The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-27-2006 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA November 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tree and Vegetation Code Amendments 2. Nonconforming Envelopes Zoning Code Regulation 3. Sign Code Amendments E. DISCUSSION 1. 2007 Property Tax Levy 2. 2007 Budget 3. Donations Policy 4. City Council Agenda Calendar F. 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. City of Medina AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: MEETING DATE: DATE THIS ITEM WAS LAST CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL: ITEM D - 1 Public Hearing; Tree Code Amendments November 27, 2006 September 25, 2006 SUMMARY OF ISSUE/TOPIC: Various amendments to standards and procedures are being presented back to the City Council as summarized in the November 3, 2006 staff report. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ® N/A CITY MANAGER: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ❑ N/A COMMENTS: See November 3, 2006 staff report. ❑ No Action Requested ® Action Requested ATTACHMENTS: D-1 b, Staff report D-1 c; Ordinance draft D-1 d; City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species For Private Property Replacement and Public Right of Way Planting BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $none ❑ BUDGETED ❑ NON -BUDGETED FUND: ❑ ❑ N/A RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ADOPT/APPROVE/AUTHORIZE) I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance that has been prepared by staff. If Council Members have questions, you are urged to call the staff person who prepared this agenda statement prior to the council meeting. RW06Agenda PacketsU12720061Item D-1a, tree code, cover form revised.doc ITEM 9?- lb CITY OF MEDINA Development Services 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222 www.modina-wa.9ov MEMORANDUM DATE: November 3, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services RE: Tree and Vegetation Code RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing, review ordinance changes and adopt ordinance. 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 protect community character. BACKGROUND: Several specific code changes were identified by the Council at their September 25 meeting. Staff have incorporated all of them in to the attached ordinance draft. This cover memo summarizes the changes using the "decision area" framework previously developed. The ordinance also reflects numerous non -policy / "housekeeping" changes that are also outlined below. Mayor Adam has requested that I include in this report potential code language for a new type of regulation that could be added to the attached ordinance draft should the full council concur. The regulation would be to prohibit the removal of trees larger than 50 inches at any time. This could be accomplished through insertion of the following new section into the ordinance before section 12.28.060. 12.28.055 Removal of Certain Trees Prohibited A. No person shall remove a sianificant tree that exceeds 50 inches DBH from private or public property unless it is found to be hazardous by the City Arborist through an evaluation that follows the methodoloav referenced in the definition of "hazardous tree" found in MMC 12.28.020. Decision Area A: What changes should be made to the mitigation requirements for significant tree removals on private property? ITEM D — lb Policy -Based Changes Per Council Direction • Bottom threshold of low range of mitigation (definition of a significant tree) changed from 6 to 10 inches • Mid to low range threshold changed from 24 to 20 inches • Changed new tree warrantee period from one to three years • Changed definition of "significant tree" to exclude deciduous species known to be hazardous or destructive of property and authorized staff to update the list of such species should new information become available • Allowed for transplanting trees for mitigation credit Non -Policy / Housekeeping Changes Made by Staff • Addressed exemption for weed trees though amending the definition of "significant tree" in front of code rather than in each regulation throughout the code • Reduced function of Figure 12.28-2 — "Medina Landscape Plan" to only indicate rights -of -way requiring low -growing trees for power lines or views and moved to the administratively maintained tree list, which is re -named "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species for Private Property Replacement and Public Right -of -Way Planting." The other functions of the currently - codified Figure12.28-2 are either outdated or redundant. • Eliminated all provisions related to steep slopes, wetlands, and streams. These were added to 12.28 in 2003 as placeholders before the ordinance that overhauled the critical areas regulations (MMC 18.12) so they are now duplicative. • Merged former lists of "Deciduous Not Recommended" and "Deciduous Prohibited" into one list and renamed "Deciduous Ineligible for Replacement Credit' within "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species for Private Property Replacement and Public Right -of -Way Planting." Removed species of european beech, horsechestnut, and October glory red maple from list because they do not meet criterion of hazardous or destructive of property. • Eliminated language about minimizing driveway number and size based on council action October 2005. Decision Area B: What changes are warranted to the hazardous tree provision? Policy -Based Changes Per Council Direction • Changed procedure to a single arborist involved in hazardous determinations. Arborist will be selected from American Society of Consulting Arborists. Decision Area C: Are changes warranted to the building footprint exemption? Policy -Based Changes Per Council Direction • Broadened footprint exemption from up to 24 inches to up to 36 inches Decision Area D: What changes should be made in the role of the Tree Fund? Policy -Based Changes Per Council Direction • Use of tree fund liberalized — minimum amount of planting changed from 50% of required mitigation inches to two 3-inch trees in low and middle ranges and two 4-inch trees in large range • Updated market value for tree fund contribution for the low range to $225 / inch. Used larger "disincentive" rates of $250 and $400 per inch for middle and upper ranges, respectively. Page 2 ITEM P -1 b Decision Area E: Should there be any changes to the policies reflected in the right-of-way removals division? Policy -Based Changes Per Council Direction • Created a single application procedure for applicants who own adjoining and nonadjoining properties and involving a public posting of trees to be removed followed by a discretionary staff decision. Decision Area F: Are the right-of-way planting standards in need of changes or in need at all? Policy -Based Changes Per Council Direction • Eliminated requirements for planting shrubbery and groundcover — only tree planting requirement remains. Page 3 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE MAKING SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE TREE AND VEGETATION CODE, MEDINA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.28. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: MMC 12.28 AMENDED. TREE AND VEGETATION TION CODE ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY 12.28.010 Purpose A. These regulations are adopted for the following purposes, which shall be considered in the administration of this code: 1. To promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Medina; 2. To preserve and enhance the physical and aesthetic character by preventing indiscriminate removal or destruction of significant trees and vegetative cover; 3. To promote land development practices that result in a minimal disturbance to the City's natural environment; 4. To promote the existence of wildlife with the establishment of shoreline plantings and native trees which will provide habitat for fish and wildlife in the lakes and streams; habita+ and stabilizatien ef soils en steep ; 5. To minimize surface water and ground water runoff and diversion; and to prevent erosion and the risks of slides; 6. To minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities; 7. To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and wind protection; 8. To acknowledge that trees and vegetative cover produce oxygen from carbon dioxide and are an aid in reducing air pollution; 9. To minimize the devaluation of property values due to unnecessary destruction of trees and vegetative cover; 10. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the City's natural topography and vegetative cover while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g. disease, danger of falling etc.), proximity to existing 1 11/20/06 and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, protection of scenic views, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal or pruning of certain trees and vegetative cover; 11. To ensure prompt development, restoration, replanting and effective erosion control of property after tree removal through the use of phased development, landscape plans and other reasonable controls; 12. To reduce siltation and water pollution in Lake Washington; 13. To implement the City of Medina Comprehensive Plan and Gammtm4ly Design ; 14. To support the goals and policies of the State of Washington Environmental Policy Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the4d Rule; 15. To provide for reasonable development of land in Medina; 16. To maintain the existing tree canopy. B. This chapter is intended to be a law of general application for the public at large; it is not intended for the particular benefit of any individual person or group of persons other than the general public, and it is not intended to impose liability on the City or its officers, agents, consultants or employees running to individual members of the public. C. Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed or form the basis for any liability on the part of the City, or its officers, agents, consultants or employees, for any injury or damage resulting from any person's failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or by reason of or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation of or enforcement of this chapter. 12.28.20 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. The word "shall" is always mandatory: 2 11/20/06 Medina Landscape Plan /11111111 StandardStreet Right -Of -Way Property from from approximate centerline of the street to owner's Property line. • Restrittad Right -Of --Way Property from approximate centerline of the street to owner's property line; restricted tee heights. 00®6 HistodcArea Property owner must maintain historic trees. reference, see also Cttywide policies discussion of community arterials and iti er hoods in the Comprehensive Plan the Community design Invantory. Fairweather Nature Preserve Three Points School Medina Park Medina Elementary Figure 12.28-2 << Figure moved to "Suitable Tree Species" document>> W plus" 3 11/20/06 I i I l I� II ; I I � i f 4 �... �✓ r +iAwmw n w ta.Y y f ' { x � ..."P-Sam is 0f6'a,«r. Macks Retaim .a.t,e.with _ specim • f t }cif ti Double Sequoii Obtain :.w. ..}t -rti to .,in. -OVCWM South Pi sidebetwq= A ina#a ov= LT of F --5 } .=m Paint } } Public .}tri Pmt Cay sa I P3& SLM}.. Cuaft •P i. t .+ai -a d wi♦ P n •i schoot tec •n} .. tr- pc=3im or i.is 11 = Medina, Ovftialne Golfa. + to ft a Lys. 4=5,."ed. I 7Tf7{tG°71t7 ng Speci= <<Key to Be Eliminated — Changes to "Suitable Tree Species" List Will Allow This Key to Be Eliminated>> "ANSI" is the American National Standards Institute. 4 11/20/06 Figure ,1 2. 