the community about the alternatives that have been a considered in the past and that perhaps a hybrid alternative would be a better fit. Ms. Feser added that the Marina Beach Park L and Daylighting of Willow Creek Projects support the marsh restoration project. It will definitely be beneficial for improving the water quality and restoring the ability for saltwater to come back into the marsh. She would hesitate to pause the project = when they are at 30% design and have secured a $500,000 grant with the possibility of another $500,000 grant. The Marina •2 Beach Project can progress independently of the marsh project. a Vice Chair Rosen said his understanding is the original concept for the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor extended from Main Street N to 3rd Avenue. However, it now terminates at Daley Street. He asked why this was changed. He said he would prefer that the N corridor terminate at 3rd Avenue. Ms. Feser suggested there might be some misinformation. She believes the project will extend to 3rd Avenue, but there was some conversation at the City Council level that it should go further. She agreed to provide c the Board with background information about the project by the end of the week. a 0 BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2021— 2026 CAPITAL s IMPROVEMENT/CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF c APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS, N RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE R MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. o N TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE c Chair Robles commented that the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is brilliant in its ability to glean input from the citizens, the limitations and constraints of staff, and where the City wants to go. It does exactly what the Board was hoping it would, which is to provide guidance for the Tree Code. He said Mr. Lien did a great job synthesizing the information in the 0 UFMP into the draft Tree Code. a Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing permitting process and penalties. The update also clarifies a number of definitions. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: • Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft regulations are intended to accomplish this goal. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 205 7.1.d Goal LB — Adopt a policy of o net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft regulations do not specifically adopt that policy, but it was taken into consideration when they were written. Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. This goal specifically notes to include tree penalties in the code. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been c broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. rn There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree c fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). W Mr. Lien advised that there is some urgency associated with the Tree Code. A development moratorium for subdivisions and short plats was proposed to be placed on the City Council's October 271 agenda, but it was postponed to their first meeting in � November. The proposal would place a moratorium on subdivisions until the Tree Code is done. He reviewed the schedule i for the Board's work on the draft Tree Code, which will involve two work session on October 28t' and November 18t'', and a � public hearing on December 9th. He is also scheduled to present the draft Tree code to the Tree Board the first week of November, and the City's Tree Team will continue to review the draft and provide input, as well. p` a • ECDC 23.10.000 — Intent and Purpose. c� d Mr. Lien explained that he reviewed tree codes from a number of jurisdictions and picked pieces of each one that he felt would = fit with the City of Edmonds and then tweaked them as needed. He noted that Items E and F in this section are in the current tree regulations. He expressed his belief that the 9 items in the section outline the purpose and intent of the Tree Code and a match up with the goals in the UFMP. They focus on: N • Retaining trees with development, preserving the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate. • Promoting site planning and building development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation. • Avoiding unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural environment. • Providing landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas. o • Encouraging tree retention by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements. • Retaining as many viable trees as possible. N • Mitigating the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and c off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy throughout the City. c • Implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. • Implementing the goals and objectives of the UFMP. c Board Member Rubenkonig said she will submit some edits to staff. In addition, she suggested that the term "aesthetic character of the City," which is used in Item A, should be defined. She referred to the term, "realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property," which is used in Item F. While this is likely a legal phrase that the City and developers would use to allow room for m flexibility, she felt it should be clarified. a c Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to send their comments related to topographical errors to him so they can be incorporated into future versions of the Tree Code. He said he would provide underline/strike out versions to illustrate where changes were f° a made. Mr. Lien reminded them that the Intent and Purpose Section is intended to explain the philosophy behind the regulations and the definition section primarily focuses on the regulated terms that are within the code. He suggested that it might be difficult to define "aesthetic character of the City." Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, because the intent of the Tree Code is to avoid loss of canopy and, in the best of all worlds, the canopy would be enhanced, it would be appropriate to add "enhance" to the list provided in the opening sentence of ECDC Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 206 7.1.d 20.10.000. This would reinforce that the goal is more than just maintaining the current tree canopy. Also, because Item A talks about the advantages of trees, it might be worth adding the words "biodiversity" and "environmental health" after the word "safety." Vice Chair Rosen asked where the draft provisions address trees that impact neighbors. If they are addressed, he suggested it might be worthwhile to weave the concept into the Intent and Purpose Section, as well. He understands that view is an important topic and a leading cause of many neighborhood conflicts. He also asked where this issue is addressed in the draft code. Mr. Lien answered that none of the provisions in the draft code specifically address neighbor impact and views. These are private property issues that are difficult to regulate. Some people love trees, but others do not. Some people think trees block views, and others consider the trees to be the view. Regulating neighbor impact and views is not a role he would suggest the City be involved in. Public views are mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Comprehensive Plan, but the City doesn't have any regulations that specifically deal with views. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's position, but he suggested that it might be worthwhile to find a place to state this position somewhere in the draft Tree Code. Board Member Rubenkonig requested that a definition should be provided for "aesthetic consequences," which is used in Item G. She also suggested that Items H and I should be moved to the beginning of the list. She said she would prefer that implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP are listed first. Board Member Cheung suggested that Item E could be changed to also promote planting of new trees on developing sites. Mr. Lien referred to Item G, which talks about mitigating the consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve the goal of no net loss. Board Member Cheung said he is suggesting going beyond tree replacement for trees that are removed by providing some incentive for developers to plant additional trees beyond what is required. Board Member Cloutier reminded them of the City's goals to reduce CO2 emissions and have all operations be carbon free. While trees remove CO2, they could also hinder the City's goals. He referred to the concept of "solar easement" where a N property owner establishes a solar array and enters into an agreement with neighbors that their access to light will not be blocked so they can continue to produce power. He asked if the draft Tree Code addresses this issue. Mr. Lien answered that it is not addressed in the Tree Code or elsewhere in the ECDC. Board Member Cloutier referred to a concept the Board discussed c earlier that trees are good, but they must be planted in the right place. Mr. Lien said "right tree in the right place" is mentioned a in the UFMP, but not everything in the UFMP will be implemented via regulations. Some aspects of the plan will be addressed c via education and outreach. Board Member Cloutier concluded that it is important than none of the provisions in the draft Tree s Code hinder the ability to have solar easements, since this would interfere with the City's ability to generate power, etc. c Board Member Monroe pointed out that the draft provisions exempt a number of things, such as routine maintenance and the removal of trees on unimproved single-family lots. He suggested that these issues should be addressed in the Intent and Purpose Section. The more they can define the document in the opening statement, the better. Mr. Lien suggested that these issues are addressed in Item F that speaks to the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property, which may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover. The draft provisions do not prohibit tree cutting on private property, and a number of exemptions are included. Again, Board Member Monroe suggested that this should be stated upfront in plain language. • ECDC 23.10.020 — Definitions Mr. Lien said it is important to make it clear when a tree is large enough to be subject to the Tree Code. As proposed: A. Significant Tree. A "significant tree" is one that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. K. Protected Tree. A "protected tree" is one that is identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations. M. Specimen Tree. A "specimen tree" is a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the City's Tree Protection Professional. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 207 7.1.d Mr. Lien explained that, currently, the City defines "tree" as a "living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches having a caliper of 6 inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown." In this definition, the word "caliper" is used in the wrong place. The term is typical used to identify the diameter at breast height (DBH). Currently, the new definition does not include the part about a multi -stemmed trunk system, but it is something the City's Tree Team and Tree Protection Professional will work to include. The issue is about how big a tree must be before it is regulated. Redmond might drop it down to 4 inches if it is determined to be a significant tree. Kirkland, Lynnwood and Issaquah all start at 6 inches, but Issaquah bumps it up to 8 inches for Alder and Cottonwood trees. Lynnwood specifically lists nonsignificant species that are not subject to their tree regulations. Shoreline has an 8-inch DBH requirement for conifers and 12-inch for non -conifers. The 6-inch caliper at DBH is consistent with the City's current code and with what most other jurisdictions do. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback about when a tree is significant enough to be subject to the regulations. Board Member Cheung asked if staff collect information from other Snohomish County cities such as Marysville and Everett. Mr. Lien said Everett does not define a significant tree. Instead, they rely on the subdivision code. Snohomish County doesn't define the term, either. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Lynnwood is a bit more progressive by providing a list of nonsignificant trees that are exempted from their tree regulations. Her interpretation is that there would be no tree replacement requirement for the nonsignificant trees that are removed. In effect, they are trying to get rid of them. Mr. Lien clarified that Lynnwood defines nonsignificant trees that are unsuitable for urban or formal settings. Board Member Rubenkonig said it appears the intent is to encourage the removal of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien said he placed Alder and Cottonwood trees lower on the priority list of trees that should be retained. While they serve an ecological function, they probably are not desirable in residential settings. Board Member Rubenkonig added that these trees are more suited to critical environment areas rather than residential yards. Chair Robles asked why the code uses "diameter" instead of "circumference" to measure the size of a tree. Mr. Lien answered that DBH is the standard way to measure. N CO) Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate to provide definitions for "tree topping" and "tree pruning." These distinctions could matter to some people. It would also make sense to provide a definition for "tree retention plan." Mr. Lien c responded that anything that is mentioned in the code in a regulatory sense should be defined. He agreed that these three a definitions should be added. He also invited the Board Members to identify additional terms that need to be defined. c • ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits. Vice Chair Rosen referred to Item A and suggested the term "excessively prune" is too vague and subjective. Mr. Lien said cities frequently reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when it comes to tree maintenance. However, he agreed that a definition for "maintenance" needs to be added to ECDC 23.10.020, and maintenance does not generally include topping. • ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas). B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). C. Routine maintenance. A definition is needed, as discussed earlier. D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable of being divided into not more than one additional lot, except for that portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. This is an exemption in the current code, as well. E. Removal of nuisance and hazardous trees with supporting documentation. A permit would not be required but documentation would be required. This exemption for nuisance trees is not in the current code, but staff is recommending it be included. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 208 7.1.d Board Member Monroe referred to Item A and suggested the phrase "any other means" should be changed to "this code." Mr Lien agreed to consider this change. Chair Robles asked if the City has a map of its critical areas, and Mr. Lien referred to the City's website (www.maps.edmondswa.gov) that provides a variety of information such as zoning, planning, locations of utilities, critical areas, etc. However, he cautioned that the map does not show the exact location of all critical areas within the City. It provides a rough idea of where the critical areas are, and when development is proposed in those areas, the City does a site visit to determine the exact location of the critical area. Board Member Cheung requested clarification of Item D. Mr. Lien explained that an erosion hazard (15% to 40% slope) is considered a critical area. He used the 25% slope that is mentioned in the current tree code, since that is when slopes start to get steep enough that the exemption would no longer be appropriate. The language is similar to a provision in the SMP. Board Member Monroe suggested that the list in Item B should include WIFI. Mr. Lien suggested that WIFI would be covered as a communication line. Board Member Monroe suggested they could keep the language vague to say that any franchise utility could do what is necessary to maintain their facilities. They don't need to be listed out. Mr. Lien said he prefers to list them. If they want to include maintenance for cell towers, the language could be changed from "communication lines" to "communication facilities." Ms. Feser also referred to Item B and asked if it would be more appropriate to say "city -owned properties" instead of "city - owned rights -of -way." This would make it clear that the exemption includes maintenance in parks, as well. Mr. Lien said the exemption was written specifically for utility purposes and not necessarily a park exemption. However, a park exemption could be added. • ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited. N CO) Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree removal would be prohibited for the following: A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees) or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees). This is similar to a provision in the existing code. C. Demolitions. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees. D. Critical Areas. In critical areas, critical area buffers and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapter 23.40 Board Member Monroe referred to Item B and asked if using the term "prior to" would be difficult to enforce. It can mean different things to different people. Mr. Lien reviewed that the current code states that, "There shall be no clearing a site for the sake of preparing the site for sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pursuant to a clearing permit, which has been approved by the City." He expressed his belief that the new language in Item D is intended to accomplish the same thing, and he doesn't foresee an enforcement problem. He explained that the Tree Code is not intended to address forest practice applications, which isn't something that typically occurs in Edmonds anyway. As proposed, the code would prohibit someone from clearing a vacant property unless the trees were deemed hazardous or nuisances. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there is a minimum lot size requirement for tree harvesting permits from the State of Washington. She pointed that developers can assemble properties to create larger areas for development and then take down trees years before submitting a development proposal. She suggested that Item B be changed by replacing "vacant lot" with "vacant parcel." If the parcel is of a certain size, it could require a state permit for harvesting timber. This would meet her concern that clear cutting be addressed. Mr. Lien explained that Item B is intended to prevent vacant properties from being clear cut, but he could look into including language specifically related to forest practices. He explained that the other sections of the code provide definitions for both "lot" and "parcel," and they are used interchangeably throughout the code. The definition could be added to this section of code, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said she tends to think of "parcel" when Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 209 7.1.d she thinks of clear cutting because they are looking at creating lots out of the parcel. She would prefer the word "parcel," because it extends the image of what they are looking at. Because the two terms are interchangeable, the exception in Item B could also apply to a lot. Mr. Lien said he prefers "lot" because "parcel" refers to a tax parcel. He advised that the County will draw tax parcel lines anywhere, and it doesn't necessarily mean a developable lot. Vice Chair Rosen referred to the last sentence in Item C, which states that replacement trees may be required. He commented that when a very large tree is removed, the replacement tree does not contribute at the same level. If the overall objective is to be neutral or even enhance the canopy, it is important to recognize there will be a gap. To address this gap, he suggested the City create a tree credit program that requires applicants to close the gap by supporting the tree fund, which would be used to replace the canopy in other ways. This concept could advance and fund the objective of making sure the canopy is maintained and even enhanced. Mr. Lien said they will discuss this idea further when they talk about the proposed language related specifically to tree replacement and a tree fund. Student Representative Bryan voiced concern with Item B. The idea of allowing the Director to decide what is reasonably needed to conduct demolition activities allows too much wiggle room. He suggested that "Director" should be changed to "qualified arborist." Mr. Lien explained that the Director may require documentation from a certified arborist to justify the removal, but it would still be the Director's responsibility to approve any tree removal associated with a demolition permit. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it would be the Development Services Director, and not the developer, who would make the decision as to what tree removal is reasonable needed. She suggested the language should be amended to provide this clarification. • ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity. _ Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all new single- 3 family, short plats, subdivisions or multifamily developments. He noted that Item C requires that for new single family, short a plat or subdivision development, at least 30% of all significant trees on a developable site must be retained. "Developable site" N is defined and does not include such things as critical areas. This is consistent with a provision in the Critical Area Ordinance ri that development in RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with steep slopes, streams or wetlands must have a 30% native vegetation area. He reduced the number to 25% for multifamily development because it is a denser type of development. t a Mr. Lien advised that, as per Item CA, if a certain retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant would be required to 0 pay a certain amount into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, in addition to requiring applicants to retain 30% of the significant trees on the developable site, the City should also require o applicants to pay a certain amount into the tree fund equal to 100% or even 110% of the total number of trees that were removed N from the site. The intent is to enhance the tree canopy. Board Member Monroe suggested they go even further and require a R 2:1 replacement ratio. o N Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the 30% retention requirement is likely lower than what most other c jurisdictions require, and it sure doesn't help the City maintain its tree canopy. It equates to a 70% reduction in tree canopy. She said she also believes the 1:1 replacement requirement is low compared to surrounding jurisdictions. This replacement ratio won't help the City maintain its tree canopy, either. M 0 m Board Member Monroe said he can understand the intent of the 25% and 30% retention requirement because they need to allow a developers enough area to build projects. Requiring 100% retention would be unreasonable. However, developers should be .a required to plant a certain number of trees elsewhere in the City for each significant tree that is removed. Vice Chair Rosen 0 said this would be consistent with his recommendation that developers be required to pay a certain amount into a tree fund for a each significant tree that is removed. This would give the power to the City to decide how to replenish the canopy. The replacement requirement should be equal to the value of the significant trees that are removed. Ms. Feser reminded the Board that the tree fund would be used to plant trees on City properties, primarily in the parks. She voiced concern about leaving it E up to a landowner to decide where and what types of tree would be planted. She would prefer that developers be required to t pay into a tree fund. That way, the City would have the ability to plant the right trees in the right places. CU Board Member Monroe said he works for Sound Transit. For their projects in Federal Way and Kent, they have removed Q 15,000 to 20,000 trees and will be required to replant 45,000 more trees, and they are required to purchase property to plant the Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 210 7.1.d trees on. They would prefer to pay into a fund, since that is the easiest solution. However, they have found ways to accomplish the more stringent requirement. The City should ask no less of developers than is being asked of Sound Transit. Board Member Rubenkonig said there are options for accomplishing a greater tree retention requirement than 1:1 while still allowing for development. The best way to meet the requirement should be left to the person creating the landscape plan. If the requirement is too onerous, a developer could approach the City with a request for mitigation. If mitigation cannot be adequately addressed, and applicant could pay into tree fund. However, the tree fund should be the last option. Applicant's should be encouraged to do what they can to replace the trees on -site. Board Member Rubenkonig said that cities often have a minimum height requirement for replacement trees, which results in more mature trees. Vice Chair Rosen said he is concerned about the gap (value and loss) between a mature tree and an immature replacement tree. The City's code should require applicants to cover this gap. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are methods for getting more mature replacement trees, but the replacements would not be equal in value to larger significant trees. She suggested the Board should look in-depth at how other cities regulate tree replacement. Again, she said allowing applicants to pay into a tree fund should be the last resort. Vice Chair Rosen commented that there needs to be a variety of options in the toolbox. The end goal should be to require developers to make the City whole when a significant tree is taken down. This can be done via replacement and/or funding. The funding could be used to offer grants to residents to encourage tree planting elsewhere. Mr. Lien suggested that rather than the minimum tree retention requirement in the current draft, another option would be to base the requirement on zone. A 30% requirement in an RS-6 zone could be very different than the same requirement in an RS-20 zone. Board Member Cheung suggested that if they make the requirement so onerous, developers will simply decide to pay into the 3 tree fund and build the cost into the price of the homes. This could have an impact on the cost of housing in the community. a Board Member Monroe agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that the preferred option would tree retention, followed by N planting replacement trees on site. The last option should be paying into a tree fund. Rather than putting all of the replacement trees in parks, the trees should be replaced in zones that are similar to where trees were removed or at least equitably distributed throughout the City. c t a Mr. Lien said the Tree Board has discussed taking a more global approach. If there isn't space to plant more trees in the parks c and open spaces, the City could partner with other organizations, such as the Mountain to Sound Greenway, to use the tree s funds to purchase additional open space in other areas. Also, he suggested that if the tree fund requires a high dollar value for c each tree that is removed, developers will be encouraged to consider options for either retaining more trees or planting the N CD replacement trees on site. However, at this time, he doesn't have a suggestion as to what the dollar value should be. R CD 0 Board Member Monroe asked how the proposed 25% and 30% tree retention requirement compares to neighboring cities. Mr. Lien said only one other jurisdiction he reviewed used a percentage requirement. However, he would conduct further research and report back with additional information. Board Member Cheung referred to Vice Chair Rosen's point that some trees are more valuable than others. There is nothing R in the 30% requirement that differentiates between the different sizes of significant trees. Mr. Lien reviewed that the tree m retention provisions are broken out based on priority. Priority trees to focus on for retention include specimen trees, significant a trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. The intent of prioritization is to make sure developers try to save the more significant trees. Board Member Cheung asked if the priorities are a recommendations or if developers are required to follow the priorities. Mr. Lien said there is some flexibility. If the only 60- foot tall tree happens to be right in the middle of the only buildable site on the lot, the City can't require a developer to retain r it. E t • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement. Mr. Lien summarized that, as currently proposed, a developer would be required to retain at least 30% of the significant trees, a and replacement trees would be required for those that are removed at a ratio of 1:1. If the trees cannot be replaced on site, a Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 211 7.1.d developer could pay a certain amount per tree into the tree fund. At the next meeting, staff will be prepared to have a discussion with the Board about what the appropriate tree replacement might be. It could be based on tree size, requiring a higher replacement ratio when larger trees are removed. He reminded the Board that the last time a draft Tree Code was presented for public hearing, there was a lot of controversy regarding the idea of basing the replacement requirement on the type of zone (density). He said he would research what other jurisdictions are doing in preparation for the Board's more in-depth discussion. Board Member Rubenkonig thanked Mr. Lien for creating the topic matrix, which helped her organize her thoughts. She felt it helps ensure the Board addresses all of the items. Mr. Lien encouraged the Board Members to submit their comments, suggestions and typographical corrections to him via email. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility. Mr. Lien explained shared an example of a subdivision to illustrate why trees are often clear cut. Although there might be a number of substantial trees on the site, once all of the development standards (access requirements, utility easements, setbacks, etc.) were applied, only a few trees were left intact. The remaining trees might be exposed and spindly and not necessarily the trees that you want to retain. At the next meeting, the Board will discuss how to provide flexibility within Development Code that allows houses to be grouped to one side a bit so more trees can be saved. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles announced that, due to Veteran's Day, the Board's November 11I meeting was rescheduled to a special meeting on November 181. The agenda for that meeting will focus solely on the draft Tree Code. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code amendments is tentatively scheduled for December 91 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. M PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Pence observed that this has been a very different kind of year for the Planning Board. Due to the pandemic, the Board missed a number of meetings prior to starting the Zoom format. The Chair and Vice Chair haven't had an opportunity to put their stamp on the Board's activities like previous leaders have. It occurred to him that they should re-elected them both for another year. Chair Robles said they have been able to put a pretty big stamp down, and he believes that Board Member Rosen will carry forward quite effectively as the chair next year. Board Member Pence commented that he didn't mean to diminish their efforts, just note that they could have shined even brighter with a regular routine. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 212 7.1.d Agenda Item." Mr. Chave commented that the software that is used to create the agendas has limitations about how items can be named. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding was that tonight's meeting would only be a public hearing on the CIP and CFP. She thought that the schedule that was agreed to at the last meeting would stand, and the Board would continue its review of the Tree Code Regulations on November 18tk'. Mr. Lien responded that, because the Board had to add another meeting for the CIP/CFP public hearing, he thought it would be a good idea for them to also continue their review of the tree code regulations. However, they do not need to redo their discussion from the last meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Anna West, Edmonds, suggested that some verbiage regarding protecting water views should be included in the intent and purpose section of the revised Tree Code. It hasn't been included in the draft yet, and the City would be remiss not to include it. Puget Sound helps define the City of Edmonds, and the water is one of the reasons that new residents purchase homes, current residents stay, and visitors spend money in the City. Adding verbiage in the Tree Code to protect water views is important because trees have the potential to block those cherished views. She is hoping the City can work with the citizens to come up with language that protects both trees and the water. Chair Robles emphasize that this is a Tree Code and not a View Code. View will not likely be specifically mentioned in the Tree Code, since it is a different category of regulation. Mr. Chave added that the City has had a number of discussions about views in its history of policy and codes. Up to this point in time, the City has chosen not to regulate private views. Ms. West commented that it seems the City is spending a lot of time regulating private trees, and she thought it might be a = good segway into a piece that really defines the City. The City has a symbiotic relationship with the trees and the water. She 3 supports tree retention, but there needs to be some guidance for residents. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Ms. West is a requesting that some reference to the City's stance on private view protection be incorporated into the Tree Code. Ms. West said she would actually like the City's stance to change from what it has been for the past three decades. She is cognizant it N will be an uphill battle, but it needs to be addressed, as water views play a huge role in the City. She asked that the City have dialogue with the community on the best way to maintain that piece of the City as it continues to thrive and grow. Board c Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. West is suggesting that the City consider options for protecting private views. a Mr. Chave suggested the Board consider this request as they review the draft Tree Code later on the agenda. c Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he serves on the City's Citizens Tree Board. He asked that the Board Members consider his written comments from two letters he submitted prior to the meeting as they review the draft Tree Code. He invited them to reach out to him with questions and comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred to the written Development Services Director Report and noted that it appears to be outdated. There were no other questions or comments regarding the report. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP) Chair Robles briefly reviewed the rules and procedures and then opened the hearing. Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is tied to the Comprehensive Plan and is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long-term capital projects related to addressing growth and demand. It covers planning horizons of 6 and 20 years. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is tied to the City's budget and is organized by the City's financial funds. It includes not only projects that are budgeted for the upcoming year, but also identifies the maintenance and capital projects anticipated over the next 6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects with funding sources. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 213 7.1.d • Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. • Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. • Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. Mr. Lien referred to Ms. West's comment, made earlier in the meeting, regarding protection of views. He advised that none of the goals and policies in the Urban Forest Management Plan specifically address views, but views were discussed as they relate to planting the right trees in the right places. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board started its review of the draft Tree Code on October 28t''. Following tonight's work, the Board will continue its discussion at a special meeting on November 18t''. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 91. He advised that the draft proposal will be updated to incorporate the Planning Board's feedback following the special meeting on November 181. • ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements Mr. Lien reviewed that, as proposed, for new single-family short plats or subdivisions, 30% of all significant trees on the developable site must be retained. This mirrors the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance for tree retention on RS-12 N and RS-20 sites in critical areas. For multifamily sites, the requirement is 25%. For replacement, the proposed language would require a 1:1 ratio for tree replacement. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board requested information about how other jurisdictions address tree retention and replacement requirements, as well as how they determine the appropriate t dollar amount per tree. They also raised a concern that the replacement requirement might not be sufficient. He referred to the memorandum he sent to the Board prior to the meeting, outlining the results of his research that focused specifically on o what other jurisdictions require for tree retention with development. Some of the jurisdictions have general density requirements, which isn't something the City is considering as part of the Tree Code update. He briefly reviewed the results N as follows: ai o Lynnwood does not have a specific tree retention requirement, but they do require trees that are removed to be replaced based on the number of tree units, which is derived from the diameter of the trees that are cut. If applicants choose not to plant trees for the required tree units, they can pay a fee into the city's tree fund at a rate of $187 per tree. If a site cannot support the required number of replacement trees, the applicant would be required to pay $106 per tree into the fund. o Shoreline requires that 20% of significant trees be retained if there aren't any critical areas on the site and 30% if critical areas are present. They require replacement if more trees are removed than what is allowed by the retention requirement. The replacement requirement of up to 3 trees is based on the size of the trees that are removed. They don't have neither a tree fund nor a fee -in -lieu option. o Redmond requires that 30% of significant trees be retained, and the replacement ratio is 1:1 for each significant tree that is removed, except landmark trees, which must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. They do not have a tree fund, but they do have a fee -in -lieu program to cover the cost of tree replacement. They don't specify a specific dollar value for each tree, but just a cost that covers tree replacement. o Kirkland has a tree -density requirement based on a tree -credit system. Developments are required to have 30 tree credits per acre, and larger trees are worth more tree credits. They have a fee -in -lieu program that is paid into a City Forestry Account if trees cannot be planted on site. The dollar amount is based on the current market value. o Issaquah requires retention based on zone. In single-family zones, 30% of the total caliper of all significant trees must be retained. In multifamily zones, the requirement is 25%. While Edmonds calculates percentage Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 214 7.1.d based on the total number of trees on the site, Issaquah calculates based on the total caliper of all of the trees on the site. Replacement is required if the retention standard is not met, and they have a fee -in -lieu program that doesn't identify a specific dollar value for each tree. o Medina has a fee -in -lieu program that is based on the size of the tree, and the dollar value is based on the diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH). They require $200 per inch for trees with a DBH up to 20 inches, which would equate to $4,000 for a 20-inch tree. Mr. Lien commented that, while Medina's dollar values might be too much, he likes the way their program is structured. He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board discussed that larger trees should be valued greater than small trees. He suggested that Edmonds could consider a similar approach, but lower the dollar value. Chair Robles agreed that Medina's approach is creative, and he suggested the dollar values are not really out of line when you attach them to the increase in property value associated with improved view. Mr. Lien commented that not all properties in Edmonds have potential views, so he cautioned against attaching that high dollar value to all properties in Edmonds. Again, he said he likes the structure, but the dollar values seem excessive. Board Member Rubenkonig said the principle found in Issaquah's code stands out to her as a clear approach. It requires replacement if the retention standard is not met, which makes it clear that the goal is retention. She suggested that Edmonds should also identify a specific principle that underscores its approach. She said she didn't find the other examples to be as clear. Mr. Lien noted that Shoreline also requires replacement if the retention standard is not met. The current proposal simply requires a 1:1 replacement, but it could be changed to incorporate this concept. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that Issaquah's replacement requirement is based on caliper (DBH) of the tree. _ Mr. Lien said Shoreline's approach, which is based on "significant trees," would be the easiest to implement. Rather •2 than having to measure the size of each tree, it counts the number of trees that are at or greater than a specific size. Board 3 Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be an acceptable approach, but she still wants language that makes the intended a principle clear. N ri Board Member Monroe asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting the best thing to do is retain the existing trees, and the next best option would be to replace the trees. If you can't do that, you should pay a fee -in -lieu. Board Member c Rubenkonig agreed that the best approach is to require tree retention as a first priority. Board Member Monroe agreed, a as well. He said replacement should be an option, but it should be the second choice. Replacement should be more c difficult than retention, and it should be more costly still to pay an in -lieu fee. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that s the first option should be retention, followed by replacement, recognizing there is a lot of innovation available when it c comes to planting trees. She also supports having a tree bank or fee -in -lieu program in place. N Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the Board's direction, the tree retention should remain at 30% and 25%, and replacement would be required if the retention requirement is not met. He will consider options for what the appropriate replacement ratio should be. As the tree gets larger, the replacement ratio should increase, too. The Board indicated support for these changes. Chair Robles suggested they consider the scenario of a tree that is blocking the view of the sound. If the tree is cut down, the property value would increase substantially. Would the property owner be able to purchase the extinction of the tree for the property value benefit? Mr. Lien reminded them that, as currently drafted, the Tree Code would apply to certain new development applications: short subdivision, subdivision, new multifamily and new single-family. The requirements would not apply to a developed single-family site with no critical areas. Board Member Monroe suggested that the Purpose and Intent Section should clearly explain when the requirements apply. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Subdivision Design Flexibility Mr. Lien shared a diagram of a sample subdivision application, pointing out how the development requirements (utility easements, access easements, setbacks, etc.) reduce the buildable area and impact a developer's ability to retain existing trees. He explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, which was discussed at the last meeting, would be applied to Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 215 7.1.d this section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following flexibility is proposed: 1. Setbacks may be reduced up to 20% in all residential zones provided that no side setback is less than 5%. The required front setback may not be reduced more than 5 feet, but an additional 5-foot reduction may be allowed for covered entry porches. 2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering so dwelling units can be shifted to the most suitable locations, but the overall density cannot be increased. 3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone. 4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes. Mr. Lien advised that, prior to the public hearing, he will create a drawing that illustrates how these flexible options might be applied on a property that is being subdivided. Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed flexibility, but he questioned how the City would ensure that the protected trees are retained after the properties are developed and sold? Mr. Lien said that, as proposed, trees that are required to be retained with development would be classified as "protected trees, and the term is defined in the Tree Code (ECDC 23). Chair Robles asked about the administrative cost of keeping a track of protected trees. Mr. Lien explained that a tree plan would be required when flexibility is granted, and the City would use that plan to track the trees. There are some other ideas for addressing the issue via the permit process, too. Chair Robles summarized that, when purchasing a home in Edmonds, due diligence may include going to the City to research the property's tree liability. Mr. Lien said that if a tree is retained as part of a subdivision, the condition could be specifically listed on the face of a plat. For multifamily development, a landscape plan would be required. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to record a tree plan as part of a subdivision plan. She agreed N that it is important that subsequent owners be required to maintain the protected trees per the approved tree plan. However, without proper documentation, it would be difficult for the City to identify problems. Mr. Lien explained that, c typically, subdivision approval is based on certain conditions that are listed in the staff report and on file with the City of a Edmonds. The tree plan could be recorded as one of the conditions, and someone doing due diligence would be able to c contact the City to find the list of conditions that apply to the property. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example s of a new development that tied into a regional stormwater system. The water flowed a certain way, and the individual c yards were designed to assist with the flow. However, the homeowners landscaped their yards in a way that interfered N 0 with the programmed flow. She summarized that, oftentimes, plans look good on paper, but they need to consider what R the City needs to do to make sure that the plans are maintained and enforced. o Mr. Lien agreed that, if the City does allow design flexibility to retain trees, it makes sense to ensure that the conditions are documented, either by recording the tree plan or specifically calling the requirements out on the plat plan. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that many people are looking for accountability with the tree code, and accountability is a big part of making a program successful. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has made a case for the priority of tree plantings the City prefers. In addition to planting the right tree in the right place, do the regulations stipulate a preference for a grove of trees versus stand-alone trees. Mr. Lien said that, for retention, this is specifically called out in the proposed language. He referred to the priority list that was discussed at the last meeting, noting that the grove environment is priority one. Similar language is also included in the replacement section. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is important to get the best return for the environment. Mr. Lien said the current proposal does not include a preferred tree list, but it could be added. The Tree Board is currently working on a list that could be provided to property owners to educate them on the right tree for the right place. Board Member Rubenkonig said it is important that the list include trees that support habitat. Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is interested in adding language to ensure that the protected trees are documented when this section is applied to a new development. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 216 7.1.d • ECDC 23.10.060(B) — Tree Retention Plan Mr. Lien explained that a tree retention plan must be submitted as part of an application for new development. As proposed, the tree retention plan must include a tree inventory that contains a numbering system of all existing significant trees on the property and identify the size of all the trees, the proposed tree status (retained or removed), the general health or condition rating, and tree types or species. The tree retention plan must also include a site plan that shows the location of all proposed improvements, the accurate location of significant trees, and the location of tree protection measures. Trees must be labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system, and the limits of disturbance must be drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances. The proposed tree status must be identified, as well as the proposed locations of any supplemental replacement trees as needed. Board Member Rubenkonig said it isn't clear as to which professionals can do each part of the Tree Retention Plan. Mr. Lien responded that, as proposed, a qualified tree professional may be required to prepare certain components of the tree plan. For example, an arborist will need to make a determination on the health of the trees, but a surveyor will identify the location of trees. Like with all development applications, a team of consultants will put together the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that some jurisdictions are tightening their requirements and specifically calling out who is qualified enough to develop the tree plan. The Board should discuss how exacting it wants the requirement to be. Chair Robles said he would be reluctant to get too particular, since it could result in a barrier. He asked if there is any i incentive for a property owner to submit a tree plan for his/her property, thereby adding to the tree inventory the City can possess without having to produce. Ultimately, a City's tree inventory will provide the information to make the bigger = decisions about the canopy going forward. The barrier to this is the resources to count all of the trees. It isn't so much of a problem if individual property owners submit tree plans. Mr. Lien said this concept is not in the proposed Tree Code. The City is currently doing a partial inventory of the street trees, and the Urban Forest Management Plan talks a about a canopy assessment. However, he doesn't know if it would be possible to conduct an inventory of all of the trees N in the City. Again, he reminded the Board that the proposed Tree Code would only apply to new development. He ri doesn't know what the City would do with tree inventories submitted by random private property owners. When they discuss permits, he will highlight some ideas that have come forward that could get to the tracking of trees, what has been planted, and what has been removed. He summarized that a tree inventory is required with new development a because there will be a retention requirement. The City will need to know what trees are on the site, so they know how c many have to be retained to meet the retention requirement. Chair Robles pointed out that 90% of the trees in Edmonds s` are on private property. He questioned the scope of the tree plan if it only accounts for a small number of trees (10%). o Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the proposed language is not intended to be a tree plan. Instead, it provides regulations ry that deal with trees that are associated with development. The Urban Forest Management Plan is a tree plan that talks R about canopy assessment, coverage, tree inventories, etc. However, this information is outside of the tree code, itself. o Mr. Lien advised that the tree retention plan must also include an arborist report that provides a complete description of each tree's health, condition and viability, a description of the methods used to determine the limits of disturbance, etc. Board Member Monroe pointed out that some trees may not be viable for retention because they are in the way of the proposed development. He asked if these situations are adequately addressed in the proposed code. Mr. Lien referred back to the priorities for tree retention. There is also language in the code that talks about working in good faith with the applicant and the City. Obviously, a tree cannot be retained if it is located where a building is proposed. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that, as proposed, an applicant would be required to provide an arborist report to support this claim. He suggested that staff review the language and decide if clarification is needed. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the proposed design flexibility that allows structures to be grouped differently on a site would relieve some of the pressure when it comes to deciding which trees can be retained. She concluded that, if they allow more flexibility in the design standards, the approach will not be as rigid. Mr. Lien explained that, oftentimes, when subdivision applications are reviewed, applicants don't know where the actual buildings will go. This makes it more difficult to do a tree retention plan. As proposed, they can do an initial version of a tree retention plan as part of the subdivision submittal, and a more detailed plan when the project reaches the building phase. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 217 7.1.d REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its work session on the draft Tree Code at their November 18 special meeting. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. He reminded them that they will also need to elect new officers for 2021 at their December 9' meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank announced that she was elected to serve as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission, just in time for the big project the Commission has been assigned, which is the Airport Master Plan. Landrum & Brown has been hired as the consultant for this project, and a special virtual meeting is scheduled for November 19' at 6 p.m. She invited those interested to tune in. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. N CO) T- Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 218 7.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom November 18, 2020 Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Barbara Chase, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Tree Board, and was present to follow the Board's work on the Tree Code. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he is also a member of the Tree Board. He said he submitted written comments to the Board just prior to the meeting regarding the Tree Code Regulations. Vice Chair Rosen confirmed that the Board received the letter. The Board confirmed that they also received a letter from Duane Farman regarding the Tree Code Regulations. N CO) Packet Pg. 219 7.1.d Vice Chair Rosen asked staff to respond to the question that was posed by Board Member Pence about why the Planning Board c did not review the street vacation application that was recently approved by the City Council, even though it involved trees. V Mr. Chave explained that street map amendments are a Planning Board legislative recommendation to the City Council, but p street vacations are decided only by the City Council, without Planning Board involvement. Occasionally, a street map A amendment is also a street vacation. In these situations, the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a > recommendation to the City Council on the street map amendment, but it still does not make a recommendation on the street M vacation application, itself co c Board Member Pence asked how they could change the code to include the Planning Board in street vacation applications. This seems equally as important as some of the other issues the Board deals with, including the street map changes. Mr. Chave c explained that the street map is a planning document, and street vacations are technical documents dealing with public works and rights -of -way. Street vacations are covered in Title 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), and the City Council has never chosen to have these standards come under the purview of the Planning Board. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE d L Chair Robles referred to the Staff Report, which notes a number of goals and actions in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) related to tree retention. He asked that Mr. Lien identify when a proposed Tree Code amendment meets one or more of those goals. Mr. Lien agreed to circle back to the UFMP goals and actions as part of his presentation. a c •L Mr. Lien reminded the Board and members of the public that the City has created a website for the Tree Code update (www.treecode.edmonds.wa.gov) that provides links to all of the Planning Board's agendas, videos and minutes. It also = provides a link to the latest version of the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien reported that written comments been received since the last Planning Board meeting on November 121 were included a in the Planning Board's packets. Those that were received today will be included in the next Planning Board packet. All of N the written comments will be attached to the packet that is prepared for the Public Hearing on December 9m N Mr. Lien advised that the official notice for the December 9' public hearing will be published on the website. The hearing will also be published in THE EVERETT HERALD and posted at the Public Safety Building, City Hall, and the Library. In addition, he will write a press release prior to the public hearing. To raise awareness of the Tree Code update, staff presented the concepts table at a City Council meeting that was broadcast on the local television. Staff also issued a press release for the new website that was published in My Edmonds News and announced on the City's website. The Tree Code update has been mentioned twice in the City's news bulletin that goes out every other week, as well. He acknowledged that public involvement has been more difficult due to the pandemic, and the City has had to rely on technology to allow people to participate. In addition to participating via Zoom, citizens can use their phones to listen to and speak at the meetings. He summarized that staff is doing the best it can with technology given the current situation. