Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-2006 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA March 27, 2006 7:00 p.m. 501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Biglow, Blazey, Lawrence, Phelps, Rudolph, Vail-Spinosa) C. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Mayor 2. Council 3. Staff D. DISCUSSION 1. 83'd Avenue NE Speed Humps 2. Building Permit Triggers 3. Tree Preservation Ordinance 4. 2006 Fee Schedule 5. Council Agenda Calendar E. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Medina City Council encourages public participation and values input from citizens. In an effort to conduct meetings in a fair, but efficient manner, the City Council will follow previously adopted procedures, which are available in the City Clerk's Office. All comments shall be addressed to the Council as a whole in a courteous and respectful manner. Citizens wishing to address the Council should complete a speaker card and submit it to the recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Speaker cards are on the podium prior to the start of the City Council meetings. Meeting Agenda is subject to change prior to approval of the agenda during the meeting. Persons interested in a specific agenda item may wish to call the City Clerk at (425) 233-6400 before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to confirm agenda items. ITEM D-1 CITY OF MEDINA Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 (425) 233-6410 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2006 TO: City Council, City Manager FROM: Joe Willis Sr., Director of Public Works RE: 83rd Avenue NE Speed Humps During the February 13th Council meeting, the Council briefly discussed the issue of safety for residents along 83rd Ave NE and NE 8th Street and complaints about speeding vehicles coming down 83`d where there is limited sight distance, a school walking route, and a number of small children living in the neighborhood. The City Manager and I originally met with Mr. Meitl (a resident spokesman) last July to discuss neighborhood concerns about safety and speeding traffic. From earlier traffic counters we knew that the volume of traffic down 83rd Avenue was approximately 350 cars per day with an 85 percentile speed of 27.8 mph (posted speed limit of 25 mph). During the first meeting options discussed included: • Cul-de-sac the north end of the street at 84th • reduce the speed limit to 15 mph • change the direction of the one-way street • put in speed humps • post no through traffic signs • more police enforcement • install separated sidewalks A number of the above options were ruled out early in the discussion since a cul-de-sac at the north end is not possible in the limited public right-of-way, and the intersection with 841h Avenue has grade and sight -distance problems for reversing the vehicle traveling up 83rd. Posting signs and police enforcement have limited long term benefit, and separated sidewalks require capital improvement funding. After studying the road physical constraints I concluded that two speed humps installed uphill from the lower sharp curve (north of 8234 NE 81h Street) would provide a physical way to control the traffic speeds by causing drivers to slow down in order to drive over the raised humps. In November of 2005, a questionnaire letter was sent to each resident along the street requesting their agreement to install speed humps or their disagreement with them. Of the ten responses received, seven agreed and three disagreed. During the February 131h Council meeting the Council requested additional information on the cost of a speed monitoring sign compared to the cost of installing speed humps. I contacted the City of Bellevue and learned that they have 20 stationary speed monitor installations at a cost of $6,000 each, plus ongoing power and maintenance expenses. I recently obtained a quote of $8,700 to install two speed humps. Since the City does not have the expertise to maintain the speed monitoring device, we would need to contract for that service. I would therefore recommend a one time cost for speed humps over the cost and ongoing expense of a speed monitoring device. In a number of other jurisdictions, traffic calming is approached in incremental phases. Phase I includes a neighborhood traffic safety campaign and such items as signing, pavement markings, target enforcement, trimming or removal of vegetation, neighborhood speed watch, radar speed trailer. Phase II tool box includes street narrowing, traffic weaves, speed humps, medians. The following pictures illustrate the limited sight -distance as vehicles travel down 83`d Avenue. At driveway to house # 825 At mailbox pagoda just north of the curve In curve just north of driveway to house # 8234 City of Medina AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: MEETING DATE: DATE THIS ITEM WAS LAST CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL: Building Permit Triggers March 27, 2006 1994 ITEM D-2 SUMMARY OF ISSUEITOPIC: The Planning Commission has recommended a revised set of building permit triggers (MMC 15.04.030). See attached staff report. COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: ® APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ❑ N/A CITY MANAGER: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ® SEE COMMENTS COMMENTS: See staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff report dated March 21, 2006, 2) proposed triggers, 3) International Building Code triggers BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ ® BUDGETED ❑ NON -BUDGETED FUND: ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ADOPT/APPROVE/AUTHORIZE) I move N/A if Council Members have questions, you are urged to call the staff person who prepared this agenda statement prior to the council meeting. P.12006 Agenda Packets10327200611tem D-2, building permit triggers cover form.doc ITEM D — 2a CITY OF MEDINA Development Services 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 www.nwdina-wa.gov LT, lei ;7_1► I IN ►vi DATE: March 21, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services RE: Building Permit Triggers 425.454.9222 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review this staff report and the revised building permit triggers recommended by the Planning Commission. POLICY IMPLICATION: No policy implications — concerns administrative procedures only. BACKGROUND: The topic of building permit triggers was placed on the Planning Commission Work Plan as a potential permit process streamlining measure. Staff believe that, in some cases, the triggers currently codified as MMC 15.04.030 require building permits for small projects that are too insignificant or are altogether unregulated. The Planning Commission spent several meetings working with myself and the Building Official on revising the triggers to make them more consistent with the set of triggers found in Section 105.2 of the International Building Code (IBC) (attached), which could be considered the model for local building departments to adopt. The set of triggers recommended by the Planning Commission is attached. The strategy in developing these triggers was to only depart from the IBC triggers when it supported enforcement of Medina's regulations. Highlights of the changes that this would make from the current MMC 15.04.030 are as follows: • Treatment of sheds and playhouses is switched from always requires a permit to only when larger than 100 square feet and other conditions • Retaining walls without a surcharge go from always requiring a permit to only when higher than 30 inches • Window work goes from always requires a permit to exemption for glazing and sash replacements • Fence construction goes from required for projects exceeding $1000 in value to exemption for fences not exceeding 4 feet in height • Residential cabinet work goes to always permit exempt • Blanket requirement for permit on all work greater than $1500 in value is eliminated One area of code enforcement that could be more explicit in the proposed triggers is pool and spa regulations. The current language about a six-inch water depth found in Item Number 5 of the proposed triggers would continue to invoke a permit requirement for all swimming pools and hot tubs as well as ITEM D — 2a many decorative pools. A more common trigger point in other communities is to only require a building permit for vessels exceeding two feet in depth. Theoretically the "lower" trigger of six inches would prevent more safety, noise, and environmental problems (because more projects would undergo permit review). However, the two -foot trigger would support the permit streamlining goal. The regulatory aspects of pools are as follows: 1. Control of the disposition of gray or chemically treated water. 2. Energy code requirements for heated pools and spas. 3. Mechanical code requirements for both. 4. Electrical code requirements for both. 5. Child drowning hazard. 6. Zoning code restrictions aimed at noise mitigation for the neighbors of pools Page 2 ITEM D - 2b DRAFT CODE REVISION To revise Medina Municipal Code section 15.04.030, which amends the list of exemptions in the IBC and the IRC by adopting a new list of exempt work, based on the lists found in the IBC & the IRC. The new section 15.04.030 shall read as follows: "That portion of Subsection 105.2 of the IBC and Subsection R105.2 of the IRC, which list work of a building nature that is exempt from building permit requirements, are hereby amended to read as follows: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses permitted by the zoning code, provided the outside dimensions do not include an area larger than 100 square feet, and the structure is located in the buildable area of the lot, and does not cause the property to exceed the allowance for structural site coverage. 2. Fences not over 4 feet high, built entirely on the owners property, and acceptable in appearance to the adjacent property owner. 3. Site walls and rockeries less than 30 inches tall, measured from finish grade, constructed to protect a cut in the natural soil from erosion and physical damage, and not supporting a surcharge or fill of any kind. Also, raised planter areas constructed on natural grade, no more than 18 inches high, and containing only soil and edible or landscape plantings. 4. Paving and surfacing of prepared earth surfaces, including sidewalks, patios, and driveways that do not require cut or fill adjustments of more than 18 inches and are not located over any basement or story below and which are not part of an accessible route. 5. Decorative fountains, ponds, and water features less than 6 inches in depth at any point, and constructed entirely within the buildable area of the lot, and not affecting the site coverage allowance of the lot. 6. Temporary, prefabricated or mobile structures to be used on - site during construction and removed upon completion of the construction project. Also temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery that cover no more than 200 square feet and are no taller than 15 feet. For the purpose of the second half of this exemption, "temporary" is limited to thirty (30) days. 7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work that does not include any electrical, plumbing, or framing modifications. ITEM D - 2b 8. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to a detached single family residence located entirely in the buildable area of the lot and not affecting the site coverage allowance of the lot. 9. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of a residence which do not project more than 54 inches from the wall and do not require additional support beyond the exterior wall and do not extend into the required setback of the lot. 10. Moveable commercial or retail cabinets, cases, counters, and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches in height and not supporting any weight other than its own and its contents. 11. Glazing and sash replacement not involving replacement of window frames or supporting members, when replaced with materials that are equal to the original in strength and heat transmission, and which meet the current requirements of the State Energy Code, and requirements for safety glazing and emergency egress. 12. Any work not regulated by provisions of this code or any elements of the State Building Code. D • Zc ADMINISTRATION be recorded and entered in the files of the department of build- ing safety. 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of con- struction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to pro- hibit any design or method of construction not specifically pre- scribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, ef- fectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. 104.11.1 Research reports. Supporting data, where neces- sary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources. 104.11.2 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the au- thority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records. SECTION 105 PERMITS 105.1 Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, en- large, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. 105.1.1 Annual permit. In lieu of an individual permit for each alteration to an already approved electrical, gas, me- chanical or plumbing installation, the building official is au- thorized to issue an annual permit upon application therefor to any person, firm or corporation regularly employing one or more qualified tradepersons in the building, structure or on the premises owned or operated by the applicant for the permit. 105.1.2 Annual permit records. The person to whom an annual permit is issued shall keep a detailed record of alter- ations made under such annual permit. The building official shall have access to such records at all times or such records shall be filed with the building official as designated. 105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authori- zation for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m ). 2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high. 3. Oil derricks. 4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III -A liquids. 5. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capac- ity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1. 6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 nun) above grade and not over any basement or story below and which are not part of an accessible route. 7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, coun- ter tops and similar finish work. 8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery. 9. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy, as applicable in Section 101.2, which are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep, do not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 925 L) and are installed en- tirely above ground. 10. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or ag- ricultural purposes and not including service sys- tems. 11. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one- and two-family dwellings. 12. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require addi- tional support of Group R-3, as applicable in Section 101.2, and Group U occupancies. 13. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches (1753 mm) in height. Electrical: Repairs and maintenance: Minor repair work, includ- ing the replacement of lamps or the connection of ap- proved portable electrical equipment to approved permanently installed receptacles. Radio and television transmitting stations: The provi- sions of this code shall not apply to electrical equipment used for radio and television transmissions, but do apply to equipment and wiring for power supply, the installa- tions of towers and antennas. Temporary testing systems: A permit shall not be re- quired for the installation of any temporary system re- 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE® City of Medina AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: MEETING DATE: DATE THIS ITEM WAS LAST CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL: Tree Preservation Ordinance March 27, 2006 October 24, 2005 ITEM D-3 SUMMARY OF ISSUE/TOPIC: Staff evaluation of degree of success of the Tree and Vegetation Code (MMC 12.28). See attached staff report. COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ® NIA CITY MANAGER: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ® SEE COMMENTS COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff report dated March 21, 2006, 2) cost recovery analysis BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ ® BUDGETED ❑ NON -BUDGETED FUND: ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ADOPT/APPROVE/AUTHORIZE) I move N/A If Council Members have questions, you are urged to call the staff person who prepared this agenda statement prior to the council meeting. P:12006 Agenda PackeW0327200611tem D-3, tree code coverform.doc ITEM D — 3a CITY OF MEDINA Development Services 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222 www.modina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services RE: Evaluation of the Tree and Vegetation Code Note: In September 2005, the City Council requested a staff evaluation of the Tree and Vegetation Code. This report was originally provided to the City Council for the October 24, 2005 City Council meeting, where the Council decided to postpone any decisions on code revisions. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the following report on the degree of success of the Tree and Vegetation Code (MMC 12.28). If the City Council determines that code revisions are worth exploring, a problem statement or project scope should be identified. POLICY IMPLICATION: The patterns of landscaping in the streets and yards of a residential area play a key role in defining the community character. The City Council has the authority to enact landscape requirements that are deemed necessary to address threats to the desired community character. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 521 of 1990 established the first tree and vegetation code in Medina. It was the product of over a year of issues analysis and deliberation by an ad hoc committee composed of a council members and advisory board members. Since Ordinance 521 there have been three ordinances making significant amendments to the tree code: 574 (1994), 686 (2000), and 743(2003). However, throughout this time the tree code has maintained a system involving: 1) requiring mitigation (new tree planting) for the removal of trees on private property, and 2) placing restrictions on the private cutting and pruning of public right-of-way trees. The subsequent ordinances have only changed parameters of the previous ordinance (e.g. mitigation inch ratios) rather than changing the basic system of mitigation. There are several different ways that one could gauge the success of the Tree and Vegetation Code. Therefore, six different "measures of success" are offered below. The evaluations within each of the measures reflect varied degrees of success. Adding to the difficulty of rating the overallprogram success is the fact that the City Council may wish to assign different weights to different measures. In an effort to allow the reader to quickly absorb the information below I have assigned my personal rating ITEM D — 3a to each measure on the "Poor — Fair —Good —Excellent' scale. My negative ratings are not intended as criticisms of staff or of the past city councils that adopted the ordinances. To a large extent, they represent the inherent limitations of any tree code. Page 2 ITEM D — 3a Measure: Certainty Rating: GOOD • The heart of the tree code is the system of mitigation (replacement tree) caliper inch ratios. In typical circumstances, calculating the permit requirements under this system is a completely objective matter for applicants. This supports the certainty goal. • The code's treatment of the following two situations is very vague leading to uncertainty for staff in enforcing the code and uncertainty for applicants in predicting how staff will enforce the code: 1) the tree protection measures required where construction activities occur in proximity to a tree that is not intended to be removed (MMC 12.28.070), 2) the requirement for right-of-way plantings to be "planted in an informal pattern" in MMC 12.28.080-B, especially when combined with the requirement for such plantings to visually screen a fence (MMC 12.28.080-D). • While the code adopts an objective methodology for defining hazardous trees (MMC 12.28.105), applicants are frequently frustrated upon learning that trees they believe to be hazardous do not get classified as such through the code -adopted methodology. • The organization of the whole of the Tree and Vegetation Code is not ideal, resulting in a readability problem for applicants. • Should the City Council take any legislative action after discussing this report, staff have a small list of minor "housekeeping" changes that should be included, at a minimum, for code readability. Measure: Flexibility Rating: GOOD • As the heart of the tree code, the system of mitigation caliper inch ratios provides a high degree of flexibility as well as certainty. While a few additional stipulations for mitigation such as native species (MMC 12.28.050-J) and same genus (MMC 12.28.060) take away from flexibility (see discussion of their burden below) they only apply to 25% of the total mitigation inches. • Staff have received much feedback that the right-of-way planting requirements of MMC 12.28.080 are overly -rigid. Two unintended consequences are 1) older but attractive right-of- way plantings must be destroyed to meet the standards of the code, and 2) occasional cases where the shade from the required trees inhibits the growth of the required shrubs. • The code refers to a prohibited tree list containing trees such as cottonwoods, bigleaf maples, willows and aspen because of problems such as sewer line interference and pavement heaving. However, many waterfront properties have a low bank or an otherwise undeveloped shoreline area and these species may be appropriate for these areas. Measure: Has There Been Enhancement of the Rating: INDETERMINATE Citywide Tree Canopy Under the Tree Code? • While this would appear to be the most relevant question in evaluating the tree code, the very oldest mitigation trees are still only 15 years old, which is not long enough for full canopy development in many species. • The introduction of the same genus and native species requirements with Ordinance 743 has two positive ramifications for long-term citywide canopy: 1) traditional northwest large trees such as Douglas fir and western red cedar are now being regularly replanted, and 2) having a certain amount of variety in replanted tree species keeps the citywide canopy in a good position should a disease suddenly kill off most of a given species in town. Measure: Applicant Fees and City's Cost Rating: POOR Recovery • Attached are the results of a cost recovery analysis for the year 2004 (previously provided to the City Council in a department report). As the table shows, the typical applicant is mitigating for tree removal during redevelopment of a property. The $52,500 figure for Otak billings Page 3 ITEM D — 3a represents review of 16 of these applications. This averages to approximately $3,300 in consultant charges per application, which is passed on to the applicants beyond the $500 initial application fee. While these fees are substantial, Otak has been providing good landscape architects with reasonable hourly rates ($55 to $65) to perform on this contract. • With regard to cost recovery, the table shows that costs are recovered for the "during development' permits but the overall program is not recovering costs because of administrative costs and processing of permits for tree removals not during development (no initial fee or consultant pass -through.) Measure: Has the Level of Administrative Rating: FAIR Burden Been Minimized? Note: This measure concems the effort and costs involved with assembling a landscape permit application. In contrast, the next measure concerns the effort and costs in fulfilling code requirements — planting the trees. • A landscape permit associated with residential uses is somewhat unique to Medina. The learning curve of assembling a landscape permit application (recall previous discussion of lack of standard professional practices for preparing a construction mitigation plan) is an issue but to a lesser degree than with construction mitigation plans. • The number of consultants an applicant must hire for a typical application is only one — a surveyor is required to depict the preexisting location and sizes of trees. A licensed landscape architect is not required. However, in the special case of an applicant seeking the mitigation exemption for hazardous trees (MMC 12.28.105), the code requires hiring an arborist. Unfortunately the City has received some arborist reports that were of questionable validity requiring the City to retain an independent arborist. Measure: Is the Burden of Tree Mitigation Set Rating: GOOD At a Reasonable Level? • Ordinance 743 of 2003 dramatically lessened the mitigation burden for applicants: the caliper inch ratios were lowered, the size of existing trees deemed "significant' was raised, the minimum size of mitigation trees was reduced, and the "building footprint exemption" was introduced to allow more flexibility in siting a house. • Establishing mitigation requirements is fundamentally a policy decision. While one valid viewpoint might say one removed tree warrants only one replacement tree, the current code standards reflect a different policy — that replacement trees will not contribute to citywide canopy as much as what they replaced for many years. • The code currently sets the minimum size of a replacement tree at 2.5 inches for replacement of trees up to 36 inches. The minimum replacement size increases to 4 inches for replacement of trees greater than 36 inches. Staff has received some degree of complaints that 2.5-inch replacement trees are expensive and hard to find. This is debatable. The 4-inch trees are relatively expensive and hard to find but this was considered to be part of the disincentive to removing very large trees in the drafting of Ordinance 743. • The drafters of Ordinance 743 sought to tie tree mitigation to the degree of investment in a property so a different threshold size was set for developing and nondeveloping properties (developing properties mitigate for trees starting at 6 inches, nondeveloping properties start at 24 inches). The distinction was further defined by requiring mitigation for 6 to 24 inch trees if development occurs within two years of the removal. The tracking of these cases requires consultant time that is not recovered. Also, a council member has questioned the message of "distrust"that this two year clause may send to the community. Page 4 ITEM D — 3a A positive aspect of the new building footprint exemption is that the tree code never requires a property owner to change overall landscape character, of their property. Since there's no mitigation for the trees taken from the house footprint, any additional tree removals are largely at the owner's discretion. Another way of looking at this is that someone seeking a property with a large clearing beyond the house footprint (for recreation, for example) should buy a property that already has a clearing. The tree code makes it difficult to create a large clearing where it did not previously exist. Occasionally applicants believe that application of the tree code to their unique property results in an undue hardship. The MMC states that variances can only be granted from zoning code requirements (MMC 2.78.065). The only relief that exists for tree code requirements is the option to contribute to the City Tree Fund for up to 50% of the required mitigation. To some degree there have been unintended consequences with the same genus requirement. The intent of the requirement was to prevent the removal of large canopy trees from being mitigated only with small ornamental trees. One problem is that there can be a range of tree sizes within one genus so a small tree can still replace a large one. Another problem is finding the 2.5-inch minimum size mitigation tree can.be difficult with some genuses. Page 5 k N cq k C c C o E cIt \ � k S S 2 ' \ ) 40 w k 0) 0 c \ Q) % W 0 2 . cc R ' R 2 C> R CD2 R E C o LO m \ § q 2 q 2 c @ / n : a . / k/ CN . D �0 $ k a cc 7 a)k 0 �1" { § § /\ k k k k � k k ci 7 c 2 C6 2 2 a\ \ /\ 0 $/ \ 2� 0 9 2 g k�£= ' a)maE0 / U) o { 0-0C & a> a)k 2 Ems%\ R U g a ¢ 22kCO o 2 0 � o � a 2 \ k § c a 3 \ E 2 § k x E§ _ o (A di p\ U p @ � 2 CL < \ \ 3 3 / a Q / B 2 2 w a . . z k a \ 04 CO E \ � k E CL ITEM D - 4 ~J L City of Medina AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2006 Fee Schedule MEETING DATE: March 27, 2006 DATE THIS ITEM WAS LAST CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL: January9, 2006 SUMMARY OF ISSUEITOPIC: Proposed 2006 Fee Schedule submitted for City Council review as provided for in MMC 17.44.030. The City Manager is authorized to increase or decrease fees for services to reflect, as closely as possible, the actual cost to the city of providing such services. The city manager must submit any proposed modification to the city council, at its regular meeting, not less than 45 days prior to the effective date of said modifications and the council may reject or modify any proposed modifications, amendments or additions. COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ® N/A CITY'MANAGER: ® APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS COMMENTS: The proposed 2006 Fee Schedule is submitted and will become effective 45 days after the April 10, 2006 regular meeting unless modified by the city council. The fee schedule may also become effective within five days of publication of a summary of the attached resolution, if adopted by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Background