28-1 <<Figure to Be Eliminated>> "Building Footprint" is that portion of the lot covered by the primary building and measured from the outside eave or furthest structural projection of the primary building. "Building, Primary" refer to MMC 17.12.010. "Brush" consists of plants that are native, ornamental, or invasive species growing on a site. This includes groundcover, shrubs and small trees. "City of Medina Pfefeffed Plant Lis List of Suitable Tree Species for Private Propertyplacement and Public Right -of -Way Planting" means the lists together with explanatory maps and diagrams administratively adopted by the City, describing landscape species suitable for replacement tree planting and the City's ar-ter-ial street rights -of -way and adjoining private property, where applicable. "Clearing and grubbing" is the removal or destruction of 2,500 square feet or more of vegetative cover, whether or not roots and stumps are removed. "Coniferous trees" are those trees that are called evergreen, have needles or scales for leaves, and bear seeds in protective cones. This includes a few rare conifer trees that lose their needles in the fall such as: Tamarack or Larch, Larix sp.; Dawn Redwood, Metasequoia glyptostroboides; or Bald Cypress, Taxodium distichum. "Gr-ifieal afeas" in the City of Medina, inelude the following afeas or- . wet4aads, as defined ilr GIAZ.,--oTvrrand -this -ce-. "Diameter" means the replacement tree diameter measured one (1) foot above its root crown. Multi -trunk trees shall be measured by taking one-half the caliper of up to the three largest trunks and summin them. hem. "Diameter Breast Height (DBH)" is the diameter measurement in inches of the outside bark of a tree trunk, measured at four and one half (4.5) feet above the surrounding ground surface. The DBH for multi -trunk trees forking below four and one half feet is the diameter measurement in inches of the outside bark of a tree trunk at the narrowest part of the main stem below the tree fork. The DBH for multi -trunk 5 11J20/06 trees splitting at ground level is found by takingthe he square root of the sum of all squared stem DBH's. "Gross lot area" refer to MMC 17.12.010. "Hazardous tree" is a designation that the City Arborist may make to allow a property owner to remove a tree that ist+eeexhibits a threat of injury to people or significant damage to property without the need for replacement trees. The City Manager or designee shall appoint an individual to the position of City Arborist with the criterion that the individual is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists or a similar professional organization. The City Arborist shall evaluate trees according to the International Society of Arboriculture method found in "A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas," in its most recent adopted form. The trees shall be rated using this protocol on a scale of one (1) to twelve (12). (One being; least hazardous, 12 being the most hazardous). Onithose trees with a rating: of 11 or 12 will be allowed to be cut. Pruning or correctional action may be allowed on trees with a rating of 8, 9 or 10 based upon the discretion of the City Arborist. The following ,., ndit;,,,,,dead,,, of z patea4 ,,,,<> ; "Hister4e, t-r-e-POs" ffive these tfees designated by the Medina Lmdseape Plan and its "Land Alteration" means any movement or modification of more than twenty five (25) cubic yards of earth material on any site. "Medina Tree Fund" is a fund established for the financial mitigation for tree removal within the City. The fund is to be used to plant trees in the City's rights -of - way and parks as deemed appropriate by the City manager or his/her designee. "Plantable area" is the pervious surface portion of the City's street rights -of -way located between the street edge and the adjoining property line. The plantable area also includes the area of any planting strip between the existing sidewalk or pathway and the edge of the street. The plantable area excludes the sidewalk and driveways. "Pruning" means that which removes any portion of the tree or shrub. Pruning may not exceed one -third -of the plant in a one-year period. "Public property" is defined as any property under direct ownership or control of the City of Medina. This includes, but is not limited to, parks, green belts, open spaces, and grounds around public buildings. "New Development" means the construction of any primary building on any site. This construction may occur on an undeveloped site or may include the demolition of an existing building to allow for construction of a new building. Replacement requirements for new developments shall also apply to trees removed within two (2) 6 11/20/06 years prior to or two (2) years after new development. "Reconstruction" shall be defined as the term is defined in MMC 17.12.010, including any future amendments. "Removal" is defined as cutting to the ground or cutting of a plain tree or its roots to a degree that it will not recover. "Replacement tree" means a coniferous or deciduous tree required by the City of Medina to be planted as replacement for an existing tree proposed for removal. "Sethaek-ar-eE�'fefef to N4N4E-17.1r00. "Cr + --veliSit•�V�%srE��ce �"-crcical 'ire�» "Shmb" is a low woody plaot, usually with foultiple shoots of stems fFem a base giat does not exeeed twenty (20) feet in height. "Significant tree" is defined as any tree with at least one trunk of si*ten (410) inches in diameter or greater, measured at DBH. The City Manager or designee is authorized to maintain a list of tree species identified as "List 4: Deciduous Trees Ineligible for Replacement Credit" within the document "City of Medina List of "Suitable Tree Species for Private Property Replacement and Public Right -of - Way Planting," which are excluded from the definition of "significant tree" because their removal does not warrant replacement and their replanting does not warrant credit as a replacement tree. The City Manager or designee should use the criterion of trees species that are known to be hazardous or destructive of property in selecting the tree species to be included on the list. ccSteep slope" (9) feet in height as measured ffom a her-izental line inter-seeting the tee of the slope. The afeawithin twenty five (25) feet, her-izontally, 4am the top of the slope shall be rstFee&iiF-0-r- to -v401rC-rcr: r2.v--. "Tree removal permit" is a permit issued by the City of Medina that authorizes the removal or pruning of trees and vegetative cover under the provisions of MCC Chapter 12.28. "Vegetative cover" is defined as all vegetation including the ground cover layer, shrubs, and trees. "Wee�to M i nn� ��. c-Tvzxo4��zo ccWedand edge" is 12.28.030 Applicability The tree preservation and replacement requirements of this chapter apply to the removal of trees on all newly developed and reconstructed property in the City and for removal of trees 240" DBH and greater on private property at any time. A. A Tree Removal e Permit is required for removal of significant trees: 1. on public property or within a City right-of-way area; 7 11/20/06 2. on land under new development or reconstruction or involving land alteration; 3. greater than or equal to twenty -fain (2470) inches DBH on private property at any time. A Designated histar-ie tees a the HAo.lin T ..,.,1s..ape Plan B. A Tree Removal and Lmdseape Permit is required for landscape improvements: 1. along minor arterial and collector street rights -of -way as designated in MMC 10.08.010, which abut Wig -properties under development or reconstruction; 2. along NE 8th Street, 82nd Avenue NE between NE 8th Street and NE 12th Street, 84th Avenue NE (south of NE 12t11 Street), and Evergreen Point Road (north of 78th Place NE) street rights -of -way as designated in MMC 10.08.010, which abut abuttin properties under development or reconstruction; 3. associated with tree replacement requirements in this chapter; 4. within a steep slope 4. within two -hundred (200) feet of the ordinary high-water mark of Lake Washington; 9. an any land 4iat is designated —As A— ewitioal a-Fea; and 5. associated with clearing and grubbing. C. A Tree Removaland 6-mdseape Permit, where required, will be issued by the City of Medina based on the criteria and conditions established in this chapter. Applications for tree removal and landscape may be obtained from City Hall. ARTICLE II. TREE PRESERVATION AND ARTERIAL STREET RIGHTS - OF -WAY LANDSCAPING TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS 12.28.040 Submittal Requirements for Tree Removal During New Development or Reconstruction An application for a tree removal permit shall be submitted on a form provided by the City, together with wee two (42) copies of a survey plan, site plan and a landscape plan drawn to a scale acceptable by the City. The landscape plan shall include tree retention/replacement and a tree preservation program. The designated City official may waive any unnecessary submittal requirements. Plans submitted for review shall include, but are not limited to, the information as described hereinafter: A. Survey Plan. The survey plan shall be prepared by a State of Washington licensed surveyor and shall indicate the entire property (showing surveyed property lines and corner stakes), abutting street rights -of -way (showing pavement and sidewalks) and/or abutting private lane easements (showing pavement). The survey plan shall further indicate the location, genus, common name, and size of all significant trees located on the property and within adjoining street rights -of -way and/or private lane easements. A topographic map at two (2) foot intervals covering 8 11/20/06 the entire site is required for purposes of grading, drainage and building height unless exempted by the designated official. Areas on the property with slopes of forty (40) percent and greater shall be graphically depicted and in these areas the limits and types of existing vegetation shall be shown. Streams, wetlands, and the shoreline of Lake Washington, with associated buffers, shall be shown if applicable. B. Site Plan. The site plan shall include proposed improvements, alterations or adjustments to the subject property including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways, walkways, patios, decks, utilities, and proposed contours. Existing structures, whether proposed to remain or proposed for removal, shall be shown on the site plan. Inclusion of the required survey and site plan may be combined. C. Ladssape Tree Removal and Replacement Plan. The landseap Tree Removal and Replacement plan, submitted with clearing and grading plans, shall identify all significant trees as stated in 44ff subsection A of this section; show, if applicable, the overall planting plan for sensitive areas, and the street right-of-way; identify trees to be retained, trees to be removed, and replacement trees consistent with the requirements of this chapter. A permit for tree removal may be issued by the City following review and approval by the City landscape consultant in accordance with MMC 12.28.050. Trees being removed must be replaced under the provisions of this chapter. The location, size, genus, species, and common name of the replacement tree shall be indicated. The landscape plan shall indicate the right-of-way area 00asistent. ,J_gh *'HO Awd-in T -mdse pe Plan. See Figure 12.28-2. The landscape plan shall be prepared by a State of Washington registered landscape architect, Washington -certified nurseryman, landscape designer, applicant, or a Washington - certified landscaper. 