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: Goal 1— Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage. • Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft code currently before the Board addresses all of these topics. • Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft code does not adopt this policy. However, the Planning Board recommended that language should be added to the "Purpose" section. This additional language will be inserted prior to the public hearing. • Goal 1.C—Ensureprotection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The Tree Code does not explicitly accomplish this goal. However, the City's Critical Area Code, which is referenced in a number of places throughout the draft Tree Code, addresses this goal. Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 220 7.1.d • Goal 1.D — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs. The Board will be reviewing the draft language related to the tree fund during their upcoming discussion. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). • ECDC 23.10.070 — Tree Protection Measures During Development Mr. Lien explained that this section outlines the requirements for protecting the trees that have been identified for retention. As proposed, prior to initiating development activity or tree removal on a site, trees to be preserved must be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Placing materials near trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building materials, and dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to a tree that is designated for protection. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City would address violations to this standard. Mr. Lien said that, a) rather than fines, violations would be picked up during inspection and developers would be required to comply. _ He reminded them that a pre -application meeting with the developer would be required as part of the Tree •2 Retention Plan process. At that meeting, staff would review the proposal to ensure that the tree protection a measures are in place before any construction activity begins on the site. Board Member Rubenkonig said she was particularly concerned about the last sentence. For example, would attaching a chain to a protected tree result N in a violation. Mr. Lien said the language is more about ensuring compliance with development. ri B. Protective barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling, or any land alteration, applicants must: 1. Erect and maintain temporary protective fencing (6-foot, chain -link) along the limits of the disturbance. 2. Install highly -visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence. The signs must be approved by the Director and state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violators. If a protected tree is damaged to the extent that a tree dies, replacement would be required. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers. However, the Director may allow activities that are approved and supervised by a qualified professional who is retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the Director authorizes removal. 5. Ensure any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers is accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to the depth of at least 6 inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar materials to protect the roots and soil from damage. 7. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot deep trench at the edge of the critical root zone to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred the roots with heavy equipment. 8. Do corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. 9. Maintain trees throughout construction by watering and fertilizing. Board Member Monroe pointed out that, as proposed, developers would be fined or required to replace any protected trees that don't survive. He questioned if this section is overly prescriptive. Couldn't they just require a Tree Retention Plan. If it doesn't work, regardless of the reason why, the developer would be required to remedy the situation. What if someone follows all of the prescribed steps and the tree still dies? Mr. Lien recommended that the code should be Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 221 7.1.d prescriptive as far as tree protection measures. He explained that sometimes things happen and trees are damaged during development. When this occurs, developers who haven't met the retention requirement would have to replace the tree. Board Member Monroe agreed that the requirements should be prescriptive, but language should make it clear that tree retention would be measured at the end of the project and not during the project. Mr. Lien agreed to adjust the language in ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Requirements) to make this clear. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if a new tree fails, nurseries will often replace them. She also commented that the proposed language in this section appears very similar to what is required in other jurisdictions her company has worked in. C. Grade. This section deals with grading that might occur around a protected tree. As proposed: 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of a protected tree without the Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The Director may allow coverage of up to '/z inch of the critical root zone with light soils to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans if it will not imperil the trees survival. "Critical root zone" is defined as the area surrounding the tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to 1 foot for every inch of trunk diameter. 2. c� If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode the tree's critical root zone, it must be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. a 3. The applicant shall not install impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained i without the Director's authorization. The Director may require construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure a tree's survival and minimize potential root -induced damage. _ 4. To the greatest extent possible, utility trenches must be located outside of the critical root zone of •2 protected trees. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained 0 if the trenching would significantly reduce the chances of a tree's survival. a 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least N possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained 7 where feasible. c D. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage of trees designated for retention. E. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forest industry practices. Board Member Monroe asked if Item C.1 is intended to limit the power of the Director. If a better opportunity presents itself, and a qualified professional supports it, the Director should be allowed to approve it. Mr. Lien answered that a balancing act is required when determining the level of flexibility that should be allowed. The goal was to be consistent with the intent of the code, which isn't always black and white when it comes to flexibility. Board Member Monroe suggested that Item C.2 should be amended to clarify who would determine if a rootzone has been permanently stabilized, such as a qualified professional. He also suggested that the last sentence in Item C.5 should be replaced with a reference to the City's existing erosion control standards. Sometimes shrubs, ground cover and stumps are not the best way to control erosion. Mr. Lien said the existing erosion control standards typically address temporary stormwater situations, and Item C.2 is intended to be more long-term. If you don't have to disturb the shrubs and ground cover, they should be maintained to help prevent future erosion. Erosion control wouldn't be needed if the shrubs and ground cover are left intact. Board Member Monroe asked if it would make sense to add some examples to Item E. As written, applicants are left to guess what the Director might give them latitude to do. Mr. Lien responded that this provision was intended to be general because it isn't possible to consider all of the site -specific options. Board Member Monroe asked if it would be possible to cite a specific urban forest industry practices document. He is concerned that applicants will present crazy ideas that the Director will have to study and make a decision on. Mr. Lien explained that if the City doesn't have the expertise to evaluate an applicant's idea, it would be sent out for peer review. The Director will consult with Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 222 7.1.d the City's arborist, as well. Mr. Chave suggested they could add language in this provision that requires the approval of the City's arborist. Mr. Lien cautioned against this since the arborist's current job description does not include project review. Chair Robles commented that anyone who is developing land with any kind of complexity would be wise to hire their own consultant. He asked if the City would provide a checklist of things a consultant should review when advising an applicant. Mr. Lien said the required Tree Plan, which must be prepared by a qualified professional and arborist, would cover all of the items that must be included in a development application. Item C is intended to outline the actual implementation of the Tree Plan. • ECDC 23.10.090 — Bonding. Mr. Lien reviewed that the City currently requires bonding for development that requires native vegetation or landscape plans, and they are typically done before the City issues final approval on a project. However, the City also requires 2-year maintenance bonds, which are 15% of the bond amount. At the end of 2 years, the City does an inspection and the bond won't be released until any vegetation that didn't survive is replanted. The proposed language was copied from the landscape chapter of the code. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item C, noting that there is no mention of a 2-year timeframe for the maintenance bond. She reviewed that the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy happens before the trees have really established themselves. Mr. Lien agreed to adjust the language to add the 2-year timeframe. • ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits. Mr. Lien recalled that when the last Tree Code update was presented to the Board, the permit requirement drew a lot of attention. The existing code has two types of tree -cutting permits. For single-family properties that do not fall under the exemptions, tree cutting requires a Type II Permit, which is a staff decision with notice. The application fee is $1,000 for every tree that is cut down, and permits take about 2 to 3 months to process. For multifamily properties, tree cutting requires a Type I Permit, which is also a staff decision with no notice. The application fee is $305 for every tree that is cut down. These permits are reviewed to make sure that the proposed tree removal is consistent with the landscape plan that was approved for the development. Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit. Although not included in the proposed draft, Mr. Lien said some people have suggested, and other cities have implemented, a requirement that private property owners must seek permission to cut down a tree. If the goal is to track tree removal across the City as a basis for measuring the no -net -loss requirement, there must be a way to track trees that are cut down. Some jurisdictions allow a certain number of trees to be removed in a given time period. No permit is required, but documentation must be submitted. This would be similar to how the City addresses hazardous trees; no permit is required, but documentation is. Staff has voiced concern that it would require additional staff time to review and track each application, and they question what benefit would be gained other than giving people pause when considering tree removal. Chair Robles said this potential provision would be a way to regulate tree cutting on private properties. Mr. Lien explained that the Tree Code would generally apply to new development activity: short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. For the Commission's information, he briefly reviewed the exemptions found in ECDC 23.10.040. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas). N CO) Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 223 7.1.d B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). (Note: The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director has also requested an exemption for tree maintenance in parks) C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain health of cultivated plants and to contain noxious weeks, remedy potential fire hazards and other threats and safety. D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable of being divided into not more than one additional lot, except that portion of the lot contained in the critical area or associated buffer and excepting erosion hazards on slopes less than 25%. (Note: Based on the recent moratorium on subdivisions, staff is suggesting that the phrase, "which is capable of being divided into not more than one additional lot" should be deleted. Otherwise, the exemption would allow someone to cut down trees before applying for a subdivision.) E. Nuisance and hazardous trees that do not meet the above exemptions may be removed with supporting documentation. Mr. Lien also reviewed ECDC 23.10.050, which identifies tree removal that is prohibited: A. Protected Trees: Protected trees cannot be removed unless they are determined to be hazardous. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited unless they are determined to be hazardous. C. Demolition: Tree removal as part of a permitted demolition is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the Director. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited. Board Member Monroe pointed out that Exemption D will be what private, single-family property owners will be most = interested in. He suggested that this exemption should be moved to the top of the list. Chair Robles agreed that the 0 exemption should be at the top of the list and clearly visible to members of the public who attend and comment at the a public hearing. Board Member Monroe also suggested that language be added to the "Intent and Purpose" section to make it even clearer that it is not the City's intent to control private property owners' ability to maintain their trees. N Board Member Monroe asked if the City tracks the planting of trees. Mr. Lien answered only those that are required as part of development. The City doesn't keep a running log of how many trees are planted with development, as this would require a lot of staff time. Board Member Monroe said he understands the purpose of requiring private property owners to register their tree removals with the City and limit the number of trees that can be removed per year. But if the City isn't tracking the number of trees that are replanted, the information would be incomplete and not provide an accurate indication of the number of trees in the City. For future regulations addressing existing residential lots, Board Member Rubenkonig advised similar parallel language to the single-family/multifamily approach in the draft Tree Code. With that approach in mind, she said she favors starting with a tree credit balance and an arborist tree survey. This would be similar to the City of Kirkland's tree credit system, without the density requirement. This approach would reinforce the main underlying objective of retention. Many homeowners have maintained a healthy tree canopy, and this benefit to Edmonds needs to be rewarded and incentivized for others to do the same. Property owners who have a tree credit balance would not have to pay for a tree permit because they already have as many trees as they need to provide on their property. She summarized that she would like the City to implement a system that rewards those homeowners who have planted trees and incentivize others to continue to plant more trees. The goal is to increase the tree canopy. Chair Robles added that property owners should also be rewarded for leaving existing trees in place. He said there have been some suggestions of managing this type of program by using certain newer technologies. While they can't get to that point with the current proposal, the idea of a credit system sounds promising. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions accept satellite images of tree canopy to establish the tree coverage on a single lot. While the technology is certainly available, she said she can't speak to the amount of staff time that would be required to administer the program. Mr. Lien said the program described by Board Member Rubenkonig would be a type of density requirement for all properties in the City. If the City establishes a density requirement, it would also need to create a program to review all tree removal within the City. He recalled that the previous draft Tree Code included a density requirement, as well as a review for any tree removal. Even if the permit was free, a property owner would have to submit a site plan for staffs Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 224 7.1.d review. Staff would then determine if the application would meet the density requirement. If not, replacement trees would be required. He reminded them that this approach created a lot of community concern. Rather than the term "density requirement," Board Member Rubenkonig said she would prefer to use the phrase "benchmark figure for retention of mature trees on a lot." She doesn't want to go as far as the City of Kirkland has, but she would like to consider a tree credit program for residential sites. This would affirm the City's goal of tree retention and increasing the tree canopy. Mr. Lien said the proposed Tree Code includes a tree retention requirement associated with new development, but it would not apply outside of the development review process. Whatever the concept is called, it has not been proposed to apply citywide. If it was, the permit process would need to be expanded to include all tree removal. • ECDC 23.10.110 —Liability. Mr. Lien said this section makes it clear that property owners would still be liable for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed with any permit issued by the City. There is similar language on nearly all of the City's permit applications that indemnify the City. It makes it clear the property owners assume any liability associated with the permit. • ECDC 23.10.100 — Violations. Mr. Lien explained that, in the existing code, violations are split up based on tree diameter. Trees that are 1 to 3 inches in diameter can be fined $1,000 to $3,000 per tree, depending on whether it is within a right-of-way or critical area. Trees that are greater than 3 inches in diameter can be fined $3,000 to $9,000 per tree. The proposed code has multiple ways to assess the fine. He specifically reviewed the following sections: A. Penalties. 1. Aiding and Abetting. Not only would property owners be responsible if a tree is cut in violation, but N the company that does the tree cutting would also be held responsible. ri 2. Civil Penalties. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonable determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the G City to investigate and administer the infraction. a b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (measured by the greater of c the resulting increase in market value of the property, etc.). This provision addresses situations s like the Point Edwards clear cut of the slopes prior to development. N c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal using the trunk N formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. This is similar to a R house appraisal. A tree has a value based on where it is, how important it is to the neighborhood, c etc. Rather than having a fixed fee for larger trees, the proposed code would require a tree m appraisal to establish the fine. c d. For smaller trees (less than 12-inches in diameter), the penalty would be $1,500 per tree. e. Tree topping is considered an illegal tree cutting. Particularly for tall Douglas Firs and Cedars, it can do significant damage to a tree and can create a hazardous situation. If an illegal tree o topping has occurred, the property owners will be required to have a certified arborist develop pp and implement a 5-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. f. Penalties will be paid into the City's tree fund. Board Member Monroe asked if "illegal tree topping" is defined in the code. Mr. Lien responded that if a permit would have otherwise been required to cut a tree, topping the tree would be considered illegal. He said he could add a definition or "tree topping." He explained that topping trees that are exempt from the Tree Code would not be considered illegal, but it still wouldn't be considered good practice. Student Representative Bryan asked who would be responsible for actually doing the pruning labor for the next five years. Mr. Lien answered that the property owner would have this responsibility. Student Representative Bryan asked what penalties would be applied if the 5-year pruning schedule is ignored. Mr. Lien said that, similar to critical area mitigation Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 225 7.1.d plans, the City could require monitoring reports throughout the 5-year period. However, he is concerned about how the c City would inspect the tree each year to ensure that proper pruning has been done. Because of safety and liability issues, V it would behoove a property owner to comply. p rn Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that failure to enforce tree plans and landscape plans after the 2-year > =a performance bond is released is a chronic issue in most all jurisdictions. There isn't enough staff to accomplish this task, so most cities rely on citizen complaints to address these situations. She would prefer an approach that requires monitoring CO reports, which would at least require some accountability. Mr. Lien questioned where the tickler would be put in the City system to make sure a monitoring report is submitted every 5 years. rn c Board Member Crank pointed out that the draft Tree Code is being created as if the pandemic doesn't exist and everything is normal. That isn't the case, and they don't know when things will get back to normal. She asked if qualifying language would be provided at the beginning of the Tree Code to recognize that some of the timelines and penalties might need to be softer if the pandemic is still a reality in two years. If that is the case, it may not be possible to comply with some of W the code requirements, such as regular monitoring. At this time, they don't know how the pandemic will alter timelines d going forward. Mr. Lien explained that an emergency proclamation related to the pandemic was issued by Mayor Nelson. It acknowledges the extraordinary times and gives the Director flexibility to not apply the strict standards of the code that would otherwise be required. He cautioned against including a disclaimer in the ordinance stating that the code was developed under the pandemic and may be reviewed again in a few years. Board Member Crank said she is not suggesting a a disclaimer or that the code should be reviewed again in two years, but the language should at least recognize that there L may need to be some flexibility due to the pandemic. 2 Board Member Rubenkonig said her focus has been on the fact that most of the work related to trees is done outdoors, and most of the plans can be submitted electronically. There hasn't been a big shift in terms of how the work is being done, 3 unless Governor Inslee shuts down any type of outside work. If that happens, it would be a temporary measure. While a she agreed the City needs to be mindful that the process could be compromised due to the pandemic, she is comfortable N with the fact that the Mayor has issued an emergency ordinance that allows flexibility as appropriate. Board Member Cheung commented that as Item C.1 currently reads, both the homeowner and the person cutting the tree could be fined separately for each violation. Mr. Lien clarified that the fine would be established per code and split between the responsible parties. Board Member Cheung suggested the language needs to be clarified. He also questioned why the person cutting down the tree would be responsible if it is done at the homeowner's insistence. Mr. Lien said that, for the most part, the work is done by tree -removal companies, and they typically contact the City prior to removing a tree to find out whether or not a permit is required. Some companies are more scrupulous than others, and if one company declines to cut down the tree without a permit, a property owner can usually find another that will. For that reason, he felt that both parties should be held responsible. Mr. Chave said it is important to also have the party that cuts the trees down potentially liable because it is in their interest to make sure they understand and follow the rules. Board Member Cheung asked if a handyman or friend (not a tree removal company) would be held liable if he/she was hired to cut down a tree and the property owner fails to obtain the proper permit. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as written, the provision doesn't say who would be responsible to pay the penalty, but the notice of violation and penalty would be addressed to both parties and there would only be one fine. It would be up to the two parties to figure out how the penalty would be paid. Board Member Pence said that, if he were offering advice to a tree removal company, he would suggest they include in their agreement with clients that they assume responsibility for any permits that are required. Then it would become a legal issue between the tree removal company and the homeowner, with the tree removal company trying to push the liability onto the homeowner. Chair Robles said that, if he were to hire a tree consultant, he would want to know the best, safest and legal way to cut down the tree. He felt the onus should be on the tree removal company to understand the laws where they operate. Board Member Monroe asked how the triple damages called for under civil penalties would be applied. Mr. Lien said that, as per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.12, which is referenced in Item C.2, trespassing onto someone else's Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 226 7.1.d property could result in triple damages. That means the damages could be triple if trespassing occurs in any of the situations listed. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a bad situation that occurred on her first day on the job in Maryland. After she parked her car, she approached a man who was cutting down trees in the parking lot, asking if her car would be safe. She was informed that it would. However, later in the day she learned that a tree was dropped next to her car and had bounced up and landed on her car. The person cutting the tree was neither bonded nor licensed, and getting the corporation that hired him to cut the trees to pay for the damage to her car was very difficult. Not only did the person cutting the trees lie to her by saying her car was safe, he didn't take responsibility when the accident occurred, and neither did the corporation. She doesn't want Edmonds residents to encounter a similar situation. Board Member Rubenkonig also shared an example of a sad situation. Although the people in her neighborhood once prized trees, that is no longer the case for some. Recently, she was awakened to the sound of tree cutting. The hired tree service was going over a fence to cut back the limbs of a tree on a neighboring property right at the trunk. She approached him and informed him that what he was doing was illegal. She asked him to halt the cutting, but he refused and advised her to take up the issue with the property owner. He said he assumed the property owner had contacted the neighbors, but she had not. When she called the City, she was told that because the tree service didn't operate in the City more than a certain number of times per year, it was not subject to the City's licensing requirements. She concluded that this is a troublesome area of enforcement concerning tree cutting, and it needs to be given quite a bit of attention. Mr. Lien responded that both of these situations would be civil matters. A business license is required of anyone doing d business in the Edmonds, regardless of how much. Board Member Rubenkonig again said she was advised by the Planning = Division staff that the tree service was below the threshold of having to be licensed and was, therefore, not subject to the •2 City's purview. Mr. Lien said that, regardless of whether or not the tree service was licensed, the City responds when illegal tree cutting occurs. Whether or not the person doing the cutting is licensed and bonded is outside of the Planning a Division's purview. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is a troublesome area, for her and for others, N and having good relations with neighbors concerning their priority of retaining trees is important. Whatever they can do O i to address this, she welcomes further language that can help homeowners who are in such situations. • ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. There was a request that Item D in ECDC 3.95.020 (sale of seedlings by the City) be removed. As proposed, the funds could be used: 1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees. However, the vouchers cannot be used to purchase trees required as part of a development or for replacement under the conditions of a violation. There have been some questions about how the City would run the voucher program. It could be spelled out in this Tree Code, or it could be addressed as a policy after the Tree Code is adopted. He expects the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department would be responsible for the voucher program. 2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional. 3. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City. 4. To purchase supplies and materials for the City's observance of Arbor Day. 5. For other purposes relating to trees as determined by the City. Mr. Lien said it has been suggested that additional items be added to this list: paying for services that support urban forest management and health and as specified for any grant -funded projects. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that Item 4 be changed to a broader definition of educational purposes. This would give the City more leeway to do things that may or may not include Arbor Day observance or purchasing supplies. He assumes the intent is education. Mr. Lien agreed to add "or other educational purposes." Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 227 7.1.d • ECDC 23.10.XXX — Tree Replacement Mr. Lien said he has heard the comment that planting a small tree will not replace a large tree that is cut down, and he agreed that it takes time for a tree to grow. However, professional arborists, wetland specialists and biologists who do mitigation plans say that larger trees do not establish as well as smaller trees. Professionals have explained that if you plant a 1-inch caliper deciduous trees, its roots establish faster and it grows faster than a larger tree would. The requirement of 2.5-inch caliper deciduous trees and 6-foot-tall evergreens is pretty standard and consistent with other areas of the City's code. Vice Chair Rosen acknowledged that smaller trees establish better and grow faster than larger trees. However, if the City's goal is to be made whole, they must make up this gap through money. Board Member Monroe suggested the City could require a 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratio. Mr. Lien recalled that the Planning Board discussed this and provided direction regarding the replacement ratio at their last meeting. The updated version for the public hearing will require a greater replacement ratio for large trees. He is thinking of using the City of Shoreline's model, which starts at 1:1 for the smaller trees (6 to 8 inches). For every 3-inch increase in diameter, the replacement ratio would increase by one. Shoreline tops out at 3 replacement trees for the larger trees. Board Member Monroe requested more information about how the Tree Code would be applied. Mr. Lien responded that for short subdivisions, subdivisions, new multifamily, new single-family on vacant lots, or development that doesn't fall underneath any of the exemptions, applicants would be required to retain 30% of all significant trees on the site. The decision regarding which trees to retain would be based on the priorities outlined in the code: 1. Specimen trees, significant trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, _ significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. 2. Healthy tree groupings associated with undergrowth, trees that have a screening function and other significant a native and non-native evergreen and deciduous trees. N 3. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are able to ai be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetland or creek buffers. Mr. Lien explained that, as currently drafted, tree replacement would be required for every tree that is cut. However, at their last meeting, the Planning Board indicated support for only requiring replacement for trees that are removed beyond the retention standard. He explained that, if there is a cost associated with tree removal, developers will make every effort to retain as many trees as possible. One approach could be to require developers to replace all trees that are taken down, regardless of the tree retention requirement, to meet the no -net -loss goal. The replacement ratio would be based on the size of the trees that are cut down. If there isn't room on the site to plant that many trees, developers could pay into the Tree Fund for each tree that cannot be planted on the site. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board indicated support for a 3-step process: 1) retain; 2) if you can't retain, replace; 3) if you can't replace, you have to pay. Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that, by allowing flexibility in development design, retention becomes more possible and the City can secure a higher retention rate. Mr. Lien agreed that is the intent of the design flexibility provision for subdivisions. Mr. Lien said he will rewrite ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity) to reiterate the Planning Board's direction. He summarized that the basic retention requirement would be the minimum. Replacement trees would be required to meet the 30% retention requirement, and the replacement ratio would be based on the size of the trees that are removed. If you the required replacement trees cannot be planted on site, applicants would be required to pay into the tree fund. Board Member Rubenkonig reiterated that the 30% retention requirement is comparable to what other jurisdictions in the area already require. Chair Robles voiced concern that, as proposed, a person who has 25 legacy trees on his/her property and wants to cut down an 8-inch plum tree that is clogging gutters would be required to replace the plum tree at the same ratio as someone who is cutting down the last tree on his/her property. He suggested that the replacement requirement should take into consideration the number of trees a property owner is actively cultivating on site. Mr. Lien emphasized that the retention Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 228 7.1.d requirement would only apply to new development or properties that do not fall under the exemptions. Existing single- family property owners would not be required to obtain a permit to cut down a tree. Chair Robles said he understands this distinction, but he suspects that people who are seeking to protect the tree canopy will be concerned that the Tree Code would not apply to existing developed single-family lots where 93% of the City's tree canopy is located. Mr. Lien agreed that some people will be unhappy. However, his charge, when drafting the Tree Code, was to address the largest complaint, which is clear cutting sites with development. The way the code is currently drafted, the exemptions, including single-family development, would still apply. The City could require a permit and limit tree removal on single-family properties to a certain number during a 3-year period. However, this approach would likely receive a lot of pushback from the community. Board Member Cheung clarified that, as proposed, a homeowner is allowed to cut down an unlimited number of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien agreed, provided there are no critical areas on the site. Board Member Cheung asked if this would include the smaller replacement trees that are planted as part of development. Mr. Lien answered that the required replacement trees would be considered "protected" trees, which cannot be removed. Board Member Cheung asked if the replacement trees would remain protected trees in perpetuity. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. That mean that a permit would be required, and they could only be removed if they are determined to be hazardous or a nuisance. Board Member Cheung asked how a property owner would know that a tree has to be protected. Mr. Lien explained that for short subdivisions and new subdivisions, the protected trees can be recorded on the face of the plat. For new multifamily development, the landscape plan would be on file and tracked. However, protected trees associated with new single-family development on vacant lots would be difficult to track because it wouldn't be recorded anywhere. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that when properties change hands, the new homeowners would have no way of = knowing that a tree is protected. He is concerned about having something built into the code that requires subsequent 3 property owners to know which trees are protected. However, he doesn't have a recommended solution. Mr. Lien advised a that the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) was recently updated to require a notice on title when a property has a critical area N or is adjacent to a critical area. When someone purchases the property, the title report will flag that information. A similar concept could be used to address protected trees, but there would be a fee associated with recording the information as a notice to title. c Chair Robles suggested that the City could provide some incentive for property owners to voluntarily provide the City with an inventory of the trees on their properties. The information could be submitted electronically at no cost to the property owner. Perhaps the incentive could be a reduction in the cost of a permit that is proportional to the number of trees on a property. This type of approach would make the rules the same for everyone, and it wouldn't be costly to implement. While it might be too late to incorporate it into the current draft Tree Code, he felt the idea should be pursued at some point in the future. He suggested that the Tree Code could be reviewed every two to four years. As they implement the code and collect feedback, they can consider changes to address future needs and problems. Mr. Lien agreed that the City should offer other incentives to encourage tree preservation, but there isn't time to incorporate the concept into the current draft. He suggested the City can continue to pursue incentive programs, but the current proposal is a development regulation as opposed to an incentive program. Again, he said his charge was to draft a Tree Code that addresses the biggest complaint the City receives, which is trees being removed with development. There is currently a moratorium in place, and it is critical that the City Council adopts code language that addresses tree removal with development as soon as possible. The next step could include a discussion about incentives. Mr. Lien advised that he is preparing a press release that will be published prior to the public hearing to address upfront some of the issues that might raise concerns. Chair Robles said he wants the public hearing to be successful, which means everyone needs to feel they have been listened to. Board Member Cheung suggested that any type of action or penalties that are restrictive will probably be viewed unfavorably by a significant portion of people in attendance at the hearing. However, he doesn't believe most people would be opposed to an incentive program that encourages tree retention and tree planting. Providing incentives will be seen as a positive thing as opposed to penalizing people who cut down trees. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as proposed, Tree Fund dollars can be used to offer tree vouchers for people to plant trees. Board Member Cheung concluded that the more the City can promote tree retention Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 229 7.1.d and tree canopy through incentives as opposed to penalties, it will be accepted better by the community. Chair Robles concurred. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that, in addition to inviting the public to the hearing, she would also like to hear from professionals who will have to work with the code. Mr. Lien said he invited two developers to comment on the code, but neither have responded to date. He recently invited another developer to comment, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that practicing professionals in the area should be specifically invited to attend the hearing and provide feedback. Mr. Lien responded that the City has hired The Watershed Company to work with the Tree Board to establish the Tree City USA application. Their arborist reviewed the Tree Code and indicated support. She particularly noted that the Tree Code clearly spells out what is required for a Tree Plan associated with a development proposal. The City's tree group, which has representation from all departments, has also reviewed the draft Tree Code, as has the City's arborist. Board Member Rubenkonig requested that the City issue a pertinent invitation to professionals who will be working with the Tree Code, requesting their feedback either in writing or at the public hearing. Mr. Lien announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for December 9', and notice will be published next week. A revised version of the Tree Code will be prepared based on the Planning Board's discussions. Board Member Pence said he supports Board Member Rubenkonig's suggestion that the City's outreach for the public hearing be enhanced to include the affected professional communities. In addition, he suggested that when money is paid into the Tree Fund in lieu of a tree obligation that cannot be met on site, the City has an obligation to use those funds to plant trees so that the net tree canopy can be achieved. As proposed, the Tree Fund can be used to support a number of soft projects that will not directly yield more trees. He would rather the funds be used to plant trees in City parks, greenbelts, planting strips, etc. where they can contribute to the City's overall tree canopy, which is the ultimate goal of the Tree Code. Mr. Lien agreed that is possible. When money comes in for the Tree Fund, different numbers could be used to identify what the funds could be used for. Mr. Chave said there could be a problem with the amount of available public land where trees can be planted. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Board would have an opportunity to review the Tree Code a year or two after it is N adopted by the City Council. Knowing that the Board would have an opportunity at some point in the future to make appropriate adjustments would help her move forward with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Chave responded that, with any c recommendation, the Planning Board can make a request that it be reviewed down the road. However, it is not something that a should be adopted as part of the code. c L s REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA c N Chair Robles announced that the Board's next meeting will be December 9th, at which time the Planning Board will conduct a R public hearing on the draft Tree Code. o N PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS c Chair Robles thanked staff for their support. They have so many conflicting projects, and he appreciates their hard work. a Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 230 7.1.d PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Student Representative Bryan said he was a bit surprised, when he opened the Planning Board's website to prepare for the meeting, to learn that the Board had a special meeting on November 12'. He apologized for missing the meeting. He asked that he be added to the email list so he can receive future notifications. Mr. Chave agreed to follow up on the request. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board would elect 2021 Officers on December 9'. Mr. Chave said the election would be added to the December 9' agenda. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City could revisit limiting the height of privacy hedges. At one time, their height was to be the same as fences. Mr. Chave said that is a topic the City Council would have to refer to the Board. There was a rather lengthy, time-consuming discussion at the City Council. The gist of the discussion was that hedges are growing things, and it is difficult to regulate the height of something that grows. The City Council ultimately decided not to regulate hedges. Board Member Pence agreed that hedges are growing things, but by their nature, they are in most cases designed to be trimmed into a shape of some kind. They shouldn't be planted and forgotten. He felt the City could find a way to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Board Member Pence also praised staff. He appreciated having all of the comment letters attached to the Staff Report, but forwarded separately to each of the Board Members via their City email accounts, as well. He suggested this should be a standard procedure anytime a letter is received that deals with a Planning Board issue. E."I -[$Ili"111t5I 0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. N M Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 231 7.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom December 9, 2020 Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. N CO) Packet Pg. 232 7.1.d PUBLIC HEARING ON TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on the Tree Code in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the downtown. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: • Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. • Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. • Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. • Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10 a (exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, and violations). There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in a new N chapter Edmonds City Code (ECC 3.95). He reviewed each section. • ECDC 23.10.020 -- Definitions Mr. Lien advised that the following definitions were added and/or amended. A. Significant Tree. A tree that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. K. Protected Tree. A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations. • ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all short subdivisions (up to 4 lots), subdivisions (5 or more lots), new multifamily development, and new single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-family house. A tree plan would also be required for tree removal on developed sites that are not exempted by ECDC 223.10.040. • ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 233 7.1.d o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means. o Removal of trees for utility maintenance. o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park Department. o Routine landscaping and maintenance. o Routine re -topping of trees to a previously -topped level. Mr. Lien explained that the removal of hazard and nuisance trees would not require a permit, but supporting document would be required. An example of a nuisance tree would be a healthy tree that is buckling a driveway or continually plugging the sewer line. • ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, the following would be prohibited: o Removal of protected trees unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees. o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees. o Removal of trees during permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition activity. o Removal of trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in ECDC 23.40 — 23.90. • ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed tree retention requirement for proposed development would be 30% of all significant trees a for new single-family, short plats and subdivisions. The retention requirement for new multifamily and unit -lot subdivisions would be 25%. He reminded them that the focus of the tree code update is to retain more trees with development, and the N Planning Board has considered the following priorities: ri o Priority 1 — Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas and trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH. o Priority 2 — Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function and other significant native and non-native trees. o Priority 3 — Alders and Cottonwoods. • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed, and the number of required replacement trees would be based on the diameter of the trees removed. One replacement tree would be required to replace trees that are 6 to 10 inches DBH; two replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are 10.1 to 14 inches DBH; and three replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are above 14 inches DBH. • ECDC 23.10.080(E) — Tree Replacement Fee -in -Lieu Mr. Lien explained that if all of the required replacement trees cannot be planted on a project site, the current proposal would require $1,000 per tree not planted to be paid into the City's Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund would have to be used to purchase trees to be planted elsewhere within the City limits. • ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title Mr. Lien recalled that questions were raised at a previous meeting about how a subsequent property owner would know that a tree on his/her property is protected. This provision was added to require that protected trees be recorded as Notice on Title. When someone purchases the property, they will see the notice when reviewing the title. The language was copied from the Critical Area Ordinance, which also requires Notice on Title. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 234 7.1.d • ECDC 20.75 — Conservation Subdivision Design Mr. Lien explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and natural resources through some amount of flexibility in the lot layout of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, as noted earlier in the presentation, would be applied to this section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following flexibility is proposed: 1. Setbacks could be reduced to no less than 15 feet for street setbacks, 10 feet for rear setbacks and 5 feet for side setbacks. 2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone. 3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone. 4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes. • ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. As proposed, the funds could be used: 1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds. 2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional. a 3. To pay for services that support urban forest management and health. 4. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City. N 5. To purchase supplies and materials for Arbor Day and other education purposes. ri • ECDC 23.10.030 -- Permits Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit. • ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties Mr. Lien explained that, as per the proposed code, civil penalties would be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction. b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property, etc.). c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal of the tree value by the City's tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. using the trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of the code. d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" DBH and the appraised value of trees 12" DBH or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the City's Tree Fund. e. Violators will be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the Director. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 235 7.1.d Mr. Lien added that a new section "Aiding and Abetting" would make the tree cutter equally as liable as the property owner. • Examples Illustrating How the Proposed Tree Code Provisions Would Be Applied Mr. Lien shared examples to illustrate how the proposed tree retention, tree replacement and tree fund provisions would be applied to new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. He also provided examples of how the conservation subdivision design provisions would be applied. For each example, he pointed out the number of existing trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments. Mr. Lien explained that, in addition to the Tree Code, there are a number of other provisions that apply to new development such as access easements, landscaping, setbacks, utility easements, etc. These other code requirements also have a significant impact on a developer's ability to save existing trees. Using the conservation subdivision design concept, the houses could be clustered closer together in order to retain more trees. In the example he provided, the lot widths, access easement and setbacks were reduced. Using the flexible design concept, the developer would be able to save 62 existing trees as opposed to just 15. Because more trees could be retained on site, the Tree Fund payment would be reduced from $315,000 to $202,000. Mr. Lien said he is concerned that the required Tree Fund payments are too high. He referred to the example he provided earlier of the 4-lot subdivision, noting that although the developer could retain 40% of the existing trees, the required Tree Fund payment would still be substantial. Using Park and Traffic Impact Fees for comparison, the 4-lot subdivision example would require a $58,000 Tree Fund payment compared to a combined payment of about $27,000 for Park and Traffic Impact Fees. He proposed the following alternatives to reduce the required Tree Fund payment: o Reduce the replacement ratios to 1 replacement tree for trees that are 6 to 14 inches DBH, 2 replacement trees for trees that are 14.1 to 24 inches DBH, and 3 replacement trees for trees that are greater than 24 inches DBH. N o Reduce the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500. CO) o Place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Mr. Lien reviewed each of the examples again to illustrate how they would be impacted by the alternative language. He pointed out that, in most cases, the Tree Fund payments would be substantially less than the required Park/Traffic Impact Fees. However, with the conservation Subdivision Design, the Tree Fund payments would still be substantially greater than the Park/Traffic Impact Fees. Mr. Lien reiterated that the proposed Tree Code was primarily focused on how to retain trees with development. The Tree Code, in and of itself, will not help the City meet its no -net -loss requirement. Additional work on potential incentives to encourage property owners to retain trees on their sites will follow. In addition to the voucher program to encourage people to plant trees, the City is working to update the Street Tree Plan. There are many things the City can do to retain trees, including educating the public about their importance. The City is currently working on a Heritage Tree Program, which will be a voluntary program to recognize special trees on private properties. Board Member Monroe asked if staff is suggesting that they retain the 30% retention ratio and $1,000 per tree fee. Mr. Lien responded that a fee of $1,000 per replacement tree resulted in some very high replacement costs. He suggested that the Board consider the alternatives he recommended: reducing the replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu amount and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing. Anna West, Edmonds, said she spoke before the Board a few weeks ago about the need to address the protection of water views in the Tree Code. Trees have potential to block views. She said she lives in the Edmonds Bowl, and tree topping comes up in a lot of discussions because it helps to maintain water views. She is concerned with the phrase "illegal tree topping" and its associated penalties. She is also concerned about the definition for tree topping, which is "the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. " She expressed her belief that there should be an exception for when tree topping is used to maintain a water view. She noted that the draft Tree Code includes Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 236 7.1.d a lot of exceptions for pruning canopy growth to protect utilities. Knowing how important the water is to Edmonds, she suggested the code should also include exceptions for when trees impact water views. From a physical perspective, residents with water views pay more in taxes, which is valuable to help the City thrive in a variety of ways. She said she is prepared to ask for a tax reduction if the revised Tree Code impacts her water views, which seems like a lose/lose for everyone. She said she reviewed the archives and watched the video recording of the Planning Board's May 27, 2015 public hearing on the Tree Code where some residents requested that the code provide more balance, addressing both trees and water views. However, the current draft does not take this into account. She summarized that, in her opinion, not including view protection in the Tree Code highlights a disconnect in how valuable the Puget Sound is to Edmonds residents and visitors. The current draft has the potential to penalize residents who are trying to maintain their water views, and she believes it will backfire on the City in the long run. She asked that the Board consider verbiage regarding water view protection, or at the very least, remove the tree topping penalty clause altogether. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code update represents a great start. The provisions that would apply to new development are better than he expected, but he is concerned that they are already considering modifications that would weaken them. He said he is not in favor of the alternative replacement criteria suggested by Mr. Lien. It is important to plant multiple replacement trees for every three that is lost. Following adoption of the proposed update, he suggested it will be time to address tree loss on land that is already developed, which is where most of the City's tree canopy is located. He noted that most cities limit the number of trees that can be removed in a given period of time. He urged the Board to finish the job of writing a thorough and meaningful tree code. He asked the Board to consider the thoughts he shared in a letter he submitted to the Board prior to the meeting. Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, agreed that it is important to protect the existing tree canopy, but the effort must be addressed on a = more global level in order for it to succeed. He noted that about 98% of the property in Edmonds is already developed, and a •2 small percentage is undevelopable. He questioned the fairness of passing the entire cost of protecting the tree canopy to new 0 property owners when the overall society will benefit. He suggested they consider other ways to accomplish the overall goal. a For example, they could raise the fees for cutting down trees on developed properties or providing incentives for people to N plant additional trees on their lots. These approaches would result in more trees. While there is a lot of friction coming from the general public, equal participation from all citizens is important when it comes to meeting the needs of the community. He expressed his belief that the net effect of the Tree Code, as applied to new development, would be negligible, and the costs c would be high. They need to come up with a code that is more equitable for all citizens of the community. If proposed properly, a the City's residents might be more willing to save trees on their own properties. He pointed out that clear cutting has happened c on developed property, as well, specifically about twenty-four 10-inch trees were taken down recently at 527 12' Avenue North s with just one permit. The danger of losing trees is as great on developed land as it is on undeveloped land. c Chris Yockey, Edmonds, said that from a developer standpoint, the proposed Tree Fund payments seem awfully high. He voiced concern that the payments will significantly increase the cost of each unit, making it more difficult to address the need for affordable housing in the City. While he understands that topping can kill a tree, he asked if the proposed Tree Code would allow him to take care of the limbs from trees on adjacent properties that hang over into his yard by 30 feet. Louise Favier, Edmonds, commented that the access given to street and sidewalk seating for her business has made a massive difference in her life. She appreciates the work the City puts into creating a good plan for the businesses in Edmonds, in particular the restaurants and bars to be able to continue to use the rights -of -way during these challenging times. They would like to continue to have street and/or ongoing sidewalk seating for another year or two so the businesses can have an opportunity to recover. She said she loves the City's tree retention efforts and appreciates the existing tree canopy. Larry Vogel, Edmonds, said he was present to cover the public hearing for MYEDMONDS NEWS. He requested a copy of Mr. Lien's PowerPoint presentation, and Mr. Lien agreed to send it along. Lora Hein, Edmonds, asked the Board to weigh their recommendation based on the broad -scale impacts. She recognized that the current culture prioritizes monetization of business and financial gain over preservation and conservation of natural systems, which are more challenging to assign a dollar value. One indication is how many people express being tired of the impacts endured in the face of multiple crisis in 2020 and wish to return to normal. However, 2020 has presented an essential opportunity. The challenges they are facing are the culmination of gross mismanagement of the planetary ecosystem. Until and unless they take a serious look at combined effects of colonization and monetization mindset, they will be looking down Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 237 7.1.d the barrel of 2020-like years and worse for decades to come. On the other hand, if they take time to stop, listen and look both ways, back as well as forward, they may yet have a chance to halt the juggernaut of climate destruction that is becoming increasingly out of control. Ms. Hein commented that forging ahead without a plan only compounds the current dilemma. A flawed result is not better than none, it is worse because it gives the impression that something has been done. She proposed that the City adopt a moratorium on removing any trees in any development until a functional tree ordinance can be crafted. Such a moratorium needs to be accompanied not only by hefty fines, but a halt to any construction that continues in violation of a moratorium. They need to end, or at least pause, business as usual, take a deep breath of the air provided courtesy of the arboreal neighbors and decide how they will manage to pay back the dept that is owned to the living forest they have inherited from the first inhabitants recognized in words at the beginning of each City Council meeting. She observed that before the Salish-speaking tribes took up residence on these shores, other inhabitants as deserving of our honor, not only in word, but in deed, made their lives and ours possible. Ms. Hein emphasized that without more stringent replacement and enhancement requirements, incentives and penalties, they will continue down the path of ever decreasing quality of the natural support system. They need more widespread understanding of the essential benefits trees provide in saving energy, not to mention sequestering carbon, our only current hope to prevent global catastrophe from climate transformation. Goals for trees on single-family residential lots in non -critical areas, which are the majority of land resources in the City, are woefully inadequate. The City must go far beyond asking for voluntary public participation. Instead, they should ask how much the air we breath is worth. Trees are more than pretty individuals. They require a network of supporting species to remain viable. The same can be said of humans, as a species. Without trees and the communities that support them, we too are doomed to years far worse than what we have experienced in 2020. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, said she was disappointed to hear the proposed reduction in Tree Fund payments. With minimal fees, the City will lose the motivation to protect the trees. She said she submitted a letter prior to the meeting emphasizing her N points of concern. She is concerned that there is too much emphasis on exemptions to the proposed regulations. There is also � � too much focus on replacement rather than retention, which is far more valuable. What is missing is scientific evidence to determine the goals of the Tree Code and the effects of the exemptions. Lack of environmental analysis, measurable goals and c baseline data limits the value of the code. She said she hopes the Board will continue to adjust the Tree Code to achieve the a goal of retaining trees in Edmonds. c Richard Bologna, Edmonds, asked how an illegal tree removal fee would be enforced and collected and who the City would retain to assess the health of trees. He also asked if anyone has ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree and how much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council. Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he is speaking as a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for six years, as well as chair of the citizen's group called TreePAC. He commended the City for pursuing with the proposed Tree Code update. He said the City of Seattle has been working to update its tree ordinance for 11 years, and it appears that the City of Edmonds will be adopting a number of steps that have been recommended for Seattle but haven't yet been put in place. He said Portland is an example of a City that has taken steps to preserve trees, including a tree fund, and a few years ago they raised about $1.5 million to help plant new trees within their City. Portland just recently updated its tree ordinance to address trees with new development. They changed the replacement requirement to apply to trees over 20 inches, and it had previously been 36 inches. They have been charging $450 per inch for trees that are 12 to 20 inches DBH, and they are now proposing $1,800 per tree removed. When considering replacement requirements, it is critical to take the approach that the larger the tree that is removed, the greater the replacement requirement. He suggested that an additional category be added for trees over 30 or 36 inches. The priority should be to preserve existing trees, as it takes decades for trees to reach their ultimate size. Existing trees provide immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by smaller, younger replacement trees. Replacement trees also need more maintenance, and not all of them will survive. He suggested that the Tree Code specifically require that the replacement trees must be maintained for a certain number of years. He summarized that the proposed Tree Code is a great first step to protect the urban forest and the benefits that trees provide to the City's citizens. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, commented that no trees have ever been retained in her neighborhood when new development has occurred, and she is happy to see that the City will be requiring tree retention. She said she would like the City to have a goal Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 238 7.1.d to increase the tree canopy. She is worried about the impacts of climate change in the future. They will need every tree they can get to provide shade, cooling, etc. She said she is interested in the emphasis on education. She has been running the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat and Native Plant Demonstration Garden at the fish hatchery for the past 10 years, and they have done a lot of education. She said she is looking forward to sponsoring some tree planting workshops and teaching people how they can plant trees. She will work with the Snohomish County Conservation District on this effort. They have a lot of good materials, and they sell trees and native plants at a low cost. She said she appreciates that the Tree Code indicates a preference for native plants and trees, but she would prefer Alders to non-native trees. She said she misses the trees that have been lost over the years. Chair Robles closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Crank voiced concern that developers would lean towards tree replacement rather than tree retention, and she doesn't see how this would result in increased tree canopy. She said she would not support decreasing the fee -in -lieu payments because developers tend to be okay with paying in -lieu fees, especially if they are in areas where the housing market prices are high. Mr. Lien explained that the UFMP did not adopt a goal to increase the tree canopy. The UFMP adopted goals of no net loss of the overall canopy and continuing to enhance the tree canopy in parks as per the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The current proposal is a Development Code update that is specifically focused on retaining trees with development and was not intended to achieve all of the goals spelled out in the UFMP. If the City's Council chooses to address trees in a more holistic way, other actions will be needed and could include incentives, a heritage tree program, more education, planting trees with vouchers from the Tree Fund, etc. Board Member Crank asked if any thought has been given to establishing a cap on how much of the replacement requirement = can be satisfied with the in -lieu payment. Again, she voiced concern that developers will take full advantage of the fee -in -lieu •2 opportunity. Without a cap, it will be difficult for the City to achieve no net loss when development occurs. Mr. Lien explained 3 that when he prepared the examples, he felt that the replacement costs were too high. He applied the alternatives (reducing a replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500 and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be N paid into the Tree Fund) to show how the replacement costs would be impacted in each scenario. He felt this information would be informative to the Planning Board's discussion. He pointed out that, in some situations, the replacement costs could be excessively high for a development impact fee. c Mr. Lien responded to the following questions raised by Mr. Bologna during the public comment period. • How would an illegal tree removal fee be enforced and collected? Mr. Lien explained that the City's code includes Notice of Violation Procedures. The City investigates reports of illegal tree cutting. If it is determined that a tree has been cut illegally, a Notice of Violation will be issued to the property owner and fines will be assessed depending on the situation. The process is clearly spelled out in the code. • Who would the City retain to assess the health of trees? For hazardous tree removal, Mr. Lien advised that the City would require that the tree be assessed by a certified arborist, and the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Assessment Form must be filled out. If the assessment comes back as high or extreme, the tree would be classified as a hazardous tree that could be removed. • Has anyone ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree? Mr. Lien said there are a variety of tools to calculate the value of a tree. While some early drafts of the UFMP identified values based on the ecological services that trees provide, some questions were raised about how accurate they were and the section was removed. • How much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council? Mr. Lien said this provision was included as just one of the ways that funds could be placed into the Tree Fund, but there was no specific dollar amount associated with it. Vice Chair Rosen thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work preparing the update, and for his quick responses to the comments and questions raised by the Board to date. He also thanked the citizens who provided both oral and written comments. He found them to be very thoughtful, and they absolutely influenced his thinking. He asked if the City considers wildlife corridors as critical areas. Mr. Lien answered that the Critical Area Ordinance recognizes the Priority Habitat Species Layer, which is maintained by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are a few wildlife corridors identified in the City, and one of the main ones is Shell Creek from Yost Park down. While habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, there are no specific regulations or setback requirements associated with them. Most of them are associated with stream channels. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 239 7.1.d There are forested areas in the northern portion of the City, and there is a 30% native vegetation requirement for development in these areas. He summarized that habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, but they don't have any specific regulations that apply to them because there aren't any species of local importance. Vice Chair Rosen observed that the City's tree canopy is currently at 30%, and the maximum potential is 57%. The City is nearly built out and the current proposal will not achieve even no net loss. If the City is serious about no net loss, they need to be more aggressive. They must either change what they are doing or change the goal. He said he understands staff's sensitivity when it comes to applying the tree replacement requirement to larger developments, but he felt the City should be agnostic to the use of the land. Loss of trees and loss of land has an impact. Whether it is for a few units or 30 units, there is an economy of scale and profit that comes with that. While he appreciates that staff offered the alternatives, he encouraged the Board to follow the original proposal. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's historic position when it comes to protecting views, but it is important to acknowledge that views are both financially and emotionally valuable and cherished in the community. Passions run high when it comes to views. To address this, he suggested that the following language could be added to the Intent and Purpose Section: "The City of Edmonds recognizes and celebrates the value of our proximity to and views of Puget Sound and the mountains. "ile the City does not enforce tree limits for views, except as expressly stated in this code, property owners are encouraged to consider mature heights when planting to avoid planting things that will block views down the road and to allow windowing, drop crotch and other pruning methods that won't damage the tree at the beneficiary's expense when asked. " Vice Chair Rosen also suggested that the Board send a parallel recommendation to the City Council that they consider, through 3 the Board if they prefer, addressing vegetation that is used as fence. While there are reasons why a hedge is desirable to a a property owner, neighbors, the community, etc., that is not always true. He recommended the following language be added: N CO) "Vegetation used as a fence be restricted to the maximum height allowed for fencing if there is a demonstrated cause by someone negatively affected by the greater height and for those that already exist at the expense of the person who c would benefit. " a Vice Chair Rosen explained that the language could be very narrowly defined to address situations where hedges block solar panels, result in the inability of a neighboring property owner to grow plants due to shading, block light from entering into a home, or reduce safety. This issue has been out there for a while and could be addressed as part of the proposed update. Board Member Monroe recalled the citizen comment/question regarding tree topping. He said his understanding is that there would be no penalty associated with a private property owner topping trees on his/her property. The penalty would come if you top a tree on someone else's property. Mr. Lien explained that tree topping is considered tree cutting and would be prohibited on properties that are not exempt from the Tree Code. Trees on properties that are exempt from the Tree Code, such as developed single-family properties with no critical areas, can be topped without a fine. However, topping is bad arboriculture practice and opens trees to rot and damage. On properties that are not exempt, a property owner could apply for a permit to remove a tree that is blocking view and then plant a tree that is more appropriate for the location. Board Member Pence asked about the cost associated with planting trees off site using money in the Tree Fund. He suggested that perhaps the per -tree fee should be attached to the actual cost of planting new trees elsewhere. Mr. Lien said he doesn't know the cost associated with purchasing and planting trees, but he could ask the Parks Department to respond. If the planting cost is reasonable, Board Member Pence observed that the City could plant more than one tree for each of the trees that are removed. Mr. Lien reminded them that, based on the proposed replacement ratio, more than one replacement tree would be required for most of the trees that are removed. He said that in some jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu programs are based on the cost for planting and maintaining a tree. When the concept was initially introduced to the Planning Board, the feedback was that developers would be more likely to find ways to retain and/or plant more trees on site if the dollar value is a little higher. Board Member Cloutier summarized that, as proposed, someone who has been topping a tree to protect a view would be allowed to continue to top the tree. However, new trees that are planted and eventually grow to block a view could not be cut down Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 240 7.1.d without a penalty. Mr. Lien referred to the last sentence of ECDC 23.10.040.E, (routine maintenance exemptions), which states that, "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone. " He explained that if a tree has been previously topped, a property owner could continue to do so back to the previously topped level. Whether or not a new tree that grows to block view would require a permit would depend on whether or not the property falls under any of the other exemptions. On developed single-family properties with no critical areas, trees could be topped without a permit, but it would still be considered poor arboricultural practice. On developed single-family properties with critical areas, a tree cutting permit would be required to replace the tree. Board Member Cloutier clarified that critical areas include steep slopes, properties near watersheds, etc. That is not the case in most of the City's neighborhoods. Mr. Lien noted the steep slopes on properties in the bowl area and explained that critical areas include erosion hazard areas (slopes between 15% and 40%). However, in the proposed code, the exemption was modified to exclude trees on properties with a slope of 25% or more. Developed single-family properties with slopes of less than 25% would be exempt from the tree code. Chair Robles asked if the Board is ready to send the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval or if more work is needed before that can happen. Mr. Chave said that is something the Board will have to decide. The Board can either make a recommendation at the end of the meeting or identify specific issues they would like staff to work on further. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, based on her own review of the proposal, as well as the written and oral public a testimony, she found that, whereas the general nature of the code rewrite is acceptable, it is time for the Planning Board to i support a more robust approach to retaining existing tree canopy and its habitat. Upon hearing from the citizens of Edmonds, she believes the current proposal falls short because it is limited to retaining only 30% of the existing tree inventory of the = original lot. If there is little inventory, there would be no gain for additional tree canopy. Instead, the City should encourage •2 retention and even increasing available tree canopy, which includes shrubs and ground cover, by proposing that subdivisions 3 provide 30% coverage of the lot to be tree canopy, typical of the Pacific Northwest forests, include retaining, which can count a towards the 30% of the significant trees and the understory shrubs and ground cover. This approach would be similar to the N Snohomish County regulations, which seemingly provide more coverage for tree canopy, understory and ground cover, along with flexibility for site design to meet the requirements. She expressed her belief that this approach would be a workable solution that would honor the goal of the UFMP towards zero net loss of the tree canopy and would provide developers with c flexibility. Increasing tree canopy habitat, which would be more than what exists in the current code, along with site design a flexibility, which the proposed update already addresses, would be a workable solution for Edmonds. She summarized that c she would be interested in having Snohomish County's approach being considered as part of the proposal. At the very least, s she would like it to be included as an item that deserves further attention if the Board decides to forward a recommendation on c the proposed Tree Code to the City Council. She would also like the City Council to give attention to the proposed replacement N 0 schedule, as well as Vice Chair Rosen's suggestion that language be included to address private view sheds. R Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many of the citizens who provided comments stressed the importance of tree retention. They are not as interested in replacement. She would rather have an approach that hinges on retention as opposed to replacement. Board Member Monroe summarized that Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting there is a preference for having a final result of density on the property at the end of the day. If there is a limited number of trees, a developer would be required to plant more trees than are there right now. To that extent, he suggested that the retention requirement be increased to 40% or 50% or 30% total density, whichever is greater. This would challenge the developers to figure out how to make that work and size the houses right to fit on the lots. He suggested that the Board ask staff to evaluate this option's impact on the cost of development. While the numbers might be high for an entire development, the per home cost would be consistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave commented that Mr. Lien's analysis had less to do with the number of homes and more to do with how many trees were on the property. The most expensive example was on a property that was being subdivided into four lots. The cost associated with the 10-lot example was far less. Board Member Monroe said his approach would raise the price of the 10-lot subdivision because a developer would no longer be allowed to take advantage of open grassland. It would force a minimum of 30% density when the project is completed. He noted that is the benchmark the City is trying to achieve. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 241 7.1.d Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that when she uses the words "tree coverage," she is looking at the site plan and wants to see where the trees have been maintained. Significant trees that are retained could go towards the count, but it would be evident on the site plan how much the site would create towards the City's total tree canopy. She said she is not as comfortable with the word "density" when applying it to Board Member Monroe's recommendation because the public better understands the coverage that is needed for the lot. Board Member Monroe said he understands her concern, but the UFMP specifically states that the City's current canopy is 30%. That same mathematical equation should be applied to properties that are being developed. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed. She pointed out that Snohomish County requires 30% coverage, and it is up to the developer to determine how that 30% will be provided on the site. This approach is more direct and emphasizes retention, which is what the citizens seem to prefer. Board Member Cheung recalled that, at the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Lien mentioned that the current proposal is only intended to address one topic of the UFMP. The Board could have a separate discussion on trees that are on private properties. Mr. Lien responded that the current proposal is focused on retaining trees with development. At this time, he can't say that another update will follow to address trees on developed properties. However, other steps will need to be taken to reach the goal of no net loss of overall tree canopy. These steps include educating property owners on the importance of retaining trees, providing vouchers for private property owners to plant trees, reviewing opportunities to plant more trees in city parks, updating the Street Tree Plan and creating incentive programs to encourage tree retention. Again, he said the primary focus of the current update is how to retain trees with development. Mr. Lien said he would need more information to create language to implement the concept put forward by Board Member Rubenkonig. Is she suggesting that 30% of the lot must have trees on it as canopy coverage, or would one very large big -leaf maple tree meet the requirement? While counting the existing trees and applying the replacement ratio would be easy to do, a 30% lot coverage requirement would be significantly more complicated to apply. Board Member Cheung said a number of citizens voiced concern that the proposed update doesn't do more to protect trees on private property, which is where the majority of the existing trees in the City are located. It would ease their concern if they N knew that the City would be considering other actions at a later date. He noted that the issue of view would be better addressed by private property tree regulations. Mr. Lien said the update would only regulate trees on private property as part of development. They could add a provision in ECDC 23.10.030 (Permits) that would limit the number of trees a developed c single-family property could remove during a set period of time. However, this would require the City to establish a tracking a system and additional code enforcement would be necessary. c Board Member Cheung recalled that, when the last Tree Code update was presented for a public hearing in 2015, there was significant opposition to the idea of regulating trees on developed single-family properties. He suggested the Commission focus on solving the immediate problem at hand, which is tree retention and replacement requirements associated with development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the current proposal addresses a concern that staff hears most frequently, which is clearcutting on properties that are being developed. However, the City Council may direct the staff and Planning Board to address trees on developed properties at a later time. Board Member Cheung said it is important that the public understand that this is the first step, and additional steps can be taken in the future that might address their other concerns. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that the beauty of Snohomish County's approach is that they give credit for the canopy size of any retained tree. This credit goes towards the total tree canopy that must be provided on the site. They also give credit towards species that are planted that will provide a healthy canopy within so many years. Snohomish County's approach appears to be creating mini Pacific Northwest forests around the County, which is healthy. Their approach appears to practice retention of the tree canopy and its understory shrubs and ground cover, which create the necessary habitat. She would like the City's code to focus on retention versus replacement, as well. Board Member Robles reminded the Board that the proposal before them relates strictly to tree retention and replacement as part of development. Any comments related to trees on private properties that are already developed are mute in this discussion. At this time, the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council with some caveats, or they could decide that the proposal needs more work and the recommendation could be postponed to a future meeting. Board Member Cloutier commented that, while the Snohomish County code emphasizes retention, it also has the exact same replacement consideration outlined in the draft proposal. If the trees are located where a structure needs to go, they cannot be Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 242 7.1.d retained. The 30% requirement is only applicable to one specific kind of lot. The requirement for a single-family home is 20%, and it goes down as low as 15% in urban areas. As Mr. Lien pointed out the goal of the Development Code should be no net loss, and increasing the tree canopy can be addressed by implementing the goals and policies outlined in the UFMP. As proposed, the trees could be shift from one side of the property to the other, new trees can be planted, or money can be paid into the Tree Fund for trees to be planted somewhere else. It is not the objective of this code to create new forests in the City. If they want to change the objective of the code, they will need to start all over. He expressed his belief that the proposed Tree Code adequately accomplishes what it is intended to: no net loss and requiring developers to pay for the offset. In terms of the best approach to meet the goals of the UFMP, Board Member Rubenkonig said she sees both options as equal. Option 1 would be to recommend the approach presented by Mr. Lien and Option 2 would be to consider Snohomish County's approach of requiring 30% retention. She cautioned that they need to be very mindful that development will either take away or add to the tree canopy. Although she always respects Board Member Cloutier's approach to make sure they are on firm ground and focused on what they are being tasked to do, she would have a hard time seeing the option outlined by Mr. Lien as being any different than the option she is recommending. Both options would meet the same objective. Board Member Crank commented that, if the Board decides to recommend approval of the proposal as currently drafted, she remains firmly opposed to the alternatives put forward by Mr. Lien that would reduce the replacement ratios, reduce the fee - in -lieu for each tree planted or place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Edmonds is a fairly expensive real estate area, and she doesn't foresee developers choosing to retain trees rather than paying into the Tree Fund regardless of the amount. Vice Chair Rosen concurred. Board Member Monroe commented that, after hearing from Board Members Rubenkonig and Cloutier, he is comfortable withdrawing his suggestion that they increase the retention requirement to 40% or 50%. However, he felt that Board Member Rubenkonig's suggestion is worth further exploration. He agreed with Mr. Lien that the replacement cost might be too high, and there needs to be a balance of property rights, community rights, views and the environment. Vice Chair Rosen asked if any of the Board Members would object to adding additional language to the Intent and Purposecm 0ii Section to address views. Mr. Lien pointed out that, without specific regulations that protect views within the code, it wouldn't make sense to have it in the Intent and Purpose Section. He sees this issue being addressed via education. For example, they c could educate property owners about planting the right trees in the right places. The Tree Board has been working on a tree a list that can be used as an education piece. Mr. Chave agreed that codes are not a good vehicle for messaging. Codes are c generally used to tell what is allowed and not allowed. Folding the view issue into the education piece would be a better s approach. Vice Chair Rosen respectfully disagreed. While he understands staff s point of view, views are such a high interest. c The draft code addresses trimming and maintenance, and views should be part of the equation. N 0 R Board Member Cloutier summarized that Vice Chair Rosen is suggesting that the City should be mindful of property rights and o people's desire to have a view and should make regulations that are aligned with that. However, he said he doesn't believe the issue should be addressed in this particular development code. There is nothing in the proposed update that would change the rules related to view, and there is nothing in the current code that addresses retaining and/or maintaining views. The proposed update would not grant any special rights or place any limitations based on view. He voiced concern that adding language stating that view is important would imply that properties with views would get special treatment, which is not the case. 0 m Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that they can use their meeting minutes to share their concerns with the City a Council. For example, the minutes could reflect that the Board is interested in reviewing regulations related to private view sheds. The minutes could also reflect that the Board is interested in regulating the height of hedges and bushes the same as a fence if used for privacy purposes on a lot's perimeter boundary. While the issues would not be addressed as part of their a recommendation on the Tree Code, they could emphasize the issues as warranting further consideration in the future. Vice Chair Rosen agreed that would be an appropriate approach. c a� BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THEIR t INTEREST IN REVIEWING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE VIEW SHEDS AND PRIVACY 0 SCREENS SUCH AS HEDGES AND BUSHES. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH Q CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 243 7.1.d Board Member Cloutier asked if Mr. Lien's alternatives for the tree replacement fee were incorporated into the language that is currently before the Board. Mr. Lien said they alternatives have not been incorporated into the draft code language. He suggested the Board specifically look at the replacement ratios, which is directly tied to the high fees in the examples he provided. He suggested that the replacement ratio he recommended in his presentation would be more appropriate. The larger trees (greater than 24 inches) would still be replaced at a ratio of 3:1. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Snohomish County code doesn't use ratios. Developments are simply required to provide 30% tree coverage. He suggested the City's measure of tree retention is better. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that would only be true if there are few trees on a property to retain. Board Member Cloutier observed that the current proposal would not require a developer to plant more trees than are currently located on the property, while the Snohomish County code would require a developer to plant additional trees to a minimum of 30% coverage. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the current proposal would base tree replacement on the inventory of the current trees on a lot. But if there are no trees, there would be no retention requirement or requirement to provide additional trees. This is a big negative for that approach. She noted that the public is tired of the number of trees that are being cut down for new subdivisions. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern about how the Snohomish County concept would be applied on a commercial lot in downtown Edmonds. It wouldn't make sense to require that 30% of the lot be covered with trees. Retaining the existing tree coverage would make more sense. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that requiring 30% tree coverage would be a proactive approach, recognizing that such things as utility easements, rights -of -way, etc. would be taken away from that. Mr. Lien advised the Board that they are not required to make a recommendation on the Tree Code tonight. He said he would d like more time to review the Snohomish County code to provide helpful feedback to the Board, and he is still a little confused = about how the current proposal is different than the proposal recommended by Board Member Rubenkonig. There are other •2 minor tweaks he would like to make before the document is forwarded to the City Council. He summarized that it appears the 3 majority of the Board wants to retain the $1,000 fee for each tree not planted, but they still need to provide feedback on the a replacement ratio. N ai Board Member Cheung asked staff to provide calculations of what the fee would be based on $1,000 per tree but with different replacement ratios. c The Board agreed to carry their deliberations over to the January 131h meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021 Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the citizen Planning Board has benefited from each and every Board Member who has given of their time, experience and hopes for the City of Edmonds. The Chair brings a unique approach to helping all Board Members participate fully and professionally. Her recommendation of Board Member Rosen as her nomination for the 2021 Chair of the citizen Planning Board would do no less. They already know his measure and have been rewarded by his presence and contribution. He will endeavor to lead the Board and encourage robust deliberations with fair outcomes. She said she welcomes his support and offer him hers in his role as the 2021 Chair. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER ROSEN TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR 2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER ROSEN AS THE 2021 CHAIR OF THE BOARD. Board Member Monroe commented that the duties of Vice Chair are leadership and engagement. He has known Board Member Crank for over five years and has found that she has these leadership capabilities. She is a member of a variety of community groups, including the Snohomish County Airport Commission and Snohomish County Tomorrow. She can do a great job as Vice Chair of the Planning Board. BOARD MEMBER MONROE NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CRANK TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR 2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER CRANK AS THE 2021 VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 244 7.1.d REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its deliberations on the draft Tree Code Update at their January 13' meeting. He advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will provide an update on January 27' PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles thanked the Board Members for allowing him to chair the Board during this fascinating time. The Board set their agenda and got some very important things done. The Board Members thanked Chair Robles for his leadership. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Rosen thanked the Board Members for their trust and kind words. He thanked Chair Robles for his leadership, particularly for engaging him in such a meaningful way as Vice Chair. He appreciates the way he advocated for the Board. He also appreciates his desire to engage more of the residents and increase collaboration with other boards and commissions. Vice Chair Rosen commented that in recent years, the country has experienced and observed the impacts of dysfunctional government organizations and individuals, and he has never observed the Board looking for either a Republican or Democratic answer. Rather, they have worked to search for the best answers. He has never seen the group seek to blame others, but only to accept personal and group responsibility for the job they have been given and the impacts of the decisions they make. Each Board Member has demonstrated grace and respect, and he appreciates how they model the best of how local and national government can and should be. Student Representative Bryan said he appreciates the diversity of perspectives that were acknowledged amongst the Board 3 during the hearing. The residents voiced a lot of concerns on a huge range of topics. For the most part, the Board discussed a them well and thoughtfully. He said he is proud to be part of a board that strives to do the right thing. N ai Board Member Pence announced that the City Council extended the duration of the Housing Commission to the end of January. They will be reporting their policy recommendations soon, and he expects the Planning Board will be tasked with reviewing G the recommendations to the extent they affect the code. This could be a time-consuming endeavor. a Board Member Crank thanked the Board for their vote as Vice Chair. She commented that 2020 has been an interesting year for her from a professional, community service and personal standpoint. She attributed a lot of her success on the Snohomish County Airport Commission to her experience on the Planning Board. She appreciates that the Board has remained functional throughout the pandemic. Everyone has had a passion to move forward and get as much done as possible, when they had every excuse to rest on their laurels and not get much done. This speaks a lot about each and every Board Member. She hopes the Board can continue its momentum into 2021. She particularly voiced appreciation to staff, who has had to adapt to a new way of doing business while still providing excellent support to the Board. Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 245 7.1.d ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. N M Planning Board Minutes December 9, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 246 7.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom January 13, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Daniel Robles Conner Bryan, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG Board Member Rubenkonig read the following statement: "Tonight, I say goodbye to the grand experience of serving on the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board with all of you. I've been prepared for being removed from the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board since Mike Nelson was elected Mayor. It is a peculiar emotion being called out by the City Council and the Mayor for removal from the Board. I found the process poorly conducted and fraught with wrong facts. How did it happen that four out of eight position terms were expiring in one year? The proverbial red flag should have gone up in the air, but many party to board appointments did not act. This was disappointing. Why didn't they act to protect the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board? The inaction led me to share the situation with the local newspaper, My Edmonds News, on December 28' Maybe you are wondering why would the Mayor and City Council fire a standing Board Member. Usually when a citizen volunteer opts to continue serving the City of Edmonds on a board, commission and/or committee, as I did, it is considered to be a plus for the City. If my having a dissenting opinion to a standing mayor was a consideration for dismissal, then past Mayors Fahey, Haakenson, and Earling had plenty of reason to not renew my Board appointments, but they did not. I'd like to believe they valued discourse, including disagreement. Throughout my 14 years, starting in 1996, our youngest daughter was three years old, I committed to serving the people of Edmonds, not the elected officials. Allow me time for a quick back story. As a stay-at-home mom, like many women in our community, I gave volunteer support to many non-profit groups during the years of child N ri Packet Pg. 247 7.1.d raising. Getting back into my profession took 16 years, but my citizen volunteer work on the Architectural Design Board helped me keep my mark in the game. Ten years later, I was asked to apply for the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, and here I am six years later. I have thoroughly enjoyed and greatly benefited from Board work and the years of challenge, including serving with male -dominated boards. Being voted as chair and vice chair of both boards showed Edmonds can support women as leaders. Now, here I am wanting to share my farewell remarks to this fine City Board. I'm proud of how we have been proactive on affordable housing, elevating it to a City concern. And we have been very attentive to the concerns of the community about the Urban Forest Management Plan. Each of us has a framework in which we look and analyze the known facts. I describe mine as a sailing ship, navigating rough seas to a safe harbor. My life experiences inform my perspective, the rigging. Some of those experiences are shared by others, raising children in troubling times, pushing hard to change careers, starting a business during the recession, and reinventing oneself for work. Not easy life experiences. Why am I sharing this? Because I am defending the Planning Board's ability to also help the City move through a very difficult and necessary time of cultural change. In order to help the community move through difficult times requires a ship to befitted out to navigate the rough seas. Navigating relies on a crew of others to safely move forward, and that is how I witnessed the Board handling challenging issues. Another back story. In my first years on the Architectural Design Board there were plenty of contentious issues, plenty. Emotions reigned high at the meetings, and police monitored those sessions. I encountered strong push a back from the Director of the Port of Edmonds, the then City Attorney, and the ten all -male City Council. At three i separate occasions, each of those men took the time to talk to me and explain that their push back was not personal. My response, it feels it. It took me more years than I'd like to share to understand what they were saying to me. In = essence, it was `when we meet on opposites sides of an issue, I'm doing my job and I expect you to do the same.' I •2 now know dissention and discussion is key to the best decision. I slowly learned to not take opposition so 3 personally. When I've been on the dais listening intently to citizens, I know they have the right to talk and to a disagree. I champion their right to do so. The need for rigorous rules of engagement is vital for Edmonds. I valued N each and every opportunity to listen to the community, and I valued each and every opportunity to discuss (to really argue) with all of you, my fellow Board Members. I learned not to take public engagement personally. Yet, being fired, is just that. It is personal. I campaigned for the Mayor's opponent. Opposition to this mayor is something he appears to take personally. In my experience, opposition, dissention and disagreement, when shared in discussions and deliberations, leads to the best decisions possible. But that is not what he or his partisans on City Council are looking for in an appointment. This upsets my sensibilities on behalf of all of Edmonds. My parting words to you fine people, I hope you, as an Edmonds Citizen Planning Board continue your history of conducting yourself in the arena of discussion and debate. Listen to the words of Joseph Joubert from 1754 to 1824: It is better to debate a question without settling than to settle a question without debating it.' Carry on making the tough decision on behalf of we, the citizens of Edmonds. Thank you for your time of service. And now, according to ECC Section 10.40.020(A)(4), I congratulate Roger Pence, previously referred to as alternate to the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, in his new standing as Position 5. I leave you to conduct necessary citizen business as members of the Board. " All of the Board Members thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her service. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA A discussion of the Planning Board Membership Roster was added to the agenda, and the remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 248 7.1.d AUDIENCE COMMENTS Marjie Fields, Edmonds, commented that many Edmonds citizens are relying heavily on a new and improved Tree Code to stop the constant clear cutting that always seems to accompany development. Unfortunately, it appears that the current Tree Code draft is not designed to achieve the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) goal of no net loss of tree canopy. Lacking an analysis of various measures in the draft, such as exempting private property, it will not actually be possible to determine what will be gained or lost. She cautioned against the Planning Board finalizing their recommendation on the Tree Code without an accompanying examination of the implications for each restriction and exemption. Will the exemptions and restrictions increase, reduce or maintain tree canopy? Without this data, she doesn't think it is possible to evaluate the Tree Code. She asked them to take more time before making a recommendation. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, observed that a Tree Code should address all of the trees in the City, not just a small minority of them. The draft code only addresses 3% of the residential land in Edmonds (the land that is currently undeveloped). He reminded the Board that the stated intent and purpose of the draft code is to implement the goals of the UFMP, which is to enhance and retain or no net loss of our forest canopy. He expressed his belief that the draft code is inadequate to perform the stated intent and purpose. The draft code would have been much more useful if enacted 10 years ago when there was more undeveloped land. Now there is only 3% of the land that is undeveloped. As time goes forward and more development occurs, the code will have less and less impact to the point where it will have no impact at all. He said he was very disappointed to see the relaxation of the tree replacement criteria. There aren't that many large trees in Edmonds, and he would encourage the Board to go back to the criteria of the previous draft. Every significant tree lost to development should require multiple replacement trees. That is the gold standard of forest management and tree replacement strategies. Mr. Phipps stressed that if the code is going to be codified, it should be meaningful and address all of the trees in Edmonds. = He noted that 80% of the forest canopy is on developed lots, but the draft code totally ignores these trees. He cautioned 3 against the Planning Board passing forward this empty and insignificant Tree Code. The current draft is simply a token and a symbolic effort to make the Board feel good. It does very little to stop the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He emphasized N that a flawed result would be worse than no code at all because it gives the impression that something was done. The code, c i as written, will do very little to decrease the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He asked the Board to spend more time on the Tree Code before making a recommendation to Council. c Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he spent 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and was involved in doing a draft tree ordinance, which hasn't been adopted yet. The commission spent a lot of time looking at what other communities are doing in the region and country. He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, he noted that Portland, Oregon requires that developers save all trees 20 inches and larger. If they are removed, they must be replaced inch -for -inch. They established a replacement fee of $350 per inch of the tree removed. Folsom, California's tree code is based on the idea that the larger the tree, the greater its value in terms of providing ecoservices to the city. He said he provided a copy of Folsom's study, noting that they recently adopted a fee of $250 per inch for trees that are removed. They estimate their cost was $389 per tree, based on not just the acquisition and planting, but also tree maintenance. The draft Tree Code requires a 2-year bond, and the City of Seattle's proposed ordinance would increase the bond requirement from 3 to 5 years. The consensus is that, with climate change, it is not enough to plant trees. They must be maintained, and a much larger time frame is needed to make sure this happens. While requiring native species for replacement trees is good, they must also keep in mind that climate change is affecting a number of native species, making their survival difficult. Mr. Zemke commented that if the City proceeds with the proposed replacement requirement, which uses increments of 8 inches, he strongly recommended they add an additional category to require four replacement trees for trees that are 32 to 40 inches in diameter and five replacement trees for trees that are 40 inches or greater. He emphasized that the Tree Code should recognize the significant benefits that the larger trees provide. It will be a long time before the replacement trees will provide the same benefit. He noted that, as proposed, the Tree Code would only apply to tree removal associated with development. However, Portland requires permits to remove trees on all private properties, as does Lake Forest Park, Kirkland and a number of others cities in the region. Chris Yake, Edmonds, asked when the video from the meeting would be posted, and Mr. Chave said it should be available within a week. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 249 7.1.d John Marante said he is a past resident of Edmonds and now works for a developer. He was participating in the meeting to observe what is going on with the Tree Code. Nancy Winston, Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds and is very concerned about how strong the City's commitment is to make sure that future development is not just clear cut. She is a concerned citizen and a tree lover. Nicholas Capos, Edmonds, recalled that he attended the public hearing for the previous Tree Code update. The proposal was very controversial and there were so many opinions that some of the attendees continued their discussions in the parking lot until 1 a.m. He voiced concern that, since that time, the process has gone underground even though the outcome will impact everyone who owns property with trees. He owns property with a home and a large number of trees that he cares very much about. However, he believes the proposed regulations would be onerous and severely restrictive. He reviewed that the UFMP outlines the following goals: • Incentivize the planting and protection of trees on private property. • Create a program for giving away trees or tree vouchers. • Establish a property tax rebate or stormwater utility rate reduction for properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy. • Implement other techniques that provide financial recognition to the benefits of tree planting and protection. • Provide resources to the community to educate and inform them of tree planting and care. • Provide signage and other information about significant trees. • Establish a Tree Board. • Develop community education materials. • Participate in original tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to volunteers. • Report annually to the City Council. Mr. Capos referred to Question 17 of the survey the City recently conducted regarding the Tree Code, which asked, "When N private properties are developed or improved, trees on property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?" Of the 167 respondents, 53.89% answered yes. Eight did not c respond to the question, 17.95% indicated that the City should not concern itself with trees on private property, and 28% t weren't sure. If you subtract the number of people who didn't respond, you end up with a 51% majority that favor requiring property owners to preserve trees on private parcels. That is not much of a majority. He summarized that this incredible set s of restrictions, fines and fees can eventually financially impact every property owner in Edmonds that has trees. While it *� starts off with developers, the stated goal is to apply it to developed private properties, too. The impact could be thousands of N dollars per lot. He said he wants to build a house for his disabled son on the lot next to him. By the time he pays the building c fees, stormwater fees, and tree replacement fees, he could be looking at $75,000 to $80,000 before any construction can start c on the house. tA Again, Mr. Capos voiced concern that the issue has gone underground and hasn't included the institutional discussion about taking away private property rights. He has paid property taxes on his trees for 25 years, and he felt it was a violation of his property rights for the City to tell him what he can and cannot do with them. He suggested that this entire subject needs to receive a much wider vetting to the public. The meetings haven't been published in any of the local newspapers, and no information has been disseminated to the property owners via the mail. Only 12 people were present at the last meeting to comment on a proposal that would have a deep financial impact to property owners into the far distant future. Richard Ellison, Seattle, said he is a semi -retired, part-time adjunct instructor at community colleges in the region. He said he believes it is very important to protect trees on private property. They are part of the environmental infrastructure. He voiced concern that the general way of doing things continues to allow more and more loopholes for developers to remove the largest trees. While he is glad the City is trying to categorize trees in a fashion, there needs to be a better definition for trees between 6 inches and a specimen tree. Trees that are 12 inches in diameter and greater provide a lot of habitat and canopy. They are looking at summer record heat and fires, and cities need to plan for a future of climate change. They need to figure out how to preserve the large trees and still allow more housing to be developed. He suggested that one option is to allow taller buildings or to allow development to be reconfigured on lots so that trees can be saved. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 250 7.1.d Mr. Ellison also encouraged the City to prohibit tree topping. Trained professionals know how to create a view through a tree canopy without creating hazardous tree conditions in the future. He also encouraged the City to do as much planting as possible. He noted that the larger trees capture a lot of rain and slow the stormwater runoff so it doesn't get into the system as quickly. The City of Seattle is currently paying people to build cisterns for free on their properties in an effort to collect water during heavy rains so it doesn't all come into the stormwater system at once. He suspects that Edmonds is also experiencing problems with stormwater runoff. Rather than having to build additional infrastructure to capture the runoff, Edmonds should retain the existing large trees that are doing an excellent job. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Vice Chair Crank asked if canopies for outdoor dining will become standard in the downtown. Mr. Chave said the City Council adopted an interim ordinance, which provided some new standards for streeteries and outdoor dining. Business owners are starting to submit applications, and he suspects there will be more as time goes by. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Chair Rosen thanked the members of the public who provided comments regarding the draft Tree Code. He also reminded the Board Members that they have received a number of written comments since the public hearing on December 9t''. Other people have expressed their opinions via letters to local newspapers, etc. According to his count, the Board has heard from 96 citizens regarding the draft Tree Code. He emphasized that the citizen voices have been heard by the Board and will influence their recommendation. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree 3 retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree a fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He reviewed the UFMP goals that are N addressed in the draft update as follows: • Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft Tree Code covers all of these topics. • Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. While this goal was taken under consideration when the draft Tree Code was developed, it is understood that the regulations, in and of themselves, cannot achieve no net loss of canopy within the City. The City will have to do other things, such as education. The Tree Board is doing a good job of education and outreach but more work is needed. • Goal LC — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The draft regulations will supplement the City's Critical Area Regulations. • Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. The draft regulations will establish a Tree Fund that will be funded by penalty fees and the fee -in -lieu program. • Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. Mr. Lien recalled that, following the December 91 public hearing, the Planning Board requested additional information about the proposed tree replacement ratios and Snohomish County's coverage approach. He referred to the tree replacement requirements in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.080. As proposed, replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed and the replacement ratio would be based on the diameter of the tree removed. At the public hearing, he provided a number of examples of how the replacement ratios would apply and the resulting fees into the Tree Fund. While he felt the fees would be too high, the Planning Board did not seem concerned. He suggested other options, including modifying the replacement ratio or modifying the dollar value per tree for the fee -in -lieu. The Planning Board indicated they wanted to retain the $1,000 fee per tree, but they were willing to consider an alternative replacement ratio. As requested by the Board, he shared a chart showing how the updated alternative replacement ratio compares to the previously proposed replacement ratio: Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 251 7.1.d Previously Proposed Replacement Ratio (Option 1 Updated Alternative Replacement Ratio (Option 2 6 to 10 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required 6 to 14 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required 10.1 to 14 inches DBH* -- 2 replacement trees required 14.1 to 24 inches DBH* — 2 replacement trees required Greater than 14 inches DBH* -- 3 replacement trees required Greater than 24 inches DBH* — 3 replacement trees required *Diameter at Breast Height Mr. Lien reviewed the four examples that were provided at the December 9t' public hearing again to illustrate how both Option 1 and Option 2 would impact the Tree Fund payment required for new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. In each example, he pointed out the number of existing trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments. He also provided information showing how the required Tree Fund payments would compare to Parks and Traffic Impact Fees. He summarized the following: • New Single -Family Development — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 22 to 19, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $16,000 to $13,000. Park and Traffic i Impact fees would be almost $9,000. • Four -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 58 to 50, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $58,000 to $50,000. Park and Traffic Impact fees would p` be almost $27,000. • Ten -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 98 to 84, cc and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $98,000 to $84,000. Park and Traffic Impact Fees would = be almost $63,000. • Conservation Subdivision Design — Applying the current zoning regulations, Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 315 to 222, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $315,000 to 3 a $222,000. Applying the proposed conservation subdivision design regulations would allow a lot more trees to be retained. Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 202 to 141, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $202,000 to $141,000. The park and traffic impact fees for both options would be about $33,000. Board Member Monroe asked how the park and traffic impact fees are calculated. Mr. Lien responded that the City only has two impact fees (traffic and parks). For new single-family residences, the traffic impact fee is $6,249 per unit and the park impact fee is $2,334, and credit is given for existing homes. In the examples he provided, the fees were calculated based on the number of new residential units being constructed. He explained that both fees were established based on a lengthy analysis, and the City's fees are about average compared to other jurisdictions in the area. Board Member Monroe commented that the traffic and park impact fees are the same for each unit regardless of design, whereas the draft Tree Code is intended to influence behavior and incentivize developers to retain trees. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that a fee of $10,000 to $20,000 per unit sounds appropriate. He would like the fee to be high enough that developers are encouraged to reconfigure lots to save trees whenever possible. If the fee is not high enough, most developers will simply choose to pay the fee and fold it into the price of the home. Mr. Lien pointed out that the proposed subdivision design flexibility would allow developers to cluster the lots and retain the existing trees. Board Member Monroe summarized that Option 1 is more conservation minded and would make it more difficult to remove trees, and Option 2 would be a more liberal approach. He said he leans towards being more conservation minded, making it more difficult to remove trees in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained that Option 1 would likely result in fewer trees being removed. If more trees are retained, the potential fee -in -lieu payment would go down. If developers want to reduce the amount required for the Tree Fund, they will find a way to retain and/or plant more trees. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE REPLACEMENT RATIO. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bryan said he supports Mr. Zemke's idea that the replacement ratio categories should be expanded to require more replacement trees when trees greater than 32 DBH are removed. This would reduce the potential canopy loss in the City without further complicating the code. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 252 7.1.d Board Member Robles observed that the traffic and park impact fees are flat fees, property taxes are based on the assessed value of the home, and, as proposed, the tree replacement fee would be based on the size of tree. He asked if there has been any discussion about basing the replacement fee on the value of a property. For example, a higher replacement fee might be appropriate if cutting down trees exposes a view and significantly increases the value of the homes that are built. On the other hand, the higher fee might not be appropriate for development of low-income housing. Mr. Lien said the Board did discuss this concept, but he is not sure how it could be implemented. He explained that when subdivision applications are reviewed, staff does not require specifics about the homes that will be developed. Implementing the concept would require appraisals with each application to identify the potential value of the property after subdivision and development. Chair Rosen suggested that the Board should focus on taking action on the current motion, recognizing that Board Member Robles' idea could be presented as a separate item for discussion at a later time, as appropriate. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board review Snohomish County's Coverage Approach. He met with Board Member Rubenkonig following the meeting to get a better understanding of what she was recommending. He noted that the draft code includes a retention requirement. However, if there are no trees on a site, there would be no retention requirement. Snohomish County's approach requires 30% coverage post development. Developers are required to retain 30% of the canopy coverage. If replanting is required, a 30% coverage would be required at the end of 20 years. Snohomish County's code doesn't include a definition for canopy coverage, but it appears to mean the portion of the site covered by a vertical protection of the tree crowns as expressed at a percentage of the area of the site. That means that, looking down on the site, the tree canopy needs to cover 30% of the site. You could have a single tree with a large canopy that covers 30% of the site or you could have two or three trees that provide the same amount of canopy. The coverage requirement is calculated based on the area of the circle and allows credit for retention of certain trees. Mr. Lien said he drafted some regulations based on Snohomish County's model. He kept the same percentage requirement N (30% for new single-family and subdivisions and 25% for multifamily), but changed from "retention" to "canopy coverage." CO) The table on how to measure tree canopy was copied from Snohomish County's code. There would be two options for measuring the existing tree canopy: Option 1 would require a tree survey, measuring the canopy of each tree and calculating c the total area; and Option 2 would require an aerial estimation. Calculating the required new canopy would depend on the a species of the trees that are replanted. A developer would need to calculate the radius of the canopy of each proposed tree at c 20 years maturity and multiply the area by the number of trees to be planted to obtain the total canopy area. s Mr. Lien cautioned that Snohomish County's model would be difficult to administer. It is much easier to count the number of trees than to calculate the canopy of each of the trees that are removed and replanted. The Snohomish County code offers credits for existing trees, for example: • Individual significant trees retained on a site shall be counted at 125% of the total actual canopy area. • For clusters or stands of five or more trees, each tree shall be counted at 150% of the actual canopy area. • For clusters or stands of five or more significant trees, each tree shall be counted at 200% of its actual canopy area. • Retained trees located within no more than 20 feet of a rain garden or a bio-swale on site shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy area. • Retained significant trees qualified to receive flow control credits shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy area. Mr. Lien noted that the Snohomish County Model doesn't have a replacement requirement like what is proposed in the draft Tree Code. If implemented, the replacement ratios discussed earlier in the meeting would need to be eliminated from the code. The fee -in -lieu program could be retained for situations where the coverage requirement could not be met on site, but it would be complicated to apply. For example, a developer could avoid paying a fee -in -lieu by planting one big -leaf maple with a large canopy instead of multiple other tree species with smaller canopies. Mr. Lien summarized that, if the Planning Board wants to pursue the Snohomish County model, it would take at least one more meeting. While he drafted initial code language, he would need to review the rest of the code to identify other sections that would be impacted. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 253 7.1.d Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Lien to share staff s recommendation regarding the Snohomish County Model. Mr. Lien U said he prefers the draft Tree Code for ease of implementation. The Snohomish County Model would be very complicated to p administer and require more work on the part of developers and staff. Board Member Monroe asked if staff believes the A Snohomish County Model would be consistent with or go beyond the UFMP goals. Mr. Lien answered that the Snohomish County Model would be consistent with the UFMP goals, but the draft Tree Code would also be consistent. The difference is that the Snohomish County Model would require trees to be planted as part of development even on properties that have no co existing trees. The draft Tree Code would not. Board Member Monroe observed that implementing the Snohomish County Model would likely result in a net gain, which goes beyond the UFMPs no -net -loss goal. Mr. Lien agreed it would result in a net gain for properties that have no trees. c 0 Vice Chair Crank asked if the Snohomish County Model would be better from a long-term standpoint as opposed to a short- term standpoint. Mr. Lien referred back to the example he shared earlier of a typical 4-lot subdivision with an existing canopy coverage of about 40%. Applying the draft Tree Code, the end result would likely be a 30% canopy coverage plus a $58,000 payment into the Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund must be spent on tree planting within the City of Edmonds. He suggested that the proposed Tree Code would result in more trees being planted because of the fee -in -lieu program, which would likely go away if the Snohomish County Model is adopted. L Vice Chair Crank recalled that in past conversations there appeared to be a consensus that the City's code should be in line a with Snohomish County's code. However, doing that might result in more work for the staff. The question is, would the L extra work be worth it. Mr. Lien responded that most of the cities he researched did not use a coverage requirement approach. Some have a density requirement and others use a tree retention approach similar to the draft Tree Code. Some = jurisdictions use a tree credit approach, as well. Vice Chair Crank summarized that the City of Edmonds wouldn't be the "odd person out" if they were to implement the draft Tree Code. a Chair Rosen said there appears to be consensus amongst the Board that the approach outlined in the currently draft Tree Code N is appropriate. The remainder of the Board concurred. C Mr. Lien concluded his report by reminding the Board that the draft Tree Code update was primarily focused on retention with development. The primary complaint the City has received over the years has been about properties being clear cut when developed. He acknowledged that the draft Tree Code does not implement all of the UFMP goals, and more will need to be done to implement the UFMP. Potential ideas include pursuing more incentives and education opportunities and the creation of a heritage tree program. The draft Tree Code is intended to implement the first goal of the UFMP, which is to develop tree regulations to retain more trees with development. Board Member Monroe asked if it is fair to say that if the City Council wants to pursue tree regulations for already developed private properties it will come back to the Planning Board for consideration and a recommendation. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Chair Rosen asked if there would be additional opportunities for public input after the Planning Board forwards its recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered that there would be another public hearing at the City Council level. As per the current schedule, the draft Tree Code Update would be introduced to the City Council on January 19'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 261 BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT TREE CODE UPDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Rosen invited Board Member Robles to comment further on his earlier suggestion that the tree replacement requirement could be based on property value. Board Member Robles said he has been pondering the citizen input and how to distribute the impact in a more justifiable way. He suggested the discussion would be more relevant if and when the Board considers tree replacement requirements for private properties that have already been developed. He shared an example of a neighboring property owner who cut down several significant trees to create a view, which enabled him to sell his property Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 254 7.1.d for a much higher value. Vice Chair Crank pointed out that the City cannot legislate behavior. Board Member Robles agreed, but potential solutions might include incentives and education. He commented that the draft Tree Code Update is a good first start. CLIMATE GOALS PLANNING — STATUS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION Mr. Lien reviewed that the goal was to update the Climate Action Plan in 2020. The pandemic postponed the update, which is now scheduled to occur in 2021. The City has hired a consultant, Environmental Science Association (ESA), to help draft the plan. ESA has already completed the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and created the tracking tool that was previously presented to the Planning Board. In addition, the City has consulted with Cascadia to assist with the public engagement program. Cascadia has been helping with the Citizen Housing Commission. Mr. Lien reported that, currently, staff is working to develop a website that is specific to the Climate Action Plan Update, which should be live by January 21". An article on the Climate Action Plan Update will be published in the City's next quarterly newsletter, and a virtual open house will take place in February to re -introduce the topic to the public. A community workshop is scheduled to occur in March, and the City will also kick off an on-line survey in March. Following the open house, workshop and survey, ESA will begin drafting the update. He said he anticipates a second workshop in the fall, with the goal of having a Climate Action Plan Update that is ready for City Council review by the end of 2021. He will provide regular updates as the process moves forward. Chair Rosen commented that, as work continues on the Tree Code and Climate Action Plan, it is important to consider the d efforts of the Housing Commission, the Tree Board, the Climate Protection Committee, the Conservation Advisory = Committee, Architectural Design Board and the City Council. The work from all of these groups is interconnected, and they •2 all need to work together to address the City's goals. Mr. Lien said all of the groups mentioned have been identified as 0 stakeholders in the Public Engagement Plan, and staff will reach out to all of them. Tackling the issue of climate change will a touch on all aspects of society. In addition to code changes, people will have to make personal decisions. N ri PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Board Member Pence noted that there has been a problem with keeping track of the term expirations of each of the Planning Board Members, and it resulted in a situation last month where, according to the staff report, the terms of four of the eight Planning Board Members expired at the end of 2020. The that established the Planning Board is very clear that only two terms expire every year; but somehow, monitoring the terms ran askew. He suggested the Board get it back on track with the original code so that two terms expire each year. He said he sent the Board Members a screen grab of a roster that was created by Board Member Rubenkonig with some help from Ken Reidy. He invited staff to review the roster for accuracy and share their ideas for addressing the problem. The Board could continue the discussion at the next meeting. Chair Rosen asked the best way to address the situation. Mr. Chave responded that for the past 10 years, the current system has tracked each of the 4-year term limits. He said he reviewed the original ordinance that identified term expirations for each year, with new terms starting on January 1 st. At least half of the current positions track with the original ordinance, but some got off track. He suggested that the discrepancy likely has something to do with replacing members mid-term or moving people into expired terms. He noted that there are a variety of options to address the problem, but it will need to be sorted out by the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney. Board Member Cheung asked who is responsible to track term expirations. Mr. Chave explained that the mayor makes recommendations and the City Council affirms the appointments, so the responsibility is shared. Over the past 10 years when appointments were made, the terms and expirations were usually clearly stated. Board Member Pence recalled that, when he was appointed to the Planning Board by Mayor Earling 1.5 years ago, nothing was said by anyone at any point as to his term on the Board. He didn't have the presence of mind to inquire at that time. He reviewed all of the paperwork associated with his appointment and confirmation and found nothing about the term. Member Pence said he understands that it is up to the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney to address the problem, but he asked if staff would provide a recommendation. Mr. Chave indicated he couldn't answer that question because he hasn't been part of the discussions. Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 255 7.1.d Chair Rosen summarized that Board Member Pence's original concern was getting the term expirations back on track. However, he also voiced concerns related to communication and who is responsible for addressing the problem. If the Board's primary concern is getting the Planning Board Member Roster straightened out so it is consistent with the original intent of the code that established the Planning Board, he recommended the Board send a request to the Mayor asking that the terms be clarified and standardized consistent with the code. Vice Chair Crank thanked Board Member Pence for bringing the issue forward. She agreed with Chair Rosen that addressing the problem will be an administrative task. Other than understanding the accurate terms, there is no need for the Planning Board to be involved in the matter. She asked that staff update the roster as needed and present it to the Board at the next meeting. Board Member Cheung suggested that it would be helpful if the roster that is provided on the Planning Board page of the City's website indicated what position each person serves in. This might make it easier to track the terms. Chair Rosen summarized that the Board is asking the City Council to clarify the terms, identify start and end dates of each term to bring them into compliance with the code and then document the roster. Board Member Cloutier recalled that historically when the Board elected new officers at the end of the year, staff provided a roster of Planning Board positions and term dates. This should become standard practice for the Board. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said he has used the roster over the past 10 years, and the rosters have tracked with the actions the City Council has taken when appointing new members. Board Member Cloutier suggested they could add another column to the roster to verify the years of rotation. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen reviewed that the January 27t1i meeting agenda will include an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural N Services Department and a presentation on the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan update focus recommendations. The February 10' meeting agenda will include a presentation on a potential code amendment to allow c unit lot subdivisions in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, as well as a review and discussion on code update work (EV a Charging Charging). c 0 s Mr. Chave announced that the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance on outdoor dining on private property, and c the issue will come before the Planning Board in the near future. N 0 0 Board Member Pence pointed out that the Planning Board typically holds a retreat each year where they consider the Board's o long-term activities and agenda. However, the retreat is not currently listed on the extended agenda. Chair Rosen said he intends for the Board to meet with the City Council in February or March to discuss their priorities and how they will impact the Board's extended agenda. Mr. Chave said that, generally, the Chair and Vice Chair meets with staff to review the schedule and identify an appropriate date for the retreat. Typically, the retreat takes place in the spring. Chair Rosen said he would work with Vice Chair Crank to set up a meeting with staff to discuss the retreat and report back to the Board. R 0 m Board Member Robles pointed out that the Planning Board page on the City's website needs to be updated to reflect the a leadership changes that were made. He asked if the student representative has been added to the list to receive Planning Board emails. Mr. Bryan said he has been receiving Planning Board emails. Mr. Chave agreed to make sure the website is updated. a PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS r c a� Chair Rosen referred to the disgrace that recently occurred at the nation's capital, as well as other state capitals. He said it t was a horrible day for our country, and we are better than the violence, sedition and insurrection that took place. We cannot tolerate this type of behavior, and they must put an end to it. They must also put an end to the racism that was clearly on Q display on that day. Monday is Martin Luther King Day, and he encouraged each of the Board Members to work on creating a community that is free of hatred, injustice and poverty. m Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 256 7.1.d Chair Rosen emphasized that, from his count, there are 17 boards, commissions and committees, adding up to 144 community members who volunteer to serve. He recognized that they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council, and their job is to provide them good information so they can make good decisions. The value of the volunteer groups is incredible. The volunteer force is the secret sauce that is the engine of a good community. On the Planning Board, the hourly rates if the City were paying for their service would run to at least $500 an hour. It would seem the City should create an environment where they recruit and retain the best possible talent and that they feel appreciated. We failed recently and we can do better. Chair Rosen thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her incredible service. She was passionate and showed up and will be missed. Chair Rosen commented that being part of a community means showing up and participating, just like the individuals did tonight regarding the Tree Code. He encouraged members of the public to show up and have an opinion at public workshops and hearings, to serve on the boards, commissions and committees, and to run for office. It works better when the load is shared. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Bryan announced that January 27t' will be his last meeting as student representative to the Edmonds Planning Board. He L said that while representing the youth of Edmonds on the Planning Board over nearly the past 2 years has provided him with valuable professional experience and the satisfaction of community involvement, it has become clear that he no longer = intends to pursue a career in urban development. Consequently, he wishes to devote his time to activities that align more •2 closely with his interests. Moreover, he felt it would be unfair for him to maintain the position when there are undoubtedly 3 students in the community who could engage more meaningfully with the Planning Board with respect to their own a professional aspirations. He thanked all Board Members and City staff for the experience and wished the Board and City N success in the future. CO) Board Member Robles commented that Mr. Bryan did a great job as student representative. He served his community and was as good if not better than any student representative. He thanked him for his service, and invited him to rely on Board Members for recommendations in the future. Board Member Monroe welcomed Board Member Pence as a Planning Board Member rather than the alternate. He said he would miss Board Member Rubenkonig, who had passion and a breadth of knowledge that lined up will with the Board's goals. He complimented Chair Rosen for a well -run meeting. Lastly, he said he has been impressed by Mr. Bryan's professionalism as he shared his viewpoints on a host of issues. Board Member Cheung also thanked Mr. Bryan and said he was the best student representatives the Board has had. He was sorry to see him leave the Board. He encouraged him to find other opportunities where he could share his skills with the community. He said he was surprised to learn that Board Member Rubenkonig was leaving the Board, especially on such sad terms after serving the community for a number of years. She has been a great voice on the Board. He said he is looking forward to having Chair Rosen and Vice Chair Crank lead the group. Vice Chair Crank also thanked Mr. Bryan for his service on the Board. She agreed with Chair Rosen's comments. As someone who works with non-profit organizations, she understands that volunteers are the lifeblood. They need to treat all volunteers with the respect they deserve. She was not happy to be the person that had to tell Board Member Rubenkonig that her time was over. It was a surprise for all of the Board Members. She expressed her hope that they can learn to do better in how they serve one another. Vice Chair Crank echoed Chair Rosen's comments about what has been happening in our country. It is not the way she wants the country to go into 2021, but she anticipates it may get worse before it gets better. They also need to look locally, and treat each other well. She received two very disturbing images on social media during the meeting. It makes her sad that there is bad behavior in Edmonds. They must remember that bad behavior is everywhere and Edmonds is not exempt. They need to call it out and address it as they see it. She hopes the community can get better from the inside out. She also Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 1 I Packet Pg. 257 7.1.d reminded them that Monday is Martin Luther King Day, which is typically a day of service. Obviously, the pandemic limits the amount of physical service they can do. She wrote a letter to My Edmonds News, providing some great suggestions for things that can be done while in your home, either by yourself or with family members, to challenge the equality and equity piece they are trying to all do together. Board Member Pence agreed with the comments made by his fellow members. However, he expanded on the comments made by Vice Chair Crank about the problems in Edmonds and the need for much more vigorous conversation. The community needs to be talking about the issues amongst themselves on something more substantive than the comments read under My Edmonds News articles. He doesn't have an easy proposal for accomplishing that, but they need to work at building the civic energy of the City more. This can be done by people talking amongst themselves using the technologies that are available since they cannot meet together. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. N CO) T- Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 258 7.1.e From: Bill Phioos To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Fw: Proposed Tree Code Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 6:43:32 PM ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> To: citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Edmonds City Council <council@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 06:28:36 PM PDT Subject: Proposed Tree Code Greetings Planning Board members; A typical Tree Code has three main requirements :. 1.) Requires a percentage of significant trees to be saved when new development is done on unimproved parcels. 2.) Requires a limit on the number of significant trees that an existing developed property owner can cut down per year. 3.) Requires replacement tree planting for any significant tree lost for any reason, anywhere at any time. The bigger the tree, the more replacement trees required to be planted. While looking at the proposed Tree Code submitted by staff, I clearly see the first requirement addressed on page 6 section C. 1. 1 would encourage the City to make substantial penalties for developers who want to opt out of requirements by paying a fee into the tree fund ( section C. 4.) Otherwise developers will just opt out of requirements by paying fees that are insignificant in cost to them. As for the second requirement , i don't see it addressed anywhere in the proposed Tree Code. This needs to be addressed in any proposed tree code. What i see happening is people moving here and buying an existing home where the property has a large number of significant conifers and the new owners immediately clear cut all, or most, of the trees on their new property. This practice needs to be curtailed by including restrictions in the number of trees a person can cut down per year. A typical number is 3 significant trees may be cut per year for a 10,000 square foot lot and 6 trees per year on a 20,000 square foot lot. As for the third requirement; i would encourage the City to require multiple replacement trees be planted for each significant tree lost depending on the size of the tree cut. We need to realize that a sapling replacement tree won't really be a replacement tree until decades later. An example is the loss of many large trees due to the building of the light rail transit system through Shoreline. There they required three replacement trees for each significant conifer lost. Another problem for Edmonds is that our parks and public land is pretty "treed out", that is there is no room to plant replacement trees. If you build a large house on a lot and you take out, say, 6 significant conifers there most likely won't be room to plant replacement trees on that lot that will eventually become quite large. A solution to this problem is the City entering into a partnership with local tree preservation groups such as the " Mountain To Sound " tree preserve or the Million Tree program in Snohomish County. Planting our replacement trees in these off site locations will give us the same environmental benefits in the long run. One last point, for now; I would encourage the City to not charge large fees to private home owners who are applying for a permit to cut trees on their lots in excess of the code restrictions. This will really anger our citizens. There should be no fee involved in order to get better compliance and cooperation. The key to this whole Code should be replacement trees. We recognize that we will continue to lose Packet Pg. 259 7.1.e significant trees due to development. We must be forward looking by requiring multiple "of kind" replacement trees for every significant tree lost anywhere, at any time and for any reason. Thank you for your time and consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds resident. Packet Pg. 260 7.1.e From: ericth uesen (Wrontier. corn To: Lien. Kernen; Council; Citizens Planning Board Subject: Tree code /email submittal / notification to property owners / Zoom meetings Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:34:58 PM From: Eric Thuesen <ericthuesen@frontier.com> To: citizens-planning@edmonndswa.gov. Sent: Thursday, November 12, 5:01 PM PDT Subject Proposed Tree code Good Afternoon Planning Board members; 1).Normal due time for submittal of written and oral comments is prior to the start of the of a meeting. I spoke to Kernen today at 3:30 and was advised cutoff date was 3;OOpm. I am sending this email prior to the 7pm meeting in hopes that it will be submitted as a comment. There has been only one comment to date from Bill Philipps. Few citizens are aware of the rules and are not getting a chance to express their thoughts. 2).Landowners - It is my understanding the City was to send out meeting notifications to landowners.. I am a landowner and did not received an email. Only became aware of the meeting when I called the Development Services Department and was told there was a meeting. 3).Zoom meetings. A large portion of Edmonds residents are not tech knowledgeable. Because of this they are locked out of participating in virtual meetings. Please review the address code required to enter the virtual meeting. Staff needs to recognizes that citizens have right to have access and notification of the decisions our Board members and Council are making. Regards; Eric Thuesen Packet Pg. 261 7.1.e From: Chave, Rob To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Fwd: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:22:11 AM Attachments: image.ona Rob Chave Planning Manager, City of Edmonds Begin forwarded message: From: Anna Forslund West <forslund.anna@gmail.com> Date: November 11, 2020 at 3:58:30 PM PST To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "Hope, Shane" <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>, "Chave, Rob" <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views Hello Planning Board + City Council, I'd like to follow up on the email I sent over on Oct 13th to City Council, in regard to including a section in the revised tree code for protecting water views. I see this is not included in the draft version, as of yet. The very definition of our city is described as: "facing the Puget sound". The Puget Sound is a vital part of our identity. In many cases it is the reason people buy homes here and spend time in our restaurants, bars, farmer's market + shops vs. spending their dollars in other cities. While we are spending time revising tree codes that affect private property, and drill down to the detail (ex: what is defined as an "insignificant tree", size tree that can be cut, penalties, etc), I do believe we need to add, protecting water views, to this code. At the very least, a section on hedge height guidelines/ when vegetation is used as a fence/privacy row and negatively impacts another resident's water view. Specifically I'd like to suggest this be woven into the INTENT + PURPOSE Section. Regardless if you think the tree is the view or the water is the view, trees have the potential to block water views; and both are important to our identity as Edmonds residents. We would be remiss to ignore this. While the city has not chosen to protect water views in written code over the past few decades, I do know the water view is of importance, the city tells me so with increased taxes for private property that have water views. Taxes which in turn, benefit our community. Our town's logo "It's an Edmonds Kind of Day" is literally a picture of a ferry, on the water. Packet Pg. 262 7.1.e }} P - Ids an low land of days How often are our city departments (police, city council, etc) called upon to deal with a hedge height or blocked view situation? A more concrete guideline would help take the pressure off these departments. While the draft version shows we are detailing out the tree code substantially (and specifically only to trees), if the city chooses to not include a section on how trees also affect water views on private property, I feel shows a disconnect. We have max height guidelines for buildings and fences, but when vegetation is used as a "fence" the sky's the limit — quite literally. I suggest we use the Tree Board's "Right Tree in The Right Place" motto to help write code which will help protect our trees and our water views, which I think we can all agree, are both vital to our community. Thank you for your consideration! Anna West Packet Pg. 263 7.1.e From: Chave, Rob To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Fwd: Revised Tree Code Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:19:22 AM Rob Chave Planning Manager, City of Edmonds Begin forwarded message: From: cdfarmen@comcast.net Date: November 11, 2020 at 7:35:19 PM PST To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Revised Tree Code Dear Board Members, An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward controlling the loss of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be helpful in reducing the loss of significant trees, especially in large wooded areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern. I would like to see a provision in the tree code for new construction on wooded lots that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain as many trees as possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10, especially items "C and D" where it talks about development practices that work to avoid the removal or destruction of trees. Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed property. The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of 20% of the existing trees, the same as required for new construction sites. Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the city will be relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a solution, versus tree retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers, are not capable of absorbing even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared to significant trees. The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as to where those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything in the revised code that addresses that issue. And, who would decide where to plant the replacement trees and who would be responsible for planting them? Is the city going to be liable for planting on some non - owned property? Packet Pg. 264 7.1.e One of the code's alternatives to tree removal is paying for the removal of significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those "fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I recommend the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden program. Using those dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative that I could accept. Thank you for considering my comments. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview area homeowner Packet Pg. 265 7.1.e From: Bill Phio)s To: citizens- plan ninoboard (c edmondswa.aov Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Proposed Tree Code Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:30:06 PM Greetings Planning Board; I enjoyed sitting in on your meeting on Oct. 28. It was a good discussion about the tree code. But first, the subject of public input came up. I would recommend sending a notice to My Edmonds News whenever you are having a public hearing. They will publish it and people read it. i would also consider letters to you , the Planning board , as public input. My letter to you, on the tree code, dated Oct. 14, 2020 wasn't acknowledged by a single one of you. But, I guess you must be flooded with letters and public comments... Concerning the tree code, it was good to hear your understanding of the issues around "replacement trees"; the tree saplings planted to replace the large conifers lost to development. The next question is where are we going to plant those replacement trees ?! We're talking about significant areas of open spaces, where it's appropriate to plant large conifers. I do think you missed one key element of tree codes. Private property owners on already developed land should be curtailed from removing excessive numbers of trees from their property.. Most cities restrict tree removal to a certain number of trees per period of time; such as 3 significant trees per year. See the Exemptions section of the draft tree code, section d). Previously developed parcels should not be exempt from the tree code. Should there also be a minimum percentage of tree canopy saved on developed land, just as there will be for developers ? What we see is new owners of houses moving in and immediately cutting down all or most of their big trees, that have been maintained for decades by previous owners of the property.. We could try to slow that process down, to see if the new owners might end up liking a few trees around them ?! I have other ideas and concerns, but that is enough for now. Feel free to contact me. I'm looking forward to attending your next meeting and Mr. Liens' excellent presentation of the proposed tree code and your insightful and lively discussion about the future of our forest canopy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 266 7.1.e From: Bill Phim) To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:07:59 AM Greetings Planning Board ; And Mr. Lien !....I would like all my comments to the Planning Board to be considered as comments to you as well. For the record, thank you. You , the Planning Board, were doing so well at the first meeting; you were asking real questions to the real issues of replacement trees. You realized the math. If you take down 70% of the trees, for new development, how are you going to maintain the stated goals of the UFMP; no net loss of forest canopy ?. You were talking about the necessity of multiple replacement trees for each big one cut down. Then at the last meeting you dropped the ball. Or were you punting ? You all of a sudden dropped replacement trees completely. Did you realize the difficulties at hand ? Did you want to do deal with it at all.? How was that decided? A couple nods of the head ? Whose nods ? Do you take votes? No matter. It's not too late, Buckle up and dig down and deal with this. Back up and look at the simple math. All of you. If we say we want to maintain a forest canopy of 30%; how are we going to do that without replacement trees planted for every tree that is lost to development.? If we say we want to maintain our forest canopy with "no net loss"; how are we going to do that without replacement trees planted for trees lost when private property owners build mother-in-law studios on their lots? The math has to add up. A replacement tree has to be added for every one that is lost.. How can we create incentives for people to plant or retain trees? How about storm water bill discounts? We can deal with the question of : where are we going to plant those future big trees. One idea is entering into a partnership with a local Tree Bank/Preserve. We will fund local tree planting with the funds from our Tree Fund. You can do this . We can do this. Let's create a meaningful and sustainable Tree Code. Thank you for taking your responsibilities seriously; Bill Phipps Packet Pg. 267 7.1.e a Packet Pg. 268 7.1.e From: Barbara Chase To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Thoughts on other entities and trees Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:30:46 PM Kernen, Thanks for the work you have done. I know it must take a lot of patience. As they talked about where to put trees I thought about where in the parks there is room. I saw on one map that various parks have some (not a lot) space for trees. Perhaps Rich Lindsay can tell you where. The Tree Board has done planting in Yost Park for one example. The other area is the schools. I promoted planting a small plot near the large school sign at Edmonds Elementary. It had lots of weeds and one unhealthy apple tree which was removed. The area was replanted with a vine maple and other native shrubs and groundcovers. It took a lot to work with the school district, but there are many spots on school grounds which could be planted with trees. Tomorrow I will be meeting with David Jackon of the Snohomish Conservation 'District. That is a state agency (as you no doubt know) which has a lot of experience with working with schools. When I find out more I will let you know about it. It is usually beneficial to work with various groups so they can learn about each other. The teacher and principal at Edmonds Elementary have been very supportive. If it can be used with their curriculum all the better. Again, thank you. I will be sure to attend the December Public hearing. Barbara Chase Packet Pg. 269 7.1.e From: Martin, Michelle To: michelle.martin(dedmondwa.aov; cdfarmen(ocomcast.net Cc: Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen Subject: FW: Planning board coments Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:39:00 PM Greetings Duane Farmen, Your comments have been received and distributed to the board. If you should have future comments specifically related to the Tree Code, please forward those directly to Kernen Lein Thank you, 11) 1,0 x J r• '4icheCCe L. Martin Development Services Department- Planning Admin. Planning webooael121 5th Avenue North 1 Edmonds, WA 98020 2: 425-771-0222 directl F:425-771-0221 Imichelle.martin(C)edmondswa.gov NOTICE: Email & attachments subject to Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) CITY HALL IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Services will continue to be provided by email and phone. Please visit www.edmondswa.gov for up-to-date information For inspections: httgs://inspection.mvbuildinooermit.com/ For planning permit inquiries please email: olanningpermits(cDedmondswa.goov For all other permit inquiries please email: devserv.admin(o)edmondswa.gov From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:22 PM To: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Planning board coments Dear Board Members, An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward controlling the loss of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be helpful in reducing the loss of significant trees, especially in large wooded areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern. I would recommend a provision in the tree code for new construction on wooded lots that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain as many trees as possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10, especially items T and D" where it talks about development practices that work to avoid the removal or destruction of trees. The exemptions for single family residences needs a change. If a single family home Packet Pg. 270 7.1.e site has 8 or more trees per 10,000 sq ft of lot space it should not qualify for an exemption. A case in point. Behind my home is a 15,000 square foot lot with 35 significant trees. The owner is building a 3,900 sq ft home with a 785 sq ft ADU. All but 7 trees are being removed. These are all significant trees, some nearly 150 ft tall. Why should this property be exempted? Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed property. The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of 20% of the existing trees, the same as required for new construction sites. Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the city will be relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a solution, versus tree retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers, are not capable of absorbing even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared to significant trees. The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as to where those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything in the revised code that addresses that issue. And, who would decide where to plant the replacement trees and who would be responsible for planting them? Is the city going to be liable for planting on some non -owned property? Another alternative to tree removal, which I do not subscribe to, is paying for the removal of significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those "fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I recommend the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden program. Using those dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative that I could accept. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview area homeowner Packet Pg. 271 7.1.e From: Martin, Michelle To: Planning Work Group Subject: FW: Trees and Water Views Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:22:10 PM Kernen, would you like this one? O -Michelle From: Ryan Boyd <rjeremyboyd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:19 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trees and Water Views Hello, I recently purchased a home off Walnut street and am concerned about tree growth blocking my views. In our case, our view was paramount to our decision to not only purchase our home, but move to Edmonds in the first place. I naively assumed there were rules in place to prevent your existing view becoming blocked by the growth of trees. This is very troublesome to me and my family and I believe the rules should be modified in order to prevent this from happening. We are so happy to have joined the Edmonds community and despite the covid concerns we have been welcomed warmly. I hope there isn't a case down the line that we come to regret our decision because there weren't responsible codes in place that negatively impact the value of the property we purchased. Thank you! Ryan Boyd Packet Pg. 272 Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.XXX Intent and Purpose 23.10.XXX Administration Authority 23.10.XXX Definitions 23.10.XXX Permits 23.10.XXX Exemptions 23.10.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited 23.10.XXX Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity 23.10.XXX Tree Protection Measures During Development 23.10.XXX Tree Replacement 23.10.XXX Bonding 23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.XXX Liability 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 23.10.XXX Intent and Purpose RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER The purpose of purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance, and use of significant trees. The intent of this chapter is to: A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; C. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; D. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; E. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. F. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 273 7.1.e G. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the City of Edmonds; H. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; 23.10.XXX Administering Authority The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. 23.10.XXX Definitions (Definitions currently incomplete. Will review definitions to make sure all terms are defined.) A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every inch of trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet from grade or otherwise determined by a qualified professional (example: one (1) foot radius per one (1) inch DBH). C. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) -The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH). E. Dripline -The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. F. Hazard tree -A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. G. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. H. Non -significant Tree (i.e. alder) - P,c o 1(? .11 r c (iy I. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. J. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2. Tree Risk Assessor Certification (TRACE) as established by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of ISA (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 274 7.1.e For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree [protection and replacement] plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. L. Significant Tree —A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. M. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city tree protection professional (City Arborist, qualified professional, someone?). N. Tree Fund - XXX O. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location_ _ �74,1 0U 6 ,- =-, :*e , ra c?:,r 23.10.XXX Permits A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any protected, non -protected or significant tree except as provided by this chapter. B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.XXX will be processed as a Type I permit. C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. 23.10.XXX Exemptions The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. B. Removal of trees in association with right-of-way and easements. Tree removal by a public agency or a franchised utility within a public right-of-way or upon an easement, for the purpose of installing and/or maintaining water, storm, sewer, power, gas or communication lines, or motorized or non - motorized streets or paths. Notification to the City by the public agency or franchised utility is required prior to tree maintenance or removal within City -owned rights -of -way. C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain the health of cultivated plants, to contain noxious weeds, or to remedy a potential fire or health hazard, or threat to public safety. D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable of being divided into not more one additional lot, except for: 1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer, excepting erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 275 7.1.e E. Trees that do not meet the above exemptions maybe removed with supporting documentation for the removal of: 1. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been done to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. 2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 3. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 23.10.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.XXX Hazard Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for ECDC 23.10.XXX.E, hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolitions: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC. 23.10.XXX Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision 2. Subdivision 3. New multi -family development 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot, and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.XXX. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Plan Retention Plan Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 276 7.1.e An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense. 2. Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); the inventory must also include significant trees on adjacent property with driplines extending over the subject property line; Size (DBH); iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.) V. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short plat or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements cannot be established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be required). iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any supplemental trees and any required trees replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.XXX. c. An arborist report containing the following: A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 277 7.1.e (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Describe the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Plats and Subdivisions a. Phase Review If during the short plat or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, was not able to be established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses trees only affected by the known improvements at the time of application. Tree removal shall be limited to those affected areas. ii. A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for project development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows: ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Project Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short plat, or subdivision 30% of all significant trees in the developable site Multi -family development, unit lot short plat, 25% of all significant trees in the developable or unit lot subdivision site Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provide for ECDC 23.10.XXX Hazard Trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area hazard tree. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40— 23.90 ECDC), or the Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. If the required retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant shall pay $XX into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: In identifying significant trees to be retained trees should be retained in the following priority order of priority: 1. Priority One: .,tie a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 6 of 13 N CD N O W ca V) c a> E E 0 U U 0 a c m c a� U cU Q m E U c� w Q Packet Pg. 278 7.1.e c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches in dbh. 2. Priority Two: a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity. F. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2. Delineation and protection with clearing limit fencing of any critical areas and critical area buffers; 3. Trees to be removed and retained; and 4. Property lines 23.10.XXX Tree Protection Measures During Development Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 279 7.1.e 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Fences shall be constructed of chain link and be at least six (6) feet high, unless other type of fencing is authorized by the Director. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence. Said sign must be approved by the d and shall state at a minimum "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the Director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the Director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. C. Grade. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The Director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the Director. The Director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 13 Packet Pg. 280 7.1.e 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the Director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. D. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. Additional Requirements. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.10.XXX Tree Replacement A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.XXX.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced by one new tree in accordance with subsection ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 of this section. Trees that are removed which are classified as landmark shall be replaced by three new trees in accordance with subsection RZC 21.72.080.0 of this section. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation complies with the standards in this section. B. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. C. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. Two -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. D. Tree Replacement Fee-in-leu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site location. Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 281 7.1.e 1. The amount of the fee shall be $XX times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section will be deposited into the City's Tree Fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 23.10.XXX Bonding A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration covering trees, irrigation and labor. C. A maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required Ooj�S landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in subsection B. A D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area tSO� buffers. �Q,Y� Q tA of & V�I Y� 6 �� i n �c� rh � r� d s�. � y) C w VI ON 3 , i d,r x x cr> S 23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties A. Noncompliance with any other section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code. B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties: Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction �os�tsrealr�izedy the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); �, �or Ih ' Gttvnicj�lly ��� r� cA Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 282 7.1.e c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter. d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid in o tha-dty-tr-e - vv KC.-V d e fed. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be ' made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar t Nis ��� growing conditions. 1 vvtno a� � e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued 5 , t- SE rcec�cx thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance Wi with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and tcaee- property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in ec�SSc the absence of the violation(s). r� f. If illegal tree toy ' as occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified e i-r— arborist develop an lement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree rep ttlnc rlo+ M 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the CAae-S City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the dates) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require i necessary corrective action within a specific time. �&Y-e- 64 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as4Ygi� established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. tZVVY 1 23.10.XXX Liability A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.XXX shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shali not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.XXX and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 283 7.1.e property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following development standards: 1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced up to 20 percent in all residential zones provided that: a. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; The required front setback shall not be reduced by more than five (5) feet. There may be an additional five (5) feet of reduction beyond the allowance provided for covered entry porches. 2. Lot size. Lot sizes may be reduced ("clustering") to allow dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations so long as the overall density of the project complies with zoning ordinance. 3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allow by the zone. 4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with the intent of city policies and codes. 3.95 Tree Fund 3.95.010 Tree Fund Established There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund." 3.95.020 Funding Sources Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC. B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC. C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 284 7.1.e D. Sale of seedlings by the City; and E. Other monies allocated by the City Council 3.95.040 Funding Purposes A. Monies in the tree fund maybe used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 4. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day; 5. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. B. Monies from the tree fund may be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, but may not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. P m a,Y� f-e-r)a,nce- w,6 r-V- v--.3 W eU k h o- w -Vv1 e CCIR I iS Some es 01P = rriUk.i V) �a i v1 i Y1.S a n d r,-- CLc� v`cl Gtr�e� �J a y n d +-V) is 16,06 N 00 OP cn r b h r ix.b - �-o r S a a CC> YYYt pie Gun a, d7� +his PUv)6 ��� a�+��y be tcSe� E CC �^ y p l.c, G�vtn CL� �'cw�c--c� �- �� °�`� t� �,✓�� iri v-)C-.vv c i m eCA es(t is Y) O �— c - v\, m E t Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 13 of 13 a Packet Pg. 285 7.1.e c m E c m E Q m O t� c O A 7 Cn C N C O R a1 N d N LL r Y L IM 'L ci a r N Co N r O Q Packet Pg. 286 7.1.e From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:18 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane Cc: Planning; Nelson, Michael; Council Subject: Draft Tree Code Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I have attempted to review the draft Tree Code to prepare "informed" comments for tomorrow's public hearing at the Planning Board, but find I can't make informed comments without seeing an accompanying SEPA review. Where is the draft SEPA environmental impact document that will help the public and the decision makers understand the likely significant impacts of the proposed code both on the people of Edmonds as well as our environment if the draft code doesn't actually result in "no net loss of tree canopy" as called for in the Urban Forest Management Plan? The public and our decision makers (the Council) need to see the analyses on how different aspects of the proposed tree code will affect existing and future tree canopy in Edmonds, the environmental services of large trees (i.e., carbon removal), the wildlife in our City, as well as the impacts it will have on residents and future development in our City. This is a huge contentious issue in our City with property rights advocates, people wanting views, people wanting safety from falling trees, people wanting to preserve what trees are left in Edmonds, and people wanting to protect the 'green' environment of Edmonds. All of this necessitates a environmental impact review that is made available to the public concurrent with the draft tree code. Without an accompanying SEPA document, how will anyone know what the effects of each of the exceptions in the draft code will have on retaining the existing tree canopy, let alone increasing it as some are calling for. Packet Pg. 287 7.1.e From: Johnson, Kristiana To: Hope, Shane Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Fwd: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:54:46 PM Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From: "Judge, Maureen" <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Date: December 8, 2020 at 2:32:59 PM PST To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance Good Afternoon, An Edmonds residence asked me to pass along this message to you regarding the tree ordinance: Patrick Sampson-Babineau and his partner Robley King would like you to consider taking a common sense approach to the tree ordinance. They are concerned about safety and that you incorporate safety exemptions in your decision making. The exemptions they are most concerned about are trees falling on homes, damaging sewer lines, and damaging roofs. They can be reached at 206-372-0013. Thank you! Maureen Packet Pg. 288 7.1.e From: Bill Phim) To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: tree code public comment Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:25:34 PM Hello Planning Board members and Mr.Lien; Please enter the following comments, on the Tree Code, into public record and as comments to Mr. Lien Thank you. I really enjoyed your last meeting on November 18, 2020. You really dug into the issues surrounding the updated tree code. I appreciate your efforts. I liked the way you danced around the issues and each other ! We now realize that the proposed code, as written, only addresses 5% of the private land in Edmonds. That is the amount of un-developed land that remains.. It does not address the 95% of private land in Edmonds that is already developed. Is it true that Edmonds is 95% "built out".? Thus, there is only 5% of private land left that might be developed. That's the land this code addresses, so far. Some of us realize that this is not enough. In the Urban Forest Management Plan it was stressed that 83% of our forest canopy is on private land. It was a goal of the UFMP to update our codes in order to control deforestation on that 83% of land in Edmonds. The code, as written, doesn't do enough to address deforestation on private land. Not when you remember phrases like "no net loss". So, we can look at "alike" nearby cities and see what they have done: In Shoreline, a property owner can take out three significant trees in a three year period. In Kirkland, a property owner can take out two significant trees at a time and may not take out the last two trees on the lot. It goes on and on with permits vs notifications, fees, plans, penalties, It's complicated. But it can be done. Most of our neighboring cities are already doing it. You know, these are not draconian measures we're talking about. On my street in the last month, 6 significant conifers were cut down; on two different properties. Even under a strong tree code, both of these events would have been permissible. But neither of those folks are replanting conifer saplings.! If you're scared of the "property righters", at least institute a notification system; whereas property owners notify the City of tree cuttings on their property. Then the City knows how many trees are being lost and how many replacement trees to plant in our Tree Bank from proceeds from our Tree Fund. The city of Kirkland uses such a system to track their forest canopy. I've always thought the key to a good tree code is replacement trees. We have to realize that we are losing tree canopy due to development and "property rights". We must commit to replacing lost trees with new trees. We must be forward looking and play "the long game". The trees we plant today will make a huge difference to our grandchildren and their grandchildrens' quality of life. We must plant multiple "of kind" replacement saplings for every tree cut down. Any significant tree cut down anyplace, any time, for any reason; must have replacement trees planted. Once again, thank you for allowing me to sit in on your "tree code" meetings. I appreciated your nuanced discussions about tree replacement requirements, penalties, fees -in -lieu -of, permits, and especially incentives. Packet Pg. 289 7.1.e We must encourage tree plantings and incentives for property owners to retain their trees. Tree credits, tax breaks, storm water bill discounts, tree vouchers; all are good ideas. I hope you choose to broaden the scope of the draft tree code. I hope you look at regulating tree removal on the already developed properties in Edmonds. This is where our urban forest canopy is. Let's create a meaningful tree code that we can all live with and be proud of. Thank you for your time and consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds Packet Pg. 290 7.1.e From: K Keefe To: Lien. Kernen Subject: Public Comment on 12/9 Planning Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:07:48 AM Good morning Kernen, I would like to submit public comment for tonight's Planning Board Meeting in regard to the draft tree code. If I submit my comments here, will it be read during the "public comment" period of the meeting? I am unable to attend the meeting via zoom this evening, but would like to ensure that my comments are seen or heard by the board. Please let me know if there is a different avenue I need to take to make sure that I have properly submitted my comments, which I have included below. Many thanks, Killy Keefe Please consider this my public comment on the draft tree code for tonight's Planning Board meeting. I support the draft tree code and would encourage it to be passed as soon as possible. However, I wish it would include MORE restrictions pertaining to trees on private property. If a majority of Edmonds tree canopy exists on private property, wouldn't it make sense to do more to protect those trees? I have 12 significant trees on my property and I would support protections to keep those trees here, even if it was what some would consider "an over step of the government telling me what I can or cannot do on my property." Trees like mine are good for the entire community, and are a community asset, even if they are on my personal property. Please consider passing the tree code now and continue to strive toward further protections for trees in Edmonds on private property in the near future. Killy Keefe Edmonds Packet Pg. 291 7.1.e Killy wheekawheek(&gmail.com "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix "Dawn is breaking everywhere. Light a candle, curse the glare." Touch of Grey, The Grateful Dead. "She knew how animals would act, she understood what animals thought, but you could never be sure about people." From "The Long Winter" by Laura Ingalls Wilder What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected. N Chief Seattle Packet Pg. 292 7.1.e From: Donna Murohv To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien. Kernen; citizens-climate (abedmonds.wa; Johnson. Laura; Buckshnis. Diane; bebopbi I I(dya hoo. com Subject: Tree Code discussion public comment Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:37:50 PM Dear Planning Board Members and Mr. Lien, Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about the current proposed Tree Code. I appreciate the time and dedication that Mr. Lein has given to researching other codes, writing and presenting the current Tree Code draft. I would like to propose the following additional proponents to the current draft: 1. Limit the amount of significant trees, per year, that a property owner can remove from their property, especially paying close attention to trees that result in the continued deforestation on private land. 2. Require private property owners to notify the City Arborist of which significant trees they plan to remove and if those trees could be better managed (through education and resources to help the homeowner). 3. If a homeowner plans on building on their property, by either adding on to an existing structure or a detached building that the trees be marked on the site plan, and any trees labeled problematic or to be removed be evaluated during the pre -construction meeting. 4. Offer incentives to home -private property owners to keep their significant trees or plant replacement trees. Incentives may include reducing storm water fees, tax breaks, tree credits and such. Let's move towards a "no net loss" of trees and protect our urban canopies which in turn, protects our watershed. As noted by the many larger cities' tree codes, "Our urban forest is a critical infrastructure." A plan of action is as important as knowledge and resources. According to the "Morton Arboretum": "Trees are the only infrastructure that increases in value with age." Clearly larger trees provide larger benefits. With Edmonds being built out from developers, I have confidence that most of Edmonds' private land/property owners, with education, guidance and incentives, are willing to take action to protect our limited tree canopy Respectfully submitted, Donna Murphy Sent from iPhone please excuse typos/brevity Packet Pg. 293 7.1.e December 9, 2020 RE: Proposed Tree Ordinance My name is Doug Wrigley and I live at 9724 214" PI 5W, Edmonds, WA. I wanted to share my comments regarding the proposed tree ordinance. I am a 21-year employee of Select Homes, Inc. who has constructed 70 new homes on single lots, short plats that we have developed or regular plats throughout the City of Edmonds since 2015. 1 wanted to share with you how the process works and who benefits from this construction activity. 1. Finding the land. The majority of the land we acquire is from sellers who are moving from a single-family home into some form of senior housing. The proceeds from the sale of the land we believe is used to maintain or improve the citizen's standard of living. In many cases the homes we purchase are run down, dangerous dwellings. We have been praised by many that our action to purchase, tear down and build a new home, eliminating the eye sore, rodent infestation, fire hazard, etc., is very much appreciated. Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who are paid the highest price for their land based on developable lot yield. Neighbors near the dwelling who get a safer community as a result of a derelict home being removed from their neighborhood. 2. We make a preliminary plat application if the land will be subdivided. Sometimes during the processing of the plat, we can allow the Seller to remain in the house for a year or more. This is helpful to make the process of moving into senior housing a gradual change vs. an immediate one. Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who sometimes enjoy rent free living for up to a year. City Staff who have sufficient work to maintain gainful employment as a result of department reviews of our projects. Local engineers, planners, architects, surveyors, soil testing organizations, asbestos testing organizations and asbestos remediation organizations to name a few. Once construction is started, we pay 10.4% in WSST for everything that goes into the home. Included in the 10.4% is the local Edmonds portion of the sale tax rate, 3.9%. On a typical new home, we will pay approximately $66,000 in state sales tax of which approximately $25,000 is Packet Pg. 294 7.1.e the Edmonds local portion. In addition, there are a host of permit fees associated with constructing a new home ... fees that can easily exceed $30,000 with most of that collected by the City of Edmonds. Any you can't forget the big one: the millions and millions of dollars of value that is created by developer/builder activities that gets taxed in the form of property taxes forever more. Hospital districts make more, school districts, etc. Benefited parties: City of Edmonds general revenue fund. State of Washington general revenue fund. Citizens of Edmonds. Hundreds of employees throughout the area who are paid a living wage to form and pour foundations, frame, side the home, roof the home, wire and plumb the home, landscape the home. School districts, hospital districts, etc. 4. Once the home is completed and the home sell and closes, we are charged Excise Tax on the sales price of the home regardless if any money was made on the project. It's a variable rate (new 2020) but is approximately 1.8% of the selling price or $24,930. Part of this goes to the State and part goes to the City of Edmonds. Benefited parties: State of Washington / City of Edmonds. While we love building in Edmonds where a lot of us live it is fairly restrictive even without the new tree ordinance. We have height constraints on all our homes. We have to amend the soil where landscaping will be installed. We have to retain/manage every drop of water that hits the lot through sometimes expensive/elaborate storm water systems. If the house is over 3000 sf then a fire suppression system is required to be installed. We have to install underground utilities to the new home where once the utilities were overhead. Often, we need to add sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and other public improvements. It takes a lot of money to make sure we are doing it right. It was funny but when purchased my lot, I had no idea that I'd spend $55,000 on Edmonds lot requirements on top of what I paid for the land and small tear down home. That's a real number and that is what it cost me for my storm system, soil amendments, underground utilities, improving the side sewer, etc. not to mention approximately $8,000 to install fire suppression in my home. Finally, I am concerned about the timing of the enhanced tree ordinance. We are in the middle of a pandemic and we need all the sales tax revenue we can get to offset some of our shuttered businesses. We need to focus on the health and wealth of our senior citizens, those of whom might be thinking of selling their homes and need the proceeds from the sale to help them survive financially. We need to think of our City employees and their livelihoods. Where would many of them be if redevelopment was squashed in the City of Edmonds as a result of an onerous tree ordinance. I would ask the Mayor and Council to tap the breaks on the tree ordinance implementation. It needs more thought. Stakeholders like us should be at the table helping to draft a commonsense ordinance. What you currently have will certainly lead to fewer applications, fewer new homes being constructed and fewer tax dollars for Edmonds. It's just to costly, especially in these unprecedented times. The ordinance needs balance and I am sure you will hear specifics from others. Packet Pg. 295 IL Select Homes INC December 9, 2020 Kernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds — Planning Division Re: Draft Tree Code Review Response My comments and concerns are: Page 3, 23.10.020, M Qualified professional — How many people in our local area have 2 of these credentials that are in business? Why not just one credential? What are they going to charge? In our experience these fees are very high and will contribute to an increase in housing costs. Page 3, 23.10.202, O City's qualified professional — who is this person? Is it someone on staff or an outside consultant? And, what criteria do they use for specimen tree. Page 5, 23.10.060, A Are remodels and additions exempt? Page 5, 23.10.060, B The cost and time to meet all the details you are listing is going to add a lot of cost to new homes and bring down the value of older homes that are over grown. A lot of elderly people have stayed in their homes for extended years and have not been able or afford to take care of their yards. When they have to sell to move to assisted living or can't care for themselves, they are going to be penalized by this ordinance as it will make their properties less desirable Unless we exempt some types of landscaping like non-invasive species -- Laurel and Emerald Green hedges, Holly Trees, even Rhododendrons and Fruit Trees. Many of them exceed 6 inches if they are old. These should not be considered in this ordinance. 7.1.e 16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 plivne 425.742.6044 Px 425.742.5082 www.selectlyomeswa. town Packet Pg. 296 7.1.e Page 6, 23.10.060, C What happens if you cannot save 30%? Are they going to be cases where you make some lots unbuildable? If so is the City going to buy these lots, or just deny use. Page 7, 23.10.060, D Alders and Cottonwood are another example of trees that die early, rot and fall. Page 8, 23.10.070, B 1. Fencing —Why not use orange construction fencing. 2. Who is the "director", who determines when you can remove fencing? Page 9, 23.10.070, C 3. This will make it very hard to save trees that are in the setback, close to driveways and sidewalks, etc. 4. In very few cases can you hand dig a tunnel under a tree root system to lay pipe. Page 10, 23.10.080 Tree Replacement— Can your replacement trees be planted on a different lot within the city limits? Page 11, 23.10.085 This is the worst thing in the whole proposal. No one should have to record their trees on their title. This has the potential for a lot of misunderstanding by lenders, title companies and future buyers. I strongly disagree with this item and hope it is removed. Page 11, 23.10.090 Bonding There is no way to buy a bond for this. This would have to be cash out of pocket and in some trust account at the City. A lot of administration to manage this. Again, adding cost to the home. If you sell during the two years can you transfer the bond/cash payment responsibility to the new owner? How would it work if you planted trees on someone else's lot? 2 16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 981W plww, 425,742.6044 Ja . 425.742.5082 wrv+v.seleethomesrva. cam Packet may. 297 7.1.e In closing, I'm not sure what the priority is for the City. You have been talking about affordable housing for a long time. Easy to do with the proper zoning changes. But, this proposal will add a lot of cost to a home. I am very concerned it will make some properties unbuildable or under- utilized. Edmonds has a huge shortage of lots and buildable land. We need to prioritize what is most important. Trees are a necessary part, but they are also something that can and should be managed. Big trees and houses don't go well together. By continuing to harvest and replant everything seems to works better. We hope that the City will utilize these comments and concerns as you move forward with the tree code. We'd also like to see that lots that are currently part of subdivisions that have been submitted be vested in the current code. These properties were purchased and the subdivisions designed without the knowledge that they would be part of a new tree code. The subdivision moratorium is already allowing that no new subdivisions be submitted during this time, but those that have already been submitted should be vested in the existing code. Lastly, while I am a business owner I am also a resident of Edmonds. 1 want the best for our community and feel we can find a more balanced way of managing our trees. Sincerely, Randy Clark President Select Homes, Inc. 3 16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 pb, w 425.742,6044 fay. 425.742,5082 iviviv.selecthomesiva.com Packet Pg. 298 7.1.e December 9, 2020 RE: Proposed Tree Code Update To Whom It May Concern, I am an Edmonds resident and an employee of Select Homes, Inc. We have been building in Snohomish County for thirty years and in Edmonds over the last decade. I have worked with nine cities in Snohomish and King counties while working in land development and residential construction. I have seen how different tree ordinances impact this process in many ways. For instance, when laying a house on a property we take many things into consideration — privacy, yard size, views, how can we maximize daylight in the yards, etc. With overly strict tree ordinances we have little flexibility (or it becomes overly cost prohibitive) in making the best layout for the families that will be living in the future home. The City of Edmonds permitting process takes weeks, if not months, longer than many of the other jurisdictions I work with. The addition of such strict ordinances will extend this process in many ways — finding qualified arborists is difficult and the wait times for reports can take many weeks. When we receive comments from the City, we'll likely have to go through another wait time for updated reports from the arborists. The longer we hold onto these properties, the more they cost us and this ultimately adds to the price of the home. In the same way the added expense caused by time lost adds to the price of the home, so will the added expense of arborists, tree protection, tree replacement, etc. that will all go to driving up the price of homes. The subdivision moratorium has already made the City of Edmonds builder unfriendly and now this new tree ordinance will do the same. This will go for builders of all kinds and will make it even more prohibitive for any new housing in Edmonds, including affordable housing. We hope to see a more balanced tree ordinance. We'd like to see exemptions for plantings that were originally done as landscaping (emerald greens, rhododendrons, fruit trees, etc.) that have become overgrown and now exceed 6 inches and/or the Significant Tree definition increased from 6 inches. We're very concerned with the requirements for bonding and putting the trees on title. The requirement for bonding will be a deterrent to builders as the trees are out of their control upon sale of the property and the title requirement will be a hinderance for home buyers. We hope to see lots that are part of a subdivision that are already submitted to be vested to the current code. Thank you, Kayla Nichols Packet Pg. 299 7.1.e From: Chris Walton <emailcwalton@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:56 AM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Spellman, Jana; Barbara Chase Subject: Last Night's Presentation Hello Kernen, Thanks to your team for the presentation last night. It was interesting. I was hoping to make a couple of comments at the end, but to be honest I couldn't bear to go through the beginning slides a 2nd time. I gave up. No worries. I truly understand the challenges of Zoom. • It appears to me that in the end, it all boils down to money. Unless I am misunderstanding the document (and that is very possible!), the concept is that developers are "encouraged" to maintain trees, or replant trees, because if they don't there will be a price to pay. I suspect that most developers will clear cut the lot and just consider that price as part of the expense of the project and pass it on to the buyers. • Cutting down huge mature trees and replanting puny replacements will have little effect on the environment for years to come. • The way we build now maximizes density. One large single lot can easily end up having 3 large houses put on it. (Example: new houses on corner of Pine and 9th where there used to be many beautiful trees). This is a people versus nature issue that I doubt we will solve. The reality is that when houses are packed together like that, large trees will never fit. • Hopefully we are "measuring" in some way what we are doing. In other words, 5 years from now, did these monetary incentives work, or are we continuing to loss the canopy in significant numbers? We'll see. I am glad that I am a senior and won't be around much longer. What humans are doing to this planet is disgraceful and not sustainable. I do applaud your team and the Tree Board for "trying", but I doubt nature will win in the end. No reply is expected. Just sharing my personal thoughts. Respectfully, Chris Walton Cedar Street, Edmonds Packet Pg. 300 7.1.e From: Sharon Sneddon <sksneddon@frontier.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:16 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Council Subject: Tree Code After reviewing the Urban Forest Plan as well as the existing Tree Code, I believe regulations need to be strengthened if Edmonds is to maintain/increase our current 30.3% tree canopy. With our climate changing, trees face increased challenges to their survival. Rainfall patterns, pests and diseases both current and new, are already affecting our trees. With 83% of the trees in Edmonds growing on private property, stronger regulations are needed to protect that portion of our urban forest canopy. Present regulations requiring new developments to retain 30% of the trees on the property should be increased to at least 50%. Permission to cut trees on private property needs to be more regulated with documentation by a tree professional required to remove even potentially hazardous trees. Removing trees to increase the home owners' view could be regulated by a clause in the buying/selling documents for that property. I am not aware of any public engagement opportunities regarding trees in Edmonds except for the native plant garden (Demo garden) on Pine. I hope you will consider my suggestions. Sharon Sneddon Edmonds Resident Packet Pg. 301 7.1.e From: Janie Worm <hello@janieworm.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:21 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Subject: Tree Codes To whom it may concern, I attended a recent Tree Board meeting, and board member Bill Phipps recommended that I share some thoughts with you regarding tree codes. First of all, I am s000... grateful that tree codes are being written & updated to help meet the current environmental needs of our times. My thanks to everyone who has put their time and attention into this! I think it's great to charge a hefty fee for contractors not able or willing to replant the desired number of trees on lots of completed construction projects. This is a great step. My concern, however, is that many will opt to pay the fee and move on. Then, we have money in the bank, but money will not clean our air, our water, and support our soils. It feels to me like a major education campaign needs to happen. Awareness/Education --> Appreciation; Appreciation --> Protection/ Preservation. How can we impress upon people that trees are not like light posts that we can tear down and reconstruct somewhere else. They take years of growth and are the best purifiers of our environment, better than anything we can construct from inorganic materials. Trees are unpaid employees working silently and efficiently everyday on our behalf! Can we offer incentives to home and land owners? At tax time, those who have purchased hybrid vehicles get a tax break. Can we offer tax breaks or a stipend to those planting and maintaining large trees, since the whole community is benefiting from them? Someone mentioned a tree at 8th & Walnut that neighbors prefer to have removed. Can we first educate people? I recommend putting a sign near the tree that offers facts showing how it benefits them personally, and giving the tree a voice. (I haven't seen the tree so I'll make up an example.) Sample of one possible educational sign. Packet Pg. 302 7.1.e "I am a 20 year old Blue Spruce that removes 200 lbs of carbon from the air each year, improving air quality by 22%. I also filter 100 gallons of water annually, and my canopy reduces surface temperatures, benefiting all residents. I offer these gifts of service for free. " Nature is very dear to my heart, and trees are one of the most important keys to turning around global warming. Since my yard is full, I am willing to plant trees on any public lands (city, state, national, global). Please let me know how I can help increase the number of trees in this area. I have many friends, arborists, gardeners, plant nursery workers, teachers, students... all ready and willing to help. After the recent wildfires, this feels more important than ever. There's a "must see" documentary titled, "Call of the Forest: The Ancient Wisdom of Trees." Thanks so much for all you do, and for thinking about the health and well- being of the planet, all life and future generations. Together we can accomplish anything! Thanks again. Janie Worm "Let's bring your space to life with paint. " -- Harmony Paint & Music "Love moves like a song." -- JanieWorm.com Packet Pg. 303 7.1.e December 12, 2020 TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FROM; LARRY NAUGHTEN RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER.. Packet Pg. 304 7.1.e PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COM IISSION-TY a Packet Pg. 305 7.1.e EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful "GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes, but only with considerate Neighbors and a new City tree height ordinance.. I lived in Edmonds for 50 years ... 20 of those years were spent in public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with views and trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, as Mayor,I always had empathy for homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed, when possible —to protect their views. Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits fences. The City should pass a new tree height ordinance limit of 25' on any new tree plantings. This would protect future view corridor impacts. This new height ordinance would also send the positive message that the City values the need for trees and views to coexist and thereby maintain and improve the quality of life for the residences of Edmonds. If you live in a view corridor a 25' height limit,on new tree plantings, is important for your homes f value. ' ugh ee Edmonds M or (1983-1991) Packet Pg. 306 7.1.e December 2.2020 TO: EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LARRY NAUGHTEN RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER Packet Pg. 307 7.1.e EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful "GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes, but only with considerate Neighbors and a City tree height ordinance.. I lived in Edmonds for 50 years...20 of those years were spent in public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with Views and Trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, I always had empathy for homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed, when possible —to protect their views. Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits fences. The City should pass a tree height limit of 25' on any new tree plantings. This would protect future view impacts. This height Ordinance would also send the positive message that the City values the need for Trees and Views to coexist and thereby maintain and improve the quality of life for the residences of Edmonds. �ughte ,'4 or (1983-1991) Packet Pg. 308 7.1.e January 7, 2021 Mr. Kernen Lien Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov Dear Mr. Lien: RE: Comments on Draft City Tree Code These comments, submitted on behalf of the Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protec- tion Committee (CPC), are written in support of the City's action in expeditiously adopting the Tree Code' to implement the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Man- agement Plan. The CPC `s mission is to encourage action by Edmonds citizens and govern- ment to minimize the impact of climate change through a combination of reduc- ing Green House Gas emissions ("GHG mitigation") and preparation for the im- pacts that are already upon us ("climate adaptation"). We do this by providing citizen - stakeholder input to the Mayor and City staff. While it is common knowledge that trees offer cooling shade, block cold winter winds, attract wildlife, and add beauty to the Edmonds community, we also are learning that trees are vital to both GHG mitigation and climate adaptation. GHG Mitigation As trees grow, they help stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the at- mosphere.2 Trees help to absorb carbon and other gasses from the atmos- phere. A single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs. of carbon a year and make enough clean oxygen for four people to breathe fresh air annually.' 1http://www.edmondswa.90v ima es/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/ Plan- ning Division/Codes/TreeCode Clean Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB PH Draft 12.09.20. pdf z htt s: www.arborday.org/trees/climatechange/ 3 https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation Packet Pg. 309 7.1.e CO2 absorption is very important because CO2 - already in the atmosphere due to human activities such as fossil fuel production has already warmed the world by 1 ° Celsius (° C) (as compared with pre -industrial data) and is on track to in- crease up to +1.5° C (2.7° F) by 2030. That number will continue to rise if we don't take immediate global action to cut emissions and reduce the GHG already in the atmosphere.4 In addition, shading by trees in urban areas helps reduce energy consumption when it's hot, thus reducing carbon emissions and saving on cooling costs. In August 2020, the Edmonds City Council took the bold step to manage climate change by adopting 1.50 C as the City's Climate Action Planning Goal. This means Edmonds will do its part to ensure the global heat measurement will only rise 1.50 C by 2030 when compared to 1900. Please see the excellent summary of "Why 1.5"by Edmonds Planning Services Department. 5 However, in September 2020 projections of GHG emissions by Climate Action Tracker showed a substantial gap toward reaching our goal of maintaining 1.50 C. 6 Forest ecosystems are the largest terrestrial carbon (C) sink on Earth and their management has been recognized as a cost-effective strategy for mitigating GHG emissions.' While Edmonds Urban Forest is but a small piece of the global forest ecosystem, it is a piece over which we as a City have some direct control. By acting quickly today to keep our urban forest viable, we can start tipping the balance to maintain and enhance the forest C sink in the United States and be- yond. Climate Adaptation The Fourth National Climate Assessment states this about impacts of climate change to the Northwest: [E]xtreme events, like heavy rainfall associated with atmospheric rivers, are also anticipated to occur more often. Along the coast, severe winter storms are also projected to occur more often, such as occurred in 2015 during one of the strongest El Nino events on record. El Nino winter storms contributed to storm surge, large waves, coastal erosion, and flooding in low-lying coastal areas. 8 4 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/ s https://www.cityofedmondswa.com/post/why-1-5 6 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps/ 7 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24649 8 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/24/ (citations omitted.) Packet Pg. 310 7.1.e Trees are an increasingly important adaption tool in that they protect against se- vere flooding and storms by slowing the water's strength as it surges on land and absorbing excess water in the soil which they then release as water vapor into the air. 9 As a committee tasked to recommend on climate change issues, we unanimously recommend the City expeditiously adopt the proposed Tree Code to implement the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. We trust this background will be helpful to the City staff, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. City of Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protection Committee By Co-chairs T.C. Richmond and Lisa Conley 9https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation Packet Pg. 311 7.1.e City of Edmonds: To best examine the issue of allowing the City of Edmonds to stomp on our personal property rights concerning trees I am going to use an example of a conifer that sits exactly fourteen feet from one property owner's basement foundation and twelve from the adjacent neighbor. This tree has a split top, sits on essentially level ground in a 5x8 foot semi -circle of converging paved driveways, with gas, water, sewer and electrical running directly beneath it, and, in a location just shy of fifty feet from a tree covered slope that has been deemed above 15% grade. (Wasn't that 25% just last year?) Foresters and biologists concur the Western red cedar requires room to spread out, at minimum six feet and only if the tree has room for the roots to grow horizontally, which of course would preclude this particular tree as it is 3' inches from one driveway and 8" from the other. Also recommended is at minimum a distance of 20' from foundations, here again a point of concern. More importantly the proximity to underground utilities alone makes is an example of "wrong tree, wrong place". City officials told these property owners to "not touch their (own) tree". Certainly it is unfortunate when a tree of this size is removed, but this particular tree is a hazard to those that live underneath it and the decision of removal should have no place in the our city's discretion, nor incur even one penny for a permit. That is the function that should be covered by property taxes and anything else should be deemed extortion. I would suggest that increasing our city's tree coverage should be concentrated in the numerous parks that are publicly owned. It is impossible to walk through any one of them and not notice that there is room for increasing the number and variety of coniferous trees. There would be many of us that would eagerly volunteer to assist under the guidance of accredited specialists. That is where officials should concentrate their efforts and not our backyards or on sub -dividable, privately owned land. The City of Edmonds has used Covid-19 to surreptitiously, and successfully, mask decisions that affect all citizens, confident in the knowledge that beyond the majority not paying attention there is a large herd of'sheeple' blindly following their lead without complaint. When did we grant city officials the right to access our property and impose restrictive codes that derive from their personal agenda, and bias, and have no reality in science? When did the majority of residents grant to our local officials the ability to impose what should be illegal fees in the guise of permits and penalties? Aren't enough of us fed up with this type of governance to take back power that is being stripped from us on a daily basis and increasing so? Trees on personal property, with the exception of a slide area, should never be under city authority. 7010 4U ILt�1011 P.S: Ms. Buckshnis, instead of wagging a finger at people who want the right to remove dangerous or nuisance trees, might consider her own residence where there exists one 20' topped tree between herself and the view and another behind her house of the same height..... instead of attempting to legislate what homeowners and builders should do ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY! The hypocrisy is laughable. She has lived there long enough to plant an entire hillside of forty foot evergreens so if she cares so much for trees: start planting. Packet Pg. 312 7.1.e a Packet Pg. 313 7.1.e From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:16 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Hope, Shane Subject: Tree Code Edmonds Planning Board and Mr. Lien; Thank you for letting me provide recommendations to the proposed tree code. We know that the proposed code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds; the 3% that has not already been developed. Edmonds is 97% "built out". We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the 80 % of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots. The proposed Code is simply too little too late. There isn't much more land to develop. It would have been much more meaningful if it had been enacted 10 years ago! Plus, it doesn't seem fair to the new construction home owners that have to maintain 30% canopy on their lots, while the rest of us don't. It has been said that everyone should have some tree canopy requirements ! We must address the forest canopy where it mainly is; on private already developed lots. Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code, concerning their private land, if it is friendly, inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings. The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting on their land. The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots. A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings for every significant tree lost. Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter. All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees. We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air. We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are really going to need those trees that we plant today Packet Pg. 314 7.1.e Are we going to enact an insignificant tree code that doesn't address the main problem ? A tree code in name only? A symbolic and token effort? To make us feel good, or look good, as if we had done something? Or are we going to get back to work and create a meaningful, effective and far reaching tree code that we can be proud of? A code that achieves the goal of "no net loss" A code that our grandchildrens' grandchildren can be thankful for ? If we are going to enact a tree code, why not do it right? Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds Packet Pg. 315 7.1.e From: hglandau@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:17 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Fwd: Tree Code Dear Edmonds Planning Board, By forwarding Mr. Phipps excellent summary of tree issues, I mean to convey that the issues he sites deserve thorough consideration by the Board. Like Mr. Phipps, I want my children and grandchildren to breath healthy air in a healthy climate with the abundance of flora and fauna that trees provide. Thank you, Hank Landau, PE, Ph.D. -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill(a)yahoo.com> To: 'Nancy Johnson' <najohnso .operamail.com>; Marjie Fields <mvfields(abme.com>; Gayla Shoemake <gaylashoemake(c�yahoo.com>; Climate Justice <climateiustice.team a(�euuc.orq>; Kate Lunceford <kurlykate888(o)gmail.com>; Joe Scordino <loe.scordino(a)_yahoo.com>; Charles D. Farmen <cdfarmen(o-)_comcast.net>; Bloom Joan <joanmbloom(o-)_icloud.com>; Gayle Leberg <lebergwq(a-)_me.com>; Hank Landau <hglandau(o-)_aol.com>; Lora Hein <heinsight(o)earthIink. net>; Clara Cleve <dancer.ca64(q-)_gmail.com>; Karen Helland <kaycat2173(aD_gmail.com>; Rachel Maxwell <rachelmrmaxwell(o-)gmail.com>; Citizens Climate Protection <citizens-climate(o)edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Tree Board <citizens-tree(a-)_edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 8:37 pm Subject: Fw: Tree Code Dear friends; Please email or zoom in to Planning Board meeting on Wednesday evening, the 13th. Tell them we need a real tree code. Also let the City Council know. Thank you for all that you do ; Bill Phipps ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill(a)-yahoo.com> To: Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning(a)edmondswa.gov>; Kernen Lien <kernen.lien(q-)_edmondswa.gov> Cc: Edmonds City Council <council .edmondswa.gov>; Shane Hope <shane.hope(o)edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 08:16:04 PM PST Subject: Tree Code Edmonds Planning Board and Mr. Lien; Thank you for letting me provide recommendations to the proposed tree code. We know that the proposed code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds; the 3% that has not already been developed. Edmonds is 97% "built out". We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the 80 % of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots. Packet Pg. 316 7.1.e The proposed Code is simply too little too late. There isn't much more land to develop. It would have been much more meaningful if it had been enacted 10 years ago! Plus, it doesn't seem fair to the new construction home owners that have to maintain 30% canopy on their lots, while the rest of us don't. It has been said that everyone should have some tree canopy requirements ! We must address the forest canopy where it mainly is; on private already developed lots. Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code, concerning their private land, if it is friendly, inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings. The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting on their land. The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots. A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings for every significant tree lost. Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter. All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees. We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air. We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are really going to need those trees that we plant today. Are we going to enact an insignificant tree code that doesn't address the main problem ? A tree code in name only? A symbolic and token effort? To make us feel good, or look good, as if we had done something? Or are we going to get back to work and create a meaningful, effective and far reaching tree code that we can be proud of? A code that achieves the goal of "no net loss" A code that our grandchildrens' grandchildren can be thankful for ? If we are going to enact a tree code, why not do it right? Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds Packet Pg. 317 7.1.e a Packet Pg. 318 7.1.e From: Gayla Shoemake <gaylashoemake@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:20 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen; Council; Hope, Shane Subject: Tree Code Update- Public Comment Greetings to the Planning Board, City Council Members, and City Staff, I understand that you are in the midst of updating the Tree Code, which is important before making any Planning Changes, and I commend you for this step. As I look at the information available, it does not appear that there are any cutting restrictions or enough incentives to retain trees (which would be preferable) for private property owners who have most of the trees in Edmonds. It does not seem meaningful to write a Tree Code which leaves out 70% or more of the trees in the city which are on private property. The goal of the Tree Code is to retain and increase the number of trees in our city because their numbers continue to decrease. As you well know trees are one of the best carbon digesters available. In this time when we have significant carbon reduction goals, it makes sense to keep as many trees as we can. Obviously, people are attached to their own property, but sometimes they do not realize the health and other consequences to the community, and ultimately to their own families, of cutting down trees on their property (unless they are diseased or dangerous). By first educating the public and especially property owners about the value of trees to the community, some property owners may decide to retain that tree. Next, offer incentives to retain the trees (such as reducing city utility bills or adding another tree to their property (I think this idea was originally included) or other incentives. Also, encourage tree donations by individuals in the community to locations where there is room in the city, of course in parks and open spaces, but also on private property in low income neighborhoods where there might be few trees, or nearby county land where there is space. Assessing fines for unlawful tree removal would only be used in the most dire situations. It is possible that the current Tree Code has significant additions or changes from the earlier version that I saw. I will be interested in reviewing the up- to-date Code to see what alterations have been made. Thank you for your work on this Code and for the other policies and codes you work on each year. I appreciate your time in looking at these issues seriously and your attention to public comments. Packet Pg. 319 7.1.e Sincerely, Gayla Shoemake a Packet Pg. 320 7.1.e From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello Planning Board and Mr Lien, I appreciate all you do for Edmonds. Nancy Johnson <najohnso@operamail.com> Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:04 AM Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Tree Code Follow up Flagged As an Edmonds resident living south of Yost Park, I have seen a shocking number of mature, healthy trees taken down in the last several years - just in my neighborhood, mostly on private lots. I understand that the proposed tree code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds as Edmonds is 97% "built out". We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the 80% of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots. Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code affecging their private land, if it is clear, inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings. The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting on their land. The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots. A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings for every significant tree lost. Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter. All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees. We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air. We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow. Packet Pg. 321 7.1.e Thank you for your consideration -and my children and grandchildren thank you too! Nancy Johnson 9411 216th St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 322 7.1.e From: Rachel Maxwell <rachelmrmaxwell@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:28 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Hope, Shane Subject: I support a strong tree code to protect urban forests! Dear Edmonds Planning Board, As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in our city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent. While I applaud the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan, I urge the Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life. I stand with the League of Women Voters in supporting "management of land as a finite resource not as a commodity, since land ownership, whether public or private, carries responsibility for stewardship". With gratitude for your service to our city and my kind regards, Rachel Maxwell Rachel Maxwell she/her/hers 425.231.8313 Packet Pg. 323 7.1.e 1 of 2 To: Edmonds Planning Board From: George Lasch, Executive Director, PlantAmnesty Date: January 13, 2021 RE: Oppose Amending Draft Tree Related Regulations to Permit Tree Topping It has come to our attention that the City of Edmonds is drafting an updated tree ordinance and that there has been a proposal from a homeowner to amend it to allow tree topping in certain instances, in particular to maintain water views. We strongly disagree with a proposal to allow tree topping. Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or to lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role. Other names for topping include "heading," "tipping," "hat -racking," and "rounding over." Topping is used to reduce the size of a tree. A homeowner may feel that a tree has become too large for his or her property. Topping, however, is not a viable method of height reduction and, in addition to the problems it causes listed below, it certainly does not reduce future risk. In fact, topping will increase risk in the long term. The following has been adapted from International Society for Arboriculture (ISA) brochure titled "Why Topping Hurts Trees" and maintains tree topping is an unacceptable practice for the following reasons: 1. Topping Stresses Trees - Topping can remove 50 to 100 percent of a tree's leaf -bearing crown. Leaves are the food factories of a tree. Removing them can temporarily starve a tree and trigger various survival mechanisms. Dormant buds are activated, forcing the rapid growth of multiple shoots below each cut. The tree needs to put out a new crop of leaves as soon as possible. If a tree does not have the stored energy reserves to do so, it will be seriously weakened and may die. A stressed tree with large, open pruning wounds is more vulnerable to insect and disease infestations. The tree may lack sufficient energy to chemically defend the wounds against invasion, and some insects are actually attracted to the chemical signals trees release. 2. Topping Leads to Decay - Correct pruning cuts are made just beyond the branch collar at the point of attachment. The tree is biologically equipped to close such a wound, provided the tree is healthy enough and the wound is not too large. Cuts made along a limb between lateral branches create stubs with wounds that the tree may not be able to close. The exposed wood tissues begin to decay. Normally, a tree will "wall off," or compartmentalize, the decaying tissues, but few trees can defend the multiple severe wounds caused by topping. The decay organisms are given a free path to move down through the branches. 3. Topping Makes Trees Ugly - The natural branching structure of a tree is a biological wonder. Trees form a variety of shapes and growth habits, all with the same goal of presenting their leaves to the sun. Topping removes the ends of the branches, often leaving ugly stubs. Topping destroys the natural form of a tree. Without leaves (for up to six months of the year in temperate climates), a topped tree appears disfigured and mutilated. With leaves, it is a dense ball of foliage, lacking its simple grace. A tree that has been topped can never fully regain its natural form. 4. Topping Is Expensive - The cost of topping a tree is not limited to only the job cost. Some hidden costs of topping include increased maintenance costs, reduced property value and increased liability potential. Topped trees may pose an unacceptable level of risk. Because topping is considered an unacceptable pruning practice, any damage caused by branch failure of a topped tree may lead to a finding of negligence in a court of law. Packet Pg. 324 2 of 2 7.1.e 5. Topping Can Lead to Unacceptable Risk - The survival mechanism that causes a tree to produce multiple shoots below each topping cut comes at great expense to the tree. These shoots develop from buds near the surface of the old branches. Unlike normal branches that develop in a socket of overlapping wood tissues, these new shoots are anchored only in the outermost layers of the parent branches and are weakly attached. The new shoots grow quickly, as much as 20 feet in one year in some species. Unfortunately, the shoots are prone to breaking, especially during windy or icy conditions. While the original goal was to reduce risk by reducing height, risk of limb failure has now increased. New shoots develop profusely below a topping cut. Trees topped or pruned for utility clearance (generally within public right of way) provide an asset to the entire community - light and warmth. Trees topped on a homeowner's lot will provide only the resident with benefits - the view - and does not convey a community benefit at all. In fact, tree topping can disrupt a potentially delicate equilibrium with adjacent trees (wind) and houses/streets (increased storm water runoff). We are learning that trees provide numerous benefits for our urban areas including enhancing air quality, reducing the heat island effect, and attenuating storm runoff which ultimately protects habitat and water quality in Puget Sound. We support the current draft regulations as they provide for "the protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees". Tree topping leads to the decline and ultimately kills the trees in question. Furthermore, the Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000.C. state that the intent of the code is "To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property". Tree topping on private property does not contribute to the health, safety or general welfare of the residents of Edmonds. In closing, tree topping should not be allowed because it affects the health and viability of the topped trees long term. It is unsightly, increases the cost of maintenance, and can actually lead to increased liability/risk to the property owner. And importantly, as this draft ordinance recognizes, healthy trees are an asset to the community at large and should be regulated as such. Sincerely, George Lasch, Executive Director, PlantAmnesty Jack Bautsch President of the Board of Directors, PlantAmnesty Packet Pg. 325 7.1.e From: Nicholas Kappes <consultnick@pea k.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:52 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code Update Comments Hello Mr. Lien, I was unable to attend the Planning Board meeting of December 9th, 2020, regarding the proposed Draft Tree Code. These regulations have the potential to drastically affect my plans for building a home for my disabled son on an adjacent lot that I have spent 23 years and will have spent nearly $300,000 acquiring --next to my present home in the Pine Ridge neighborhood, where I have lived for quarter of a century. Both lots are "heavily-tree'd", which is why I bought here in Edmonds in the first place, and very clearly I do love my wonderful trees! However, these proposed Tree Code changes could in time have great impact on the property values of either of my lots, and by default could turn both into substantial financial/penalty liabilities for myself, and significant profit -centers for the City and for its short roster of expensive private arborists, should I choose to maintain my trees or build a home. All of this has happened/will happen without an open election on an initiative about which voters have had no opportunity to decide! Are property owners even remotely aware that they might face fines and "tree expenses" of perhaps as much as $40,000 if they happen to have a significant number of trees on their vacant lot, and if they should trim or remove them without city approval be treated as grand larcenists? I certainly think not! Frankly speaking, this is the type of regulation activity that fires the MAGA-Trumpers--legislation/taxation without real representation! The Tree Board, as it was instituted and is currently comprised, cannot be regarded as fully representing community interest. A prime example of its institutional failure would be that I had to search very hard in past issues of the Beacon to find any public mention of the profoundly important December 9th meeting, which was very surprising after remembering the volatile and heavily -attended meeting about this issue that took place in 2015, which I did attend, and which went far into the night! Quite possibly the failure to widely/effectively publish notice for the December 9th 2020 meeting is why only a dozen folks "attended" —by Zoom! It certainly raises the question: Was this on purpose? Is the Planning Board taking advantage of citizens pinned -down by a pandemic and preoccupied by near -term tumultuous —almost pre- revolutionary conditions? That attendance level-12 citizens —cannot be construed as a wide public vetting of this very critical and impactful set of regulations. Nor can the utter lack of subsequent meeting coverage in the Beacon, in which the City could have headlined these regulations to its residents. And I have received absolutely nothing in my mail box regarding this profoundly important property owner matter. It could be argued that these impending tree regulations, restrictions, fines and impositions could have more effect per Edmonds citizen than the widely -vetted, carefully managed anticipated Housing Commission sets of recommendations. Almost every property owner in Edmonds has trees to manage and enjoy, but relatively few Edmonds citizens anticipate significant remodeling or development of their properties, where they might encounter the new Housing Commission's highly anticipated regulation recommendations. Those have enjoyed a full democratic process, well -managed by Development Services, such that a wide spectrum of opinion and comment has been solicited from the community -at -large. In spite of almost zero public notice, I was fortunate to contact a neighbor who did attend the December meeting by Zoom, and he assured me that a video would be available on the Planning Division's website. It is not, and I wonder why not, especially as we are on the precipice of adopting these profoundly impactful decisions. With almost no public vetting, the potential financial impacts could reach many tens of thousands of dollars per property, an eventuality that very, very few owners would have any idea is being preemptively levied upon them! And it must be pointed out that these fees and fines "grow with the trees" —as the trees grow larger --so do the fines! An enormous and very expensive set of responsibilities, including professional arborist surveying, documenting, tagging, registering and subsequent attorney county deed recording services are being proscribed on an unwitting public who happens to have trees on their land. Virtually no one knows this is coming their way. And it begs questions of constitutionality --and certainly approaches city condemnation/confiscation of private property, and seriously affects "enjoyment" of ownership. Lot owners are to become unwitting hostages, who will have to pay "ransoms" to the City to trim or remove their own trees. How does the concept of property rights intersect with these intended regulations? Packet Pg. 326 7.1.e For many of us in this city, fortunate --or perhaps now very unfortunate --to own property in perhaps a more "tree'd city" than any other in Puget Sound, few things could be more important than the City of Edmonds taking de facto ownership/stewardship of our trees --at our considerable expense now and into the far distant future. Has anyone performed a study on the potential costs to the average lot owner, regarding the depressive impacts on property values when adding -in these onerous fees, studies, permit processes, tree registration and tree -recording on deed requirements, and harsh/ugly punitive fines, which even eclipse court -imposed fines for serious criminal behavior, over the cutting of a tree that is personal property as defined by present law? A close read of these regulations reveals very exacting, very expensive and sometimes very laborious city- micromanaged procedures that have to be paid for out of pocket. How does all of this impact property evaluation for taxation purposes, as taken together this set of requirements may add great complexity to the permitting process and the cost of building a home, perhaps exceeding the cost of the building permit itself! There are bizarre rules determining where a property owner might even place material on his own lot —or where he may be able to walk his dog on his own lot during the construction process! These proposed fine-grained micro -management rules are indeed onerous. In this "Tree Board process", there seems to be a distant echo of the Point Edwards Tree -Cutting Fiasco, where the developer devastated a coastal community landmark landscape in the process of profiting by millions, and eventually paid a mere pittance of a fine. Are we in the community to be regarded as suspects in "tree -crimes" against our own property? Is it our legacy to pay for history's lesson of Point Edwards? It is certainly not hard to understand how the city may wish to influence how structures are placed and must be built to standards and codes, but it is a huge leap to understand how the city can interpose itself between a property owner and his/her trees that are already in the ground and growing, and that about which that owner's decisions about their tree does not affect another neighbor's property, or have geological land stability impacts. The "Tree Board process" seems to be rooted in aesthetic considerations --their aesthetics. Are uniforms next for Edmonds citizens --who would design those? A close read reveals the City's desire to control bushes and shrubs, as well! Where does this end --with a Tulip Board .... a Rhododendron Board? For many of us, our trees may be regarded as extremely personal and intimate "property" --sometimes little different than pets --and it can be very difficult to see them thru to their end. They can also be home -destroyers. I am still recovering from over $80,000 in damage from one that fell on my house. But the decisions about whether, how or where they may grow should belong to the property owner, who is ultimately responsible for that tree's "behavior" under the law, should it "go bad" and fall on a friend or neighbor --we are. If one must invest so much to build a home, (e.g. $300,000 for the lot and perhaps $450,000 to construct a "cheap/simple" Edmonds home, including possibly $75,000 in building permit and surface water management costs) they should enjoy the rights of property ownership. The City could certainly be helpful and suggest solutions encouraging more tree accommodation, but these proposed regulations are in places very strict, harsh and clearly punitive. One could spend thousands to comply, only to see a wave of disease air a storm destroy everything 2 years later .... and even be forced to remediate that disaster! Some of these regulations are a reach too far. It could be argued that there has been vanishingly small public notice and almost zero public opportunity to vet or comment about this very important and dense set of intended regulations. I cannot even at this point find the video of the last public meeting. To my mind, this ongoing lack of public information jeopardizes the validity and possibly the underlying legitimacy of the entire "Tree Board process". Perhaps it is purely circumstantial and unintentional, but there is an air of "sneakiness" about this whole endeavor, which appears to disregard the facts that we are deep in a pandemic, and now possibly even in a social revolution, if not living through a deeply disturbed time. This begs the question of whether there is any consideration of better -accommodating —even hearing —the community's concerns? I do believe we need much more time and need to once again hear many more voices, as inconvenient and messy as that might be. Certainly democracy is messy .... the last "big meeting" about this subject was very messy! Certainly from the looks of things as they now read, the horse has left the barn and the gates are locked behind it, begging the question of how much does the community at large know and how much input did they have in the preparation of this set of policies? From what has been published in the Beacon —virtually nothing! It's Edmonds' biggest secret. Only one of my many neighbors knows that the city "is thinking about our trees".... Way back at the big uproarious meeting, I didn't then —and do not now —envy your job, but I do believe that you are sincere. So I'm sincerely asking for more time. We need a public meeting --a Zoom meeting of 12 in a pandemic is not a public meeting! Can we not wait until our forums are more widely open? And could the city of Edmonds take care to widely publish that time and place? Packet Pg. 327 7.1.e After all --the trees have grown slowly. A few years is virtually nothing to my 150 year old Douglas Fir. So should the city move slowly .... and wisely. Thank you for your time. My Regards, Nicholas Kappes Pine Ridge Neighborhood 425-297-0243 Packet Pg. 328 7.1.e From: Steve Zemke <stevezemke@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:34 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Subject: Comments on Edmonds draft Tree Ordinance update. Here is some more specific information and links on Portland, Oregon's recent update to their Tree Protection Ordinance that I mentioned in public comments at the Planning Commission's Dec. meeting. Portland, Oregon last week took another strong step toward strengthening their Tree Ordinance. "On Nov. 12, the Portland City Council adopted an ordinance that updates the city's tree policies to promote greater preservation of trees when development occurs in certain types of commercial, employment and industrial areas, and to further incentivize preservation of larger trees in other development situations." Among the provisions of the updated ordinance, it • "Reduces the threshold for required preservation of private trees from 36 inches to 20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) wherever tree preservation is required • Reduces the threshold for the application of an inch -per -inch fee in lieu of preservation for private trees from 36 inches dbh to 20 inches dbh ... • Directs Portland Parks and Recreation to bring a scope of work for future updates to the city's tree code Title 11 of Portland City Code) to City Council by March 31, 2021 and directs the City Council to consider funding for that work during the fiscal year 2021-22 City budget process." Link to full Portland news article below, which has a link to the amended ordinance text for Chapter 11.50 -Trees in Development Situations and accompanying documentation of the adoption process. Portland.gov - Portland City Council adopts updates to city's tree code, strengthening tree preservation Packet Pg. 329 7.1.e Portland, OR as of Dec 12, 2020 requires that developers pay a Fee in Lieu of 2 for 1 replacement cost for removed trees 12-20 inches diameter and inch for inch cost for trees removed that are over 20 inches in diameter. The amended ordinance in Exhibit C, of the accompanying document shows the new amended Fee in Lieu cost: Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry Title 11, Trees Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT effective December 12, 2020 DEVELOPMENT preservation, Fee in Lieu private trees trees>12 inches and <20 inches in diameter .... $1800/tree trees>20 inches in diameter ..... $450/inch NON -DEVELOPMENT planting and establishment Fee in Lieu .... $450/inch With budget shortfalls this year note that Seattle continues to lose potential revenue to support our urban forest infrastructure as lots during development are frequently clear-cut. Portland, Oregon meanwhile is generating revenue to help reduce tree loss and counter it by replacing trees. Here is a link to Portland's latest report. Urban Forestry Title 11 Fund Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019. Portland reported that they generated $1,444,426 for their Tree Planting and Preservation Fund and $981,720 for their Urban Forestry Fund for revenue in fiscal year 2018-2019 totaling $2,426,149. These number will go up as Portland has lowered its threshold for its Fee in Lieu for tree loss during development from 36 inches DBH to 20 inches DBH. Private homeowner's Fees in Lieu start at 12 inches DHB but are seldom used as it appears as they choose to replace the removed tree and thus not have to pay a Fee in Lieu. Another report on in -lieu fees can be seen here. City of Folson Tree In -Lieu Mitigation Fee Nexus Study - Jan 2020 "The Tree In -Lieu Fee proposed by this nexus study is designed to fund mitigation of impacts to Protected Trees removed as a result of development activity through replacement planting of trees in Folsom in order to preserve the City's existing tree canopy. The fee is structured such that the larger the Packet Pg. 330 7.1.e Protected Tree removed, as measured by diameter inches at standard height, the greater the in -lieu fee. Since larger trees provide a greater benefit compared to 3 smaller trees, more smaller trees need to be planted to provide the same benefit of a larger tree. Given this, the removal of larger Protected Trees requires the planting of more one -inch replacement trees. Thus, the diameter inches of the removed Protected Tree are multiplied by the Tree In -Lieu to account for the need to plant more one -inch replacement trees. The Tree In -Lieu Fee is intended to cover the cost of tree acquisition, planting, maintenance and monitoring of each one -inch replacement tree for a three-year period. " Steve Zemke Chair - Tree PAC Packet Pg. 331 7.1.e From: Clara Cleve <dancer.ca64@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:45 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code Dear Kernen Lien, As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in the city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent. We congratulate the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. But we urge the Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life. I would like to have us have a Urban Forest Management Plan similar to Shoreline's Management Plan. We need to have laws & ordinances that stop builders from clearing all the trees off lots they are building on. Sincerely, Clara Cleve 550 Elm Way #203 Edmonds, WA98020 Packet Pg. 332 7.1.e From: Pam Iverson <pam.iverson@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:42 PM To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Hope, Shane Subject: Trees Dear Edmonds officials, Thank you for this opportunity to talk about trees in Edmonds. As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in the city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent. We congratulate the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. But we urge the Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life. Thank you. Pam Iverson Packet Pg. 333 To Whom It May Concern: JAN 13 2021 nEVELl PNIENT rrr_:, CQUNTC', My wife and I live on 941h Avenue West in Edmonds. To the north of our property is Hutt Park replete with hundreds if not thousands of native trees. To the south is a small ravine with hundreds of native trees. To the east are houses with various landscapes including many trees and ornamentals. To the west are dozens of Douglas Fir Trees, Pines, Cedars, Hemlocks and ornamentals in landscaped yards. There is no shortage of trees. The following is an example of the ludicrous situations a "tree ordinance" creates. We have only one mature tree in ouryard and it is alongside our driveway on the shared property line with our neighbor to the south. It is a Cedar of approximately 80 feet in height and three feet in girth, two feet off theground. The tree sits atop a sewer line serving my neighbor's house. The root system of the tree regularly blocks the sewer outfall through the line. Furthermore the tree's root system is pushing -up the concrete pads in our driveway, cracking them. It is only a matter of time until the driveway repairs will entail expensive replacement. My neighbor and I want to remove the tree thus ending the damage it is causing. We have agreed to split the cost because the tree appears to sit equally on the property line. We have had two "tree specialists arborists" examine the tree only to conclude that the tree is "at worst a nuisance" and not a "high risk" tree. Numerous trees have been removed from this property and neighboring ones so there is a precedent for tree removal where needed. We have not applied for a permit because we were told in a letter from Kernen Lien that the tree is located within 50 feet of a potential landslide hazard area. Landslide? The tree has a soil perimeter of 3" to 21 "surrounding its base! We have never considered the tree a high risk in spite of several moderately high windstorms in the past several years, but what about that unknown and unknowable next windstorm? What loss of property or life is worth that tree? We have always considered the tree a risk to the sewer system and the driveway. That should be enough for us to remove the tree. It is damaging both of our properties. We have not applied for a Type 11 permit because of the nearly prohibitive cost of the process with zero refund if denied. That in itself is larcenous! For the City of Edmonds, bureaucrats and politicians alike, to deign to think you can tell me what I can and cannot do with my property is the height of ignorant arrogance! It is an illegal "taking" of my property and "rights " to my property. You or your legal counsels certainly know that you cannot "take" my property without due process and just compensation. Merely writing an administrative ordinance stating trees cannot be removed or trimmed is tyranny at its worst. What kind of trees? They are all different. What age tree? Young or old - it makes a difference. How about when a tree represents a risk to life and home? Would you seriously sacrifice a property or a life to "save a tree?" What about when a tree damages infrastructure, such as the one on our property? If the tree were on public property and stopping a utility service in a public right of way, would you save the tree and allow the infrastructure to be damaged? I'd bet not. Packet Pg. 334 7.1.e Think people. This is not about some perceived "class warfare" between haves and have-nots. This is simply doing what is right, using common sense and thinking matters through to their logical conclusion. John and Bonnie Magnuson 18622/6--94t" Avenue West, Edmonds ylkz M� Packet Pg. 335 7.1.e From: Gellman, Jana To: Hope. Shane Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: FW: The Value of Trees Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:45:37 PM FYI - Jana From: amearns@aol.com <amearns@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:58 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Spellman, Jana <Jana.Spellman@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Subject: The Value of Trees Why is it that, in the draft Tree Code, which covers only 3 percent of the City of Edmonds, the dollar value of trees is estimated whereas for the 80% of the City... residential areas .... the residential trees have no monetary value to the city or it's residents? When residential trees are cut, residents pay commercial tree cutters often thousands of dollars each, enriching private commerce, while reducing habitat and carbon capture and increasing land heat, soil desiccation, and pollutant runoff to our creeks and Puget Sound ... and not paying a dime to the City for the loss or restoration. Please place the same dollar value on a 50 foot cedar regardless of whether it is on developing property or on existing residential property. Alan Mearns Edmonds Attached. Bald Eagle roost across street from my house. Packet Pg. 336 7.1.e From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:43 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane Subject: Tree Code Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson; The proposed tree code that you will hear about tonight is a good start. It covers about one third of what a good tree code should cover. The proposed tree code does a good job of addressing private undeveloped lots when they come up for development. But, the proposed code does nothing to address the already developed residential lots. That is where most of our forest canopy grows and where it is being cut down. Little cuts lead to big tears. I hope the Council will take the time to fix this proposed code. Get it right. Address all the trees in Edmonds. Get a sustainable self funding tree planting program set up. Tree replacement planting is the key to a good tree code. We gotta realize that more and more trees are gonna come down; for all the usual reasons. Our commitment should be to planting replacement trees for every significant tree lost. Any tree, any place, at any time for whatever reason should have multiple replacement trees planted. I've looked at other tree codes in neighboring cities. They all try to control and/or mitigate the loss of tree canopy on private land. The attempts at "control" include: fees, permits, inspections, penalties, "fees -in -lieu -of', and endless enforcement issues. Attempted control of privately owned trees leads to public resentment because of added expenses and hassles. It leads to cries of "private land rights!". Whereas, "mitigation" recognizes and acknowledges the loss of forest canopy, which leads to action. Positive and cooperative action. We can all agree to the idea of planting new trees, just as long as they're not in my way ! We all recognize the environmental benefits of forests. And it's a lot less hassle and cost to City staff. I encourage the Council to not "kick this can down the road." Let's just do it right the first time. (Oh, no wait, the second time!) Let's take the time to institute an all encompassing and self sustaining Tree Code that actually fulfills the UFMP goal of "no net loss." Let's institute a "Lost Tree Notification" system. You just notify the City of when you are cutting down trees. Then the City can replant multiple "of kind" tree saplings. We can advertise this program through the City water bills, local media, pamphlets and city groups. All tree replanting and retention efforts should occur in Edmonds first; through tree vouchers and lower storm water bills. But it may require us participating in a local tree preserve, such as the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Initiative, in order to fulfill our obligations. It will feel good to do it right. We need it. A sense of accomplishment. Let's do it! An all encompassing, self sustaining and meaningful Tree Code For our future. Thank you for your consideration; Packet Pg. 337 7.1.e Bill Phipps Edmonds a Packet Pg. 338 7.1.e From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:37 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council); Lien, Kernen; Nelson, Michael; Hope, Shane; Passey, Scott Subject: Public Comment on Draft Tree Code 1. First and MOST OBVIOUS Comment - WHERE'S THE SCIENCE? Trees are an integral part of our natural environment and any/all decisions (i.e., codes, ordinances, regulations) on removal and/or replacement should be based on BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE!! The draft rule has percentages, diameters, etc. with NO scientific or societal basis for those metrics. What are the metrics in the draft code based on? Where is the rationale and calculations that resulted in the metrics chosen in the draft tree code? What tree protection and canopy goals/objectives will or will not be achieved? How will the level of tree removals authorized by the draft code affect the ecological services that native trees provide? 2. Will the "Intent and Purposes" of the draft tree code be achieved by the prohibitions set forth in the draft tree code, or will the exemptions and replacement requirements (as drafted) make that impossible? Is it really the intent of this draft rule to implement the City's Urban Forest Management Plan? One of the goals of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan is "no net loss to overall tree canopy." Unless there are analyses (as stated above) that indicate otherwise, the draft tree code appears to fall way short of that goal and will more likely result in continued significant loss of tree canopy. 3. Is this draft code consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Packet Pg. 339 7.1.e Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under Environmental Quality, states: "Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide." "So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non -sustainable approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system." Any/all allowances in the code for tree removal must take into account the "ripple effect." We are already seeing the "ripple effect" in the Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek watersheds where land development practices have caused HUGE erosion and flooding problems in our creeks. 4. What percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property in Edmonds could potentially be removed under this draft tree code? The Council and the public must be provided the answer to this question before it proceeds to a public hearing on the draft tree code. 5. Starting off the draft code with "blanket exemptions" to all of the prohibitions and requirements is BAD NEWS for trees in Edmonds. The entire exemptions section should be DELETED. If there are necessary exemptions for social or safety reasons, they should be specifically described under the appropriate provision in the code. Further, there should be an accompanying document that explains exactly why and where the exemption is necessary and how such exemption affects achievement of the goals of the UFMP and Comp Plan. Packet Pg. 340 7.1.e 6. "One size does NOT fit all" - the draft rule needs to address differences between the watersheds in Edmonds. More tree protection should be provided in environmentally sensitive watersheds (such as Perrinville and Shell watersheds) that will be further damaged with every large tree removed (i.e., the ripple effect mentioned above). Further, the remnant wildlife corridors provided by trees and tree canopy in Edmonds should be afforded more protection to preserve the wildlife. Thank you to those Council members that are actually listening to public comments and making informed decisions by requesting additional information from staff and asking staff to make necessary changes to the draft code BEFORE it goes to public hearing. Packet Pg. 341 7.1.e From: STEVE WAITE <waitearch@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:15 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Tree Code, City Council Review (2/26) Hello Kernen, Might you include my comments below for the City Council 2/26/21 meeting: City Council Members, The Draft Tree Regulations do not consider the accommodation of solar access, either passive or active, on a single developed lot, *. Sustainable energy practices should not be mutually exclusive of the natural environment. Adopting solar access will allow reasonable use of property, while still balancing holistic ecological concerns. I ask that you consider this issue for inclusion into the Tree Code. Thank you, Steve Waite, Edmonds *The concept of solar easement was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes (10/18/20), but that referenced only adjacent properties with no further discussion or consideration. Packet Pg. 342 7.1.f Packet Pg. 343 7.1.f Packet Pg. 344 7.1.f DAVEY Resource Group Packet Pg. 345 Driveways, minirmm width of 12 feet {ECDC 18.80.07f1] — C—i a� M A wat I aarr�aTsw Cmnectians II . • • • ."'.. PJowaWe building area For RS-8 zme (ECDC 16213.030) Required 30-foot access easement (ECDC 18.80.0ID) —:ode Sew.. Connec?c• Packet Pg. 346 7.1.f Packet Pg. 347 7.1.f Packet Pg. 348 7.1.f Packet Pg. 349 7.1.f Packet Pg. 350 7.1.f c �L 0 V CL r_ 0 r r N L IL R am c �L 2 V CL 0 U io r c d t r r Q c t R Q Packet Pg. 351 7.1.f Packet Pg. 352 7.1.f Packet Pg. 353 7.1.f ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site Q Packet Pg. 354 7.1.f c �L 0 V CL r_ 0 r r N L IL R am c �L 2 V CL 0 U io r c d t r r Q c t R Q Packet Pg. 355 7.1.f Packet Pg. 356 7.1.f c �L 0 V CL r_ 0 r r N L IL R am c �L 2 V CL 0 U io r c d t r r Q c t R Q Packet Pg. 357 7.1.f Packet Pg. 358 7.1.f Packet Pg. 359 7.1.f Packet Pg. 360 7.1.f Packet Pg. 361 7.1.f Packet Pg. 362 N L IL cu 1 1 C _1Q�1to104 l i � err cxs t!t ."') f;r• L3 t. t'u"' .� 4 . Yl 1 I f Sri r,�r c,zse. ,� - �y •' �-;ri'. i+ "' + .'�`g";,. ��� �.��r , } - - ru •� :.c Y. t @j' �I [ r IIl l 1 • i • f � t Pwaletr�-r�r ,{}" `f��� \{ �,(e !�'�•� JI Packet Pg. 363 � asap as^ w ras rr_ FA i0'SEPrEF-. 1 FAiY1dElJT 1 f a i - 7.; 741 3- _ li Packet Pg. 364 i O LyJ .uoowus o s � PA L 1 ---------- --------------- 7 �5 i ----_----_--------------- a `�, PANLEL 1 614 ucw'ws i �:�r.m i .�oEu � re C7 ..�00.9 Q Packet Pg. 365 Driveways width reduced from Access easement reduced 0) 12 toI10 feet from 20 to 30 feet C I d � �cGNS qUC I1 IIN SiL (i1P) V 7 f�{i CST � Ns � Rewosco .1 � ryrrl w �+ a 3 ^,01 r, d • - Utility easeme O i and r -r � • • • • I ' reduced and --flv a. -. °'r'"�`` q' • • uiihties in accr rM d ✓� y C CL �� •• • fA FRACTB88 - .. 240TH ST 'Mbwable building area. Reduced,Trees in this area can d 15-foot setback retained from access easement and 5-foot _ side setbacks .V C 7 O U io r c d t O r r Q C O E t R Q Packet Pg. 366 7.1.f Packet Pg. 368 7.1.f Packet Pg. 369 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/2/2021 Recognition of Housing Commission's Work Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Preparer: Debbie Rothfus Background/History Housing issues have been a much -discussed topic in our community and region for at least a few years. Such housing issues have included: concerns about the cost of buying or renting, whether there's enough housing overall, whether the existing housing meets current needs, adequacy of options for seniors, the appropriateness of existing city programs, options for new housing programs, relationship to zoning, provision of open space, and many other housing -related issues. In 2018, the City of Edmonds began efforts to develop a strategy for addressing some of the housing issues. Concerned residents requested that an entirely local commission be appointed to propose things for the City to consider. In 2019, the City Council established the Citizens' Housing Commission per Resolution # 1427. That Resolution called for a broad application process so that residents from across the City would have the opportunity to learn about and/or participate in the Commission's work. To assure that residents would be appointed from different parts of the city and not just one or two neighborhoods, seven "zones" - with roughly equal populations --were identified. Each Council member was assigned by the Council President to a particular zone from which they would appoint three applicants --two to be regular members and one to be an alternate --to serve on the Housing Commission. The Mayor was to select one "at -large" Commission member and one alternate from the remaining pool of applicants. In all, the City received 135 applications. Council members reviewed the applications from his/her assigned zone and appointed two Commissioners and one alternate from them. The Mayor then reviewed the remaining applications and selected one Commissioner and one alternate. Resolution # 1427 gave the Commission the following mission: Develop diverse housing policy options for (City) Council considerations designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation." Policy recommendations were due by the end of December, 2020. (The due date was later extended to the end of January, 2021.) In accomplishing its work, the Commission was to provide for public outreach and to have information on a city website. The Housing Commission's first meeting was in September, 2019. Given that the members had different backgrounds and not all were familiar with the range of housing issues, the Commission's first several meetings focused on learning and sharing information about housing laws, programs, terminology, etc. All meetings were in public and video -recorded. A special webpage for the Housing Commission provided additional information. The first open house was in February 2020 to share what the Commission was working on and to seek Packet Pg. 370 8.1 early community input on issues. Soon after this event, the COVID-19 crisis caused the City to stop having in -person meetings. Housing Commission meetings were held online, while continuing to be live - streamed and video recorded. All videos were posted on the City's website. Resolution 1427 had also called for the Commission to have two City Council liaisons. Between September and December 2019, rotating Council members served as liaisons at each meeting. At the beginning of 2020, two Council members (Vivian Olsen and Luke Distelhorst) were appointed as Council liaisons for the remainder of the project. As part of the outreach efforts, four community surveys were developed. They were mostly online, but the first three surveys had postal mail components too. (Note: Online government surveys typically have more representation from households with average or above incomes and people who are middle- aged or older. Therefore, the opportunity for hard copy surveys, mailed to a small random sample of addresses, was intended to provide a broader outreach.) The public process for the first community survey included an in -person open house. The survey was general in nature because the Commission had not proposed any ideas yet. The second community survey was associated with an online open house and asked for feedback on the first round of policy ideas the Commission was considering. The third survey was associated with another online open house and asked for feedback on a second round of policy ideas the Commission was considering. The fourth survey was associated with both an online open house and a webinar. It identified each specific draft policy that the Commission was actively considering and asked community members whether or how much support --or disapproval --they had for each draft policy. During the entire process, a special website was maintained and updated at: https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/. Of course, public process for the Commission's work included other components too. As part of its work, Commission members considered community input. After COVID-19 hit in 2020, most of the public input was in written form. In addition, individual Commission members also heard from or had conversations with other local people that were interested. Along the way, Commission ideas evolved. Public input was an important part of that process. Many of the Commission's initial policy ideas changed, either a little or a lot. The last meeting of the Housing Commission was scheduled for January 28, 2021. It would be the Commmission's 23rd public meeting. Staff Recommendation Consider the process to date, recognizing that the Housing Commission's work is wrapping up. Narrative At the time this memo was prepared, the Housing Commission had not had its final meeting nor submitted a set of policy recommendations to the City Council. By the time the City Council's February 2 meeting is held, the Council will probably have received the Commission's recommendations. Such recommendations also would have been posted on the City website. The Housing Commission's recommendations will be reviewed in phases by the City Council over the next few months. Each phase or housing policy item for Council review will be identified on the agenda in advance of the public meeting. No recommendations from the Housing Commission will be automatically implemented. They are all Packet Pg. 371 8.1 subject to further study and public input. Ultimately, the City Council may decide to move some recommendations forward --perhaps for more work or changes --and to not act on other recommendations. Regardless, the Housing Commission's work has been completed at this time. As an appointed body, the Commission ended on February 1, 2021. While Commission members represented a wide range of opinions, they have all been committed to the process and devoted many hours to fulfill their role. Packet Pg. 372 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/2/2021 Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel" as a Permitted Use in the CW Zone Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty / Rob Chave Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History This code amendment was originally proposed by the Economic Development Commission. The Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public hearing on December 11, 2019. City Council considered this item initially at its February 4, 2020 meeting and then again after a Public Hearing at its February 18, 2020 meeting. Three members of the public spoke at the Public Hearing: two in favor of the proposed amendment; one stating that there is already a hotel near the Waterfront. Minutes of both City Council meetings are attached here. The matter was scheduled on the March 3, 2020 City Council Action Agenda, but was postponed due to the late hour of that meeting. After that time COVID- 19-related restrictions did not allow its return to City Council agendas this time. Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the Ordinance as proposed. Alternative: Provide direction and forward to February 9, 2021 Action Agenda for further review and approval. Narrative Summary of Issue: Hotels are an allowed use in the Downtown Business (BD) zoning districts. However, in the waterfront district of Downtown Edmonds - the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone district - hotels are not included on its list of "permitted primary uses." The CW zone encompasses all of the properties waterward of the BNSF railroad south of Brackett's Landing South park to the City's southern limits (see attached map). That being said, only limited opportunities may exist for hotel uses to be developed in the CW zone, given that there are few, if any, viable, vacant properties. If a property owner or investors were to respond to market demand for hotel rooms, it would likely be in the form of re -use of an existing commercial building. A review of the history of several of the extant commercial buildings along the waterfront indicates that they have housed a succession of different uses over the decades, including such marked changes in use as apartments to offices, offices to restaurants and back again, retail to office, etc. These changes have occurred in response to changes in market demand over the decades and in response to changing Packet Pg. 373 8.2 economic conditions. The one, otherwise standard, commercial use that has not been available in this zone is lodging. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered this issue over the past two to three years, spurred by their interest in potentially capturing more economic impact from the thousands of visitors who come to Edmonds. While day-trippers spend on average from $44 to $85 per person, per day (depending on their activities) in our local economy, overnighters in Snohomish County spend up to $179 per person, per night, a substantial increase in local economic impact (Dean Runyon Associates, May 2019). What's more, in proposing this potential code amendment, the EDC believed that additional lodging opportunities in and around greater Downtown Edmonds would also serve as a welcome complement to the important arts, culture, entertainment and culinary scene. See attached memo from EDC Chair supporting this proposal. For these reasons, the EDC proposed consideration of adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted uses" in the CW zone. It should be noted that since this matter was first considered, the COVID-19 crisis has up -ended the local, national and global economies and substantially impacted the financial viability of traditional mainstays of our local economy, including retail, office -based and other establishments. Many business and property owners are facing an uncertain future with their traditional business models. Office - building owners have been left wondering if pre-existing and/or traditional tenants will return once the pandemic has receded, given the current work -at-home environment. It is quite possible that previously well -occupied office buildings may see long-lasting vacancies. Such property owners may start to seek and consider any possible alternative uses that could be more financially viable. Re -use of such buildings for lodging should be an available option. Proposal: For these reasons, and in an effort to expand the opportunities for developing potential lodging establishments in and around Downtown Edmonds, the Administration forwards the EDC proposal to consider adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted uses" in the CW zone. The current version of the CW zone is attached. Generally, the City's zoning code provides for hotels in commercial zones, and includes this definition: 21.40.060 Hotel. Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care. (See also, Motel.) The current proposal can be accomplished by adding hotels to the list of Permitted Primary Uses in Chapter 16.55.010 (CW zone). Staff does not recommend adding'motel' as a permitted use since the purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area, and the definition of a motel is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access. This potential amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments. Packet Pg. 374 8.2 The City Council had some discussion regarding parking during its review on February 41". Briefly, the standard for all commercial uses in the downtown area is as follows: "All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a mixed use or residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for residential uses shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit. For purposes of this chapter, "residential uses" shall refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar features." [ECDC 17.50.010.C] If the Council is concerned that the normal downtown commercial parking rate is insufficient for hotels, the Council could instead specify that hotels use the residential parking rate of "one stall per {dwelling} unit". This could be accomplished by amending the proposed ordinance to permit hotels as: "Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit" In summary, the Administration believes it is incumbent upon the City to provide a fertile platform for robust economic opportunity within our local business community - such as opportunities to pivot from traditional business models to keep businesses and property owners viable in the new economic realities we will be facing. The potential of a mostly vacant office building at the Waterfront does not serve our community's nor nearby businesses' best interests. If market conditions warranted re -use of such a building as a hotel, the Administration believes such an opportunity should be available, as it is elsewhere in Downtown Edmonds. Attachments: Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that would implement the Planning Board's recommendation to add "Hotels" to the permitted uses in the CW zone. Exhibit 2 contains the existing CW Zone language (ECDC 16.55) showing the proposed change allowing hotel uses. Exhibit 3 contains the minutes of the Planning Board discussion and public hearing. Exhibit 4 contains the EDC Memo to the Planning Board asking that lodging be allowed in the CW Zone. Exhibit 5 is a map of the CW zone. Exhibit 6 is a summary of responses to recent questions raised. Exhibit 7 contains the 2/4/20 City Council minutes. Exhibit 8 contains the 2/18/20 City Council minutes. Attachments: Exhibit 1: 2020-02-13 Ordinance adopting revised CW zone Exhibit 2: Edmonds CW 16.55 with Hotels Exhibit 5: Zoning Map Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes - Hotels in CW Exhibit 6: Summary of Responses to Rrecent Councilmember Questions Exhibit 7 - City Council 2-4-20 minutes Exhibit 8 - City Council 2-18-20 minutes Exhibit 4: EDC Memo to Planning Board Packet Pg. 375 8.2.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City's zoning code generally provides for hotels and motels in commercial zones; and WHEREAS, this amendment allows only hotels, but not motels, in the CW zone; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public hearing on December 11, 2019; and WHEREAS, this code amendment was originally requested by the Economic Development Commission; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 16.55 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through). Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Packet Pg. 376 8.2.a Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 377 8.2.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 378 8.2.b Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT Sections: 16.55.000 Purposes. 16.55.010 Uses. 16.55.020 Site development standards. 16.55.030 Operating restrictions. Page 1/2 16.55.000 Purposes. The CW zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians to the waterfront; B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the waterfront; C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public. 16.55.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Marine -oriented services; 2. Retail uses which are either marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented, excluding drive-in businesses; 3. Petroleum products storage and distribution; 4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics; 5. Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation; 6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070-; 7. Hotels. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use. C. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC; 2. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 6, 2001; Ord. 2366 § 9, 1983; Ord. 2307, 1982; Ord. 2283 § 6, 1982]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019. Packet Pg. 379 Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT 16.55.020 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Minimum Minimum' Maximum Maximum Lot Area Width Setbacks Height Coverage CW None None 15' landward of 30' None bulkheads for buildings; 60' landward of bulkheads for parking 1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property. 2 Tanks which are part of a petroleum products storage and distribution facility are allowed to be 48 feet in height. B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC. Page 2/2 C. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 2526 § 7, 19851. 16.55.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for: 1. Petroleum products storage and distribution; 2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats; 3. Public parks; 4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 5. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3902 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3320 § 4, 2000]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019. Packet Pg. 380 M NOW.. ------------ kn 500 %;" 8.2.d Board Member Pence suggested there is a way to get the public engagement program right from the beginning of a project so that the situation doesn't escalate later in the process. However, that is a topic for a different meeting. Board Member Monroe asked why the additional language related to existing, developed sites was added to Subsection C instead of another subsection. For example, the language might fit better in Subsection B. Mr. Clugston responded that Subsection C is application related, and staff felt that a little bit more explanation was warranted. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (AMD20190005) BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER PENCE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE CW ZONE (FILE NO. AMD20190006) Mr. Chave recalled that this item was also introduced to the Planning Board on November 13' by Patrick Doherty, the City's Economic Development Director. He reviewed that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) has requested an amendment TO the City's zoning code to allow lodging -type uses in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. As noted by the EDC, there are very limited areas for hotels to locate in the downtown waterfront area at this time. The amendment is intended to promote the economic well-being of the City by expanding these opportunities. Mr. Chave advised that the EDC's request could be addressed by adding "hotels" to the list of "Permitted Primary Uses" in ECDC 16.55.010. At this time, staff is not recommending adding "motel" as a permitted use since the purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area and the definition of a "motel" is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access. Chair Cheung opened the hearing, but no members of the public were present. Board Member Monroe asked if the amendment would change the height or parking requirements, and Mr. Chave answered no. The amendment would simply allow a "hotel" as a permitted use. He pointed out that the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) already envisions hotel uses on the waterfront, so the amendment would actually bring the zoning code into compliance with what the SMP envisions. Board Member Monroe voiced support for the proposed amendment. Student Representative Bryan said he also supports the proposed amendment and likes the idea of having more hotel accommodations on the waterfront. He noted that the hotels would be within walking distance of downtown Edmonds, as well. Expanding opportunities for hotel uses could bring more people to Edmonds, adding to the local economy. Board Member Pence said he supports the idea behind the proposed amendment. However, his recollection is that the SMP requires water -related uses within 200 feet of the shoreline, and a hotel would not be considered a water -related use. Mr. Chave explained that the CW zone is located within an area that is designated as Urban Mixed Use in the SMP, and lodging - type uses are allowed even if they are not water -related. Chair Cheung asked staff to share any arguments against the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave pointed out that it is pretty common for waterfront towns to have lodging in and around the waterfront area. At this point, Edmonds is unusual in that the use is not currently allowed. Vice Chair Robles said he supports the concept, but it might end up being too good of an idea. There are at least five existing buildings along the waterfront that would be fantastic locations for hotels. Once the use is allowed, it would be difficult to stop if it proliferates. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment is a haphazard approach, and he would rather look at the entire CW zone as a whole and come up with an overall plan similar to what was done with the Westgate and Highway 99 areas. The waterfront property is unique and there is limited land on the west side of the railroad tracks. It is possibly the most coveted piece of real estate in the State of Washington. Property owners could benefit tremendously from the amendment, which could dramatically increase property values based on the higher use allowed. Perhaps there should be some limits placed on the use, or at least a filter so they can get the good ideas and have an opportunity to reject bad ideas. He summarized that the waterfront area is a public amenity (a park) that belongs to the citizens of Edmonds. Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 382 8.2.d Mr. Chave emphasized that the proposed amendment would not allow a park area to be redeveloped into a hotel. The park spaces are zoned Open Space (OS). The amendment would be limited to the properties zoned CW, and there aren't very many. A lot of the properties that Vice Chair Robles is concerned about are not zoned in a way that allows hotel development, and they are publicly owned. Therefore, the danger is extremely limited. Board Member Monroe asked if Vice Chair Robles is concerned that existing apartment buildings would be replaced with hotels. Vice Chair Robles said he is more concerned about properties where single-family homes are currently located. Board Member Monroe agreed that these homes are great places for people to live, but they are currently underutilized properties. He said he would love to have a place for friends and family to stay in hotels close by. Chair Cheung said he can understand that people might be concerned that allowing hotel uses in the CW zone might result in additional traffic impacts, less public access to the waterfront, etc. However, providing additional lodging opportunities would be a nice addition that benefits the local businesses. It is a great location in that employees would be able to get to work via the Sounder Train. Mr. Chave pointed out that the existing office buildings in the CW zone do not provide public amenities. He would argue that a hotel use would encourage more public access and amenities. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (FILE NO. AMD20190006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reminded the Board that the December 25'i' meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be January 8th, and the agenda will include an update on the Housing Commission's work. The January 22" d meeting agenda will include a quarterly report from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, the February 121 meeting agenda will include an update on the Climate Goals Project, and the February 261 meeting agenda will include updates on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2050 and Buildable Lands processes. He noted there are a number of items on the list of "pending projects," as well. Board Member Pence asked if the Board holds an annual retreat, and if so, when will it be added to the extended agenda. Chair Cheung answered that the 2020 Chair and Vice Chair will be responsible for scheduling and establishing an agenda for the Board's annual retreat. In the past, the retreat has been held earlier in the year, rather than later. Board Member Pence said that would be his hope, given that there will be a new Mayor and several new City Council Members. Chair Robles said he will be meeting with the Development Services Director soon to discuss the Board's extended agenda, including a possible date for a retreat. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback regarding the items they see as priorities for 2020. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung thanked the Board Members for their hard work and participation as he chaired the meetings throughout 2019. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe thanked Chair Cheung for doing such a great job of setting the Board's agendas and leading the meetings. He made the meetings fun to attend, and the Board got a lot of business done, as well. Student Representative Bryan referred to Vice Chair Robles earlier comment that allowing lodging uses in the CW zone might be too good. He recalled the Board's earlier discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about their desire to be involved earlier in the permit process. He suggested that perhaps it would be possible for the ADB to provide feedback to help weed out the bad ideas, like too many hotels ruining the waterfront. Vice Chair Robles emphasized that the Board doesn't have that power. The Board's job is to make recommendations, and it is up to the City Council to make the final Planning Board Minutes December l 1, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 383 8.2.d decision. The optimum approach is for the Board to populate the record to the maximum extent possible so the City Council has adequate information to fully understand the public's wishes. Student Representative Bryan asked if it would be possible for the ADB to have the power to review projects and deny those that do not fit in with the City's vision. Mr. Chave explained that, depending on where a project is located, the ADB can make recommendations or approve design, but it cannot say whether or not a use is appropriate. The uses allowed are set by the zoning code. Adding "hotels" as an allowed use in the CW zone is essentially saying that type of use is fine in the zone, period. The ADB can rule on whether the design is adequate for the location, but it cannot rule on whether or not the use is appropriate. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 384 8.2.d POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE (File No. AMD20190006 Mr. Doherty advised that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is interested in ways to enhance the economic vitality of the City, and one potential option is to encourage greater lodging opportunities in the City center to be adjunct to the attractions (events, activities, restaurants, performance venues, etc.) that already exist. He explained that, over the years, they have tried to entice hotel developers to the downtown and even paid for a hotel demand report a few years ago that quantified the demand for hotels. The report pointed out there are few opportunities to develop hotels in the downtown given the small site size and height limit. While there is potential for small, boutique hotels that are run by independent operators, the name brand hotels usually won't invest in a market for anything less than 75 rooms, and there are no properties in the main downtown that could accommodate a hotel of that size. Mr. Doherty pointed out that the waterfront is another part of the greater downtown where there are opportunities to adaptively reuse existing office and residential buildings for hotel uses. In fact, he was approached a few years ago by a person who was interested in converting a waterfront office building to a lodging use, but he had to advise him that it was not allowed by code. The building was later purchased by someone else and is currently used as office space. Mr. Doherty said the EDC became excited about the notion of a waterfront hotel, and it was discovered that if a waterfront office building were converted to a hotel use, it would be the only beach front hotel in the Puget Sound area. It could become an attraction for Edmonds and improve the economic vitality of the entire downtown core. He explained that the EDC is requesting that the zoning code be amended to allow lodging as a permitted primary use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone (ECDC 16.55.010). Mr. Chave pointed out that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which already allows lodging uses in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environment. He also pointed out that the City's code typically addresses hotels and motels together; but in this case, the amendment would apply to properties along the waterfront that are in close proximity to public walkways, parks, etc. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to limit lodging uses in the CW zone to hotels only. Mr. Chave suggested that, in addition to the proposed amendment to add "hotels" as a permitted primary use in the CW zone, it would also be appropriate to do minor updates to the definition of "hotel." If the Board is willing to move the proposed amendment forward, it could be scheduled for a public hearing in December. Mr. Doherty explained that the overarching concept for the SMP is to have either marine -related or marine -dependent uses on the waterfront. If that is not possible, then there is a hierarchy of uses that can be considered, and hotels are higher on the list than offices. Office uses typically serve the same crowd every day, whereas a hotel would serve different people every day and would likely provide some public space, as well. In many cases, a hotel use would provide more opportunities for public enjoyment of the shoreline than an office use would. Board Member Monroe said he believes the proposed amendment is a great idea. He asked about the boundaries of the CW zone, and Mr. Chave said it includes all of the property along the waterfront except the ferry property, the port property east of the railroad tracks, and the parks. The Port property east of the railroad tracks is zoned General Commercial (CG) and the park and ferry properties are zoned Public (P). He summarized that it is a fairly narrow strip, but there are some significant properties that could be repurposed or redeveloped for lodging uses. Board Member Cloutier provided a zoning map to illustrate the extent of the CW zone, which includes part of the Port property, but not Harbor Square. Board Member Monroe asked about the parking requirement for hotel uses. He suggested this will be important information to provide at the hearing where it will likely be raised as a concern. Mr. Chave answered that the parking requirement is one space per room or unit. Board Member Monroe asked if employee parking is also required, and Mr. Chave answered no. Mr. Doherty observed that the average occupancy for a hotel is between 60% and 70%, and typically, 100% occupancy only occurs during special events. During these times, employees would end up parking on the street. Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 385 8.2.d Board Member Rubenkonig asked how creative an applicant could be in meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Chave responded that not all parking must be provided on site. Development in the downtown is allowed to take advantage of parking elsewhere within the area to meet the parking requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if other methods of transportation, such as Uber or Lyft, could be used by an applicant to meet at least part of the parking requirement. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that all new uses in existing buildings are considered to comply with the parking requirement. If an applicant is renovating an existing building on the waterfront for a hotel use, whatever parking is there would satisfy the parking requirement. Vice Chair Robles pointed out that there is no emergency access solution for properties on the west side if a train is blocking the track. He asked if there is something in the hotel laws that would prohibit a hotel from being placed on the west side of the tracks for safety reasons. Mr. Doherty said he does not know of any restrictions. He said he has spoken to a few hotel developers, as well as a hotel development broker, who were conceptually interested in property on the waterfront, and they didn't seem to find a problem. In general, there is concern about noise and vibration from the trains going by, and he occasionally hears from the Harbor Inn that guests complain about it. This is something a developer would need to address as part of a project design. Vice Chair Robles asked if the proposed amendment would increase the value of properties in the CW zone. Mr. Doherty explained that, typically, the appraised value is based on the highest and best use of a property. There are no hotels in the area and office development is currently considered the highest and best use. He does not believe that the properties would be appraised higher because there are no large under -developed or undeveloped properties that would impact the value. Vice Chair Robles said he understand that the amendment is being proposed to attract and accommodate tourists to the downtown and waterfront. He asked if a waterfront hotel is considered the only way to accomplish this goal or if there are other options available such as short-term rentals that can absorb a lot of occupancy but do not require development. This would give local residents an opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits, too. Mr. Doherty said the Airbnb phenomenon is growing in Edmonds, as evidenced by the surge in business licenses and lodging taxes. This is largely because they do not have a lot of other options. However, short-term rentals are not always to everyone's taste, and a hotel scenario is preferred by some. The proposed amendment would widen a very narrow door that a potential developer could walk through to provide more lodging in the downtown area. Vice Chair Robles suggested they open the scope of the discussion so that it is not based solely on the premise of bringing more people to the waterfront and downtown to take advantage of the fairs and events. Mr. Doherty responded that a lot of people use lodging in neighboring cities, and the goal is to recapture some of this market to improve the City's economic vitality. PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROCEDURE (File No. AMD20190005 Mr. Clugston reviewed that the unit lot subdivision process was adopted in 2017 and has been well received. Since that time, three projects have been approved and several others are in the works. Based on experience, staff has identified the need for a minor change to the application timing within the unit lot subdivision process to make the associated building permit review more efficient. He explained that the current code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot subdivision concurrent with design review, concurrent with a building permit application, or after a building permit application is received. However, applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to inefficiencies. It requires additional staff time to create, change, update and re -review applications, and it also requires applicants to prepare new documents and pay additional fees. In order to streamline the process, Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending that unit lot subdivision applications no longer be accepted after building permits are submitted. As proposed, staff will know to process buildings permits as single-family residential developments rather than having to start the process as a commercial development and change further down the road when a unit lot subdivision application is submitted. The proposed amendment to ECDC 20.75.045 would alter just a few words to implement the change in process (See Exhibit 2). Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 386 8.2.e SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO RECENT COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS 1. Q: Should hotels be allowed in the CW zone only as a conditional use? A: In the Edmonds City Code, "Conditional use means a use allowed in one or more zones as defined by the zoning code but which, because of characteristics peculiar to such use, because of size, hours of operation, technical processes or equipment, or because of the exact location with reference to surroundings and existing improvements or demands upon public facilities, requires a special permit in order to provide a particular degree of control to make such uses consistent with and compatible with other existing or permissible uses in the same zone or zones." Since offices, restaurants, and other commercial uses are already allowed in the CW zone, it is not clear that hotels would be out of character or have "peculiar characteristics" above and beyond the other types of commercial uses allowed. In fact, some marine -related allowed in the CW zone may arguably have greater impacts. For these reasons, it does not appear to be necessary to subject hotel uses to the greater scrutiny, process and expense of a conditional use process. In addition, the Planning Board did not raise the potential need for a conditional use to accommodate this additional permitted use in the CW zone. 2. Q: Should the definition of "hotel" in ECC be updated? A: The definition of "hotel" could certainly be updated, and we have considered doing that sometime soon — perhaps bundled with other "clean-up" amendments. As to specific questions raised regarding the existing definition: The current definition of hotel could allow for B&Bs, which are a reasonable lodging type. Other uses, such as senior home or apartments, etc., are already governed by their respective definitions, so there would be no confusion that they could somehow be construed to be "hotel" uses. 3. Q: Would this proposal include motels? A: No, motels are auto -oriented lodging establishments which we do not believe are compatible with the downtown environment. 4. Q: Will sufficient parking be required for a hotel use? A: Throughout Downtown Edmonds (in the BD zones) the parking requirement for all commercial uses is 1 space for 500 square feet of gross building area. This includes hotel uses in the Downtown Business (BD) zones. This uniform requirement is intended to allow our existing building stock, including historic buildings, to be readily adaptable to a full range of commercial uses over time and as market demand dictates. To require specific parking ratios for each possible use could result in certain uses being unavailable for certain buildings, and/or could even render certain buildings unadaptable or even obsolete. Wishing to promote a rich variety of interchangeable commercial uses in Downtown Edmonds, the City has implemented this standard parking ratio requirement and staff believes it should be continued in the CW zone for hotel uses also. If the Council wishes to consider another option, we have included the option of using the standard of 1 space per hotel room unit. Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be compatible with the City's plans to complete the waterfront walkway and otherwise provide physical and visual access to the waterfront? A: Yes. Re -use of existing buildings for lodging would in no way impact the City's efforts in this Packet Pg. 387 8.2.e regard. What's more, two factors may argue in favor of hotel uses as providing greater public access to and enjoyment of the shoreline (a central tenet of the Shoreline Management Act) than some private uses, such as office: the common inclusion of semipublic spaces and functions in hotels (lobbies, cafes, bars), especially when fronting an amenity like a public beach, and the larger and ever -changing daily population of users of a hotel. 6. Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be required to observe the view corridor requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)? A: Yes. All new buildings in the CW zone, within the shoreline environment, would have to observe all development standards of the SMP, including view corridors. However, given that most, if not all, existing commercial buildings in the CW zone predate current SMP requirements (most do not include view corridors, e.g.), it is unlikely that a property owners or developer would demolish an existing building to accommodate a new structure, given that the result would be a smaller new building. Re -use of an existing building as a hotel would not trigger view corridor requirements. Packet Pg. 388 8.2.f EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES February 4, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Zach Bauder, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Planner Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the p original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, N who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land c and water." E 0 N 3. ROLL CALL N City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. c 0 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V r COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- V MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. t x 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS w r c Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the Councilmembers who were elected and selected, E commenting it was a good process. During the Councilmember selection process, at approximately ballot number 18 when Councilmembers were describing why they had nominated a person, he was shocked by a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page ] Packet Pg. 389 8.2.f the negative comments made by Councilmember Buckshnis regarding one of the applicants, Lora Petso. He was most bothered by Councilmember Buckshnis lying in her statement about the $5 million which Ms. Petso had nothing to do with. The topic of the $5 million happened during a previous administration and finance director. Ms. Petso was not on the Finance Committee, and was only the Council President. He said Councilmember Buckshnis' comments were out of character for a Councilmember. Ms. Petso was polite enough not to say anything although those around her have been speaking out including comments made on My Edmonds News. He summarized the people of Edmonds did not care for Councilmember Buckshnis' performance that night and she owes the Council and Ms. Petso an apology. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE SEAVIEW PARK INFILTRATION FACILITY PHASE 2 6. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 7. ACTION ITEM HIGHWAY 99 PHASE ONE PROJECT Mayor Nelson said he was very excited about this project and his hat was off to staff, particularly Public Works who, even in light of the challenges the City faces due to the lack of state and federal transportation fund, have developed a project that jumpstarts what the City has been trying to do on Highway 99 for a long time to protect pedestrians, prevent vehicle crashes, and enhance and revitalize Highway 99. This E project endeavors to that on a quick and affordable pace. Co IT Development Services Director Shane Hope reminded of the work that went into the Hwy 99 planning 04 process including Council approval of the Highway 99 Plan, a vision for Highway 99 that includes U opportunities for development as well improving the function, walkability, and safety of the corridor. The o corridor improvements are costly and the City has struggled with a way to move forward with a project that U brings the vision closer and is helpful for traffic and pedestrians. r U Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is very complicated, matching the possible funding '�_ sources with the work planned for Hwy 99 and accomplishing as much as possible with the initial funding in hopes of attract more money. He reviewed: w 9 Introduction o Aerial view of project 0 244th St SW to 212th St SW (— 2.3 miles) E o Speed limit: 45 mph o Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 40,000 vehicles per day Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 390 8.2.f o City Limits: approx. 25,000' both sides ■ Edmonds (approx. 20,000' frontage — 80%) ■ Esperance (Snohomish Co. approx. 1,500') ■ Mountlake Terrace (approx. 1,000' north of 220th) ■ Lynnwood (approx. 2,500' total, 1,900' south of 212t") o Other Nearby Transportation Assets * Interurban Trail ■ Lynnwood Link ■ MLT Transit Station o Funding ■ $10 million Connect Washington funding in 2018 ■ $450,000 spent to date ■ $9.55 million available in 2021 ■ $290,000 in local funds Project costs ($Million/2020 dollars) Segment Limits Roadway Cost Utility Cost Utility U/G Cost Total Cost 1 244" to 238" Streets SW $20.6 $2.4 $8.8 $30.0 2 2381h to 2341h Streets SW $10.3 $1.4 $5.1 $15.8 3 2341h to 2281h Streets SW $18.3 $2.4 $6.9 $26.0 4 228' to 2241h Streets SW $13 $1.8 $5.9 $1.3 5 2241h to 220" Streets SW $14.1 $3 $9.4 $26.5 6 2201h to 2161h Streets SW $14.0 $1.8 $8.2 $24.0 7 216111 to 2121h Streets SW $23.1 $3 $10.2 $36.3 Total Costs $113.4 $15.8 $54.5 $183.7 Proposed Scope Change o Current scope (estimated project cost $183,000M) ■ New sidewalks with new street lighting in most locations ■ Center landscaped medians for access control and turning movements ■ Utility improvements ■ Landscaping and other softscape treatments ■ Capacity improvements at existing signalized intersections ■ Potential undergrounding of overhead utilities o Revised scope ■ Center medians for access control and turning movements along entire corridor ■ Traffic signal or HAWK installation (location TBD) ■ Considered a traffic signal at 234t", have enough funding but not enough warrants to justify so likely not approved by State Existing o Geometry cross sections ■ 84' curb to curb roadway ■ 8' sidewalks ■ 13' transit lanes ■ Two 11' travel lanes each direction ■ 12' center turn lane o Signal ■ 244t" St SW ■ 238t" St SW ■ 228th St SW ■ 224th St SW ■ 220th St SW ■ 216t" St SW * 212" St SW 0 d E 0 N I N c 0 t� U x W c d E t V cC Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 391 8.2.f • Future improvements with cross sections o Raised median • No Hwy 99 widening ■ Add raised/planted medians between intersection with left -turn openings • Add C-curbs along left turn lanes at intersections ■ Add HAWK or traffic signal (specific location: TBD) • Future build -out o Widen Hwy 99 at 238"' St SW • Add dual left -turn lanes NB at 238t" St SW o Keep raised, planted medians between intersections completed as part of Raised Median Project o Replace C-Curb with concrete hardscape median at intersection o Add ITS and upgrade existing traffic signals o Potential undergrounding of overhead utility lines • Cost estimate of revised scope o Raised median total project cost $.5M (funded through Connecting Washington 2021-2023 Biennium • Design phase $1 M ■ Construction phase $5.5M o Traffic signal or HAWK signal (location: TBD) • Total project cost: range from $1M to $6M (based on selected options) • Funding sources - Remaining connecting Washington funds ($9.55M) - Some or all of the $6.2M allocated to the Waterfront Connector project - Future grant opportunities (Highway Safety Improvement Program/HSIP) • Next Steps o Raised median • Approval of scope change by WSDOT Early 2020 ■ Design 2020 • Construction 2021 (early 2021 advertisement) o Future build -out • Design TBD (secure funding) • Construction TBD (secure funding/future development) Mr. Williams referred to development along the City of Shoreline's frontage which has dramatically increased activity; he anticipated the same would happen in Edmonds. Each project, particularly large mixed use and residential projects, can be asked to dedicate property along their frontage and can be required to build the frontage improvements. Council President Fraley-Monillas said before serving ten years on the City Council, she was on the Highway 99 Committee for five years. She liked the idea of a planting strip, envisioning it would improve safety. She also encouraged staff to continue looking a HAWK signal at 234"' as the area between 238"' and 228' as there are bus stops along that section with pedestrians trying to cross seven lanes of traffic which result in fatalities and personal injuries. She recognized the importance of traffic safety, commenting she has seen at least ten accidents in the area between 220"' and 2241", but she was also concerned with pedestrian safety. The new apartments in process next to the community health center will increase the number of people trying to cross seven lanes of traffic. She summarized the planting strip was a great first step to improving safety. Mr. Williams agreed a HAWK signal would be a big step forward if WSDOT would approve it which he believed they would since they approved two in Shoreline. He said the HAWK signal would not necessarily be located at 234" and may be slightly north or south. He reviewed highlights of the crash history: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 392 8.2.f • 8.61 crashes per million miles traveled, 3.5 times the state average. r One -quarter of accidents involve vehicles coming to or from two-way left turn lane ■ 220"' to 220 has the most accidents followed by 2281h to 228th Mr. Williams said center turn lane improvements will change the dynamic of the accidents and can address all the segments at the same time. Another benefit of the center median improvements is they begin to make a visual statement, a commitment to the entire frontage along with the future gateway improvements that identify when drivers are entering/leaving Edmonds. The gateway improvements have not yet been designed; staff is hopeful they can be incorporated into this project. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the HAWK signal did not necessarily need to be located at 230 but the lack of a crossing in that ten block section has created lot of problems. She pointed out Shoreline has HAWK signals in front of the ice arena and further south and there are also areas where drivers can make left turns which has created a much safer environment. Shoreline has also been successful in reducing the speed limit from 45 to 40 and she was hopeful that could be accomplished with this project. Mr. Williams said WSDOT is reluctant to reduce the speed limit without any improvements. Construction of a median provides a visual clue to drivers to slow down which may justify lowering the speed limit to 40. Although not the intent, if a person chooses to cross Highway 99, the median provides some semblance of a refuge. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed but said that was not a substitute for a crosswalk and a HAWK signal. Councilmember L. Johnson commended staff for developing a plan that did not wait to address safety on Highway 99, specifically a plan that would address safety on the entire stretch of Hwy 99. During the last year she has heard a number of concerns about safety on Highway 99 and as the mom of teenage drivers, she is very aware of the disproportionate number of accidents that occur on Highway 99. She was also interested in the gateway signs to welcome people to the City. Although she recognized the center island improvements could provide a place of refuge for pedestrians, she cautioned her children not to do that. Recognizing that 20% of the frontage is owned by other cities, Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the a) City would partner with the other jurisdictions. With regard to a signal at 234`h, she asked how far off the M warrants were, noting signals are evenly spaced except in that area. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss E answered level of service (LOE) is based on intersection delay; A is no delay and E is over 55 seconds of O delay. That intersection is currently LOS B-C which indicates there is not a lot of traffic using 2341h and there minimal increase with development planned on the northwest corner. With a 20 year growth rate, the intersection is still at LOC C. c E Councilmember L. Johnson observed the warrants have been met for a HAWK signal. Mr. Williams said N that will be negotiated with WSDOT as the criteria is for a HAWK signal is more flexible. Few pedestrians that use that intersection even though legally there is a crosswalk at any road that intersects with another N road. It is a very challenging area for pedestrians to cross 100 feet. With regard to the 20% frontage located in other cities, Mr. Williams said staff has had discussion with the other cities and Snohomish County; the c City would sponsor the project. The cost estimates include all the frontage improvements; the partner V jurisdictions will need to approve the design. v Student Representative Bauder commented when a road is revamped, drivers tend to drive faster because, there are fewer bumps. He asked if there were any plans for additional speed cameras to keep the roadway safe. Mr. Williams said traffic cameras cannot be used for speed control except in school zones. w Councilmember Paine said she spent much of the summer talking to people and often heard that when going north on Highway 99 and crossing into Edmonds, it looks like you've entered 1950. She appreciate the z effort to move forward on this project quickly. She asked if this was the first time residents and businesses have heard about the change in scope. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Paine envisioned an a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 393 8.2.f active community engagement plan so businesses and residents in the area understand what the project looks like. Mr. Williams agreed frequent and high quality contact with businesses and residents is anticipated, especially with property owners who will be keenly interested in limiting left turns. Mr. Hauss recalled public outreach when the conceptual project was developed with the seven segments. Although the complete project was not described, there were discussions about a raised median and mid - block left turn pockets during public outreach. Councilmember Paine asked if residents and businesses knew the project will potentially be constructed in the next 1'/z years. Mr. Williams said if the Council sees merit in moving forward as staff has presented, the project consultant will develop a plan for public outreach. Councilmember Paine asked about the timeline for the project. Mr. Williams anticipated design in 2020, going to bid in early 2021 and construction in 2021. Councilmember Paine referred to warrants, commenting it was a term particular to the industry. It was her understanding warrants were the number of people or vehicles involved in crashes. She asked if any other data sets could be considered such as school bus stops to sway the decision to install a signal or a HAWK signal. Mr. Williams said there are warrants for everything related to traffic engineering. For example a stop sign, if a driver uses a stop sign 4 times a day and only sees another driver once every three weeks, the stop sign stops having any value because it does not seem to provide any benefit. The idea behind warrants is the installation of a traffic control measure should mean something and control a hazard that actually exists, not just a hazard that might happen but only infrequently. The same is true for a signal although there is a desire to avoid interfering with traffic flow if there is not a need. A certain amount of pedestrian traffic and cross -street traffic is necessary to justify the traffic control. He explained Mr. Hauss is good at warrant analyses and staff will maximize the case as much as possible. However, there are limits and with the limited amount of congestion at that intersection, a signal does not appear to be the right answer. A HAWK signal may be better option; the issue is finding the right location. Councilmember Paine asked if a warrant analysis was done for the HAWK signal at City Park crossing SR- 104. Mr. Williams said that was a WSDOT warranted, funded and constructed project. The City contributed approximately $10,000 to the $500,000 project. He never saw the warrant analysis. Mr. Hauss said a HAWK signal will be added at SR-524 and 84t". The threshold in the warrant analysis is 10 pedestrians during the peak hour. A pedestrian count at Highway 99 & 234" found was one pedestrian crossed during the entire day, well below the 10 pedestrian/hour threshold Councilmember Paine asked about a HAWK signal at 7`' & SR-5241" near Holy Rosary. Mr. Hauss answered nine intersections will be improved as part of the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project, including SR-524 & 9t" and a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) at SR-524 & 7t". Mr. Williams said the cost for a RRFB is $30,000 versus $200,000 for a HAWK signal. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $6.2M legislative re -appropriation which Mr. Williams advised was state funding. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $9.6M in Connecting Washington funds and asked if the total was $15M. Mr. Williams clarified the re -appropriation of the $6.2M was on the City's legislative agenda. After the passage of I-976, all the state -funded projects were examined; funds for ongoing projects were preserved, projects that had not had any efforts were absorbed and several projects were placed on a pause list. Edmonds' project is on the pause list which suggests there may be an opportunity to have funds re -allocated from the pause list to the active list. The $6.2M for the Waterfront Connector is currently unassigned but that does not mean Edmonds has access to it. There have been discussion with legislature about using some or all of those funds to add elements to the center turn lane improvements. Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 394 8.2.f Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is $9.6M remaining from the existing Connect Washington funds. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Shoreline where the utilities were undergrounded, pointing out if 5G is installed, they will be located along Highway 99 so the City may not want to spend the money to underground utilities. Mr. Williams answered 5G can be mounted on existing utility pole but if the existing utilities are undergrounded, dedicated poles, even decorative poles, can be installed and 5G antennas can be shielded/masked in a way that they are unnoticeable. Councilmember Buckshnis said for the $54M cost of undergrounding utilities, she preferred to construct pedestrian safety measures instead of aesthetic improvements. She agreed it would be great to have all the utilities underground but it was costly to underground and to repair them. Mr. Williams said some of that cost could be borne by development that funds future frontage improvements. For example, the GRE development on the northwest corner of 234"' & Highway 99 will be undergrounding the utilities in front of their project as well as doing frontage improvements. The community health center to the north will also be installing frontage improvements. Over time, the utilities can be undergrounded without City funds. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE INITIAL LANDSCAPING MEDIAN PROJECT ALONG THE ENTIRE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO REQUEST FROM THE LEGISLATURE RE - APPROPRIATION OF THE $6.2 MILLION INITIALLY ALLOCATED TO THE FORMER WATERFRONT CONNECTOR PROJECT TO THE HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT IN ORDER TO FUND COMPLETION OF THIS FIRST PHASE IN THE 2021-2023 BIENNIUM. Councilmember Olson expressed support for the motion. She commented there are circumstances and projects that highlight how amazing City staff is. She thanked staff and Mayor Nelson for this interim solution to what has been a long term problem for the City. With regard to the gateway signs, she said citizens like to be involved in providing input and she hoped there was a process in place for getting input from businesses and residents in that area, particularly the International District. Mr. Williams assured there would be outreach to the public. Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated staff s creativity in developing this project and bringing it forward. He asked if this modular approach would limit any future elements in the larger plan or require any rework. Mr. Williams answered not that staff could foresee; the design process will consider each intersection. The intent is to install mid -block left turn pockets as well as U-turns at intersections which will require p maintaining turning radius. It may be possible to obtain a deviation to reduce the turning radius from 52 N feet to 48 feet. There will be property takes at the intersections to provide adequate space for turning movements. E MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Co IT 8. STUDY ITEMS N U c 1. POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENT TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION o PROCEDU1ZC (AMD20190005) V r Planner Mike Clugston explained the Council adopted a Unit Lot Subdivision code a few years ago that v allows the subdivision of townhomes, an alternative for fee -simple ownership instead of a condominiumization process. Three fee -simple projects have been approved to date and several more are at various stages of the review process. Based on that experience, staff has identified the need for a minor w change to application timing within the unit lot procedure to make the associated building permit reviews more efficient for both staff and applicants. The existing code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot subdivision together with design review, together with a building permit application, or after a building E permit application is submitted. Applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to processing inefficiencies for both staff and applicant. To streamline the process, staff is proposing Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 395 8.2.f a minor change in 20.75.045.C, to change "subsequent to" to "preceding." The intent is to ensure applicants are aware of the need to apply for the unit lot subdivision earlier in process which will save staff and the applicant time and money. Staff has educated a couple applicants in -the past 1-2 months while this change has been in the work to encourage them to apply for the unit lot subdivision upfront and they were agreeable. Councilmember Paine said she was familiar with unit lot subdivision in other municipalities. She liked the change as well as ensuring predictability in the development process. She asked about the additional language in subsection C, "For existing developed sites, a preliminary unit lot subdivision application may be submitted at any time." She asked if this was prior or post occupancy. Mr. Clugston answered this technique can be applied post occupancy for existing developed sites. For Councilmember Paine, Mr. Clugston explained unit lot subdivision is only available to townhomes; flats would use the condominiumization process. If a tenant was unable to remain in a unit that was going through the unit lot subdivision, Councilmember Paine asked if the developer was required to provide funds for displacement costs. Mr. Clugston said he was not aware of anything like that in the City's code. Councilmember Paine remarked that is required in other cities. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a public hearing was necessary for such a small change. Mr. Clugston answered a public hearing is required for a code amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the reason this did not go through a Council committee was due to the public hearing at the Planning Board. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Mr. Clugston advised a public hearing at City Council has been scheduled. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE Planning Manager Rob Chave advised a study session and public hearing was held at the Planning Board M in response to a request from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to include hotel as potential use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) Zone. He displayed a map of the Shoreline designations, M c identifying the Urban Mixed Use II and Urban Mixed Use I; the CW Zone encompasses both basically west of the railroad along the waterfront. The Planning Board considered the amendment and found it appropriate O to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW Zone. The Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code would also apply. He reviewed the applicable code sections: r 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment c commercial and recreational uses. N Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high- N intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation. • 24.40.040 Public access and views. 11. View Protection Regulations. t� a. Within the urban mixed use I, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the v following required view corridors: i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained_ across 30 percent of the average parcel width.... s x w Mr. Chave commented most of the existing buildings on the waterfront do not comply with the 30% view requirement. Given that the height limits in the CW zone are 30 feet and with the view corridor requirement, E the amendment would not result in a large building usually associated with a hotel; it would be a boutique 0 or small scale hotel. Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 396 8.2.f Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the EDC has discussed this over the last couple years; the principal motivations were to capture more economic impact and enhance the economic vitality of Edmonds as well as increase the limited supply of lodging in downtown Edmonds. Although the City has a lot of visitors, overnight visitors either stay in the few rooms available in downtown Edmonds or in Lynnwood where there are upward of 2,000 hotel rooms. The EDC's interest was to capture a fraction of that economic impact; based on national averages, a day tripper spends $50-75/day and an over-nightery spends $200/day. A hotel would also be a complimentary feature in Edmonds' downtown where there are many activities, events and venues but limited lodging opportunities. Mr. Doherty explained it was envisioned as reuse of existing buildings on the waterfront; there may be only one building large enough to accommodate a hotel use. The existing buildings are all older and do not meet today's standards; if they were demolished, it was likely to be replaced with a smaller building.. He relayed a couple years ago an office building on the waterfront was for sale and the owner contacted him due to an interested party who wanted to use it for a hotel. He informed them that a hotel was not allowed. If this amendment was approved, there could be interest in the future for reuse of an existing building on the waterfront. Mr. Chave explained this only an introduction to the issue. A public hearing is scheduled on February 18th Councilmember K. Johnson was troubled that the EDC Chair sent a memo to the Planning Board Chair. She did not recall any other time since she has been on Council that that had occurred. According to the memo, it was pursuant to the EDC's work plan. The EDC meets with the City Council once a year and presents their work plan; she did not recall this issue being on their work plan. She felt this was an end run and it would have been more appropriate to ask the City Council to consider this and for the City Council to refer it to the Planning Board. She clarified her concern was not with the content but with the process. Mr. Doherty relayed the code states the EDC and Planning Board are encouraged to collaborate on issues. E When the EDC raised an issue and discovered it required Planning Board input/approval, they interpreted that as they should approach the Planning Board. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was the Planning Board liaison to the EDC when it was first established in 2010; there was a format for that collaboration c and both the Planning Board and EDC worked on multiple projects such as Westgate redevelopment. She reiterated this was first time she had seen a memo sent from the chair of one committee to the chair of O another and then to City Council and said it did not feel right. w m Councilmember Olson acknowledged she was a newcomer but as the Council liaison to the EDC, she was aware there is a liaison from the Planning Board to the EDC. In her opinion, there could not be too much o collaboration. She suggested perhaps collaboration between commissions could be a topic for the upcoming C� retreat or another discussion. c� Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that something went awry in c the process. The City Council directs policy and makes decisions about how to proceed. To have the EDC t� and Planning Board coordinate on this before there was a discussion at Council did not feel right. For example, if the Council was not interested in proceeding, the EDC and Planning Board have unnecessarily v spent time coordinating. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented some of the buildings on the waterfront that might be X repurposed are over the height limit. Mr. Doherty agreed most of the buildings do not conform to today's W standards. The likelihood that someone would demolish one to comport with today's standards was low because the result would be a smaller building. The City allows reuse of existing buildings; the current code E allows a building owner to change from office to retail/commercial. The proposal is to add hotel to the list 0 Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 397 8.2.f of allowed uses so someone could repurpose an existing building even though the building may be larger than allowed in today's code. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not object to repurposing a building provided it met the codes related to parking, etc. She was concerned that an office building over 30 foot height would want a rooftop restaurant or something that would increase the height. Mr. Chave assured that would not be allowed, especially if the building already exceeded the height limit. He recognized it would be challenging to repurpose an existing building that was not built as a hotel because the building codes would be different. It was quite likely that the buildings were old enough that they would not comply with current building codes. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it would be more likely the building would be demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Chave said would be challenging for older buildings to comply with current codes and change the use to a hotel. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified if a building were converted to a hotel, it would need to meet the fire code, codes related to parking, , etc. Mr. Chave answered yes. He explained in the downtown waterfront area, if an existing building is converted to commercial, they can work with the existing parking and not add parking. In his experience, hotels want more than the minimum parking, especially in an area like Edmonds waterfront where the availability of overflow parking would be extremely limited. The one advantage of the waterfront was potentially commuter rail could attract travelers between Seattle and Vancouver who would not need a car. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if allowing a hotel would also allow a boarding house. Mr. Chave answered it would need to meet the definition of a hotel. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed it could not be a kids summer camp. Mr. Chave reiterated it would need to meet the definition of hotel in the code. The definition of hotel in the code is out of date but the intent is clear especially when coupled with the definition of motel. In reviewing the intent of the shoreline environments and zoning, a hotel makes sense, but motel does not have the pedestrian component that is important for the shoreline. Councilmember L. Johnson agreed with need for adding overnight lodging in Edmonds; however, she questioned whether the best use of the shoreline was a public amenity. As this would apply to Urban Mixed Use I and Il, she asked whether the number of waterfront hotels would be limited. She also questioned the tradeoff for a waterfront hotel versus the waterfront as a public amenity for visitors and residents. With regard to public amenity, Mr. Doherty said the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) places a high priority on uses that maximize the public's enjoyment of the shorelines. That includes direct access to the water as well as passing through a site, visual access, etc. An office building has less exposure to the general E public than most hotel uses. All saltwater shorelines are considered shorelines of the state and access for 0 all is encouraged, not just Edmonds residents. A hotel use with a greater number of people accessing the C� building and site maximizes the amount of physical and visual access to the shoreline over an office N building. Many hotels also have a semipublic area such as a lobby, cafe or bar that is often on the water side which maximizes the potential public enjoyment of the shoreline. c t� Related to parking, Mr. Doherty explained reuse of a building for another commercial use is allowed to the extent the existing parking works for that new use. The new uses in the building need to be formatted to v meet the available parking. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the parking requirement for hotels, r� recalling a residential building that was constructed recently that did not provide parking. Mr. Doherty explained to encourage the reuse of building stock in the downtown zones including CW, the new use can x be designed to use the existing parking. For example, if there are 40 spaces, the size of the hotel would be w designed for that number of spaces. E Mr. Chave explained Urban Mixed Use I, the privately owned commercial area, is pretty limited. The Urban Mixed Use II is Port property and their uses are fairly established and the opportunity for a hotel is pretty Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 398 8.2.f limited, especially when there is already a hotel at Harbor Square. It was unlikely the Port would be interested in adding hotel rooms to compete with the existing use on their property. The more likely location for a hotel would be Urban Mixed Use I, however, the existing buildings make that very challenging. He summarized the opportunity for a hotel was remote. Councilmember Paine suggested cleaning up the hotel/motel language. Ultimately the goal is to have a hotel/motel in Edmonds either in the downtown core or elsewhere. Mr. Chave said the only hesitancy was the impact that changing the definition had on other locations in the code. He agreed it was definitely an outdated term. Councilmember Paine pointed out there was a small area of CW in the north end of Edmonds by Haines Wharf. She suggested having a hotel as a conditional use instead of adding it to the zoning. Mr. Chave explained a conditional use permit (CUP) applies conditions to an allowed use. A CUP cannot be used for a use that is allowed. The SMP does not allow hotel uses at Haines Wharf. A property would need to be zoned CW as well as have the Urban Mixed Use I or 11 designation. Councilmember Paine referred to parking, recalling the Port Commission meeting included discussion about commuters parking in the Harbor Square parking lot and possibly implementing a tow policy. She suggested a hotel on the waterfront be required to acquire an off -site lot for parking with a shuttle service. Mr. Doherty explained when a use is conditional, it requires more scrutiny than other commercial uses. In his, the Planning Board, and the EDC's opinion, a hotel is simply another commercial use and doesn't particularly raise egregious issues. The parking issue exists for all uses; for example, an office building has a parking demand and the hotel use would be right sized to meet the existing parking. When constructing a new building on a vacant site, parking is a consideration. In the case of reuse of an existing commercial building with existing parking, parking should be a wash because they are using the same parking. A CUP would be an extra step that doesn't seem to make sense for one commercial use versus another allowed commercial uses. Councilmember Paine asked if adding add hotel to CW would be consistent with environmental goals and long range plans for the waterfront. Mr. Chave answered type of use fits the purposes and descriptions of the environments in the SMP. The goal is to establish uses that are water dependent or take advantage of the location next to water; uses like lodging that support those activities fits the long term goals for the area. Councilmember Paine asked if a hotel was consistent with open space plans, recalling there was interest in purchasing a parcel on the waterfront and expanding the beach. Mr. Doherty said it ever made sense for an investor to pursue a hotel, for example the building south of Bracket Landing South, there would be a continuation of the beach as the building has a sandy beach in front. If the use were changed to a hotel, the c beach would be more accessible to public and it would be the only hotel in the Seattle metropolitan area on C� the beach. The notion of a walkway and connectivity is not affected by the reuse of an existing building. cm Mr. Chave said public walkways, beaches, etc. are protected areas and changing the use does not affect those. 0 t� Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the concern about the process, that it should have come to the Council first. She did not recall that this was on the EDC's 2019 work plan. The City has limited open space v and she agreed a hotel should be a conditional use. She was not in favor of hotel on the waterfront due to the limited space and because there is already a hotel in the waterfront area. The waterfront is precious and limited and should be retained for citizens and tourism. She was unsure that Edmonds needed to have the s x first hotel on the beach and she preferred a boutique hotel be located in the downtown area. w Councilmember Olson commented these are existing buildings and other uses should be considered unless c E the City wants to purchase the property for more beach or public space. The proposal is to allow an additional use in existing building and some of the concerns are not relevant. Mr. Doherty recalled the EDC Q Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 399 8.2.f recognized another potential reason to have lodging in proximity to the waterfront environment was rental events at the Waterfront Center. He did not envision a hotel of greater than 40-50 rooms could be accommodated -in any -of the -existing buildings. A hotel would -complement -activities on -waterfront. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested obtaining hotel vacancy rates from the existing waterfront hotel, especially in the summer months. Councilmember Distelhorst observed there hasn't been any specific interest in the past couple years about repurposing an existing building. Mr. Doherty said there was an inquiry a couple years ago when one of the buildings was for sale; a potential purchaser was interested in the possibility of a hotel if it were allowed. No one has specifically identified a building for purchase for a hotel. There was an inquiry in November whether hotels were allowed in the waterfront area; he told them no, but that it would be considered in 2020. 3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE City Clerk Scott Passey explained after the election, he met with the Mayor and new Councilmembers to discuss City processes. Those discussions included ways to promote more understanding and cooperative working relationships and he mentioned the Rules of Procedure that the Shoreline City Council adopted. The draft rules are based on Shoreline's rules and modified to fit Edmonds. In Shoreline, these rules facilitated mutual understanding about procedures as well as promoted collegiality and cooperative interaction among Councilmembers, the Mayor and Staff. For the most part, the rules articulate processes the City already follows but there are a few changes. Tonight is an introduction; the packet includes a resolution to adopt the rules. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled financial policies were adopted via resolution and posted on the City's website. She suggested doing the same with the Council Rules of Procedure. Councilmember Olson suggested reviewing the Rules of Procedure sequentially. Councilmember L. Johnson said as a new Councilmember, she needed something to help her understand the processes. Updated, comprehensive rules of procedure will provide clear direction on how the Council should conduct business. She suggested posting it on the City Council's webpage so constituents are clear regarding procedures. Councilmember Paine said the Rules of Procedure are wonderful and it will be nice to know the rules of the road. She particularly liked the addition of behavior outside Council Chambers. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule 60 minutes on a future agenda to review the proposed Rules of Procedure section by section. Councilmembers were encouraged to send questions to Mr. Passey in advance. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported at approximately 5 a.m. today, a gentleman turned onto an access road that paralleled the BNSF train tracks at the Dayton intersection and his truck was sideswiped by a train. Mayor Nelson said he asked Public Works to contact BNSF to request a barrier or signage to prohibit future access to the road. As a temporary measure, Public Works has erected temporary barriers. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS as c E Co N IT N U c 0 U r U x w r c m E t R .r r a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 400 8.2.f Student Representative Bauder relayed the good news that he received a nomination from U.S. Senator Patty Murray to the U.S. Naval Academy. He thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for making phone calls on his behalf. Councilmember Distelhorst reminded the public that the Edmonds School District is hosting a series of events about Black Lives Matter. The first was on Sunday and events continue on Wednesday and Friday evenings, a good opportunity for the community to listen and learn. He thanked the school district for organizing these events. Councilmember Olson referenced ballots that voters have received for the February 11 election. She encouraged voters to drive around school properties so they can make an informed decision about the school district's needs and to vote. Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Olson comments about ballots and encouraged voters to have their voices heard and to turn in their ballots by February 1 I". Council President Fraley-Monillas told Student Representative Bauder it was easy to talk about him. The congressional office was very impressed with him and the work he did. Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded of the Council retreat on Friday, February 7 from 8:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall. The retreat will include training for new Councilmembers. She encouraged Councilmembers to think about topics for the next retreat, possibly in April. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Council has used study sessions and committees in the past. She felt committees are were efficient; study sessions take longer. The Council needs to decide whether to continue with committees or to hold study sessions. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised that topic was on the agenda in about 2 weeks. Two Councilmembers have proposed different processes. Councilmember K. Johnson looked forward to discussing parliamentary procedures at the retreat. During tonight's meeting, Councilmembers spoke regarding Highway 99 and then a motion was made. The proper procedure is to start with motion and then have discussion. That is another topic the Council needs to discuss. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to information about Wallace Falls Creek and an article in the Everett Herald that directed the public to contact Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. However, because County Executive Somers cannot veto a resolution, the public should contact Department of Natural Resources District Manager A] McGuire, DNR Allen McGuire. Councilmember Paine commented the Council survived its fourth week. She thank staff for their presentations, particularly the study topics. She looked forward to providing a report on the Port of Edmonds including environmental mitigation for parking lots. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. MICH L NELSON, MAYOR PA SEY, CITY CLE as c E 0 N It N U c 0 U r U x w c m E R r a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 401 8.2.f d O m U U W Cd E m d c.i m L Q N d r 7 C E O N I N C 7 O U i Q Packet Pg. 402 8.2.g E D M ONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES February 18, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Zach Bauder, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDERIFLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Acting Police Chief Ken Crystal, Police Sergeant Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Mike Clugston, Planner Tom Brubaker, City Attorney's Office Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO PULL ITEM 10 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PRESENTATIONS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 403 8.2.g PROCLAMATION FOR JOE DWYER'S 100TH BIRTHDAY Mayor Nelson read a proclamation honoring Joe Dwyer's 100"' Birthday and declaring February 20, 2020 as Joe Dwyer Day in Edmonds. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OFOFFICE FOR POLICE: DEPARTMENT PR()MC , ION Acting Police Chief Jim Lawless said this is an opportunity to celebrate the achievement of a department member, Ken Crystal, who is receiving a promotion to rank of police sergeant. Joining Sergeant Crystal tonight are his daughter Mattier, son Jake, and girlfriend Lisa. An oath is an important public recognition of personal achievement. Most importantly an oath is a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and professional standards that are so critical to the law enforcement mission. Sergeant Crystal has served the Edmonds community for nearly 22 years after being hiring as a lateral officer on July 6, 1998. He came to Edmonds with several years of police experience with the New Castle, Delaware Police Department and the Delaware State Police. During his time with Edmonds, Sergeant Crystal has been a property crimes detective, a narcotics detective, a motors officer as well as a patrol officer and has been a patrol corporal for the last 5'/z years. An interesting side note to Sergeant Crystal's work as a narcotics detective is that after leaving that assignment, he served a six month term as the law enforcement liaison to the Snohomish County Adult Drug Treatment Court, a therapeutic court that works with adult offenders whose charges stem from drug addiction or abuse. Off duty, Sergeant Crystal has for many year coordinated the EPOA sponsored Thanksgiving dinner for seniors as well as the EPOA Christmas gift giving program in Edmonds area schools. Sergeant Crystal has received two letters of commendation, a medal of valor for rescuing an individual from a fire and was the David Stern Officer of the year in 2012. Chief Lawless administered the oath of office to Sergeant Crystal. His daughter Mattier pinned his badge and his son Jake presented his hat which also displays a badge of rank. Chief Lawless presented a Certificate of Promotion to Sergeant Crystal. Sergeant Crystal thanked Council, Mayor, co-workers, family and citizens for attending. He explained he was being promoted because Sergeant Bob Barker is retiring. A poll at a recent shift briefing revealed the average age of officers in the department at the time was 56 and the minimum amount of experience on that day was 28 years. Conversely, the graveyard crew has an average age of about 30 and the average amount of experience is 3 years. There is a huge transition in the department and it is an exciting time to be invited into the leadership to help new officers as they grow in their career and he pledged to do the best he can to share what he has learned. 3. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts explained he is the Hearing Examiner for about 20 jurisdictions including Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, and Kenmore as well as larger cities such as Lakewood and Federal Way. His clients range geographically from Mt. Vernon to Port Townsend to Mason County. Edmonds is one of favorite jurisdictions as some issues become contentious because people really care what happens in their community. He highlighted the three cases he held this year: Hitchens Shoreline Variance (3/27/19): Shoreline variance approved to build 4,690 square foot home 15 feet into a 50-foot shoreline buffer. The lot had an existing nonconforming home that was located 5-6 feet from the shoreline. If the variance had been denied, the Applicant could have expanded the home landward from its existing location, creating far more view impacts to surrounding properties. In the alternative, if the variance were denied the Applicant could have built a new albeit smaller home further up the slope, also creating more view impacts to adjoining properties. There was no opposition to the project. However, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 404 8.2.g one resident noted that neighbors were concerned that a narrow private drive would be used to access the new home. Staff took care of this issue by recommending a condition (which was adopted) that the private drive access be barricaded. Sound Transit Conditional Use Permit (4/25/19): Conditional use permit approved for 25 parking spaces at Edmonds Methodist Church at 828 Caspers Street to be used for commuter parking for users of the Sounder, with the Edmonds stop located about a mile away. Adjoining the church site is a Community Transit bus stop that the commuters can use to access the Sound Transit Station. Sound Transit and Community Transit have synced their schedules to facilitate use of the parking lot. No opposition. Edmonds Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment (6/7/19, reconsideration denied 7/20/19): Approved three shoreline substantial development permits, a conditional use permit and design review to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center at 220 Railroad Avenue and to construct an adjoining overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium at 200 Beach Place. The proposal drew significant opposition from the residents of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, who's uninterrupted waterfront views of Puget Sound were to be interrupted by an overwater extension of the Edmonds waterfront trail built upon a concrete foundation similar to Seattle's monorail tracks. The overwater trail was to have the same elevation as the bulkhead for the condominiums. Ebb Tide condominium owners filed an appeal of a determination of non -significance 1 issued for the project in addition to opposing approval of the land use applications. The environmental appeal was overturned and the decision to issue a determination of non - significance was upheld.' The primary issues raised by Ebb Tide residents were impacts to forage fish, pedestrian safety, noise and easement rights. The evidence presented establishes that although the project may create some minor impacts to forage fish, overall project mitigation in the form of 3,000 square feet of new forage fish habitat was found to more than compensate for these impacts. As to pedestrian safety, the overwater walkway was only proposed to be ten feet wide with no significant guardrails. Guard rail requirements are addressed by building code standards. The final decision deferred guardrail implementation to building permit review, with the caveat that the City would have to implement measures to prevent access to the overwater walkway during storm events. As to easement rights, the City has an easement for the proposed trail extension but the Ebb Tide owners asserted that the scope of the easement did not authorize the elevated walkway proposed by the City. The decision concluded that easement rights are beyond hearing examiner jurisdiction. There was no opposition to redevelopment of the Edmonds Waterfront Center. The Ebb Tide residents were very accommodating in separating their appeal and concerns from the Waterfront Center so that construction on the Waterfront Center could move forward without delay. 'A determination of non -significance is a decision by the City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official that an environmental impact statement is not necessary to review the impacts of the proposal because all impacts will not rise to the level of probable significant adverse impacts. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the reconsideration on the Edmonds Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment that was denied but the permits were approved. Mr. Olbrechts answered the reconsideration was related to the trespass issue which was outside his jurisdiction so reconsideration was denied. 4. PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT Jim Zachor, Junior, Zachor & Thomas, introduced Yelena Stock, Ms. Stock has been an attorney since May 2009. She began her career at Zachor at Thomas in 2009. In 2014, she left Zachor and Thomas for the City of Seattle prosecutor's office. There she quickly excelled and became one of the City of Seattle's top trial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 405 8.2.g attorneys, with a special emphasis on prosecuting crimes of domestic violence. During her tenure there, she also gained experience and knowledge, handling cases in many of the various community court programs offered by the City of Seattle. In June 2019, she came back to Zachor and Thomas and brought with her the knowledge and experience in prosecuting DV cases, but also her knowledge and experience with community courts. Ms. Stock is one of two supervising attorneys and handles the bulk of all City of Edmonds criminal matters as well as all cases currently in the newly formed Edmonds community court. Mr. Zachor introduced Sara Anderson who has been an attorney since October 2019. In her short time as an attorney, she has shown herself to be a smart and capable attorney who is passionate about the prosecution of misdemeanor cases. She currently assists Ms. Stock in the prosecution of the Edmonds criminal caseload and appears frequently at on the jail, arraignment, and review calendars. Mr. Zachor explained he has been an attorney since 2009. He is currently a supervising attorney for the City of Edmonds. His primary responsibilities are defending the City of Edmonds on RAU appeals and representing the police department in drug, felony and firearm forfeitures. He also handles the out -of -court administrative functions required by the court, assists Ms. Stock in preparing the legal updates and trainings for the police department, is the primary point of contact for police officers needing review of search/arrest warrants or with charging/arrest questions and is "on -call" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He is also responsible for all charging review cases Ms. Stock reviewed criminal filings 2018 compared to 2019: Other Criminal Total Traffic Non -Traffic DUI/Physical Criminal Non- Total Criminal Infractions Infractions Control Traffic traffic Filings 2018 4547 29 144 328 466 5514 938 2019 1 2804 1 38 1 135 343 507 1 3827 1 985 Mr. Zachor explained the Edmonds Police Department (EPD)is one of the more active departments for pursuing DUI offenders; even though 2019 decreased slightly compared to 2018, he liked to think that was due to the emphasis Edmonds Police Department places on DUI. The prosecution of DUI has become a much more burdensome and lengthy process. The primary mode of determining blood alcohol level is via blood testing where the EPD draws someone's blood at the hospital, sends it to the Washington State toxicology lab who runs tests on the blood to determine the alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, prescription drugs, etc. That process has become quite burdensome; 4-5 years ago the turnaround was 2 weeks; early last year the delay was 6 months, the current average delay to get results is 10-12 months even though the toxicology lab has hired more people. Toxicology results are important, especially for repeat offenders who typically have more experience with defense attorneys telling them how to get out of a DUI. The wait time for toxicology results does not deter the EPD or their office from prosecuting DUIs. On occasion a case has to be dismissed temporarily and refiled when the toxicology results are available. Ms. Stock reviewed jury trials • Number of Jury Trials: 7 o Number of guilty convictions at trial: 4 o Number of not guilty convictions: 1 o Number of trials ending in a mistrial: 2 ■ Jury Trials by case type and result: o DUI — 2 trials — 2 guilty verdicts (both on appeal) o Assault 4 Domestic Violence: 3 trials — 1 guilty verdict (on appeal) and 1 mistrial and on retrial defendant was found not guilty. o Domestic Violence No Contact order violation — 1 trial, resulted in mistrial, not re -tried o Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officers — 1 trial with a guilty verdict (on appeal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 406 8.2.g Mr. Zachor said a common question is why are the guilty verdicts on appeal; In Washington, defendants have what is called a direct appeal or appeal as a matter of right, meaning the defendant has a right to appeal a finding of guilty to a higher court. Most often, appeals are a result of a defendant being found guilty after a jury trial. Currently, all jury trial guilty verdicts from 2019 are in the appeal process. Including appeals from 2017 and 2018, bring the total to 8 pending appeals (total also includes 2 new appeals already filed in 2020). Appeals from jury trials often take several months to process for transcriptions, reviewing, brief writing, and oral arguments before the court are conducted. One such example, is a current DUI case on appeal resulted in a 660-page transcript. Mr. Zachor and Ms. Stock highlighted notable cases in 2019: • Edmonds v. Sanchez — The defendant was charged with his 41h DUI in the last 10 years, 2 in the last two years in Washington and 2 in Texas. That case went to trial in April and he was found of DUI and is currently serving a one-year jail sentence because he was a repeat offender. The case is currently on appeal and has a transcript of 660 pages. • Edmonds v Bendzak — This was the defendants 3`d DUI. The jury trial took two days and was successful as a result of the Police Department and witnesses. In talking to the jury afterwards, they indicated the Edmonds Police Department and Prosecutors had done an excellent job. The defendant was found guilty at jury trial and sentenced to 30 days, 5 days in jail and 25 days on EHM, and 5 years of probation with requirements to obtain alcohol/drug treatment. The case is currently on appeal. The case highlights the difficulties posed by the long delay in receiving toxicology results from the State Toxicology lab. This case was originally filed in 2018 but had to be dismissed and re -filed almost 8 months later when the toxicology results were finally received. • Edmonds v. Curtiss — This stalking case began in 2012 and involved a young lady who was stalked for over 5 years by the defendant, resulting in her spending much of her time at home protected by her mother. The case was finally resolved in 2019, originally filed in 2017. His and Police Department's primary concern was to protect the victim; the case resulted in diversion agreement and a permanent/life-time stalking protection order and securing significant mental health treatment for the defendant. While the defendant is on this diversion agreement, should he violate any provisions or conditions, he will likely spend a year or more in jail. The diversion agreement also saved the victim from having to testify and relive the horrors she endured during this part of her young life. Mr. Zachor thanked the Edmonds Police Department for the time and effort they put into this case. Ms. Stock and Mr. Zachor reviewed prospects for 2020: Community Court — Edmonds Municipal Court began its newly formed community court in January of 2020. Currently, the program has had two court calendars and the new program appears to be heading in the right direction by improving the success rate of defendant's on probation. The location allows defendants to take the bus and the court is one -stop -shopping. Most of the defendants are indigent and do not know what resources are available. DWLS 3post-filing, re -trial diversion program — The prosecutor's office is currently developing a program to improve the re -licensing of criminal defendants charged with driving on a suspended license in the third degree. While there are various reasons for such a driving status, it primarily is a result of not paying or responding to traffic tickets. This program is designed to help people become lawful licensed and insured drivers and therefore less likely to be in the criminal justice system. Domestic Violence prosecution — Adding Ms. Stock as one of the supervising attorneys for the City of Edmonds instantly brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the firm's DV prosecution. Additionally, having the City's DV coordinator, Jill Schick, significantly increases the contact and success rate of DV prosecutions. Combined, the effect has seen a reduction of repeat domestic violence offenders Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 19, 2020 Pa e 5 Packet Pg. 407 8.2.g and improvement in victim/police/prosecutor interaction and this office looks toward continued improvement on Domestic Violence prosecution cases. Thanked Edmonds Police Department officers. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her appreciation and shared in the excitement of implementing community court. She referred to the decrease in traffic infractions from 4547 in 2018 to 2804 in 2019 and asked why there had been a 40% reduction. Mr. Zachor said that was best answered by the Police Department, but it can be related to a reduction in staffing levels, officers pulling over drivers and discovering there is an associated crime, people are driver better, etc. He summarized there were a number of factors that could result in the reduction. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about domestic violence cases; how many cases have there been, whether they are brought to community court and how Ms. Stock works with the Domestic Violence Coordinator. Ms. Stock answered she did not have exact number of domestic violence cases, they are included in criminal non -traffic. Mr. Zachor estimated 1/3 are domestic violence so about 150-200. Ms. Stock said community court is a post -conviction court, cases only go to community court if there is a disposition, the defendant is on probation and there has been a guilty finding. Defendants qualify for community court as long as there is no safety risk since the community court is held offsite at Swedish. If there any safety risks, defendants are seen at the Edmonds courthouse. Her work with Domestic Violence Coordinator Jill Schick includes multiple emails and phone calls and she staffs select cases with Ms. Schick at least once a week. Councilmember Paine thanked the firm for their work in the domestic violence community. She spent nearly seven years of career in that field and found it tough and interesting and required a lot of heart. She was excited by community court and asked if there was any interest in clearing post and pre -conviction warrants closer to Hwy 99. Mr. Zachor answered the Public Defender's Office, Judge Coburn and their office have bench warrant quash motions filed routinely. The difficulty with people with warrants is getting in touch with them. That question is probably better answered by the Public Defender who actively reaches out to people before court and after court if they do not appear. As long as there has been some contact with the Public Defender's Office, Judge Coburn tries not to issue warrants because she would rather have them in court than in jail. Edmonds has liberal policy of quashing warrants; Judge Coburn makes it as easy as possible for someone to quash their warrant; typically they simply need to show up and the Judge will quash their warrant. Councilmember Olson referred to the staffing issue at the toxicology lab effecting the time it takes to issue results. She asked if that was an issue nationwide or locally. Mr. Zachor answered it was statewide. Ms. Stock explained the toxicology lab has hired people but they must complete a certification process that takes up to a year. Councilmember Olson suggested that could be an opportunity for a public service announcement for young adults and asked what background was required. Ms. Stock answered chemistry. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Zachor & Thomas for their report and their work on domestic violence and community court. He asked if 2 of 7 trials ending in mistrial was more than normal, whether there were significant lessons learned, noting one was retried and one was not guilty. Ms. Stock answered mistrials are usually due to something procedural. The rules of evidence are set at the beginning where evidence that will/will be allowed is determined. The most common is information that is supposed to be suppressed ends up comes out during trial and the trial has to start over. Once a case has begun, everyone has seen everyone else's hand and it is more difficult to "play poker" the next time when you know everyone's hands. So the prosecutor has to reevaluate to see if the case can be won knowing the strategy and what evidence will/will not be allowed as the rules of evidence still apply to the next case. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the lengthy delay in receiving toxicology reports and the delay in processing rape kits. She asked the timing to process rape kits. Mr. Zachor answered rape is a felony which is filed by the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 408 8.2.g Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Zachor & Thomas for participating in Judge Coburn's community court program. She also served on Judge Coburn's team and she appreciate them being flexible and willing to go where issues are occurring. The cooperation of the prosecutor and defense attorneys made a huge difference in the ability to implement community court. Mr. Zachor said they too are excited about community court, finding it a great benefit to the community. 5. POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT PROCESS Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson introduced Gary Peterson, President & CEO, Public Sector Search & Consulting, Inc. She clarified there is no action required of Council. Mr. Peterson explained PSSC, a California corporation authorized to work in Washington; is a boutique firm with 5-7 employees that specifically focuses on executive searches for police chiefs. They pride themselves on being response to their clients and limit the number of searches they take on at any one time. He is the President/CEO of the firm and will be the Search Consultant and lead this project. He has personally led over 35 executive search projects over the past 5 years, including 23 police chiefs searches. All 23 searches resulted in a selection; all selections are still in place. He highlighted the qualifications of the recruiters involved in this search: Gary Peterson, President/CEO 30 years public safety/recruiting experience Retired Police Chief — Martinez, CA JD, MS, BA FBI National Academy Senior Management Institute for Police (SMIP) Training Committee, California Police Chiefs Assoc Mr. Peterson reviewed: • Track Record o 2019 Mark Helms, Search Consultant 32 Years Public Safety Experience Ret. Chief— Lodi PD (CA); former deputy chief, Stockton PD (CA) Executive Fellow, National Police Foundation Board of Directors, California Police Chiefs Assn. MPA, BA FBI National Academy CA Law Enforcement Command College ■ Yakima WA — Police Chief a Redmond, WA —Police Chief ■ Grand Rapids, MI — Police Chief ■ Payson, AZ — Police Chief Wheat Ridge, CO — Police Chief o 2018 ■ City of Seattle, WA — Police Chief • University at Buffalo (SNY) — Police Chief • Rohnert Park, CA — Police Chief ■ City of Syracuse, NY — Police Chief • City of Albany, NY — Police Chief • City of Seaside, CA — Police Chief o 2017 ■ Los Rios Community College, Sacramento, CA Chief/Director of Public Safety • City of Kansas City, MO — Chief of Police ■ City of Dallas, TX — Chief of Police Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 409 8.2.g ■ City of Sacramento, CA — Police Chief ■ City of San Francisco, CA — Police Chief + City of Fairfield, CA — Chief of Police ■ University of California, Davis — Chief of Police ■ University of California, Los Angeles — Chief of Police ■ City of Shafter, CA — Police Chief Search Process o Establish candidate profile o Develop recruitment materials o Advertise the position o Source/recruit quality candidates o Screen/vet candidates o Forward candidates with recommendations Selection process o Goal: Inclusive Process 0 1" round interviews ■ Law Enforcement Panel (Partners and Edmonds) ■ Intergovernmental Panel (Leaders e.g. Schools, Mental Health, Fire) ■ Community Panel (e.g. Youth Commission, Senior Center, Diversity Commission and Other Community Partners) ■ Interview with the Mayor o Debrief Panels — Provide the Mayor with Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement for each candidate o Select Finalists Finalist Process o Suggested Multi -Day Process Community Forum ■ City staff forum ■ Meet and greet City — directors team ■ Interview with Mayor ■ Mayor selects 3 finalists ■ City Council interviews three finalists ■ Mayor makes the final selection and forwards to City Council for approval o Entire process 90-120 days Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Peterson was from California and recalling Edmonds' Police Chief prior to Chief Compaan was also from California. She asked if that was because there were more police departments in California. Mr. Peterson answered there are 350 police departments in California. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how Councilmembers should provide their input. Ms. Neill Hoyson suggested Council could provide input now or email input to her. Council President Fraley- Monillas said it may be better if Councilmembers have an opportunity to think about it for a bit. Ms. Neill Hoyson commented this would not be the Council's only opportunity; it will take 7-10 days to develop the recruiting materials so there is time to provide feedback. Councilmember Paine said she has been a public employee and has had bosses who conducted national searches. She asked if there would be a public records request to obtain all the employment information regarding the top candidates. Mr. Peterson answered it would depend on where they come from. A records check will be done through First Check who will provide a screening report that includes a lot of information Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 410 8.2.g but he was uncertain it would provide all the employment data. Councilmember Paine assumed they would also do a thorough internet search. Mr. Peterson agreed. Councilmember Paine asked what he perceived to be the biggest challenge in the recruitment process for a city Edmonds' size. Mr. Peterson answered mainly the cost of living; it is expensive to live in the Seattle Metropolitan area which may dissuade some candidates. He recruited for Redmond which is similarly situated and had a very strong candidate pool. Councilmember Paine commented Redmond also has unique qualities. Councilmember Olson asked if the City would be responsible for moving expenses if an out-of-state candidate were selected. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that can be part of the negotiation process once a candidate is selected. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the population of cities he generally conducts searches for. Mr. Peterson answered it ranges from small (18,000) to very large. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if their questions take into consideration the knowledge of the area, the area the chief will be managing, crime history, etc. Mr. Peterson said all that information is relevant and important to know and is taken into consideration and factored into the assessment. Councilmember Buckshnis warned him the City had experts involved in the Fire contract who provided some very valuable information that saved the City approximately $1M/year, but that went terribly with the union. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Peterson was involved in hiring Seattle's Police Chief Carmen Best who was an internal candidate. She asked how many total candidates there were for that position. Mr. Peterson recalled there were a total of 65 candidates; their process called for advancing five candidates to the mayor. Eight candidates were interviewed by a 24-person search committee who reduced the number to five. PSSC's involvement ended once the five candidates were forwarded to the mayor's process. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled Carmen Best was not Seattle mayor's top choice. Mr. Peterson said that was well documented in the newspapers and he did not want to comment. Council President Fraley- Monillas said she was not necessarily interested in Mayor Durkan's reasoning but how Carmen Best was appointed. Mr. Peterson the five candidates submitted were reduced to three, one candidate dropped out, Carmen Best was added and was ultimately selected. Councilmember Olson commented it was a relief to see so many layers of community engagement in the process, recalling recalled the hearing examiner's comment that Edmonds citizens care a lot about the community. She encourage him to listen to the citizen feedback at every step in the process. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Darlene Stern, Edmonds, speaking for herself, referred to an article she wrote recently and asked if Councilmembers had read it; several indicated they had. She posed the following questions: What does the Mayor believe is broken at the Police Department that needs fixing? What is the Mayors' direction for the Edmonds Police Department; citizens would like to know the plan before it is implemented. Is it his intent bring Edmonds into the sphere of influence of Seattle policies and politic and if so, is that in the best interest of the Edmonds community? What message, perhaps a loss of confidence, are you sending to rank and file of the department that you would look outside for new leadership when the department has qualified leadership within and is already a successful, cohesive organization? At this point with so many retirees, it is critical that new staff have cohesive education and support for their inexperience. As pointed out earlier, there is an average of 3 years' experience on the graveyard and the department is losing 38 years of experience. Bringing in new, outside leadership at this point doesn't seem wise from a management standpoint. A change of leadership should be stabilizing and use of this recruiting company does not seem Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 411 8.2.g to move in that direction. She was concerned that the amount of money spent was excessive and recommended individuals in the department be strongly considered. Marlin Phelps referred to a 2015 phone conversation with City Attorney Jeff Taraday in which Mr. Taraday told him the City had a new public defender. Prior to that time, the City used Feldman and Associates in Lynnwood who was heavily corrupt. He went to Feldman's office because he was fighting corruption in Edmonds; Mr. Feldman slammed his office door to the amusement of receptionist. When he left, he saw Mr. Feldman's silhouette through his half -open blinds, on the phone screaming "that expletive expletive is here right now." He commend on the crimes that went on in the Edmonds courthouse, the things they did and that there were no trials. James Zachor has trials but his father James Zachor, Junior, is a murderer, a cold blooded, old school gangster, murderer. Given adequate time and his story of what happened to him, he can point to the that James Zachor, Junior was responsible for the murder of a U.S. Attorney. In 2001 U.S. Attorney Tom Wells was shot 4 times while sitting at his computer in his Queen Anne home. James Zachor, Junior had his own grandson's father murdered. To know the history of this room and what went on will empower the Council. He encouraged the Council to know what they did and not be fooled. Jim Ognisty, Edmonds, highlighted State House and Senate Bills that could have a dramatic impact on the character of the City, SB 6536 and HB 2780, related to the elimination of single family zoning across the state, similar to what Oregon has enacted. He assumed the Council was passionate above the issue and wanted to bringing the bills to their attention as they are moving quickly through the House and Senate. He was curious whether the City would take a specific stance on either bill and if so, how that would be communicated to state representatives and residents. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was unable attend earlier to watch the Hearing Examiner's report so did not what know what questions the Council asked. He hoped someone asked how for the second consecutive time the Hearing Examiner's term and contract expired without putting the position out to competitive bid. The Hearing Examiner office has been problematic for the City and citizens for some time. He encouraged the City Council to do a detailed investigation into the history of the Hearing Examiner position and to involve citizens in that process and allow citizens to participate in the evaluation of that office before putting it out to bid. The Hearing Examiner has a four year term; the December 31, 2014 expiration was overlooked, 10 months later citizens made the City aware and his new term expired December 31, 2019 without going to bid. The process is to go out to bid, the Mayor makes an appointment, and the City Council confirms and a contract is entered into. He urged the Council to do a detailed look into the Hearing Examiner's office and look at Chapter 10.35 which is an absolute mess 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS FOR POLICE COVERAGE AT SCHOOL DISTRICT EVENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 412 8.2.g 5. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE CALL TO ARTISTS 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MURRAYSMITH FOR THE PHASE 8 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE PHASE 11 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES Finance Committee Councilmember Distelhorst reported on topics the committee reviewed: • Finance Committee Orientation — information only • Preliminary December 2019 Quarterly Financial Report — future full Council 2020 Carryforward Budget Amendment Ordinance — full Council in future Parks & Public Works Committee Councilmember Paine reported on topics the committee reviewed: 1. Authorization to Advertise Call to Artists (Civic Park and library) — approved on Consent Agenda 2. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with The Blueline Group for the Phase 11 Waterline Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda 3. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Murraysmith for the Phase 8 Sewerline Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda 4. Level 3 Communications LLC Franchise Ordinance — future Consent Agenda Public Safety, Personnel &. Planning Committee Councilmember K. Johnson reported on topics the committee reviewed: 1. Discussion Executive Assistant to Council Contract — consider extending current contract and possibly hold executive session to discuss performance. May be further discussion by Council 2. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Between Edmonds School District and City of Edmonds for Police Coverage at School District Events — approved on Consent Agenda 3. Edmonds School District Security Camera Inter -Local Agreement — full Council 4. Field Arborist Job Description — Consent Agenda following union approval 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROCEDURE(AM 11701900051 Planner Mike Clugston explained staff has identified the need for a minor change to the unit lot subdivision application procedure so that a building permit would precede the unit lot division application. Applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to processing inefficiencies for both staff and applicant. The change will save the applicant and staff time and money. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance following the public hearing. Councilmember K. Johnson commented in the past the Council has not made a decision at the same meeting as the public hearing and has made the decision at a future meeting to allow for additional questions and comments. She asked what process the Council intended to follow. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 413 8.2.g Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Councilmember Paine plan to bring that issue up as part of a study session regarding Council procedures. She recalled times in the past when the Council did not take action at the same meeting as the public hearing and other times the Council did take action following the public hearing. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that the Council should take action at the meeting following a public hearing. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her research found there was nothing in writing either way. In the past there have been numerous instances where a decision follows the public hearing. Councilmembers always have the right to make a motion. It would be good to have a written policy that the Council does not take action at the same meeting as the public hearing. Councilmember Paine said she preferred the Council have time to digest the information and consider comments received via email. Development Services Director Shane Hope clarified the intent of memo was not that the Council make a decision tonight, but simply to relay that staff recommends approval. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said when it comes to subdivision application procedures, the critical part is enforcement of the laws the City Council adopts. Enforcement of application procedures for subdivisions should not be contingent upon citizens monitoring applications and ensuring they file an appeal before the 21 day LUPA period expires. Citizens do not have time to monitor subdivision applications to ensure they are complete, consistent and legal; it is mayor's job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. He feared the 21 day LUPA appeal period creates a problem for citizens. Whatever the Council adopts, he recommended strong enforcement of the procedures. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed a diagram of the zoning on the waterfront, identifying the CW (Commercial Waterfront) zone west of the railroad. The other parts of downtown allow hotels; the CW zone is the only commercial zone in the downtown area that does not. The Planning Board recommended adding hotels as a permitted use in the CW zone. He reviewed the applicable code sections: • 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment commercial and recreational uses. Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high - intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation. • 24.40.040 Public access and views. 11. View Protection Regulations. a. Within the urban mixed use 1, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the following required view corridors: i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width.... Mr. Chave reviewed amendment options: 1. Planning Board recommendation draft ordinance: add "hotels" to the list of permitted uses in the CW zone Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 414 8.2.g 2. If parking is a concern, this can be substituted in the ordinance: add "Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit" (current residential parking requirement) Mr. Chave referred to the Council packet which includes questions and answers based on previous Council discussion as well as background from Economic Development Committee (EDC) related to permitting hotels in the CW zone. Council President Fraley-Monillas referenced the two buildings that have had some level of discussion, one has plenty of parking and the other has minimal parking and adjoins City's parking. She questioned how parking would be made available if there is only so much space. Mr. Chave answered the standard parking rate is 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area; another option would be to require the language in option 2, "Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit." If that amount of parking was not available, a hotel could not be established at that location. Another option would be "Hotels that include parking at 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area." In either option, that much parking would need to be provided to establish a hotel use. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented that prohibits current waterfront buildings. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on the existing circumstances and what property was available. Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area that is uniform across downtown recognizes the changes in uses that have occurred downtown over the decades. Downtown buildings have had a variety of uses in response to market demands. Having a consistent parking requirement of 1 per 500 allows the same parking for the next use. Changing the parking requirement for hotels would mean other uses could continue to provide 1 per 500. Anyone interested in developing a hotel would need to determine the size based on available parking. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if that was the same for the Port property, noting a majority of the CW zone was on Port property. Mr. Chave answered the CW zone applies to the Port property as well; the one exception is Harbor Square which has its own unique zoning and standards. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the zoning diagram and inquired about the green space with a P on it. Mr. Chave answered that was zoned Public. He identified the shoreline, noting the area zoned public is basically the beach. Developing a hotel on the Edmonds waterfront would not result in inaccessible waterfront because via covenants, public ownership, etc. public access to most of the waterfront is protected. Councilmember K. Johnson said she believes zoning is an extension of the police powers as was before the U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid V. Ambler. It is the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. One factor that hasn't been discussed is noise. She did not feel it was appropriate to have a hotel renovated in an existing location because in her experience while in those buildings, conversations have to stop due to the train noise. If the City had a quite zone or adequate passage to the waterfront area, it could be reconsidered. In the meantime, she did not find renovating an existing building for a hotel appropriate. She has heard complaints about the train from people at Harbor Square. In theory, Edmonds needs more hotels and in theory the waterfront is a beautiful area but this proposal is not appropriate at this time. She was also concern with how this was communicated and transmitted directly from the EDC to the Planning Board without first coming to the City Council. Councilmember L. Johnson observed Brackett's Landing North is also colored green on the zoning map and asked why the area south of the ferry terminal was not also green. Mr. Chave answered it was never zoned that way; it is owned by the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 415 8.2.g Councilmember Olson said the comments about parking are relevant for today including concern with overflow onto the streets and using parking that should be available for other uses. She pointed out automation will change things, as well Uber and rental cars that park away from the hotel. In the short term and for the reality of today, possibly some parking language should be added, but it was important for the Council as a legislative body to readdress that as reality changes and not as much parking is needed even if a hotel has not come to fruition. With regard to noise, that is an issue for a developer to consider in developing a hotel, and there are great noise proofing construction methods. The proposal is changing the zoning so it is an option if the right developer can make a project work. She was in favor of the proposed change. Mr. Chave commented it is difficult to predict the clientele that would be attracted to a hotel in this location. One of the factors is the proximity to rail and ferry traffic; some people seeking lodging may not even have a car. Mr. Doherty referred to uses that are currently allowed, noting there are currently no restaurants north of the fishing pier. Restaurants are currently allowed and have the highest parking demand of all the uses being discussed, whether office, hotel or residential. Any one of those building could be reused for a restaurant at any time. The concept is to add another use to the pallet of possible uses. A hotel is not an outlier from a parking perspective when compared to the current list of uses. Councilmember Paine asked if one of the buildings were rehabilitated as a hotel, do they have access to parking permits beyond their employees. Mr. Doherty said no, recalling a two unit hotel on Dayton applied for parking permits and were denied because the current language does not state hotel guests. Councilmember Paine asked if hotel employees could obtain a parking permit. Mr. Doherty did not think the Railroad & Admiral area was in the permit area. Councilmember Paine said the noise concerns are impactful but are not much different than other uses in the area. She was not entirely opposed if it was related to renovating an existing building. If a new building were proposed, she would have more concerns. Mr. Doherty pointed out most of the existing building substantially exceed today's development standards and some do not provide any view corridor. If a building were demolished to construct a new building, they would be required to provide 30% of the lot as a view corridor which potentially could be 30% less building as well as potentially a lower height. Therefore, it would be very unlikely someone would demolish a building to rebuild a hotel. Mr. Chave agreed several of the existing building exceed the height limit. A new building would have to provide a view corridor as well as likely be shorter. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was baffled; the code is messed up, there are four different definitions for hotel and motel and there are higher priorities than adding hotels to the CW zone. She cited parking issues, sound issues, public issues, potentially rezoning the entire area, and concern with hotel creep into the MP Il zone. Had the Planning Board come to the City Council first, she would have said no. She summarized the definition of hotel motel is a can of worms. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to staff s indication that restaurants have the highest parking needs, commenting in her experience hotels often have a restaurant. Mr. Doherty said the issue is there is not a lot of square footage in any of the buildings. If anyone were to determine there was a higher economic return to renovate a building for lodging, they likely would want to maximize the number of units and meet the parking requirements. He did not envision there being enough parking onsite to accommodate a restaurant other than a small bar for guests and/or a breakfast room. It would be difficult to accommodate both a hotel and restaurant with the limited parking that exists unless they were to acquire additional property within a reasonable distance. He summarized it was unlikely there would be a hotel of any size and a full service restaurant because there would not enough building space or parking. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 416 8.2.g Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the building north of the newly created waterfront/senior center used to have a very large restaurant and nearly their entire first floor is parking. That building would make the most sense for development as a hotel. She was interested in hearing from citizens. She recalled the building north of the fishing pier previously had a number apartments and are now offices; that building is set up for hotel rooms. Councilmember Olson said she was interested in citizen input. As someone who has served on citizen boards, she was aware of the frustration due to the lack of action on the work and proposals those citizen boards have done. This is likely an opportunity in one building closest to the waterfront/senior center and would only happen if a developer was interested. The EDC has considered this and talked to a lot of business owners and stakeholders; this could be an economic driver for the City. The City needs more hotel rooms and are losing room nights to Lynnwood because there are inadequate accommodation in Edmonds. She urged the Council to keep an open mind and remember the citizens who volunteer their time on EDC put their time and effort into this which was good enough reason for her to look at it more closely. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, small business owner and EDC member, spoke in support of amending the ECDC to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW zone. There are so many fantastic reasons to visit Edmonds and it makes sense to capitalize on visitors and the dollars they spend. For example, research shows that day-trippers spend $45-85/day; overnight guests spend $175+. With the development of new waterfront/senior center, it is a natural partnership to allow existing building space to become a hotel and to create a true waterfront event experience. There is an opportunity for Edmonds to have one of the only beachfront boutique hotels in the greater Seattle area. As a member of the EDC and Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, who also supports the amendment, they see the opportunity this change could create for economic growth and ask that the Council to consider the amendment. Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, recalled speaking with a few Councilmembers two weeks ago when this amendment was first presented. His overall opinion was the amendment would be a great idea. The concerns expressed about noise, parking, etc. will play themselves out. It will be a business decision by the person who chooses to develop a hotel. In this day and age where people provide online reviews, if noise becomes an issue, the hotel will not attract customers. It will be up to the business owner whether a hotel would be profitable. He agreed a hotel could not operate restaurant, more likely they would form relationships with existing waterfront restaurants. The location of hotel on the waterfront in close proximity to the train station is a perfect match because people can walk to the hotel. This change offers nothing but opportunity. Any redevelopment would improve the architecture profile of the waterfront. He was looking hard for a downside and the only downside he saw was the hullabaloo in previous years about safety on the waterfront. David Preston, Edmonds, agreed code issues are an important point. He noted there is already a hotel on the waterfront, the Port of Edmonds has over 5,000 overnight stays on the water in boats per year. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about occupancy of Harbor Inn. Mr. Doherty answered the manager's email, which arrived after the Council packet was assembled, stated 55-65% occupancy is average during non -peak times such as this time of year; in the summer occupancy is 95-100%. He summarized there are times of the year where there is a need for more rooms and other times when another hotel would be a competitor in the marketplace. 10. STUDY ITEMS 1. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES. STUDY SESSIONS, AND STUDY ITEMS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 417 8.2.g This item was removed from the agenda via action during Agenda Item 4. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson advised he will be a tasting judge at the Chamber of Commerce International Clam Chowder Cookoff on Saturday, February 22. There will be ten local restaurants participating and one participant from Japan. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember K. Johnson announced she has reappointed Scott Merrick to the Economic Development Commission. She announced the 28"' Annual Chocolate and Wine Gala presented by Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County on Friday, April 3' at the Tulalip Resort Casino. Councilmember L. Johnson reported the South Snohomish County Cold Weather Shelter opened last night when temperatures dropped below 34 degrees. The shelter will be open through Thursday due to projected low temperatures. It is a lifesaving service that is staffed by volunteers and they are always looking for more volunteers. She plans to volunteer tomorrow; varying length shifts are available morning and evening. More information is available at weallbelong.org. Councilmember Buckshnis reminded dogs are not allowed on Brackett's Landing beach or any Edmonds beaches except the dog park south of Marina Beach. Council President Fraley-Monillas wished Mayor Nelson luck at the Clam Chowder cookoff as she does not like clam chowder. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked everyone who participated in the Citizens Housing Commission (CHC) open house last week. The survey is open until Friday and available in multiple languages. He thanked the CHC for providing an opportunity for those for whom English may not be their first language to complete the survey. Councilmember Olson reported the Memorial Day event will be expanded this year with an invitation to people who have been touched by the art of Michael Reagan's Fallen Heroes Project. There are a lot of special events for Gold Star families who have lost loved ones to the war on terror. She invited the public to contact her via the City website or at her talk then walk at 85°C Bakery Caf6 on Hwy 99 tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. Councilmember Paine thanked everyone who came to the Housing Commission open house, coming it was very interesting and there were many perspectives. She estimated the number of attendee at 100. She was pleased with the attendance and was encouraged about having traveling open houses. Councilmember Paine reported on her Police Department ridealong, five hours with Sergeant Barker, that she found fascinating and a terrific education. She did not expect so much to be going on behind the scenes in Edmonds. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. of L J/J MIC £L NELSON, MAYOR PASSEY, CITY CLE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 418 8.2.h MEMORANDUM TO: MATT CHEUNG, CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD ROB CHAVE, PLANNING MANAGER FROM: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION VIA: MARY MONROE, CHAIR AIM SUBJECT: Amendment of Edmonds Community Development Code to Allow Lodging Uses in CW Zone. DATE: September 18, 2019 In pursuit of one of the 2019 EDC Work Plan Goals, as presented to City Council earlier this year, at its September 18, 2019 meeting the Economic Development Commission recommended that the Commercial Waterfront "CW" Zone "permitted use" provisions be amended to allow lodging uses. There has been discussion in previous EDC meetings over the past two years about this issue, which Commissioners believe would potentially allow for development of additional lodging facilities within walking distance of Downtown Edmonds, thereby serving to enhance economic vitality, jobs and revenue. We hope that by transmittal of this memo, in addition to our work in the past and stated goals to City Council, the Planning Board and Development Services Department will be able to commence work on this rather minor code amendment in the near future. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or Patrick Doherty, Economic Development and Community Services Director. Packet Pg. 419