memo; 2) 01/09/2006 Agenda Packet Memo; 3) 2006 Fee Proposed Schedule; 4) Resolution BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $0 ❑ BUDGETED ❑ NON -BUDGETED FUND: ❑ RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ADOPT/APPROVE/AUTHORIZE) move to add the 2006 Fee Schedule resolution to the April 10, 2006 consent agenda. If Council Members have questions, you are urged to call the staff person who prepared this agenda statement prior to the council meeting. P:12006 Agenda Packets10327200611tem D-4, Agenda Statement fee schedule.doc ITEM D - 4a CITY OF MEDINA City Manager's Office 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.233.6400 www.nwdIIna-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20, 2006 M. Mayor and City Council FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager RE: 2006 Fee Schedule BACKGROUND: The City Council discussed the proposed 2006 Fee Schedule during the January 9, 2006 meeting. As a result of questions raised during the January meeting, the proposed 2006 Fee Schedule was withdrawn to provide the City Council with an opportunity to discuss the fee schedule after the council retreat. City budget and financial policies require annual review and update of the fee schedule to ensure that fees reflect, as closely as possible, the actual cost to the city of providing services funded by user fees (Ord. No. 766, MMC 17.44.030 and City of Medina Financial Policies). City staff completed a building and planning functions cost analysis in November 2000. The cost analysis involved determination of tasks associated with each function of the services for which a user charge or fee is paid. Once the tasks had been identified, staff time involved with each task was calculated for each staff member and/or consultant involved, which resulted in a staff cost for each function. Finally, actual costs for permit application packets, equipment replacement, records maintenance and facility overhead were calculated and added to staff costs to establish the total cost for each function. In addition to the cost analysis, City staff also gathered information from the Association of Washington Cities User Fees and Charges survey to use for comparison purposes. City staff presented a report to the City Council during a Special Meeting on November 20, 2000. The feee schedule has been reviewed annually since 2000 and updated in 2002 and 2004. The 2006 Budget includes revenue projections based on the proposed 2006 Fee Schedule. The proposed 2006 Fee Schedule has been modified to continue offering lifetime pet licenses based on input received from the Council during the January 9, 2006 discussion. The proposed changes to the fee schedule for 2006 include the following items: ■ Page 1 — Construction Blueprints (copies) — 2005 Fee Schedule charges $5.00 per copy. Proposed fee increase to $5.00 per copy, plus actual printing costs. Copies of construction blueprints is outsourced since City does not have equipment to make oversized copies. ■ Page 3 — Dog license late renewal fee — Proposed fee increase from $5.00 to $15.00 for late renewal of dog license. ■ Page 7 — Reclassification of Zoning District — proposed additional fee authorized by MMC 17.94. ■ Page 7 — Shoreline Development Permit — Propose eliminating fee under Chapter 18.04 because it is redundant (covered by Substantial Development Permit fee, page 5). ■ Page 7 — Site Plan Review Fee — Proposed additional fee authorized by Ordinance No. 787, which was adopted October 10, 2005. ■ Page 7 — Variance Renewal Fee — Propose eliminating fee since variance renewals are not authorized by MMC. ■ Page 7 — Critical Areas Alteration Permit — Proposed additional fee authorized by MMC 18.12. ■ Table A — Building Permit Fees — Proposed additional language to include consultant costs in fee for building demolition permits. Proposed additional fee for work started without a permit, which is consistent with past practice. All other fees are proposed to remain at the rate currently established by the 2005 Fee Schedule. • Page 2 CITY OF MEDINA City Manager's Office 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.233.6400 www.nwdina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 2006 TO: Medina City Council FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager RE: Resolution Adopting 2006 Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution approving 2006 Fee Schedule. POLICY IMPLICATION: Adoption of the attached Resolution will approve a new fee schedule, which will become effective immediately. The fees are intended to recoup the actual costs of providing services. BACKGROUND: Attachments to this cover memo include the following: a. 2006 Fee Schedule b. Resolution No. (unassigned), Adopting a new fee schedule, effective immediately The 2006 Fee Schedule has been developed with the intent of setting fees to recover the full cost of the service provided; The resolution has been proposed as a method to adopt the fees so they become effective immediately. The changes made to the fee schedule include: 1. Construction Blueprints (copies) — page 1.2005 Fee Schedule charges $5.00 per copy. 2006 Fee Schedule increases the fee to $5.00 plus actual printing costs since the printing is outsourced. 2. Dog License — page 3. Eliminated lifetime dog and cat license. Animal license fees are not generating sufficient revenue to cover annual costs associated with animal control, mutt mitts and other maintenance related to off -leash areas. 3. Late Renewal Fee — page 3. Increased late renewal fee for animal licenses from $5.00 to $15.00. 4. Reclassification of Zoning District — page 7. Added to fee schedule; authorized by MMC 17.94 5. Shoreline Development Permit— page 7. Eliminated Shoreline Development Permit fee under Chapter 18.04 because it is redundant (covered by Substantial Development Permit — page 5). 6. Site Plan Review Fee — page 7. Added new item authorized by Ordinance No. 787. 7. Variance Renewal Fee — page 7. Eliminated Variance Renewal Fees since they are not authorized by MMC. 8. Critical Areas Alteration Permit — page 7. Added new item, which is authorized by MMC 18.12. 9. Building Permit Fees (Table A). a. Added language to include consultant costs in fee for building demolition permits. b. Added fee for work started without a permit, which is consistent with past practice. 0 Page 2 CITY OF MEDINA 2006 FEE SCHEDULE Fee T e Amount MIMIC Section �i`-� ��$.. ALLi'�A eN' 0.Y :�.� �k "`i: "b' C .. ,,. l .c Mh+." •f.'Y'� � ^.Ti .&,ntti';^..a .i. e,R�: Code Violation Penalties $100.00 per violation first Section 1.15.020 dy $200.00 per violation 2" day; $300.00 per violation 3rd day; $400.00 per violation 4th day; $500.00 per violation each add'I day after 4th day. _ n tom- _ u Accident reports/incident Accident Reports $4.50 Section 2.48.030 (A) reports Incident Reports $7.50 Audio Duplications $15.00 per tape or CD Section 2.48.030 A Computer printout, set up $25.00 Section 2.48.030 (A) fee Computer printout, Each page $0.15 Section 2.48.030 (A) additional per page cost Copies, color Each page $0.50 Section 2.48.030 A Copies, black & white 81/2 X 11 Each page $0.15 Section 2.48.030 (A) 11 X 17 Each page $0.20 Maps — color 18 X 38 $45.00 Section 2.48.030 A Maps — b & w 18 X 38 $12.00 Section 2.48.030 A Ordinances, Resolutions & First copy free; all others Section 2.48.030 (A) Notices of Decision $0.15 per page Construction Blueprints $5.00, plus actual printing Section 2.48.030 (A) (copies) costs n -R, Hearing Examiner Fee $1,000.00 Section 2.78.120 Witness Fee $10.00 per day, plus Section 4.01.100 mileage in the amount set by RCW 43.03.060. Expert witnesses may be paid in excess of this amount only upon prior agreement between the City and the Expert Witness. Juror Service Fee $10.00 per day, plus Section 4.01.110 mileage in the amount set by RCW 43.03.060 Case ng $31.00 per case Section 4.01.120 3/21 /200 1 Fee Type Amount MMC Section Transcript of Judgment $6.00 per judgment Section 4.01.120 Certifying any document on $5.00 per document, plus Section 4.01.120 file $0.10 per page for copies Preparing the record of a $40.00 per case, plus Section 4.01.120 case for appeal to Superior Superior Court Filing Fee Court Duplication of part or all of $10.00 per tape Section 4.01.120 the electronic tape of a proceeding Probation Fee $50.00 per month Section 4.01.120 Stop Payment Fee for $25.00 per check Section 4.01.120 Court Issued Checks Non -Sufficient Funds Fee $25.00 per check Section 4.01.120 for Returned Checks Vehicle Impound Hearing $31.00 per case Section 4.01.120 Fee Proof of Insurance $25.00 per case Section 4.01.120 Card/Administrative Dismissal Electronic Home Detention $25.00 set-up, plus $105.00 Section 4.01.120 per week, unless another amount is set by Court order Work Release $25.00 set-up, plus $20.00 Section 4.01.120 per day, unless another amount is set by Court order Day Detention $10.00 per day, unless Section 4.01.120 another amount is set by Court order Failure to Respond $25.00 for parking cases Section 4.01.120 $52.00 for infraction cases Business License $150.00 Section 5.04.020 Cable Franchise Negotiated with Franchisee Section 5.08.060 3/21 /200 2 1 Fee Type Amount MMC Section Animal Impound Fee $30.00 15 & 2" impound; Section 6.04.030 $50.00 3rd impound; $200.00 4th or subsequent in a year, plus $5.00 per 24-hour period. Dog License — Annual $10.00 Section 6.04.040 spayed/neutered $7.00 Senior Citizen Dog License — Annual $20.00 Section 6.04.040 unspayed/unneutered $15.00 Senior Citizen Dog License — Lifetime $30.00 Section 6.04.040 spayed/neutered $20.00 Senior Citizen Dog License — Lifetime $60.00 Section 6.04.040 unspayed/unnueutered $40.00 Senior Citizen Cat License — Annual $7.00 Section 6.04.040 spayed/neutered $5.00 Senior Citizen Cat License — Annual $12.00 Section 6.04.040 unspayed✓unneutered $10.00 Senior Citizen Cat License — Lifetime $20.00 Section 6.04.040 spayed/neutered $12.00 Senior Citizen Cat License — Lifetime $36.00 Section 6.04.040 unspayed/unnueutered $25.00 Senior Citizen Replacement Tag $2.00 Section 6.04.040 Late Renewal Fee $15.00 Section 6.04.040 Home Security System No charge Section 8.12.030 Registration False Alarm Response Fee 1 S response — Free Section 8.12.030 2"d response - $50.00 3rd response - $100.00 4th response - $150.00 5th response - $200.00 6th & subseq - $250.00 3/21 /200 Q12006 3 1 Type Amount MMC Section C. {Fee '��ty ',syc 'X.. jik` Pyrotechnics Display No charge Section 8.16.045 License Section 8.28.030 Radon Detector Fee Rescind — Do not provide Radon Detectors '.'n''✓ k Mv"wUd f.a ei h ". fllv's_M ,: Parking Permit No charge Section 10.40.060 NIS Bicycle License $1.00 per year Section 10.48.010 Oversized Vehicle Permit $500.00 Section 10.72.010 Overweight Vehicle Permit $500.00 Section 10.72.010 Tracked, spiked, cleated, Section 10.72.020 lugged vehicle permit $750.00 Construction Vehicle No charge Section 10.72.030 Parking Permit s. K Street Excavation/Trench $250.00 non-refundable, Section 12.06.020 Cut Permit plus cost for City inspectors Section 12.08.060 based on hourly rate (wages & benefits) of the employee(s) involved s brv" Right-of-way Use Permit $150.00 — off paved surface Section 12.08.010 $250.00 — on paved surface LA ROW Tree Trimming or $50.00, plus consultant Section 12.28.130 Removal Permit fees Tree Removal Permit — $500.00, plus consultant Section 12.28.270 During Development fees 3/21 /200 4 1 Fee Type Amount MMC Section t Garage Sale Permit No charge Section 12.36.010 Blanket Utility Permit $500.00, plus consultant Section 13.12.040 fees Conditional Use Permit $750.00, plus consultant Section 17.56 fees Variance $850.00, plus consultant Section 2.78 fees Special Ui,e Permit $750.00, plus consultant Section 14.04.010 fees Non -Conforming ROW $200.00, plus consultant Section 14.04.010 Permit fees Lot Line Adjustment $375.00, plus consultant & Section 14.04.010 recording fees Substantial Development $850.00, plus consultant Section 14.04.010 Permit fees Administrative Decision $500.00, plus consultant Section 14.04.070 Appeal Fee fees Administrative Review $500.00 Section 14.08.010 Permit Section 15.04.030 Building Permit Attachment A Building Permit Extension $150.00, plus actual cost of Section 15.04.040 inspections Grading Permit $300.00, plus consultant Section 15.04.070 fees Mechanical Permit Attachment B Section 15.04 3/21 /200 Fee Type Amount MMC Section ,a .s�ug• 5�{ �. � r} k' r�° �+,a,�h ream �� k.�t r �* ,{ ., 3 $150.00, plus ��iy` � i^v,X.. ' Section 15.08.030 Building Moving Permit staff/consultant costs Construction Mitigation Level I - $200.00 Section 15.20.010 Permit Level II - $2,500.00 Short Plat Fee $750.00, plus consultant & Section 16.04.030 recording fees Subdivision Fee $5.00 per lot, plus costs of Section 16.08.040 engineering, recording fees, plan review and inspections MAN I - Fee Schedule Authority is delegated to the Section 17.44.030 city manager to increase or decrease fees for development permits to reflect, as closely as possible, the actual cost to the city of processing development permits; provided that the city manager must submit any proposed modification to the city council, at its regular meeting, not less than 45 days prior to the effective date of said modifications and the council may reject any proposed modifications. A1 Accessory{ Dwelling Unit $175.00, plus consulting Section 17.50.040 (E) Registration Fee fees ty� "FA � 1#' ea3Y p rk'! kvapti '� 51,E 1hp1`. i < S3± R. Z � '0� �a" ^�". ,`3i fi• f 1. d k'Rj + Special Use Permit — $100.00 Section 17.52.060 (B) Satellite Receiving System N Home Occupation Permit $25.00 Section 17.64.020 Adult Family Home Permit No charge Section 17.64,020 (A) Family Day Care Permit No charge Section 17.64.020 (B) 3/21 /200 6 1 Fee Type Amount MIMIC Section _ House Trailer Occupancy $10.00 Section 17.68.040 (D) Permit Sign Permit $100.00 Section 17.80.100 (B) Sign Impound Fee $25.00 Section 17.80.140 Section 17.88.020 Waterfront Construction $50.00 Fee Wireless Communication $5,000.00 Section 17.90.050 Facility Permit 4 %.�." vS,.�P a,. 4P a Sy s.4'� � .+ `. .. ba�ir-.b a i'i. ,y .'tart �;;Xl"+»`... n�x x,.s�+h� h d"`E✓ n+ ...�; r Reclassification of Zoning $850.00 Section 17.94 District Site Plan .Review Fee $850.00, plus consultant TBD costs _ Environmental Exemption $50.00 Section 18.04.010 SEPA & Shoreline PeFMit $760.00 Critical Areas Alteration $50.00, plus consultant Section 18.12 Permit costs Other Concealed Weapon Permit $60.00 Original RCW 9.41.070 $32.00 Renewal $42.00 Late Renewal Reconsideration $500.00 Reroof $175.00 Comprehensive Plan $4,000.00 Amendment Fee Permit Replacement $100.00 $360.00 Zoning Ordinance $4,000.00 Amendment 3/21 /200 7 1 TABLE A — BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 TO $500.00 $25.00 $501.00 TO $2,000.00 $25.00 for the first $500.00, plus $3.20 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. $2,001.00 TO $25,000.00 $73.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.75 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001.00 TO $50,000.00 $412.