12.28.050 Review Criteria A. The application is compatible with the comprehensive plan. B. The application is consistent with the public interest in maintaining an attractive and safe environment; C. The application has no materially detrimental effects on nearby properties; D. less of s;R„44e-a„* lKvvn Areas necessary for appropriate sight lines at intersections, private lanes, driveways and where visibility is impaired due to a curve in the roadway shall be landscaped in a manner which shall preserve sight lines; E. Installation of utilities or storm drainage shall be minimized; F. Underground utilities shall be placed in the same area as the access drive wherever possible; G. Significant trees within the adjoining street right-of-way are to be retained whenever possible. A permit for significant tree removal shall be obtained in accordance with MMC 12.28.160; H. Species and placement of new trees are suggested by the applicant and reviewed by the City for consistency with the "City of Medina n,-o� -r-Fe - Plant List List of Suitable Tree Species for Private Property Replacement and Public Right - of -Way Planting' ; 9 11/20/06 1. The applicant shall guarantee the replacement trees are healthy and viable for enethree (3) years after final inspection. T Twenty five (25) p „t of all tee ; ehesFaquir-ed f r . .,laee.r e t shall be "City of Medina Preferred Plant List.' 12.28.060 Replacement Requirement for Tree Removal During New Development or Reconstruction A. The standard replacement ratio for the removal of significant trees less than twenty fe» (240) inches DBH from the abotting stFo@t fights of way, y building ing f etpfi private property, abutting street rights -of -wad abutting private lane easements shall be one -hundred (100) percent of the total diameter inches of the removed trees. Replacement shall not be required for trees removed from the new building footprint on properties undergoingdevelopment. Replacement diameter inch requirements shall be satisfied through the planting, of replacement trees at a minimum size of three-inch-DBH each or through a contribution to the Medina Tree Fund at the rate of $225 per diameter inch. However, in no case shall the amount of replacement planting pursuant to this subsection be less than two three-inch-DBH trees. The ,-epl ^om e t *foes shall be minimum of two and o v half (2.5) iehes in diameter, A minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the required replacement tree inches shall be of the same genus as the trees removed unless the number of genera involved with tree removals exceeds the number of replacement trees that the applicant chooses to plant in compliance with the above provisions. 014-k 4.00s; r--temeved afe of a gefms and speeies identified As a prohibited tfee an the " " Replacement Econiferous trees shall also be a minimum height of eight (8) feet at the time of final inspection. (Se TTTW 12. `8.085 f st.,,,,.a.,,-.as appheable-to- steep -s-liep B. The standard replacement ratio for the removal of significant trees which are a minimum of twenty fetw (240) inches DBH, but less than thirty six (36) inches DBH, from the abutting stfeet fights-efwy, r e—lane-ea=em feed private property, abutting street rights -of -way, and abutting private lane easements shall be one -hundred twenty five (125) percent of the total diameter inches of the removed trees. Replacement shall not be required for trees removed from the new building footprint on properties undergoing development. evelopment. Replacement diameter inch requirements shall be satisfied through the planting of replacement trees at a minimum size of three-inch-DBH each or through a contribution to the Medina Tree Fund at the rate of $250.00 per diameter inch. However, in no case shall the amount of replacement planting pursuant to this subsection be less than two three-inch-DBH trees. diameter, A minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the required replacement tree inches shall be of the same genus as the trees removed unless the number of genera involved with tree removals exceeds the number of replacement trees that the applicant chooses to plant in compliance with the above provisions. the trees „omove 10 11/20/06 are of a gentis and speeies identified as a prohibited tfee an the "City ef Medina Piero£ a D'fr* T ' * " Replacement Econiferous trees shall also be a minimum height of eight (8) feet at the time of final inspection. pee N4N4G 12.28.085 for- s+,,,,aafds applieable to steep slope&.) C. The standard replacement ratio for the removal of significant trees thirty-six (36) inches DBH and greater, from , allowable building af:ea, ineluding the pr-ifnary building fbetpr-int, of on stfeet fights of way or- abutting private lanes private property, abutting street rights -of -way, and abutting private lane easements shall be two hundred (200) percent of the total diameter inches of the removed trees. Replacement diameter inch requirements shall be satisfied through the planting of replacement trees at a minimum size of four-inch-DBH each or through a contribution to the Medina Tree Fund at the rate of $400.00 per diameter inch. However, in no case shall the amount of replacement planting pursuant to this subsection be less than two four-inch-DBH trees. minimum of „r (4) ;nehes in a;,,m A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the required replacement tree inches shall be of the same genus as the trees removed unless the number of genera involved with tree removals exceeds the number of replacement trees that the applicant chooses to plant in compliance with the above provisions.the ti fees remoareved of a gentis and speeies idefit r;oa as a ,-ahib;taa deciduous-tfee-on-the"City of Med;ft_;4 Pref-f-ved- Plant " Replacement Gconiferous trees shall also be a minimum height of ten (10) feet at the time of final inspection. (See :4N4r�z909S5 f •. standards appheable iosteep slapes4 D. Should the on -site placement of the number of trees required by this section, as determined by the City landscape consultant after review of the applicant's plans, be inconsistent with acceptable landscape practices, the property owner may pay a fee into the Medina Tree Fund, in lieu of planting required tree replacement in excess of fifty (50) percent of total required replacement inches. At a minimum, fifty (50) percent of the total required replacement inches shall be planted on the project site. The fee shall be based on a per caliper -inch cost equal to the required number of replacement caliper inches not planted on the subject property. For purposes of this section, vehicular access easements or private lanes used by the property which is subject to tree replacement shall be considered part of the project site. With the written consent of the owner(s) owning the property containing the easement or lane, replacement trees may be planted within such easement or lane. With the written consent of the owners, replacement trees may also be placed on properties which share a border with the property which is subject to tree replacement. E. Replacementmitigatieff shall not be required for significant trees that are found to be hazardous by the City Arborist through an evaluation that follows the methodology referenced in the definition of "hazardous tree" found in MMC 12.28.020. ��ar-tees -gas flees- N 4N4G 12.28.105. n ee fti fie ar-b r-ist r ei4 F. Trees that are transplanted on a site may only receive credit as replacement trees or preserved trees if the City Arborist is consulted12rior to the transplant and the 11 11/20/06 applicant follows all methods and techniques prescribed by the City Aroborist for executing the transplant in question. 12.28.065 Notification Requirement for Tree Removal Not During New Construction, Reconstruction or Land Alteration. Applicants proposing to remove significant trees on properties not undergoing new construction, reconstruction or land alteration shall notify the city manager or designee at least ten days prior to the proposed tree removal. 12.28.070 Tree Preservation Requirements During New Development or Reconstruction The preservation plan shall indicate the measures being taken to assure the preservation of significant trees to be retained during construction. Measures to be employed shall include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Installation of a four (4) foot high protective fencing or barrier at the drip line of all trees to be retained; B. The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be raised or lowered within the greater of the following areas: (a) the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or-(b) an area around the tree equal to one (1) foot in diameter for each inch of tree diameter measured at DBH.—When necessary to retain an existing tree, construction of a tree well may be provided only with the approval of the City landscape consultant; C. Designation of areas on -site for parking, material and equipment storage which do not affect significant trees; D. Location of trenches for utilities to minimize the effect on the root structure of all trees to be retained, with provision for filling with a suitable growing medium in the vicinity of trees; E. Measures to be taken to protect root systems from -smothering and compaction; F. A program for providing tree care during the construction period, including watering, fertilizing, pruning and pest control; G. Provision for the disposal of potentially harmful items, i.e., excess concrete, runoff from cleaning of concrete equipment, paint thinners, heating oil tanks, etc. 12.28.080 La*dseapiag Tree Planting In Minor Arterial, Collector, and Other Street Rights -of -Way Unless other -wise s eifiea i the Medina landscape p1&i - *The following standards shall apply to 6ndse-aping tree planting within the plantable area of the City's minor arterial and collector street rights -of -way, (as defined in MMC Chapter 10.08) and NE 8th Street, 82nd Avenue NE between NE 8th Street and NE 12th Street, 84th Avenue NE (south of NE 12th Street) and Evergreen Point Road (north of 78th Place NE), as invoked for abutting property owners pursuant to the Applicability section, MMC 12.28.030-B . The following paragraphs A) through EC) set forth the standards for andscaping in the City's minor arterial and collector street 12 11/20/06 rights -of -way for properties under development or reconstruction. All property owners adjoining other street rights -of -way are encouraged, but not required, to meet these standards: A. Trees Per Lot. There shall be a minimum of one (1) tree for each three hundred (300) square feet of the plantable area within the street right-of-way abutting the property. In no event, however, shall there be fewer than two (2) trees within the plantable area of the street right-of-way abutting the property. The requirements of this section may be satisfied with existing trees. The new trees shall be at least4w& and one half three (2-4) inches -in diameter. Coniferous trees shall also be a minimum height of eight (8) feet at the time of final inspection. New trees shall not be planted within three (3) feet of the edge of any paved roadway. B. Informal Planting Patterns. Trees an shfabs shall be planted in an informal pattern to create a natural appearance. C. Exceptions: 1. Shrubs, trees and plantings within the required sight line areas at private drives, private lane outlets and street intersections shall not interfere with required sight distances. 2. An applicant may be exempt from the provisions of this subsection if the right-of-way to be planted is planned for modification in the City Capital Improvements Plan. ARTICLE III. TREE PRESERVATION SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 13 11/20/06 MIMP 12.28.090 Lake Washington Shoreline Tree removal and land surface modifications for property within fifty (50) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Lake Washington shoreline shall include a shoreline restoration plan for review and approval by the City landscape consultant and City engineer. The restoration plan shall be designed to stabilize soil surfaces, filter run-off (especially lawns), and provide shade to the near shore within two (2) years of planting. (Refer also to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act and the City of Medina Shoreline Master Program. Tree removal, pruning and construction are also subject to the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act, where applicable.) - - ��, , a 7-Irpir.1-y" AM NO - - 14 11/20/06 - - FrW 12.28.110 Removal at Any Time of Trees 24 Inches or Greater A. Significant trees proposed for removal at any time which are a minimum of twenty-four (24) inches DBH, but less than thirty-six (36) inches DBH shall require replacement trees consistent with Section 12.28.060(B). B. Significant trees proposed for removal at any time which are thirty-six (36) inches DBH or greater shall require replacement trees consistent with Section 12.28.0600. 12.28.120 Lots 12,000 Square Feet or Less A. Applicants proposing tree removal on properties which total have a gross lot area less than twelve thousand (12,000) square feet do not have to mitigate for tree removal if the applicant retains six (6) or more significant trees of diameter twenty- €etif (249) inches or greater. B. Applicants retaining three (3) to five (5) significant trees of a diameter twenty- €eiff (240) inches or greater, shall provide tree mitigation on -site in accordance with MMC 12.28.060, except the replacement ratio for removal of significant trees less than thirty-six (36) inches DBH shall be fifty (50) percent. C. Applicants retaining less than three (3) significant trees of a diameter twenty- four (24) inches or greater, shall provide tree mitigation on -site in accordance with MMC 12.28.060. ARTICLE IV. TREES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY 12.28.130 General Provisions A. All owners of the property adjoining the right-of-way shall be responsible for maintaining all trees, shrubs, and other landscaping planted in the right-of-way by the property owner or previous owner of the property and must insure the trees, shrubs and landscaping do not interfere with the free passage of vehicles and pedestrians or cause any risk of danger to the public or property. B. If adjoining property owners fail to properly maintain vegetation planted in the right-of-way, as outlined in A above, the City shall have the right to perform the required maintenance at the expense of the adjoining property owner. 15 11/20/06 C. No hazardous or destructive tree species poplaf, shall be planted in the rights -of -way after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. An official list of tree species deemed to be hazardous or destructive to property is maintained administrativelyby the City as "List 4: Deciduous Trees Ineligible for Replacement Credit" within the document "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species for Private Property Replacement and Public Right -of -Way Planting." D. All provisions of this chapter shall apply equally whether the City's title to the right-of-way was obtained. by dedication, condemnation, deed or in any other manner. E. For purposes of this chapter, a person shall be considered to adjoin only to the centerline of the right-of-way. 12.28.140 Tree Trimming or Removal Permit — Required A. No significant tree located in a City right-of-way shall be trimmed, pruned or removed without first obtaining a permit or an approval letter from the City of Medina designated official as determined by the City manager. B. No tree located in the City right-of-way shall be removed without first obtaining a permit or an approval letter from the City of Medina designated official as determined by the City manager. C. Tree trimming and pruning of trees in the right-of-way by owners of the property adjoining the right-of-way shall be exempted from obtaining a permit as outlined in A and B above if such tree trimming follows ANSI standards, does not endanger the life of the tree, and the limbs involved do not exceed three (3) inches in diameter and twenty five (25) percent of the canopy of the tree. D. Removal of trees shall be allowed in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property or substantial fire hazards with the prior consent of the City manager or designee. a designated effieial as detefmined by the Git , manager-. No permit is required to remove a significant tree that is found to be hazardous by the City Arborist through an evaluation that follows the methodology referenced in the definition of "hazardous tree" found in MMC 12.28.020.Requests to ent adepted fefffl. The tfees shall be rated using this pfateeel e* a seale ef ene (4) to tweWe (12). (One being least hazar-daus, 12 b@ifig the most hazafdetis). Only these designa4ed effieial, as detefmined by the City managef, has the disefetion to waive the r-equir-efaeats for- f:emova4 of a ha-zafdotts tfee(s) 4efa the City right of way. E. The City is exempt from the above permit requirements for trimming, pruning or removal of any tree in the City right-of-way. 16 11/20/06 12.28.160 Application for the Removal and/or Trimming of Trees in Public Rights -of -Way A. All applicants requesting approval to trim, prune or remove any tree(s) in the public right-of-way not adjoining the ^ plieant's ^ pe..ty shall submit the following information: 1. Street address or location description of property adjoining the right-of- way; 2. Name and address of person requesting the permit; 3. Area map showing the applicant's property, the area of right-of-way containing the tree(s) under consideration and any property adjoining said right-of- way; 4. Topographic scaled map at ^ s^^le of not lens than one (` ineh equals one >7„riare,l (1 nm feet showing the location of the tree(s) under consideration and the location of the buildings or structures on all properties adjoining the right-of-way; 5. The number, location, diameter measured at DBH , approximate height, condition, and type of tree(s) under consideration; 6. A written statement from the applicant describing the extent and type of trimming or pruning proposed, the proposed height after trimming or pruning and the basis for the relief requested; 7. Application form as provided by the City with the appropriate fee; 8. Upon request, the applicant shall submit such further information as may be deemed necessary or useful by the City. p4lie right ofway adjoining the applioant's property shall submit the fell 7 AT,.,.,,e an address fpers � esting the „ fmit• • e , 3 Area map showing the ^ pli.,a t's property, the area of right of way eentaining the tFee(s) undelf ea-fisid-efation A —ad- any property adjoining said right of T1, b 1 ton,li 1 ^te height r—rrie-i3's�rrrv�'cz,vccrcivir,-crrarxi@t@i'-riicaaciiccr-c'i�� , ^ , ,,,litio n t"e trees) under- eenside-Fation'-- S. ti Appli..^tio -f r„-, a pfevided by the Gib, with the appropriate fee; 17 11/20/06 ....... NiNIIINNWNN.I��W�MM0�. 12.28.180 Tree Trimming or Removal Permit — Conditions for Approval No application filed under this chapter shall be approved unless the City manager or City manager's designee determines the application meets the following minimum requirements: A. The application is compatible with the intent of the comprehensive plan; B. The application is consistent with the public interest in maintaining an attractive and safe environment; C. The application has no materially detrimental effects on nearby properties; D. All significant trees shall be retained in rights -of -way unless removal is necessary for access or for safety reasons, including trees in danger of falling or losing limbs and trees which need to be removed to provide adequate lines of vision for persons in vehicles. This criterion does not apply to trees that do not meet the definition of "significant tree" found in MMC 12.28.020. E. Replacement tree mitigation for significant tree removal shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. F. All trimming must be performed in a manner approved by the City Manager or designee landseape eensultant and shall conform to the following requirements: 1. Any trimming must not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the canopy of the tree in the area unless necessary to provide adequate relief, 2. The relief requested must not unreasonably interfere with the adjoining property owners' rights to the use and enjoyment of the right-of-way including but not limited to said owners' interest in landscaping, aesthetics, erosion control, noise control, shade and development of the unimproved portion of the right-of-way in a manner consistent with the development of the adjoining and surrounding properties; 3. The proposed trimming must not cause any unnecessary mutilation or damage to the trees and should be in accordance with ANSI Standard A300; G. The City manager or City manager's designee shall issue a written report containing findings setting forth the reasons for the decision. 12.28.190 Notice of Application Posting A. The tree or trees in question must be posted with a notice of application for a period of at least 15 days before the City Manager or designee makes a decision on the application. The notice shall contain instructions for interested parties to submit 18 11/20/06 comments to the Cit , ^ ^ti of ^ ph •tie e any„l N* B. Not less than ten (10) days pfier- to the iss *tiaft of the adjoining the appheant's pr-apefty. the City shall post twe notiees of the applieatio4i eantaining ti.o 12.28.200 Survey of Affected Properties A. The designated City official may require, as a condition of approval of any permit, that the applicant obtain a survey, by a State of Washington licensed surveyor, to determine whether the tree(s) described in the application are within the City's right-of-way. B. Such survey must be obtained by the applicant if any person opposes the permit and claims one or more of the trees in question are located on such opponent's property. 12.28.210 Implementation and Costs A. Any tree trimming or removal governed by this chapter shall be performed by a State of Washington licensed tree service contractor, bonded and insured for the liabilities associated with tree removal. All costs of trimming and removal shall be at the applicant's expense. At least to (, m days pr-ier-t the t,.;,,,ri,. - � ,,t ing f an ------------- B. Any application approved under the provisions of this chapter shall become void and the applicant shall obtain no rights there under unless the applicant has completed the trimming or removal within eighteen (18) months of the approval. 12.28.230 Tree Trimming, Pruning or Removal by a Public or Private Utility A. All tree trimming, pruning and/or removal in City rights -of -way to be accomplished by a public or private utility for any purpose shall not be performed without first obtaining a permit approved by the hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of MMC Chapter 2.78. B. Prior to a hearing before the hearing examiner, the permit applicant shall submit a comprehensive work plan to the City manager or the City manager's designee for review and concurrence. 19 11/20/06 C. A permit applicant's work plan shall adhere to the provisions found in other applicable sections of MMC Chapter 12.28 as well as any special provisions as defined by the City manager or the City manager's designee. ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 12.28.240 Process A. Any permit granted hereunder shall expire eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance or upon expiration of a corresponding building permit, whichever occurs later. Approved plans shall not be amended without authorization of the City Manager or designee laadseap@ eansultant. The permit may be suspended or revoked by the City Manager or designee landseape eonstiftant or designated official due to incorrect information, supplied knowingly or otherwise, or any violation of the provisions of the MMC. B. No work shall commence until a permit notice has been posted on the subject site at a conspicuous location. The notice shall remain posted until the project has been completed. C. Applications for tree removal permits may be circulated to other City departments or State agencies for review and approval as is deemed necessary by the City landscape consultant. D. An occupancy permit shall not be issued until all required landscaping is complete and approved by the City landscape consultant or the applicant deposits to the City a dollar amount calculated by the City, based on one -hundred fifty (150) percent of the estimated cost of landscaping and tree mitigation not complete at the time of inspection. This deposit shall be refunded at the completion of the required landscaping. 