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $50,001.00 TO $100,000.00 $687.25 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,001.00 TO $500,000.00 $1,062.25 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00. $500,001. 0 TO $1,000,000.00 $3,462.25 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00. $1,000,001.00 AND UP $5,962.25 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.35 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING...............................................$100.00 PLUS CONSULTANT COSTS RELOCATION OF A BUILDING/MOVE A BUILDING INTO THE CITY.............$250.00 INITIAL PLAN REVIEW..........................................................................65% OF PERMIT FEE ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF CORRECTIONS, REVISIONS, ADDITIONS .......... CONSULTANT COSTS REVIEW OF DEFERRED ITEMS.............................................................CONSULTANT COSTS ONE INSPECTION & ONE RE -INSPECTION .............................................INCLUDED IN PERMIT FEE ADDITIONAL RE -INSPECTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE.................................CONSULTANT COSTS WORK NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN SCHEDULED......................CONSULTANT COSTS INSPECTIONS FOR WHICH NO FEE IS SPECIFIED..................................CONSULTANT COSTS WORK STARTED WITHOUT A PERMIT...................................................FEE IN AMOUNT OF PERMIT FEE, BUT NOT LESS THAN 100.00 TABLE B — GRADING PERMIT TOTAL YARDS FEE 25 TO 100 YARDS $100.00 101 TO 500 YARDS $100.00 for the first 100 yards plus $10.00 for each additional 25 yards, or fraction thereof, to and including 500 yards. 501 TO 1000 YARDS $260.00 for the first 500 yards plus $12.00 for each additional 25 yards, or fraction thereof, to and including 1,000 yards. 1,001 TO 2,000 YARDS $500.00 for the first 1,000 yards plus $13.00 for each additional 25 yards, or fraction thereof, to and including 2,000 yards. 2,001 YARDS AND UP $1,020.00 for the first 2,000 yards plus $13.50 for each additional 25 yards, or fraction thereof. PLAN REVIEW.......................................................................CONSULTANT COSTS ONE INSPECTION & ONE RE-INSPECTION...............................INCLUDED IN PERMIT FEE ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE........................CONSULTANT COSTS TESC AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW.........................CONSULTANT COSTS SEASONAL TESC/EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS ...............CONSULTANT COSTS INSPECTIONS FOR WHICH NO FEE IS SPECIFIED .....................CONSULTANT COSTS ITEM D - 4d CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Medina, Washington, adopting a schedule of fees. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, does adopt the following findings of fact: 1. The fees currently charged by the City are not adequate to pay for development and permit processing and review. 2. The attached schedule of fees has been established to recover the actual costs of providing the services described in the schedule. Based on the findings of fact set forth above, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, does resolve as follows: RESOLVED that the schedule of fees attached hereto as Exhibit A is adopted, effective immediately. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN REGULAR OPEN MEETING ON THIS 9T' DAY OF JANUARY, 2006 AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE ON APRIL 10TH, 2006. Miles R. Adam, Mayor Approved as to form: Wayne D. Tanaka, City Attorney Attest: Randy Reed, City Clerk Resolution page I &-i v 0 c 0 D m n n� n (D a fl. O 0 _co--IwwwnwDvv_v_mmpzKKr-Tmmmom>>o.NN r. -1�'m 0 3�.m ai �' m � m �' cr m 3 0 S. w0oo `C D� N=3 0 0 03 oo3 wo OZ 00 0 v 5 2v <mrto 3 O N N O N 2 O 3 O 3 -� 0 (3D -D U1 -n O O W (D (D (D (D M Q D C CD (OD n o.Q�, n CO 3 3 Q. 3 O o< 19 N (D Z Q. Zo Z CD n0 0 D�� Q cn Dm 0 0 3 o —� o� �� m v �� �� 3 m m0 cn� c0 o con cD N � Q3 ocn 73D°.m3v03�-�-� (A. C-� 0@ =:3 6 (D AD--0 < ,7o �' � ins rn �(Dc Q-m � 0 o CD acon m m oa 0 3 m m _� � m y n._ CD cn c� �, �� �,� m 0� m c �v�CnCDCD AO � 3 = O C) 0 0 0 Z O n O 0 3 3 3 D 3 CD m c m CDcoi CL CD CL CD CD CD 0 CD 0 n 0 0 3 3 3 w CD O m Q CDm CL m a CDL as D 0� N '= CD9c =' w n Q. 0-Q. n CD n voi 00 D 0 Q 00 0 3- 3 cn 3 3 w CDCD D C (D O Q_ Q_ ! Q. (D Q � Q_ CD C)0- v o vv w C C C C N cn L cn (D cn w w 0 0 0 O O 3 3 3 3 v vv v v o 0 0 0 n cn cn w cn c CA. cn cn cn (n O 0 O O O O O 3 3 3 3 3 00 v v cc c c o Ln n V o 0 0' 0 0 3 3 3 3 v v v U) 0 U) 0 (1) n C" N U) (n � N cn (n cn o 0 0 0 rn 3 3 3 *W, fV C) 0 O W N_ N O O 0) w ca CD N O N N O O v p0 c v CL (D y O vCa 0 N N �' �'• CL 0�`eo vo (D (DN T. 1 1 ii CD 0 1 O Cr O O 1 O Z •V I -I CD CD 4 IQ O �D : a X O 3 N CD n CD= 0 z — G CD O � 0 0 cn p Cl)�* Cn c N n 0 to -4 Cn C O to N c � CL 3700�0 to �= o 3 M o vCMw %� c cCn can 0 0 a a v Cn C C- C N * N Cn (n CL O O O 3 vCA 3X� �0 CD Cn = o u o to rn a c vim, c Cn Cn C4 0 0o a a W O 0 0 O CD N N C) 3/23/06 A letter to the Medina City Council: Having recently moved to Medina, my family and I love living here. We were looking to move to a "community" and so far have truly enjoyed the one provided by people living in the city of Medina. We also love living in the Evergreen State. We really enjoy all the beautiful trees we are privileged to live among. I am an avid gardener. I love to grow all types of plants, flowers, vegetables and fruit. I feel no one will debate that trees provide a wide variety of benefits for both residents and visitors of Medina. No debate should be made to the fact that they contribute in numerous ways to the natural environment. I also feel no one will debate the fact that it is not in the best interest of the city to allow landowners to come in and bulldoze an older home and completely clear cut their property to put up a mega -mansion. Having said this, I feel I must speak up when a community has put in city ordinances that make trees a higher priority than its citizens. The current tree and vegetation code is doing just that. As the code is currently written taking down trees in any situation -new construction, remodel or not associated with any building, is extremely painful and expensive. I believe this was what the council wanted when they wrote the law. I was personally told by a council member that it was written so as to discourage the removal of trees so greatly, that people just wouldn't do it. I feel the entire tree and vegetation code should be re -written, however in this letter I'm going to address taking down existing trees on an existing property that will not be torn down or significantly remodeled. All I personally want to do is re -landscape my property. Our house is 5 years old. We bought it from the people whom originally built it and have no plans for any major remodels. I'd also like to take a moment to point out that we have over 30 evergreen trees on our property, which is just over half an acre in size. Approximately 70-75% of these are old growth. We are more than doing our part to maintain Medina's tree canopy. My personal experiences since moving here in dealing with attempting to remove trees have made me ask repeatedly, "Doesn't the city care about its citizens?" The existing code and the way the city is enforcing it is black and white. There is no path one can take to talk with the city about a personal tree situation. There is no consideration taken in the situation where a citizen and every one of those citizens' neighbors who border their property would like a tree removed. There is no consideration for trees that are so close to a house that the needles are causing roof damage or excessive need for roof cleaning, which is often further compounded by the city's rules on building height restrictions which forces many homeowners to put in flat roofs. There is no consideration for a family who fears for the safety of their small children being hit by large falling branches from a tree located right in the only space in the yard their children have to play. There is no consideration for a citizen, living in a state known to be gray and rainy for a majority of its days who just wants some sunlight or at the least to replace an evergreen tree with a deciduous tree that would provide shade in the summer and let in light in the winter. There is no consideration for someone who wants sunlight because currently their lawn, walkways and roof are covered in moss. Finally there is no consideration for a gardener who might want to grow faits and vegetables that require full sunlight. When I first started looking into removing a few trees from my property I started asking around. I was told by everyone (I truly mean everyone) that I asked to just take them down without going to the city -essentially to beg forgiveness instead of asking permission. I was told to take them down on a Saturday. I decided to forego this advice and attempt to work with the city in removing my trees. I have truly been appalled at the process and some of the things the city has said to me. I was told the "number one priority of the city of Medina is the reforestation of the city to re -grow the tree canopy to how it was many years ago". I was asked "Why would you want to take these trees down they are beautiful". When I attempted to give my reasons they were not listened to. They were met with the response "We don't we about your (reasons); we only care about the trees." When I first called the city, my trees weren't looked at to see if there was root damage or rot, they were only measured for their diameter. I have since been in contact with an arborist who is working with the city, but have not heard of any decisions. The arborist recommended the trees come down. I do realize, even without a positive ruling between the city and my arborist, I can take these trees down, but with a very expensive mitigation AND with "reforesting my property." At this time I'd like to underline = property. As you know to take down one 30" tree for example I would need to replant 15 -2.5" caliper trees. Doing the math to take down just two trees of this caliper, I would need to replant 30- 2.5" trees. Not only is the city asking me to plant an enormous amount of trees they are dictating what type and species I need to replant. Not considering if there is space for these or enough light with all the existing evergreens for them to grow and flourish. And most importantly not taking into consideration (or maybe they are if they want reforestation) that these 30 trees will all grow quite large over time. People are being forced to plant such high numbers of mitigation replacement trees that it has come to the point where landscape designers and architects are saying, this is not what I would recommend as the right plant for this area, but because of your mitigation requirements we need to put in a plant that we can't guarantee will grow. I plan and have planned all along to add trees to my property, even if I don't remove the ones I have been attempting to get taken down. If I ever get through this process and do take my trees down, I am not building a house on or paving over the area for RV parking. I am putting in more trees and plants. But I am putting in trees and plants of my choice, which by the way does include adding some evergreens. However, I do not have the room to put in the number of trees required by mitigation. My neighbor to the west just finished building and to add to the fact that their house now blocks an incredible view that had been enjoyed by the previous owner of our property, the very high tree mitigation requirements my neighbor had to fulfill have forced them to plant trees which 11 � now nearly block all of what remained of our property's water view. My neighbors have complied with the tree and vegetation code for new construction, but were unable in doing so, to meet the tree"ew and sunlight obstruction code. They didn't want to do that to us and I personally don't want to do that in turn to my neighbors. A city ordinance has gone too far when its citizens acknowledge its ridiculousness and knowingly just circumvent the law because the law is "crazy". A city ordinance has gone too far when it puts trees above its citizens. My recommendation to the city council is to rewrite the tree and vegetation code, to allow its citizens to remove trees without such unusually large caliper inch replacement mitigation. When you choose to use caliper inch as a replacement number you are not taking into consideration the cost and availability of high caliper inch trees to plant and you are not taking into consideration that these trees will grow, unless it truly is the goal of the city council to reforest Medina. I'd also like to recommend the implantation of some type of "request for variance" plan. In this, a citizen with a unique situation could approach the city with reasons why they want to remove a tree or trees. In this way I would feel the city would be showing it cares about their citizens concerns and cares about actually listening to their citizens. We moved to the city of Medina for all the wonderful things the city has to offer. We moved here to be part of a great community. We did not move here to live in a "forest community". Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns and suggestions. Sincerely, Medina Resident and Homeowner MEMO Date: March 27, 2006 To: City of Medina City Council From: Mark L. Nelson (speaking as a Private Citizen and architect) Re: Proposed changes to the Tree and Vegetation Code, Chapter 12.28 I urge the City Council to evaluate the performance of the current code and it's effectiveness in meeting the goals and intentions of the ordinance. It is my opinion and that of other professionals and citizens in our city that this code is in need of revisions that better meet the stated purpose of the ordinance. As far as promoting the health safety and welfare of our citizens, the code makes it extremely difficult to remove hazardous trees. One citizen I talked to felt the ordinance values trees over human life. The code places more emphasis on preserving older trees that may be at the end of their life and less emphasis on younger healthier trees that are needed to preserve the "urban forest" or tree canopy of Medina. The mitigation for removal of trees' is very punitive and can be very contrary to recommended urban forest management principles for sustaining our tree canopy. For example, to remove a 32" fir tree requires planting 16-2.5" trees or 104" trees. In a matter of a few short years, those trees will block out the sun for several other plants, to say nothing of the neighbors view. Several arborists and landscape architects I have talked to feel that there are better ways to mitigate impacts to the tree canopy, and do a better job of promoting a healthy and esthetically pleasing landscape for our City. Also, the ordinance is not evenly applied across the city. For instance, those who live along Evergreen Point Road are hit harder by this ordinance than by those that live in Medina Heights where trees have been removed to preserve views. Why should the residents who live on a property with lots of trees, be penalized or required to maintain the tree canopy of Medina, when the residents who have no trees on their lot will never have to worry about it, because they have nothing to mitigate. Suggestions to consider are as follows: Establish a "Tree Commission" composed of citizens and landscape professionals/arborists, to focus on Urban Forest Management to help create strategies and a master plan governing tree planting, maintenance and removal. Also, they could act as a review board when residents have an alternative plan or need to deviate from the ordinance due to special circumstances on their lot, versus having the Hearing Examiner hear the case. Establish a tree bank, where residents who need to mitigate can put money into a fund that could be used to plant trees in other areas of town or can be put towards other local improvements. View the ordinance not as an end in itself, but as a tool to help achieve certain community forestry goals. In other words, build in flexibility. Allow the City arborists or board to implement performance standards on a case by case basis. This will allow for decisions to be based on site specific physical and biological factors. Another example for improvement is in Chap. 12.28.120 Lots 12,000 sq. ft. of less. I suggest lowering the threshold for exempting mitigation. To have and retain 6-24" trees is an exceptional situation to have on such a small site. Maybe relating threshold to number a minimum total of significant trees per acre and/or total number of caliper inches of trees retained would be more appropriate and achievable. Mitigation should take into account the number and size of all trees planned and retained when considering mitigation. Residents should get some credit for existing trees that are being saved, rather that facing punitive measures because they need to remove a tree. Plus, I suggest reducing tree size from 24" dia. to 12" to allow residents who do retain several trees on site to get credit for the trees that they do retain when mitigating for the one tree that they remove. In addition, as Paul Saad mentioned in a previous meeting, Chapter 18.16 Trees -View and Sunlight Obstruction and Chapter 12.28 Tree and Vegetation Code seem to be in conflict. While 18.16 says that residents are entitled to views and sunlight, Chapter 12.28 seems to say that trees are more important and outweigh views and sunlight. I would like to see a balance between the three addressed in the code, one that all citizens can get behind. I spoke to Tom Berger of the Berger Partnership. Tom is a highly respected landscape architect, and is very familiar with the current ordinance. He wished that he could be here tonight, but said I could paraphrase him. He said that the.." Tree and Vegetation code needs to be updated. There are more effective ways to protect our community goals and to provide tree protection." He would be willing to provide more detailed information in the future. I would like to summarize by saying, that I agree with the goals and intentions of the ordinance, I love trees, that's one of the reasons I found Medina so appealing. But, I hear from citizens and landscape professionals that the code as written needs to be revised to better serve to our community goals and urge the council to evaluate the effectiveness of the code as written. I do not sense that the entire community is behind this code as written. If the community feels that the tree code is unreasonable they will not support it and the goals of the code will not be followed. Revising the code to make it more reasonable will help to promote the goals of maintaining the existing tree canopy than to maintain the status quo. Thanks for being open to my thoughts, Mark Nelson Attachments: International Society of Arboriculture, "Planning for an Ordinance" National Association of Home Builders, Tree Preservation Ordinances T_ft�e�)ErAIGL� aDC�CF MV'iC-LkL*UVIC htt�l,: // wuV W. ►tea - arbor, coh� /Pw ica.� s/`f -►�e-o�dl�on��rt la. Qsp� Tree Ordinance Guidelines <Previous I Next > Part 1. Planning for an ordinance More and more communities are beginning to recognize the very tangible benefits that trees provide in the urban' environment. Healthy trees reduce air and noise pollution, provide energy -saving shade and cooling, fiunish habitat for wildlife, enhance aesthetics and property values, and are an important contributor to community image, pride, and quality of life. Furthermore, many communities have realized that in order to protect and enhance their valuable tree resources, it is useful to view and manage their trees as a cohesive unit, the community or urban forest. Tree ordinances are among the tools used by communities striving to attain a healthy, vigorous, and well -managed community forest. By themselves, however, tree ordinances cannot assure that the trees in and around our communities will be improved or even maintained. Tree ordinances simply provide the authorization and standards for management activities. If these activities are not integrated into an overall management strategy, problems are likely to arise. Without an overall strategy, management will be haphazard, inefficient, and ineffective, and the community forest will suffer. This larger management view is commonly lacking when ordinances are developed. Local ordinances are often developed in response to public outcry over specific perceived problems. This "band -aid" approach frequently leads to ordinances that are not consistent with sound community forest management, and may in fact thwart good management efforts. For example, public outcry has led to the development of many ordinances designed to protect old "heritage" trees. Unfortunately, most of these same ordinances allow the routine destruction of younger trees. The end result may be an unsustainable community forest, short on young trees and long on old, declining trees. By focusing too narrowly on individual trees, such ordinances may contribute to the degradation of the community forest over the long term. A tree ordinance is not a panacea for poor or inadequate municipal tree management. Nor is it a replacement for a comprehensive community forestry program that is fully supported by the local government and community residents. Properly applied, tree ordinances can facilitate good management of community tree resources. Improperly applied, ordinances can legitimize counterproductive practices and undermine the long term success of the community forest. Types of ordinances In 1990, we conducted a study of city and county tree ordinances in California Bernhardt and Swiecki 1991). We reviewed 159 enacted city tree ordinances and 9 enacted county ordinances in addition to a small number of proposed ordinances. This sample represented about 50% of the city tree ordinances and 80% of the county tree ordinances in effect in California at that time. For the purposes of our review, we grouped tree ordinances into three basic categories: • Street tree ordinances primarily cover the planting and removal of trees within public rights -of -way. They often contain provisions governing maintenance or removal of private trees which pose a hazard to the traveling public. Also included in this category are ordinances with tree planting requirements, such as those requiring tree planting in parking lots. • `tree protection ordinances are primarily directed at providing protection for native trees or (trees with historical significance. They usually require that a permit be obtained before protected trees can be removed, encroached upon, or in some cases, pruned. • View ordinances are designed to help resolve conflicts between property owners that result when trees block views or sunlight. Among California cities, street tree ordinances were more common than tree protection ordinances, although many city ordinances include elements of both. County tree ordinances were most commonly tree protection ordinances, and most of these regulated tree removal on private property. View ordinances were relatively uncommon. We received view ordinances from only four cities and one county. Most of these were "self -enforcing", that is, they set forth a procedure through which private parties could resolve conflicts without direct intervention by the city or county. Although other types of ordinances, such as grading ordinances, may be related to trees and other vegetation, our discussion will be limited to these three categories, which encompass the overwhelming majority of all tree -related local ordinances. Effectiveness of existing ordinances The effectiveness of a tree ordinance can be influenced by many factors. Do the residents support or oppose various ordinance provisions, or are they even aware of them? Is the ordinance enforced adequately? Does the ordinance account for environmental limitations that affect tree health, growth, and survival? Does the local government have the financial resources to fulfill ordinance requirements? Since the answers to these questions will vary from place to place, even very similar ordinances can have quite different outcomes in different communities. In our 1992 survey of city and county tree programs in California Bernhardt and Swiecki 1993), we asked tree program managers about the effectiveness of their existing ordinances. The majority of respondents from cities and counties with existing ordinances believed that their current tree ordinance was in need of revision. In some cases, respondents from different programs within the same city had widely divergent opinions on the effectiveness of their existing ordinance. Enforcement was not the only issue affecting effectiveness ratings - 52% of the city respondents felt that tree ordinance enforcement was adequate. (A note of caution here: many of these respondents were probably responsible for ordinance enforcement in their cities.) As we discuss in Part 3, Evaluating the urban forest and ordinance performance, it is possible to objectively assess the performance of a tree ordinance. This assessment requires both an evaluation of the ordinance and related regulations and evaluation of the urban forest itself. In our analysis of California tree ordinances, we looked to see whether each ordinance had the structural elements necessary for effectiveness. Although ordinances may vary widely in form, content, and complexity, an effective tree ordinance should meet the following criteria: 1. Goals should be clearly stated and ordinance provisions should address the stated goals. • 2. Responsibility should be designated, and authority granted commensurate with responsibility. • 3. Basic performance standards should be set. • 4. Flexibili should be designed into the ordinance. • 5. Enforcement methods should be specified. • 6. The ordinance should be developed as part of a comprehensive management strategy. • 7. The ordinance should be developed with community support. The first five criteria are key features of the ordinance itself. The last two criteria reflect the background in which the ordinance is developed. Although an ordinance meeting these criteria is not guaranteed success, ordinances lacking one or more of these elements will definitely be handicapped. In our review of city and county tree ordinances, we looked for evidence that the first six of these basic criteria were met. Goals A clear statement of goals is essential, since goals provide the basis for interpreting the ordinance and evaluating its effectiveness. However, only 52% (88) of the ordinances we reviewed began with a stated purpose which can be interpreted as the goal of the ordinance. Goals were most commonly lacking in street tree ordinances. Among street tree ordinances that did list a goal, it was often of the form, "to establish rules and regulations governing tree planting, maintenance and removal on the public right of way". This type of goal suggests that the ordinance is seen as an end in itself, rather than as a tool to help achieve certain community forestry goals. Some street tree ordinances do show a clear link with a wider management strategy, as indicated by a goal such as "to create a master plan governing tree planting, maintenance, and removal". Tree protection ordinances nearly always begin with a stated goal, such as "to prevent wanton destruction of trees", or "to preserve as many trees as possible during the development process". However, goals such as these may be too general to allow for meaningful evaluation. How many are "as many as possible"? The lack of clear, specific goals is a common shortcoming of many tree ordinances. Responsibility and authority Of the ordinances reviewed, 54% (91) designated a single position responsible for enforcing the ordinance and carrying out the urban forest program. In the remainder of the ordinances, responsibility was split between two or more positions, or worse yet, was not designated. In most cases, the most efficient way to manage the urban forest is to have a single person responsible for overseeing all tree -related activities. This allows for better coordination of management activities and reduces conflicts between departments. However, in small communities, it may not be possible to have a single central tree authority. Responsibility may be split between a tree commission, which sets policy and has administrative duties, and city staff, which is responsible for operations and enforcement. The tree program manager should be vested with the authority necessary to carry out his or her responsibilities. A reasonably clear link between responsibility and authority is found in many tree ordinances. However, in some ordinances, responsibility appears to exceed authority, whereas in others, authority is granted, but specific responsibilities are not stated. The management of the urban forest is likely to suffer when responsibilities are ill-defined or the authority to act is not granted. Basic performance standards Many tree ordinances focus on setting specific standards that pertain to trees. A tree ordinance should indicate which practices and conditions are acceptable and which are not. For example, damaging public trees is unacceptable in most communities and is addressed in many tree ordinances. Some communities find that damage to or removal of oaks and other native trees without cause is unacceptable, and address this in their ordinances. Besides stating what is regulated, an ordinance should set basic standards for performance. Many older ordinances are deficient in this regard. For instance, many ordinances require tree planting in conjunction with new construction. However, relatively few ordinances set standards for the eventual amount of canopy cover or shading that is to be provided, or the level of species diversity to be achieved. Similarly, many ordinances require an