12.28.250 Exemptions The following may be exempted from the provisions of this chapter as determined by the City manager or City manager's designated official: A. Removal of trees for the installation and maintenance of fire hydrants, water meters, pumping stations, or other utilities by the City or its contractors; B. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to tree trimming or removal by the City for any purpose allowed or required by the City or by law. 12.28.260 Appeals The applicant and/or any person or persons aggrieved by a decision of the designated City official approving, denying, or approving with conditions an application for removal or trimming of trees based on the requirements of this chapter, may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the City clerk within fourteen (14) days after the decision is issued. 20 11/20/06 12.28.280 Violation —Penalty Violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a civil infraction, punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). SECTION 2: VALIDITY If any section, paragraph, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect 60 days after its publication or the publication of a summary of its intent and contents. PASSED BY THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL ON THE DAY OF 2006 AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THE DAY OF , 2006. Miles R. Adam, Mayor 21 11/20/06 Approved as to form: Wayne D. Tanaka, City Attorney Attest: Rachel Baker, City Clerk 22 11/20/06 CITY OF MEDINA LIST OF SUITABLE TREE SPECIES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY REPLACEMENT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING The following tree species lists are for reference in meeting various requirements of the Medina Tree Code (Medina Municipal Code Chapter 12.28). Throughout this document the `*' denotes a species that is native to the Pacific Northwest. PRIVATE PROPERTY TREE MITIGATION LIST 1: SUITABLE CONIFEROUS TREES Cedar: *Alaska Yellow Cedar — Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Atlas Cedar — Cedrus atlantica Cedar of Lebanon — Cedrus libani Deodar Cedar — Cedrus deodara Incense Cedar — Calocedrus decurrens *Western Red Cedar — Thuja plicata Fir: *Douglas Fir — Pseudotsuga menziesii *Grand Fir — Abies grandis Spanish Fir — Abies pinsapo White Fir — Abies concolor Pine: Austrian Black Pine — Pinus nigra Japanese Black Pine — Pinus thunbergii Japanese Red Pine — Pinus densiflora *Shore Pine — Pinus contorta var. contorta *Western White Pine — Pinus monticola Larch: *Western Larch — Larix occidentalis European Larch — Larix decidua Cypress: *Lawson Cypress — Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Moss Cypress — Chamaecyparis pisifera Smooth -barked Arizona Cypress — Cupressus glabra Hemlock: Canadian Hemlock — Tsuga canadensis *Mountain Hemlock — Tsuga mertansiana *Western Hemlock — Tsuga heterophylla Yew: *English Yew — Taxus baccata Japanese yew — Taxus cuspidate English -Japanese Yew — Taxus x media Other: Japanese Cryptomeria — Cryptomeria japonica Serbian Spruce — Picea omorika Umbrella Pine — Sciadopitys verticillata *Red Alder — Alnus rubra LIST 2: CONIFEROUS TREES NOT RECOMMENDED Coastal Redwood — Sequoia sempervirens; top suffers from freeze damage resulting in multiple tops and poor structural condition Colorado Spruce — Picea pungens; susceptible to spruce aphid Sierra Sequoia — Sequoiadendron giganteum; the ultimate size and density of the tree is a limiting factor especially since this tree has the potential to block views and interfere with utility lines Suggested Alternatives to Above Trees Not Recommended Japanese Cryptomeria — Cryptomeria japonica (dwarf forms) LIST 3: SUITABLE DECIDUOUS TREES Ash: Green Ash — Fraxinus pennsylvanica *Oregon Ash — Fraxinus latifolia Birch: Whitebark Himalayan Birch — Betula jacquemontii European White Birch — Betula pendula *Paper Birch — Betula papyrifera River Birch — Betula nigra Flowering Cherry: Sargent Cherry — Primus sargentii Higan Cherry — Prunus subhirtella Japanese Flowering Cherry — Prunus serrulata Yoshino Cherry — Primus x yedoensis Flowerin Pear: Flowering Pear — Pyrus calleryana Beech: European Beech — Fagus sylvatica Southern Beech — Nothofagus sp. Dogwood: Comelian Cherry Dogwood — Cornus mas Flowering Dogwood — Cornus florida Kousa Dogwood — Cornus kousa Native Hybrid — Cornus `Eddie's White Wonder' *Pacific Dogwood — Cornus nuttallii Flowering Crabapple: Flowering Crabapple — Malus x sp. *Pacific Crabapple — Malus fusca FloweringPlum: lum: Myrobalan Plum — Primus Blireiana Plum — Primus x blireiana Hawthorn: Hornbeam: Lavalle Hawthorn — Crataegus x lavallei European Hornbeam — Carpinus betulus Hawthorn — Crataegus sp. English Hawthorn — Crataegus laevigata Washington Hawthorn — Crataegus phaenopyrum Linden: American Linden — Tilia americana Crimean Linden — Tilia x euchlora Littleleaf Linden — Tilia cordata Silver Linden — Tilia tomentosa Magnolia: Star Magnolia — Magnolia stellata Southern Magnolia — Magnolia grandiflora Kobus Magnolia — Magnolia kobus Saucer Magnolia — Magnolia x soulangiana Locust: Black Locust — Robinia pseudoacacia Honeylocust — Gleditsia triacanthos var. innermis Maple: Amur Maple — Acer ginnala David Maple — Acer davidii Japanese Maple — Acer palmatum Norway Maple — Acer platanoides P aperbark Maple — Acer griseum Sugar Maple — Acer saccharum Sycamore Maple — Acer pseudoplatanus *Vine Maple — Acer circinatum CITY OF MEDINA Page 2 SUITABLE TREE SPECIES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY MITIGATION AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING Oak: English Oak — Quercus robur *Oregon White Oak — Quercus garryana Scarlet Oak — Quercus coccinea Red Oak — Quercus rubra Pin Oak — Quercus palustris Other: American Sweetgum — Liquidambar styraciflua Persian Parrotia — Parrotia persica Japanese Zelkova — Zelkova serrata Black Tupelo — Nyssa sylvatica Tulip Tree — Liriodendron tulipifera Harelquin Glorybower — Clerodendrum trichotomum. Katsuratree — Cercidiphyllum japonicum Red Horsechestnut — Aesculus x carnea (non -fruiting varieties) LIST 4: DECIDUOUS TREES INELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT CREDIT London Plane — Platanus x acerifolia; the shallow roots are destructive to pavement; deeper roots invade sewers Quaking Aspen — Populus tremuloides; the roots are destructive to pavement and invade sewer lines Willow — Salix sp.; the roots invade sewer lines; the trees are brittle and short-lived Lombardy Poplar — Populus nigra `Italica' Bolleana Poplar — Populus alba `Pyramidalis'; the tops are brittle and become dangerous in storms; the roots are destructive to pavement and invade sewers; the ultimate size of the tree can potentially block views and interfere with overhead wires Cottonwood — Populus sp.; the tops are brittle and become dangerous in storms; the roots are destructive to pavement and invade sewers; the ultimate size of the tree can potentially block views and interfere with overhead wires Bigleaf Maple — Acer macrophyllum; this brittle tree becomes dangerous in storms; roots are destructive to pavement Suggested Alternatives to London Plane Norway Maple — Acer platanoides Sugar Maple — Acer saccharum Sycamore Maple — Acer pseudoplatanus Suggested Alternatives to Quaking Aspen European Hornbeam — Carpinus betulus Katsuratree — Cercidiphyllum japonicum Paper Birch — Betula papyrifera Suggested Alternative to Willow Species Weeping Flowering Cherry — Prunus subhirtella `Pendula' Suggested Alternatives to Prohibited Lombardy and Bolleana Poplar Trees Columnar Cherry — Prunus serrulata Dawyck Beech — Fagus sylvatica `Fastigiata' European Hornbeam — Carpinus betulus `Fastigiata' Ornamental Pear — Pyrus calleryana Red Maple — Acer rubrum CITY OF MEDINA Page 3 SUITABLE TREE SPECIES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY MITIGATION AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING Suggested Alternatives to Prohibited Cottonwood Trees Birch — Betulus sp. Katsuratree — Cercidiphyllum japonicum Black Tupelo — Nyssa sylvatica Suggested Alternatives to Prohibited Bigleaf Maple Trees Norway Maple — Acer platanoides Sycamore Maple — Acer pseudoplatanus PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE SPECIES RESTRICTIONS No person shall plant a tree species contained in List 4 in a public right-of-way location. The public right-of-way tree planting requirements of MMC 12.28.080 may be satisfied with tree species selected from lists 1-3 above except only the low growing trees found in List 5 may satisfy the requirement in locations identified as "restricted right-of-way" in Figure 1 below. The designation of "restricted right-of-way" is based on areas where overhead utility lines or view corridors necessitate lower tree heights. LIST 5: LOW GROWING TREES GENERALL Y SUITABLE FOR THE CITY OF MEDINA Amur Maple — Acer ginnala European Filbert — Corylus avellana Flowering Cherry/Plum — Prunus sp. Mt. Fuji Flowering Cherry — Prunus serrulata `Shirotae' Japanese Maple — Acer palmatum Goldenrain Tree — Koelreuteria paniculata Star Magnolia — Magnolia stellata Lily Magnolia — Magnolia liliiflora Victoria Southern Magnolia — Magnolia grandiflora `Victoria' Carmine Crabapple — Malus X atrosanguinea Malus `Pink Perfection' Malus `Radiant' Malus `Strathmore' Sargent Crabapple — Malus sargentii Mugo Pine — Pinus mugo Black Tupelo — Nyssa sylvatica Tanyosho Pine — Pinus densiflora `Umbraculifera' Vine Maple — Acer circinatum * Japanese Tree Lilac — Syringa reticulata Japanese Snowbell — Styrax japonicus Staghorn Sumac — Rhus typhina Hawthorn — Crataegus sp. Eastern Redbud — Cercis canadensis Corneliancherry Dogwood — Cornus mas Japanese Dogwood — Cornus officinalis Smoketree — Cotinus sp. CITY OF MEDINA Page 4 SUITABLE TREE SPECIES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY MITIGATION AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING Bristlecone Pine — Pinus aristata Persian Parrotia — Parrotia persica Amur Chokecherry — Prunus maackii Pacific Serviceberry — Amelanchier alnifolia Red Cascade Mountain Ash — Sorbus americana 'Dwarfcrown' Dwarf Hinoki Cypress — Chamaecyparis obtusa'Nana' Japanese Hornbeam — Carpinus japonica Dwarf Japanese Red Pine — Pinus densiflora sp. E CITY OF MEDINA Page 5 SUITABLE TREE SPECIES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY MITIGATION AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANTING City of Medina AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Zoning Code Regulation MEETING DATE: DATE THIS ITEM WAS LAST CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL: ITEM P - 2 Public Hearing: Nonconforming Envelopes November 27, 2006 October 9, 2006 SUMMARY OF ISSUE/TOPIC: The City Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing and to make minor changes to the draft ordinance at their October 9 meeting. The attached ordinance allows for a process that involves a written comment period for the public followed by a discretionary decision by staff. The City Attorney and Director of Development Services have added language to section 14.08.020-D that further stipulates the intent of the nonconforming envelopes process to ensure that applicants cannot use the process to exploit a nonconforming condition. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ® APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ❑ N/A CITY MANAGER: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ❑ N/A COMMENTS: ❑ No Action Requested ® Action Requested ATTACHMENTS: Item E-2b; Draft Ordinance BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $none ❑ BUDGETED ❑ NON -BUDGETED FUND: ❑ ❑ N/A RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ADOPT/APPROVE/AUTHORIZE) I move that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance prepared by staff to create a nonconforming envelopes allowance. If Council Members have questions, you are urged to call the staff person who prepared this agenda statement prior to the council meeting. RW06 Agenda Packets11127200611tem E-2a, nonconforming envelopes, cover form revised.doc ITEM t)- 2b CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MMC 17.12.01.0, MMC CHAPTER 14.08 AND MMC 17.56.020 TO MODIFY PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY LAND USE PERMITS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: MMC 17.12.010 AMENDED. Medina Municipal Code 17.12.012, Definitions, is amended for the following definition: "Minor Deviation" means a discretionary land use permit to allow building remodeling projects to depart from elanges in numeric development standards and to preserve nonconforming conditions with respect to setback requirements and maximum building heights. Requests for Minor Deviations are reviewed by the City Manager or designee and involve public notice as specified in MMC Chapter 14.08. SECTION 2: MMC 14.08 AMENDED. Medina Municipal Code Chapter14.08 is amended to read as follows: 14.08.010 Findings, conditions. A. Variances. The city manager or designee may grant administrative variances when all of the following conditions are present: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property itself, such as lot size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to all other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Qualifying circumstances shall not be the result of the actions of the applicant or of the wrongful actions of any previous owner that the applicant was aware of or that the applicant should have been aware of with the exercise of reasonable care. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. 4. The granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. ITEM v — 2b 5. The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship which can not be relieved by any other means. The material hardship must relate to the land itself and not to problems personal to the applicant. 6. The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary. 7. The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan. B. In determining whether to approve an application for a variance, evidence of variances granted under similar circumstances shall not be considered. C. In authorization of a variance, the city manager or designee may attach such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure as he or she may deem necessary to carry out the spirit and purpose of the Medina Zoning Code and the public interest. D. Minor Deviations. The City Manager or designee may grant minor deviations when all of the following conditions are present: 1. The proposed development will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy from the level enjoyed by users of nearby structures if the development were located as specified by this Code; 2. The granting of the deviation will not alter the character of the neighborhood nor impair the appropriate use or development of the property; 3. The granting of the deviation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; 4. The deviation is consistent with the policies and provisions of the zoning code, the comprehensive plan and any other applicable standards or policies adopted by the City of Medina. E. Conditions. Any administrative variance or permit may be granted subject to such conditions as will assure that the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. F. Ineligible Minor Deviations Requests. The minor deviations process may not be used to obtain final approval of a structure where compliance with the development standard was represented by the applicant in the building permit application. Projects consisting of a building alteration or improvement for a residence that was completed at any time within the previous five years are ineligible for minor deviations requests. 14.08.020 SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS A. Administrative variances may be authorized for the following matters: 1. Fence and wall variances less than eight (8) feet in height. 2. Structural coverage increases of less than one percent of the lot area. B. Administrative permits may be authorized for the following matters: 1. Tree trimming and removal in the right-of-way. 2. Special use permits for swimming pools, spas and sports courts. C. A permit applicant may request a Minor Deviation from any numeric development standard contained in the Zoning Code. The request will be processed according to the procedures for administrative review of applications contained in this chapter. The review criteria that will be applied are identified in subsection 14.08.010(B) of this chapter. Eligible ORD. 2 ITEM D— 2b Minor Deviation requests are limited to no greater than 5% of the development standard. Where the development standard is expressed as a percentage (such as structural coverage), the 5% limit on Minor Deviation requests is calculated as the development standard percentage multiplied by 1.05. Minor Deviations may be requested from qualifying conditions used in Zoning Code development standards such as the reduced house height for which a structural coverage bonus is awarded. D. A permit applicant may also request a Minor Deviation to allow an addition to a building that matches a legally -established building height or setback nonconformity. Matching a building height nonconformity is defined as a minor addition that extends above the present maximum building height standard but does not exceed the highest point of the existing building. Matching a setback nonconformity is defined as a minor addition that does not comply with the present setback standard but extends no closer to the property line than the closest point of the existing building. This Minor Deviation is not intended to allow an applicant to build an addition that occupies the entire nonconformingenvelope. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect five days after its publication or the publication of a summary of its intent and contents. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS DAY OF , 2006. AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THE . DAY OF Miles R. Adam, Mayor Approved as to form: Wayne D. Tanaka, City Attorney Attest: Rachel Baker, City Clerk Passed: Filed: Published: Effective Date: ORD. 3 M° City of Medina AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM i) - 3 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Ordinance Amending Sign Code Zoning Code Regulation MEETING DATE: November 27, 2006 DATE THIS ITEM WAS LAST CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL: July 10, 2006 SUMMARY OF ISSUE/TOPIC: A greater amount of information is permitted in real estate signs and illumination is prohibited for school, church, and club signs. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ❑ APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ® N/A CITY MANAGER: ® APPROVE ❑ DISAPPROVE ❑ SEE COMMENTS ❑ N/A COMMENTS: ❑ No Action Requested ® Action Requested ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance draft BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $none ❑ BUDGETED ❑ NON -BUDGETED FUND: ❑ ❑ N/A RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ADOPT/APPROVE/AUTHORIZE) I move that the City Council adopt the ordinance that has been prepared by Staff. 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 Packets11127200611tem E-3a, sign regulations, cover form REVISED.doc ITEM V - 3b CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIMITATIONS ON REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND ON SIGNS FOR SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, AND CLUBS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. MMC 17.80.060-C-3 AMENDED. Medina Municipal Code Subsections17.80.060-C-3 is amended to read as follows: 3. The signs shall have dimensions no larger than four square feet and shall be for the sole purpose of advertising the parcel, tract, lot, site or home for rent or for sale, which must be written for the sign. The signs may contain the words "for sale," "custom home available," and/or "exclusively," the name of the owner or of the listing real estate office and agent and telephone numbers, email addresses and internet web site addresses. No additional information shall be allowed on the sign. SECTION 2. MMC 17.80.070-A AMENDED. Medina Municipal Code Subsections17.80.070-A is amended to read as follows: A. Schools, churches and clubs may erect one freestanding permanent sign located on their property, which shall conform to the construction size, height and maintenance requirements, including the prohibition of sign illumination for subdivisions and neighborhood signs set forth in MMC 17.80.030. SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect five days after its publication or the publication of a summary of its intent and contents. PASSED BY THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL ON THE DAY OF , 2006 AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THE DAY OF , 2006. Miles R. Adam, Mayor Ord. ITEM D- 3b Approved as to form: Wayne D. Tanaka, City Attorney Attest: Rachel Baker, City Clerk Passed: Filed with City Clerk: Published: Effective Date: 2 Ord. ITEM V - 3b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. _ of the City of Medina, Washington On September 11, 2006, the City Council of the City of Medina, Washington, approved Ordinance No. , the main points of which are summarized by its title as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIMITATIONS ON REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND ON SIGNS FOR SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, AND CLUBS. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of September 11, 2006 Rachel Baker, City Clerk 3 Ord. CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CERTIFYING TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF KING COUNTY THE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE YEAR 2007 ON THE ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY R.C.W. 84.52.020. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amount to be raised by taxation. The amount of $2,170,000 which amount, when added to the beginning fund balances and estimated revenues from all other sources, plus increases due to new construction, improvements to property and increases in assessed valuation of stated property will balance estimated expenditures during the year 2007, is hereby fixed as the amount estimated to be necessary to be raised by general property taxes. SECTION 2. Levy. For the purpose of raising such amount, a levy on all taxable property within the City, both real and personal, on each and every dollar of assessed valuation of such property, is necessary, said revenue and levy to be allocated as follows: General Tax Levy: For: General Purposes Total General Levy TOTAL TAX LEVY $2,170,000 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 SECTION 3. Code Reference. All sections hereof shall be considered of temporary or special effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon the 1 st day of January, 2007. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006 AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THE DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006. Miles R. Adam Approved as to form: Wayne D. Tanaka, City Attorney Attest: Rachel Baker, City Clerk Passed: Filed with City Clerk: Published: Effective Date: SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Medina, Washington On November 27, 2006, the City Council of the City of Medina, Washington, approved Ordinance No. XXX, the main points of which are summarized by its title as follows: AN ORDINANCE CERTIFYING TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF KING COUNTY THE ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNT TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR THE YEAR 2007 ON THE ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY R.C.W. 84.52.020. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of November 27, 2006. Rachel Baker, City Clerk ITEM E - 2 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CITY OF MEDINA City Manager's Office 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.233.6400 www.medina-wa.gov Nov 21, 2006 Mayor and City Council Roger D. Crum, Interim City Manager Budget Update have reviewed the suggestions of the city council for budget changes and have reexamined some of the budget items of concern to staff. The following represents the current status of this review, including some specific recommendations. Property Tax Levy This needs to be adopted at the Nov 27 Meeting. The motion on the floor at the last meeting is for a levy to be set at one percent below the 2006 levy, or $2,216,134. As your financial advisor I would prefer to see a levy which captures the new construction and prior year reductions while banking the one percent option. This would be a levy of $2,199,852 or 2.4% over the 2006 levy. However the dollar amounts are not a significant factor in balancing the overall budget, and unless the Council decides otherwise, the revised proposed budget will assume the one percent reduction levy of $2,216,134. Retiree Medical Fund The council moved not to initiate a new fund, but to return to the operating expense accounting used in prior years. Staff has no objections to this. There is no impact on 2007 out of pocket expenses ($44,500) or on our future payments. The budget will show a significant change, however, in that the General Fund will not show a transfer -out of the $250,000 used to establish the fund, but will show an additional current expense of $44,500 in the police budget. This allows the difference ($205,500) to remain in unbudgeted reserves. Building Official Position The preliminary proposed budget recommended changing the Building Official position from a contractual service to a city staff member with a resultant estimated savings of $70,000 per year. All of you are aware of the pros and cons of going from a contractual position to a permanent city position, so I will not rehash those here. I personally believe that having a Building Official as an employee of the city rather than a contract employee is highly desirable and will save money in the long run, but both methods have their merits and are workable. I am recommending that we proceed with the plan to bring this position in-house as a permanent member of city staff as previously proposed, but that implementation be delayed until Aprill, 2007. This allows for a more orderly transition in the hiring and physical relocation of the office than would January implementation. First year savings would be reduced by $18,000, but the long range effect would be the same. Clerical Positions The City Council suggested that I review clerical/administrative staff to determine if there were obvious redundancies or overlap which would allow for budget savings. I have reviewed both job descriptions and observed actual on the job behavior, although admittedly over a rather short period of time. I am, however, satisfied that this is not a area in which there is room for significant staff reductions. I believe that Medina is fortunate to have a small, dedicated staff group which performs a myriad of functions beyond their job descriptions. I am especially impressed with each of this group's willingness to step in and handle whatever comes up whether or not it is their particular responsibility or not. It should also be noted that, unlike larger organizations, there is no centralized human resources office, purchasing office, payroll clerks, accounting clerks, budget office or reception area. We also handle passport applications and handle agendas and minutes of City Council, Park Board and Planning Commission meetings. Somehow it all gets done with the people we have. No budget chancres are recommended in this area. Police Car Usage Councilman Blazey has raised several valid questions about police car usage and replacement. It is very difficult to evaluate usage under the current personnel shortage in the department. I do support the chief in ensuring that we do not artificially limit police ability to support the community through lack of reliable vehicles (and other equipment) but am not in a position to determine the best long run mix of people and vehicles. The Chief and I are in agreement that we need to go ahead and replace one high mileage vehicle (car 6) in 2007, but will not replace the second high mileage unit (car 7) until 2008. This will provide a continuing replacement program, and additionally allow the new city manager and chief to work together to review usage with a full staff in place. No budget changes for 2007 are recommended in this area. Consultant/Professional Services The City Council suggested that staff review the overall budget with a goal of reducing operating expenses by $50,000 with an emphasis on consulting and professional services contracts. In the time available have worked with staff to review our existing contracts and estimates for next year. I believe that the following cuts in estimates for 2007 can be made, although there is always the risk that the world will change and require higher or lower expenses. We are currently recommending the following changes to the 2007 budget proposal. Emergency Management: Proposed $40,000; Revised $38,000 Development Services, Engineering consultant: Proposed $150,000; Revised $143,000 Development Services, Landscape Consultant: Proposed $75,000; Revised $70,000 City Street, Professional Services: Proposed $65,000; Revised $40,000 Other Changes There are no other significant changes recommended to the proposed budget. There will be minor changes to numbers as we clean up wages and benefits subsequent to contractual obligations and council direction, but none of significance to the bottom line. I would recommend that the City Council provide final direction to staff on budget items at the November 27'" meeting, and that staff return with the complete revised 2007 budget ready for adoption on Dec 11. 0 Page 2 COMMENTS ON 2007 BUDGET Robert H. Rudolph November 17, 2006 REVENUE: I appreciate the Council's agreement to not vote on the property tax levy for 2007 at the recent meeting. Council saw the analysis done by the interim City Manager for the first time as we entered the meeting and had no time to study it. Additionally the budget had been prepared by Doug assuming, under Council direction, that there would be no 1 % increase in the property tax levy for established housing for 2007. It is important to have time to analyze Council actions and understand the implications of those actions. 1, The proposal made at the meeting was to establish a property tax levy of $2,126,000 for the year 2007.. While this is a 2% decrease from the property tax revenue allocated to the City in 2006, it is a 3% decrease from the maximum 1% increase allowed by current state law and which most cities take. It is a 4% decrease ($95,000) if the City were to reclaim the revenue lost in the previous year in the form of the $21,690 Relevy provided by state law. 2. Only approximately $21,000 can be "banked" and possibly recovered later if necessary. Therefore $74,000 of the $95,000 difference between the maximum possible property tax revenue to the City ($2,221,344) and that proposed ($2,126,000) will not be available in 2007 or ever thereafter. More importantly, a new baseline will be established at the lower level ($2,126,000), which will have the effect of compounding that $74,000 of lost potential revenue each year, accounting for a $740,000 revenue decrease over a 10-year period. Comparing a $2,126,000 levy for 2007 with that proposed by Doug of $2,170,000 produces a lost revenue amount of $23,000 (not bankable) for 2007 or $230,000 over the next 10 years. 3. The only significant sources of revenue to the City are property taxes, sales tax revenue, permit revenue and the Real Estate Excise tax (REET). The City has no utility tax, storm sewer tax or franchise fees, as do most, if not all, of our neighboring cities. Medina is highly dependent on the real estate market, which is beginning a downturn. 4. A 2% reduction in the property tax levy for 2007 equates to a property tax savings of only $29 for the owner of a $1,000,000 home. For the city however, a 2% reduction in the property tax levy amounts to a significant amount of revenue as noted in (2) above. There are likely to be expenses not anticipated with the beach restoration project now delayed a year, the necessary city hall renovations, a poorly maintained storm sewer system, recruitment of a new city manager and the many improvements desired by Medina residents enumerated as priorities in the survey done last year. This would include a start at the process of under grounding the utilities and phone lines. COMMENTS ON 2007 BUDGET Robert H. Rudolph November 17, 2006 EXPENDITURES: 1. In his budget message to the Council dated Oct. 27, 2006, Doug states "operational expenditures have generally been held to their 2006 budget level, increasing by less than 1 %. 2. Doug further states that personnel expenses increase 9.4% over 2006 budget but 45% of the salaries and benefits increase is attributable to the proposal to add the building official as a staff position. Excluding the building official position, salaries and benefits increase by 5% in 2007. 3. When Council reviewed the budget at the November 13 meeting, attention was focused on the final sheet in the financial packet entitled Operating Expenditures 2003-2007. a. This is a new form, which Council has not used before. The percent of increase in the 2007 budget expenditures differ from what Doug presented in his message to the Council on the preceding pages. b. On this form, the 2007 budget indicates an increase in overall expenses of 4.35% as opposed to Doug's statement that those expenses for 2007 increased by 1 %. Additionally this form shows an increase of personnel expenses for 2007 of 14.58% as opposed to Doug's statement of a 9.4% increase (inclusive of the building official position). c. These differences are accounted for by the baseline to which 2007 budget estimates are compared. When compared to budget 2006 figures, personnel expenditures increase 9.4% and total expenditures increase 1.5% just as Doug states in his message to the Council. The larger increases of 14.58% in personnel expenses and 4.35% in total operating expenses result from a comparison of 2007 budget estimates to estimates of projected year end 2006 expenditures. d. Such a comparison to year-end 2006 expenditures is misleading, as some budgeted expenses may not have needed to be spent in their entirety in 2006 but with no assurance that they will not be needed in 2007. As an example, total police department expenditures for 2006 are projected to be $120,000 below budget 2006. Medina had less than a full complement of officers in 2006 due to recruitment vacancies and leaves of absence. To compare this lesser 2006 year-end estimate with budget 2007 makes the increase projected for 2007 appear artificially high. e. Finally, the Medina City budgets have been developed and presented with year over year direct budget comparisons for many years. Medina has received the Washington State Finance Officers Award for excellence in budgetary management for the last two consecutive years. 61um CIS OF-MEDIJVA _ADN1N1S7R A7T VE GUIDELINES GUIDELINE #37 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: PREPARED BY: REVISED: APPROVED BY: SUPERSEDED: Douglas J. Schulze City Manager SECTION 37.1 — Purpose INDEX: 37.2 — Reference 37.3 — Application 37.4 — Policy 37.1 PURPOSE To establish procedures for the acceptance of donations or gifts to the City. A uniform set of procedures shall be followed in acceptance of all unsolicited donations and proper approval shall be obtained prior to acceptance. All cash, equipment, in -kind services, materials and sponsorships donated to the City shall be accounted for in accordance with the procedures set forth in this policy. For purposes of this policy, the terms "gift" and "donation" shall be synonymous and may be a monetary contribution and/or equipment, in -kind goods or services or sponsorships which the City has accepted and for which the donor has not received any goods or service in return. 