extensive permit process before native trees can be removed, but few set a standard for the maximum amount of canopy that can be removed overall. If basic standards for performance are not set, it is possible that all individual actions taken will conform with the ordinance, but that the overall goals of the ordinance are never achieved. Effective performance standards address the urban forest as a whole rather than focusing exclusively on individual trees. Excessively vague standards (e.g., "as much as possible") may not only be unenforceable, but may not survive a legal challenge. hi 1999, a Fulton County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of developer against the City of Atlanta because a section of the city's tree ordinance lacked sufficient objective standards. The section in question included the following language (underlined sections are our emphasis):i ...the city arborist shall require that improvements be located so as to result in minimal disturbance to the natural t000rrranhv of the site and the protection of the maximum number ofmature trees on the site. It is the specific intent of this section to require that damage to mature trees located within setback and required yard areas and to trees located on abutting properties owned by others be minimized to the greatest degree possible under the particular circumstances, as determined by the city arborist in the city arborist's discretion. [Atlanta, GA: 1999 Code of Ordinances Part II, Ch. 158, Art. II, Div. 2, Sec. 158-104] Although the concept advanced in this provision may be reasonable, additional language is needed to more clearly define what constitutes "minimum disturbance" or the "maximum number". For example, tree retention standards based on a percentage of the existing tree density or canopy cover (see Provision 32. Conservation of forest and woodland resources during development) could provide a sufficiently objective standard for assessing whether a project complies with the ordinance. While avoiding the pitfall of vagueness, an ordinance should also avoid slipping into the abyss of excessive technical detail. Many ordinances have focused on very detailed implementation standards instead of setting basic performance standards. For example, many ordinances include lists of species that are allowed or prohibited for use as street trees. Others specify the size of planting stock to be used in plantings. Implementation standards such as these change as new methods and materials are developed and old ones fall out of favor, and as a result, ordinances with these details can quickly become outdated. If detailed specifications are needed, they are more appropriately placed in the urban forest management plan, which can and should be updated frequently. Flexibility While ordinances should set basic performance standards, it is important that they allow for flexibility. If the tree ordinance sets objective performance standards, it can also direct the community arborist or forester to implement the standards by making decisions on a case -by -case basis. This can reduce the need for overly detailed implementation standards and allows for the flexibility to make decisions based on site -specific physical and biological factors. Even if a community does not have personnel with the necessary expertise on staff, the ordinance can allow for the input of qualified professionals on specific issues. For example, many tree protection ordinances require a report by a qualified consultant as a part of the permit process. Outside technical consultants should work for and be responsible for representing the interests of the community, not clients that may have a financial interest tied to tree removal or damage (e.g., a property owner or developer). About three-quarters of the ordinances have a process for appealing decisions. The appeal process provides a degree of flexibility, in that it serves as a check against the authority of the tree program manager. Ideally, this helps to ensure that decisions are based on all pertinent information, and that they stand on technical merit. Unfortunately, appeals may also serve to undermine good urban forest management if they routinely allow political pressure to override the decisions of competent tree specialists. Enforcement Enforcement is an important aspect of every ordinance. Only slightly more than half of the ordinances we received contain an enforcement element. Although 48% (81) of the ordinances specified penalties for violations, only 24% (41) designated a position or positions responsible for enforcement. Thus, many tree ordinance provisions may not be enforced because nobody is specifically charged with this duty. In ordinances with enforcement provisions, many kinds of penalties are employed. Fines, jail terms, and forfeiture of performance bonds are among the penalties invoked in both street tree and tree protection ordinances. Many jurisdictions also require specific replacement plantings as penalties. In some street tree ordinances, occupancy permits are withheld until required trees and landscaping are satisfactorily installed. Many of the penalties available appear to be sufficient to help deter offenders, but only if consistent enforcement makes it likely that violators will be cited and penalized. Comprehensive management strategy Few existing ordinances have been developed as part of an integrated tree management strategy. Only 6% (10) of the Californian ordinances we reviewed showed clear evidence that they were an element of a comprehensive management strategy. Without this underlying strategy to guide the process, inappropriate provisions may be included, or necessary provisions may be omitted. Furthermore, local governments may unsuccessfully use a tree ordinance to pursue goals that are more readily achieved through other means. The tree ordinance is often seen as an end in itself, rather than as one of a number of tools which must be used to attain a healthy, vigorous, and well -managed community forest. The lack of integration between urban forest management and tree ordinances is probably the most prevalent and serious problem with tree ordinances overall. An ordinance is not a panacea for poor or inadequate management of community tree resources. Properly applied, an ordinance can help facilitate good management. Improperly applied, ordinances can legitimize counterproductive practices, provide disincentives for tree conservation, and undermine the long-term sustainability of the urban forest. By focusing on community forest management, rather than simply regulation, communities can determine whether an ordinance is necessary, and what its role should be. By following the process we present, Developing a Community Forest Management Strategy, communities can develop effective ordinances that are uniquely suited to meet their specific needs. It seems that relatively few communities have followed this approach in developing their tree ordinances. Far more commonly, tree ordinances are drafted after reviewing a few existing ordinances or "model' ordinances. As a result, we found that many California tree ordinances were very similar to one another. hi several instances, two or more communities had identical ordinances. Certain frequently -copied provisions are found unchanged in many ordinances, often complete with dated terms or concepts. Although it is possible to construct an ordinance using a 'bookie cutter" approach, such an ordinance is unlikely to be well integrated with a comprehensive urban forest management strategy. Community support and ordinance success Community support is critical to ordinance effectiveness, but community support cannot be legislated into an ordinance. Rather, the ordinance must be developed within the context of community values and priorities if it is to enjoy public support. Even a technically correct tree ordinance is apt to be ineffective without public support. Passing a highly restrictive ordinance in a nonsupportive community is not only politically difficult, but may be counterproductive. Rossi (1990) described such a situation that occurred after the passage of a tree protection ordinance. Local citizens attempted to circumvent the ordinance by cutting down trees before they attained the diameter specified for protection in the ordinance. As a practical matter, most tree ordinances rely heavily on voluntary compliance. Few communities would support the concept of a patrolling "tree cop" that seeks out violations. However, citizens in many communities are willing to voluntarily comply with restrictions they perceive as reasonable, and report obvious violations to protect their local tree resources. To be successful, tree ordinances should not impose regulations that most local citizens are unwilling to support. <Previous I Tree ordinance web site map I Next > ISA home page I Submit comments or suggestions ® International Society of Arboriculture 2005 P.O. Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826 Email comments & questions to isa(Msa-arbor.com National Association of Home Builders Page 1 of 6 Advanced Sean 1OMIE I ABCx!<F I "N i PLIBILICATMS I SHOPNAM I! NEWSROOM I C0?fIAC R11301 IRCES I NAHB COMMUNITY I EDUCOMON I MEEriNGS & EVE" I LOG IN Home > Resources > Land Development > Tree Preservation Ordinances ;21111 TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCES Pri Tree and woodland preservation appears to be the next emerging environmental issue now May ��' 2QOiae#� that there are local, state, or federal regulations requiring the development community to address floodplains, stormwater, wetlands, water quality, endangered species, steep slopes,i RESOURCES and even air quality. Trees are a visible presence in a community and easily noticed when Business Management • they are removed or damaged. Many references are being made in the media to tree loss Tools and its potential connection to global warming trends; even President Bush expressed concern about trees in his State of the Union address in 1989. Construction, Codes & Standards Often, the development community is viewed as being primarily responsible for removing or Construction Safety & destroying trees. As a result, more and more communities are turning their attention from OSHA standards that protect street trees on public property to more complex tree or woodland preservation ordinances that protect trees affected by construction activity. In April, 1991, the Maryland Gent Economic & Housing Data Assembly passed the nation's first statewide bill on forest preservation and reforestation, legislation that is li Environment viewed as a model by other states. Find a Builder or Yet, saving trees in a community is more difficult than merely expecting developers to try to do a better job Remodeler complying with new standards. What is needed is not an adversarial process between local officials, citizens, Find Your Local Builders' developers, but a cooperative one. Flexibility and cooperation go a long way toward generating broad suppoi Association preservation requirements when they are adopted. Both those writing the regulations and those subject to tt realize that they share a common goal, namely, that mature trees and landscaping enhance a community's i For Builders that protecting these resources is worthwhile. Trees are aesthetically pleasing and are well known to increas; For Consumers values by as much as 15 percent. They increase home energy efficiency through shading and cooling, filter a buffer noise and wind, and provide wildlife habitat as well as pleasant visual relief. Housing In Congress Local officials and the public need to have a better understanding of development constraints Housing Issues and particularly need to recognize how other local regulations, such as grading, curbing, utility installation, a Industry Channel width requirements, affect developers' ability to save more trees than they typically do. Industry Jobs Tree preservation standards themselves can be too prescriptive and inflexible. Communities need to be willir Land Development performance -based tree standards and to allow variation from other rigid development standards so that the design team has flexibility to respond sensitively to the unique natural resource conditions on each site. Flex Smart Growth reasonableness includes recognizing that buildings and parking unavoidably take u g g g p g y p part of a site and need t Mixed -Use & Compact accommodated. Relying on a "no net loss" approach to saving trees or forests is not very realistic or workabl Development Development For their part, developers need to be more aware that, by means of increasing real estate values, trees enha Regulations & Approval marketing and resale potential of any property. Besides this "curb appeal," mature trees can be a cost -effect Process alternative to clearing a site and then landscaping with nursery stock. Learning more about how to save or ti trees on a site and how to reduce potential damage to trees from construction activities not only saves mone Open Space/Cluster landscaping budget but sets an example of responsible, environmentally sensitive development. This demon! Development stewardship and excellence builds a strong public image of a developer who Is taking positive environmental Infill/Brownfields Is concerned about quality. Such a reputation can translate to not only to surer sales, but easier developmen and respect within the industry. Growth/No Growth Infrastructure Finance & Tree preservation ordinances vary In form and complexity across the country, though many have common el Fees Some communities exempt all single-family development from adopted requirements, for example, while o& Legal Affairs exempt only individual single family homes. The rest of this paper looks at the standard sections of a typical preservation ordinance and various approaches to tree preservation requirements under each section. This d NAHB Disaster Resources should help Drovide auidelines for develooers and local officials when thev are revisina a local tree oreservati http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=19086 3/27/2006 National Association of Home Builders Page 2 of 6 r NAHB Policy ordinance or developing one for the first time. Some of the decisions about what to protect and how are choices a community must make, so that citizen In essential. Others are more technical and require the involvement of a professional with special expertise in ti as an urban forester or landscape architect. Developing a task force with broad -based representation in the i is an effective way to develop an ordinance that is responsive to all interests and will be widely supported. It good idea not to exempt local government, i.e., public agencies, from the preservation requirements, but to example," in order to foster greater support for the ordinance and its objectives. Purpose and Authority Tree preservation and landscaping ordinances historically have been upheld by the courts as reasonable exte local government's zoning and subdivision authority, which are themselves a delegation of the rather broad 1 that most states grant to local governments to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Before adoptirn preservation requirements, however, communities should check their state enabling legislation to verify that authority is broad enough to cover such special-purpose regulations. Once authority is established, a tree preservation ordinance should clearly state its purpose or goals, and the requirements should clearly implement these goals, so that the ordinance is more legally defensible. Clearly goals will also assist in interpretation of the ordinance as it is implemented and enforced. The ordinance also should state clearly who reviews tree preservation plans and who has the authority to en, ordinance. This person should be someone with special knowledge of trees, such as an urban forester, arbori landscape architect. He/she should be charged not only with implementing the ordinance but should be invol on when the ordinance is being drafted, so that the tree standards that are developed are locally appropriate community is financially unable to hire such an expert as a full-time staff person, a consultant in this field sh contracted for necessary services and a full-time staff person be made responsible for administering the ordi Defining What Trees Will be Protected A community should realize that not all trees are worth saving and should be very specific about which trees seek to protect. A professional arborist or landscape architect should be consulted to help determine which s size trees are desirable or valuable locally for preservation or for replacement stock in light of species longev susceptibility to insects, disease, pollutants, and windthrow; aesthetic contribution; maintenance requiremer community's stated goals. There is no typical size tree that is used as a threshold for saving trees. However, the standard measurement used is tree caliper or diameter at breast height (dbh). Caliper i<_ trees four inches in diameter or smaller and is the diameter of a tree trunk in inches taken at a point six inch the ground. For trees larger than four inches, diameter at breast height is used; this is measured in inches o trunk at a point four -and -a -half feet above ground. Ordinance standards vary from an extreme of protecting 2- to 31nch trees or larger (essentially nursery stoci venerable 24- or 36-inch trees. Many use 6-, 8-, or 12-inch trees as the baseline size for tree preservation. I Illinois, for example, uses 12-inch trees as the threshold size for protection Some ordinances focus only on preserving historic or specimen trees. Charlotte, North Carolina, requires tha greater than 24 Inches in diameter or any specimen trees more than 12 inches in diameter be shown on con! plans so they can be considered during the planning process. Prince George's County, Maryland, Includes an detailed, two -page list of specimen trees found in that area of Maryland that is to be used in conjunction witl county standards as a guide for determining which size trees might be eligible for protection on a property. I included in the appendix to this paper. Other ordinances emphasize retention of native plant communities. Sanibel Island, Florida, strictly limits des trees during construction and requires that primarily native plants be used in new landscaping. The ordinanc• Head Island, South Carolina, attempts to maintain the same diversity and composition of species that existet predeveloped site through strict preservation standards and appropriate replanting requirements. Instead of relying on tree sizes or types, still another approach is to require that a minimum percentage of a in trees or replanted or to establish a minimum tree diameter, basal area, or square -inch total that must be site. This approach is more typical and appropriate when the goal of the ordinance is focused on protecting v or whole blocks of trees, because it allows the flexibility to save or plant trees of various sizes and still meet standard. Obviously, the reasonableness of any of these standards will depend on how much protection is re h4://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=19086 3/27/2006 National Association of Home Builders Page 3 of 6 Review of Development Plans Many of the early tree protection ordinances primarily sought to protect street trees along public right-of-wa these ordinances are still in use in cities, where extensive land areas are no longer open to development and trees are the major forestry resource. Since 1980 or so, however, an increasing number of ordinances have broadened to extend to development activity on private lands. Many of these ordinances now require a perm removal, while others tie tree preservation to approvals for grading or land disturbance permits. A number of more recent ordinances, for example, require any development that disturbs either more than acre or more than an acre of land to obtain a land disturbance permit. Prince George's County, Maryland, re( developers to submit forest stand delineation and preservation plans if a parcel is 40,000 square feet or larg. contains 10,000 square feet of woodlands or more before development. The rationale for this approach is pa prevent unscrupulous developers from clearing a site before applying for site plan approval and to enable col to scrutinize activities that may affect tree survival from the very outset of a project. Regardless of the proce it is best to make tree permit reviews and approvals part of the normal subdivision or development review pi to do these reviews concurrently so that substantial, new delays, and thus costs, are not added to developm approvals. Many ordinances now require developers to submit detailed tree surveys or forest stand delineations with th( preliminary plans as well as tree preservation plans that indicate which treed areas are to be saved, how the protected, and, if trees are to be removed, how they will be replaced. Prince George's County, Maryland, has Technical Manual for Woodland Development in Prince George's County to implement its officially adopted tri that provide comprehensive explanation of what these plans generally contain, how they are used to obtain development approvals, and how they become project documents that guide the construction process so tha indeed saved. A few ordinances go into substantial detail about how construction affects trees. The ordinances of Fulton Co Georgia, and Prince George's County, Maryland, are both excellent sources of information on this point. Othe stipulate that certain construction practices must be followed. A key guideline often discussed is the importance of protecting the roots of a tree. Fencing off the trunk, an standard, is ineffectual. Even the dripline of the tree is now being viewed as an inadequate protection zone n root network of a tree Is better understood. The bulk of a tree's roots are a mat of finely meshed feeder root out well beyond the dripline of a tree and occur primarily within the top 12 inches of soil. Instead of a taproo have a network of roots. Prince George's County's manual contains a rather technical discussion of the forme being used to calculate a tree's protection area, but explains that the basic concept is that a tree's root volur the volume of its canopy, as indicated In the diagram that is included in the appendix to this paper. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, uses the simple rule of thumb of allowing one foot out in horizontal distance for e the tree's diameter. According to the American Forestry Association, this easy -to -use formula is gaining in ac Another requirement that is beginning to appear in tree preservation ordinances is that developers educate subcontractors and any other members of their development team to communicate the importance of the tre requirements and to explain the construction practices that must be followed on the project to protect the to practices typically include flagged fencing, a signage program, and designated equipment parking and wash - Tree Protection and Replacement Requirements Many of the first ordinances that were adopted in the early 1980's to apply to development activities used th simple approach of requiring developers to plant one new tree for every tree they removed on a site. A few c soon caught on to the fact that removing a mature, 24-inch diameter tree and replacing it with 2-inch nurses not seem quite adequate, so various approaches other approaches were tried. Some existing ordinances still require replacement on a caliper -inch for caliper -Inch basis, others use the more rigorous I -for -I square -inch replacement formula, while still others require the planting of 2 or 3 new trees for every existing tree remov, The underlying problem with any of these "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approaches is that they do not account for the fact that small trees eventually do grow into large trees, and that buildings and parking do of on a site. On a wooded site, it may not be physically possible to accommodate replanted trees at a I -to -I or 2-to-1 basi http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=19086 3/27/2006 National Association of Home Builders Page 4 of 6 these approaches are now being seen as fairly rigid and even impractical in some instances. Gibbsboro Borough, New Jersey, uses a modified version of this approach, requiring developers to replant or new tree diameter for every four Inches of existing tree removed. Existing trees are considered to be any tre defined tree protection zones or any tree with a diameter of 30 inches or greater. Newly planted trees must i minimum diameter of two inches. Annapolis, Maryland, uses a sliding replacement scale based on the size of trees: • Trees from 5 to 8 inches in diameter (dbh, diameter at breast height) must be replaced on the tree for every 4 trees removed • Trees 8 to 12 inches dbh are replaced 1 for every 2 removed • Trees 12 to 18 inches dbh are replaced 1 for 1 • Trees 18 to 24 inches dbh are replaced 2 for 1 • Trees greater than 24 inches dbh are replaced at the rate of 3 to 1. This is an interesting approach, in that it places greater weight on protecting more mature trees. One flaw in that mature trees, while seemingly more valuable and irreplaceable, are well known to be more susceptible t distressed by construction activity. Younger, mixed stands are more vigorous and adaptable and offer better for future woodlands. The Fulton County, Georgia, ordinance recognizes this and relies instead on a standard based on a certain m number of trees per acre. Total minimum site density must be 15 "units" per acre, with units relating to dbh of a complex formula (see appendix). A single unit Is essentially equal to a 13-1/2 inch caliper tree, but the i is not strictly linear, with proportionately more credit being given for increasingly larger trees. For example, , diameter tree is worth 4 units. Though complex, this formula approach allows developers the flexibility to us, of tree sizes to meet the standard. Prince George's County and the Maryland state legislation have developed an alternative, somewhat more in replacement schedule. In general, both emphasize retention of existing forest, afforestation of vacant areas, on forest conservation measures during development. Afforestation refers to planting trees where none existed before or where they have be( for a long time. Both policies establish woodland or forest conservation threshold levels, expressed in percen various land uses or zoning districts. Trees removed that cause the woodland cover on a site to fall below thi percentage for that land use must be replanted at a higher rate than trees removed above the percentage. I' original forest cover did not reach the designated percentage, the site must be "afforested" to 20 percent of the Maryland bill or to 10 percent of the site in Prince George's County. A summary of the Maryland law's requirements and a table of Prince George's County's conservation levels a appendix to this paper. Neither policy sets exceedingly high preservation levels. In Prince George's County, t range from 10 percent in commercial and industrial zones to 50 percent in rural and agricultural areas, with residential areas set at 20 percent. In the Maryland bill, the comparable range is from 15 to 50 percent. However, both require the somewhat controversial concept of planting trees where none existed before, and require developers to either plant trees offsite or to pay Into a designated fund if it is not possible to replant number of trees onsite. This concept of offsite mitigation is a new element in tree preservation ordinances. To some, it clearly reflect extreme "no net loss" attitude toward tree preservation. The courts have not yet examined whether such prc violate the "rational nexus" test that conditions imposed on development must typically meet or, in the view the more stringent "essential nexus" test Imposed on development exactions by the Supreme Court in Nollar California Coastal Commission. These tests essentially require that conditions placed on development must b reasonably related to a need created by that development and also that the conditions imposed must benefit development that, in this Instance, plants the trees or pays the fee, rather than the community at large. Req developers to plant trees on another site bears a rather tenuous connection to these points and may be subj challenge. From a practical standpoint, offsite mitigation can also be difficult to implement. Anne Arundel County, Mar ordinance has required offsite plantings since its adoption in November, 1988. Yet, according to a Washingti article in June, 1991, the county had collected more than $500,000 from developers in its offsite mitiqation f http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=19086 3/27/2006 National Association of Home Builders Page 5 of 6 had not been able to find a single landowner who was willing to have replacement trees planted on his prope As previously mentioned, flexibility and a cooperative approach go a long way toward ensuring the success o ordinance. With tree preservation requirements, this may mean trying to reduce and mitigate the impacts of development on trees rather than trying to achieve "no net loss." It means recognizing that in developing a portion of the site becomes occupied with buildings, roads, and parking lots, leaving less area available for n The Lake Forest, Illinois, ordinance offers a good example here. Developers must delineate a "construction a includes the building footprint plus 20 feet, roads, and utility pathways, but trees may be removed within thi A flexible approach also means crafting standards that leave site planners and foresters room to creatively rE the unique natural conditions on each parcel and be able to use them to best advantage. Due credit should t to apply to landscaping requirements when existing trees are saved. The community should be willing to take its other development standards and work with a development team to make changes to grading, curbing, rc or utility installation practices where those changes will allow more trees to be saved. Prince George's County and the city of Bowie, Maryland, offer a compelling example to others on this point. - Bowie allowed 2-to-1 grades and, in conjunction with the county, reduced building pad setbacks, allowed cul with planted islands, reduced street widths, and allowed grassy swales instead of curbs in several areas of a subdivision under construction In Bowie called North Ridge. These concessions allowed many more trees to be saved on the project and a special rural atmosphere consi the surrounding area to be maintained. The appendix includes documents prepared by The Michael T. Rose C the developer of North Ridge, to show the city and county what these changes mean in terms of additional tr could be saved. The number of additional trees saved by the change in the grading requirement from 3-to-1 particularly noticeable. Many areas of the country require 3-to-1 grades and could benefit from learning how requirement alone affects tree preservation. Enforcement Last, but not least, most ordinances contain provisions for enforcement and penalties in the event violations communities withhold occupancy permits until standards have been met and also require developers to subn performance bonds to ensure that the necessary trees are saved or planted. If protected trees are removed some communities require that a mitigation fee be paid into a special fund, so that the community can replai there or elsewhere in the community. Many ordinances also hold developers accountable for tree survival in years following construction, since it may take three to five years for a tree to die that was injured during co Such communities typically require the developer to either replace the dead trees or pay a special fee. References NAHBNET issue summary, National Association of Home Builders, February 1990. "FACT SHEET --The Maryland Forest Conservation Act." NAHB State and Local Government Affairs Departmer 1991. Birchell, Robert S. "Using and Protecting Trees During Development and Construction." LAND DEVELOPMENT Association of Home Builders, May 1988. Clark, Steve. "Using and Protecting Trees as a Development Asset --Revisited." LAND DEVELOPMENT, Nations Association of Home Builders, Winter 89/90. "Saving Trees is Good Business." BUILDER, May 1989. Benefits of Urban Trees, Forestry Report R8-FR17, US Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1990. Moll, Gary. "Building in the Green." URBAN FORESTS, American Forestry Association, June/July 1991. "A Systematic Approach to Building with Trees." James Fazio, Editor. Tree City USA Bulletin Number 20, Nati Day Foundation, 1991. "How to Save Trees During Construction." James Fazio, Editor. Tree City USA Bulletin Number 20, National A Foundation. Tree Preservation Ordinances page 11 http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=19086 3/27/2006 National Association of Home Builders Page 6 of 6 "A Tree Grows in Suburbia." ZONING NEWS, American Planning Association, January 1989. "Improving City Street -Tree Codes. ZONING NEWS, American Planning Association, Nay 1990. Rodbell, Phillip, and Adam Kuby. "Laying Down the Law." URBAN FORESTS, American Forestry Association, December/January 1991. Duerksen, Christopher. Aesthetics and Land Use Controls --Beyond Ecology and Economics, Chapter 4, Tree F Ordinances. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 399, American Planning Association, 1986. Bernhardt, Elizabeth, and Tedmund Swieckl. Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances. Prep California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program, April 1991. Linowes and Blocher (law firm.) "Tree Protection Ordinances of the State of Maryland and Selected Local Juri Annapolis, Maryland, June 1990. Plott, David M., Esquire. "Forest Preservation --A Growing Concern." LANDS LETTER, Volume 2, Number 1, Ni Association of Home Builders. Fulton County Tree Preservation Ordinance Administrative Guidelines, Fulton County, Georgia, 1985. A Technical Manual for Woodland Conservation with Development in Prince George's County Maryland. Maryl National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, May 1990. Maryland Senate Bill Number 224, Forest Conservation Act. April 30. 1991. "North Ridge --A Community that Lives with Nature," development proposal. The Michael T. Rose Companies, Maryland, May 1988. National Association of Home Builders Land Development Services Department October, 1991 © 2006 Home Contact Us Site Map Privacy Statement Terms of Use Make NAHB My Home Page Lin http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=19086 3/27/2006 Doug Schulze City Mqr. We request city council to cease or postpone any further decisions until understanding by the majority of neighbors on the changes suggested in memo dated 3-22-06. 3 points to support request. 1) Time line: Memo received on 3-24, a Thursday evening requesting audience to support change on upcoming Monday evening 3-27-06. PLEASE. 2 business days does not respect our previous calendars. We ask you to reschedule and hear the majority opinion. 2) Please explain why the city council OVER -RULED the expert, Joe Willis, Director of Public Works original recommendations suggesting 3 speed humps will curb or slow the speeding problem recognized by City Mqr. Mr. Schulze, ALL hired by the city . 3) Appreciate and visualize this fact: With just 2 speed humps and understanding there placement as described in memo, then: is a blind curve and 12 children living between that last hump and stop sign. Its this area that has the HIGHEST risk to our children of getting hit by SPEEDING CARS. Please hear the majority that voted for 3 humps and support the original draft by the expert Joe Willis, Director of Public Works. With ample notice WE all will attend future meeting to express our known concerns. Neighbors on NE 8th and 83rd street. 26 March 2006 Mr. Doug Schulze Medina City Manager PO Box 144 Medina, WA 98039 Dear Sit, I am writing regarding the works project for NE a street and 83'd Ave proposed speed humps. 'These are very necessary as the data the city collected shows there is a problem with excessive speed on some of the cars that travel this road. Couple that there are over 10 children under the age of 12 on the street and we have a highly dangerous situation. I cannot attend the City Council meeting on the 27'L due to family commitments but I wanted to let you know I fully support the installation of the humps. I think the city should install three (3) not two as indicated in Mr. Willis letter of March 22. Three humps will insure drivers do not accelerate between the last hump and the stop sign which would defeat the purpose of the humps in the first place. The problem I see is there are many young children that walk to school along the street and many of the younger children that reside on a live after the position of the proposed 2 d hump. They would be put in danger without the installation of the 3d hum in between the Matthews and Edelhertz residences. Please decide to install the Yd hump and proceed with the installation without additional delay for the safety of the children of Medina. Sincerely, Harry and Gisele Matthews Cc: Paul Edelhertz Joe Willis To: Karen Sparks and Tony Shapiro 853 83rd Avenue NE Medina, WA 898039 (425)451-3361 March 27, 2006 Honorable Miles Adam and the Medina City Council Slowing traffic speeds on 83rd Avenue NE Dear Mayor Adam and City Council Members: � s you are aware, we are opposed to the installation of speed bumps to slow traffic on our street. Additional research performed since the last time the Councill considered this issue indicates that many jurisdictions lean toward making! drivers more aware of their speed to slow traffic before they take the more permanent measure of installing devices such as speed humps. Other methods of slowing traffic include narrowing the driving surface as drivers decrease speeds when the perceived width of the street is smaller. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, through grade changes, landscaping, installation of bollards and changes in the paved surface. From comments raised by one Council member at an earlier meeting and the proposed location for the speed bumps, it appears that the main portion of the street on which speeds are considered to be a problem is just below the bend of the street as it turns into NE 8th Street. There is a hedge just to the right of the pavement and two pine trees that block the view from the upper portion of the street to the portion below the bend. It appears that the hedge and trees are within the right-of-way, though maintained by the property owner. That same property owner uses the upper portion of his driveway to exit his property, despite !,the horseshoe shape of his driveway and access to the street from the much safer opening on NE 8th Street. The vehicle he drives is quite large and he pulls! partially into the right-of-way to see if traffic is coming before pulling out all the way. Last summer, I had to slam on my brakes to avoid a collision with him and my dog was thrown into the windshield, cracking it in the process. If he cannot see up the bend to see what is coming, then the trees and hedge pose a danger to him as well, particularly if he continues to use his upper driveway opening) to exit his property. edina has several options from which to choose to slow the speeds on 83rd pr' r to the very permanent installation of speed bumps, which may not in fact sloi v traffic, but increase it as drivers speeed up to take the bump more smoothl F. Speed bumps may also slow response times for emergency vehicles, damage equipment on cars, increase noise adjacent to the speed bumps and cause pain for medically sensitive or disabled persons as they travel in vehicles going over the humps. Those options include: • Taking out a portion of the hedge and the two pine trees just before the bend where 83rd becomes NE 8th Street • Narrowing the driving surface through installation of speed buttons on the striping which signifies the bike and walking path on the east side of the street surface. Such buttons were installed on the surface before the street was repaved, but were never replaced. • Use of a portable speed bump to see if traffic speeds in fact are slowed by the use of a speed bump. An on line search revealed that such portable speed bumps can be purchased for $39-369, depending on the material used and the width desired and can be moved to other locations if other residents seek speed bumps in the future. • Use of signage indicating that a bend in the road is coming which requires the driver to slow to a speed less than 25 m.p.h. to safely negotiate the bend. • Installation of signage that indicates drivers should Watch for Children • Stenciling on the surface of the roadway to indicate 25 m.p.h. at the top of the street. • Stenciling on the bike and walking path that indicates the use of the road surface to the east of the stripe is for walking and biking only. • Use of a speed sentry which indicates the speed limit, the speed vehicles are going, and which has options for flashing speeds over the limit as well as data collection. Speed sentries do not require electrical pole intstallation and operate on rechargeable batteries. The cost of the sentries may be prohibitive, though, in the $3400 range for the complete set-up. The sentries are moveable, however, and could be used in other locations when and if the speeds on 83rd are determined to have sufficiently slowed. We hope the Council will consider implementation of less permanent measures to slow the speeds before speed bumps are installed. Once installed, if they are not effective to slow speeds, they will be difficult and expensive to remove without damaging the road surface. Very truly yours, Karen Sparks 4 C UpQ w N J O CD G O h d CD C O � �_ p CD a' CD : qQ ' p' p' Q. (CD CCDD 0 CD CD CD CD CD O NCA on O a, CD .� CD CD p Li W CD CD CD .p CD -s z moo 0 p CIl CD CD �CDCD 0 CD N N N rC O Q ¢• qd m o (n9t CD z CD C CDCD ° CD o��°' q � 0 o �CDCD N CD CD CD N QQ O O 0 CD N 0 0 CN1� O CD N CDCD ~ CO CD p � N CD I N O w o� o � tj z �,� 0 0 ^ o p O CD El 4� z CD o �- � o CD 0 CD w b C N. C y C 0 O O 1CD e~-f � O w N O � O N N 00 b c' b CD Medina Speed Hump Considerations 1. This is not just about speed humps on 83rd Street but speed humps in our city of Medina. Therefore, speed humps are a matter of policy well within the purview of the Medina City Council. • In the current literature re: speed humps it shows that "a community must agree on the need for them." • One community requires approval from 75 percent of the residents of the street in question and 75 percent approval from residents who use the street to get to their homes. — More than just the seven residents on 83rd who want speed humps use this street to go home. — Seven residents should not determine policy for the city. • This same community requires a 50% vote to remove them. One website said, "Speed bumps are forever and you will never get them off." • There is real concern about "speed hump proliferation." — It is establishing a precedent. Once one street has them then others in community want them to drive traffic off their street. — Why not Evergreen Point Road, Overlake Drive West or 77d' Avenue? 2. The number one reason for speed humps is "to divert traffic to other streets."1 • One of the residents on 83rd has said that when she bought her house she had looked at it on the weekend and there was little or no traffic. During the school week, she was surprised that the school traffic backed up to the top of 83rd. She voted for speed humps. 1 The National Motorists Association • Joe Willis has stated that they put the speed detectors down on 83rd and that speed did not seem to be an issue with over 85% of the traffic staying within the speed limit. — With the rather sharp right turn at the bottom, it would make speeding down the hill and then rounding that curve a bit dicey. — It does not appear that speeding is the real issue. • Joe polled the residents of 83rd and seven out of ten were in favor of speed humps. Again, more than those seven residents use 83rd • The question we really want to ask is,"Do we want to move the Medina Elementary traffic off of this street?" — The alternative routes to the school are through the five way intersection at 12`n, 84tn Street and Lake Washington Blvd. or he oblique turn off 84th onto Overlake Dr W. — It is only twice a day down 83rd when school is in session. — Since it is a one way street, the traffic doesn't occur twice in the mornings and afternoons. — It only lasts for a short duration. 3. I would like to move that we create an ordinance that bans any more speed humps from Medina. �• If speed is a real concern on the street (although that is not borne out by the facts), we can mitigate this situation. Drew Blazey Councilmember Position #5