37.2 REFERENCE None 37.3 APPLICATION The Administrative Guideline applies to all individuals employed by the City of Medina. 37.4 POLICY The City Manager will accept or reject offers of donations of money, equipment and in -kind contributions or sponsorships to the City in general up to $10,000. 175 CM OF NLEDIWA ADM1NYS2_R 9TVE GUIDE -LINES Donated money will be expended for general purposes or specified purposes, if agreed upon with the donor, as one-time supplements to the City's operating budget. Donations of equipment will be considered based on program outcomes, City and/or department goals and needs. Each donation will be evaluated for usefulness and costs associated with operation and replacement of equipment. In -kind contributions and sponsorships for specific events will be treated in the same way as donated funds. For monetary, equipment and in -kind contributions or sponsorships with values over $10,000, a report to the City Council will be written to outline the purpose of each donation and the advantages and disadvantages of accepting the gift. For monetary donations, it will be stated in the report to the Council if the gift is a one-time contribution for a specific purpose or a contribution where the principal could be invested and the interest used to support all or part of a special project or program for a number of years. The City Council will determine, on a case -by - case basis, if monetary, equipment and in -kind contributions exceeding $10,000 should be accepted or rejected. Corporations offering sponsorships or in -kind contributions will be requested to state the value of the offered service. Responsibility. Upon acceptance of a donation by the City Manager, responsibility for management of donations may be delegated to the department director having authority to expend donations up to the value of $10,000 as determined by the City Manager. All donations that exceed $10,000 must be approved by the City Council through presentation of a report during a public meeting. The Finance Department will establish separate donation accounts for each City department and a general account for the City to accept donations and expend donations for specified purposes. Accepting Unsolicited Donations. Unsolicited donations shall be accepted only if they have a valid use to the City. 1. Donors who wish to give a gift, which is not specific to a given department may give a gift to the City in general. The City Manager will determine if such gifts should go to a specific department or to the general City donation fund. 2. If the item obviously has no use to the City or would be more effectively used elsewhere, the donor will be informed, as soon as possible, and referred to an appropriate agency by the City Manager. 3. Proof of Ownership. If there is any question as to the legal owner of the donated item, proof of ownership may be requested. 4. Restrictions. Donors shall be encouraged to place minimal restrictions on donated items or funds, allowing the City as much flexibility as possible on determining its use. 176 CIS OF MEDIWA ADMINIS7-RATT VE GUIDECINES Conditions for accepting/rejecting donations. Staff shall work with the donor to assure that restrictions are reasonable and do not leave the donor with unrealistic expectations regarding permanency of life of the donation. The following are criteria, which may be applied in determining if a donation is appropriate for acceptance. 1. Is the use of the item or money for a designated purchase consistent with existing City policy, program outcomes and department/city goals? 2. Do restrictions upon the use of the item or funds make it practical to accept? 3. Do restrictions on disposal or retention of the item or funds make it practical to accept? 4. Is required accounting for the item or funds excessively difficult? 5. Would equipment require extensive repair or maintenance, and if so, is maintenance support available? 6. Does use of equipment or materials require the purchase of additional items to be useful? 7. Does acceptance of funds, equipment or in -kind services or materials present a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness for the City or its employees? Regardless of the value of the donation, if the donor is a contractor, potential contractor or there is reason to believe there may be a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness, then the City Manager will determine if the gift should be accepted, rejected or submitted to the City Council for approval. 8. Will the donation result in an increase to the City's budget? If yes, will the increase be a one-time increase or an ongoing increase? Recipients must bear in mind that donations are to be considered one-time supplements and should not be used to develop new programs or services, which would require budget supplements from the City in the current or subsequent years. Procedures. A. Gifts valued at $10,000 or less. 1. Donation Receipt Form will be completed when donations are received, with the form completed by City staff (Attachment A). The donor shall retain a copy, the director shall be sent a copy and a copy will be sent to Finance. 2. The donor, not staff, must place a value on the gift. 3. The City Manager will acknowledge each gift by letter, thanking the donor for the gift. A draft letter is included (Attachment B). 177 CITY OF MEDIMA _ADMI_WYSTR A9T VE C, UID ELINES 4. The Finance Department will oversee deposits and expenditure of funds. Monthly summaries of donations received and expended funds will be prepared by departments and submitted to the City Manager who will notify the City Council. B. Gifts valued at more than $10,000. 1. All gifts valued at more than $10,000 as determined by the donor require City Council approval. Subsequent to Council's acceptance, procedures for acceptance of gifts in excess of $10,000 shall be the same as those in Section A above. C. Cash Gifts Depositing and expending cash gifts: All cash gifts shall be deposited immediately with the Finance Department in accordance with City cash control and handling policy and procedure (Administrative Guideline 35) and shall be accompanied by a copy of the Donation Receipt. Funds will be deposited in each department's donation account(s) or in the City's general donation fund, if appropriate. Funds can also be expended from those accounts. The Finance Department will oversee accounting for funds that are deposited in and expended from donation accounts. 2. Recording cash donations. Donations must be supported in the Finance Department files by the Donation Receipt signed by the donor, which identifies the name of the donor, the amount and date of the donation, and the nature of restrictions on spending, if any. 3. Council Authorization and Notification: A request for authorization for monetary gifts and others valued over $35,000 should come to the Council in the form of a resolution. 4. Procedures for Expending Donated Cash. The donations may be spent from each department's donation fund when an appropriate purchase is made. Funds shall remain in this account until they are spent for their intended purpose. Donations can be carried over to the new fiscal year with approval from the City Council. D. Donations of equipment and in -kind services or materials or sponsorships. As with cash gifts, donations of equipment and / or in -kind services or materials can be accepted by the City Manager if values are under $10,000. Equipment or in -kind services or materials valued over $10,000 by the donor, must be approved by the City Council. E. Publicity for Donation Opportunities: With prior City Council approval, individual departments and the City, in general, may produce and distribute publicity outlining opportunities and procedures for donating 178 CM OF M EDIWA ADMINIST-RATT VE GUIDELINES money in honor or recognition of a person, organization, or event. They may also distribute information on procedures for making bequests. 179 0 N L- N _N co U �0 O U A u c 0 cow O,V( 0� •Ui cFn o c •U� c0 •V� p U V U� U CM = Q ca a) Q Q—� CO O O NU U m ca co T _ Q 0 CO C o cm CD .0 .0 a) " U U a) a) = _ CO () a) a a) a) p �► = C y-+++ c L OCD > 0 Q 0 0U Q U U 1 1 1 1 U 0) a) a) o to ca 0 N_ C c O C cn U U Z U U a a a o -a c c a 0 0 as 0 U 0 U U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U U o o) aa) � 0 0 � c C:° D � � 0 U ¢ 0 0 cc a aai m a aa) aai N C a) C c CL O C ~U U Cps 0 UOU > a) D > CDa CD>O aa) o i � o Q ,0—, U CL QCL U Q 2 a a) L V U a) � m Q) 'a C c o c z m ... L m a) cLL p -a) �� o> a > �� O� c� 2 .0 (ALL... cu coa O �U) L) O Q_ J U�=a_.� a) (n �. O v� � OW Z "J a)� N O D U a a 0 w� a) 0�ia m O � E.. S c U m N o (n E a Ta Q a) U X m c 0 a) Q a) o U) cn � 2) a) a) y d Gm a O N �.0� m O L U) Q — m O U p- +' cn C U C a) : c M p N m .- Cn t. (n o c a) Ur � co O �-- U a) O a CL m� m a O c ti Hamm a= c 2 2 ma cG '= U o RS M I 0—o U� U mmm � � c c co o0 U a) c oa`E-000a�> co• E a) O� U Q O O ti O O— a) U U LO >, •• •-• a a o E o c O crj O U O C O o O 0) m a) a N s a) LLl U> O C ._ s- � "" m a) 0 i O a) c .— 0L H ,_: a) N �} NNQQmaUUU�UO_°�1UY.�z��zzwOaaaz�ncncncn��oo U 0 a co a co U m a c a) Q c 0 U c0 O C) N d' aa)) CD O O N ti CV a) U m d co a a� Q O C) O N NOV-27-2006 14:27 P.03/03 Memo To: city of Medina Date 5,23.06 From: Thomas L. Berger, Jason Henry. Certified Arborlsts, The Berger Partnership, P.S. page: 1 of 1 Sii Moct: Tree Ordinance Discussion TO ENSURE THE CITY OF MEDINA: • the town of Medina maintains its sylvan character, • mitigation and management is beneficial, yet reasonable for the homeowner • appropriate compensation for loss of trees is determined • thought is given to management over the next 50 years We suggest the following: • Mitigate trees over 6",1 for 1 • If tree is historically significant or if the species has cultural value for the area, then mitigation will be more stringent. ■ Determine additional mitigation based on current city formula and cost of trees and planting, with money going to "tree fund" • Develop an urban forest master plan to identify locations for future tree planting and management strategies for existing trees. • Plant nothing smaller than 3." caliper for parks or open space, and 4" caliper for street trees. • Use 'tree fund" to manage all city trees by contract arborlst / tree care company. If site is dense with naturally occurring trees, 1 for 1 is not advised; one tree per 1,000 square feet as mitigation is appropriate for light and to maintain a sylvan character. End of Memo encl: Copy Medina Municipal Code, regulations which may apply to Tree Removal / Landscape permit applications The merger Partnership PS Landscape Architecture 1721 8th Avenue N Seattle, WA 98109 v 206,325.6877 f 206.323.6867 bergerpartnership.com TOTAL P.03 NOV-27-2006 14:27 P.02/03 Memo TO: From: subject! City of Medina Tom Berger and Jason Henry Street Trees Date: 11,27.06 page. 1 of 1 We at The Berger Partnership concur with the town that an informal sylvan character should be a part of the image of Medina. An ordinance that requires mitigation by itself is not adequate nor is the current ordinance fulfilling this goal. We urge you to consider a city-wide urban forest master plan. The plan would be a tool that the town could use to create a program that will preserve and enhance for the next 100 years. The sylvan character of the town is dictated by the edges of the roads and public open space more than the private property. Therefore parks and open space need more trees on their edges and would benefit greatly from a tree master plan for the town. While 84th Street is an example of a more formal and traditional street tree program, a non-traditional program may be what Is most important and could be used on Evergreen Point Road. This would include a mixed forest planting of deciduous trees and evergreen trees. Trees would be randomly, but strategically, planted in the right of way and would therefore be protected. So our recommendation is to continue to mitigate for trees removed, but to require fewer on the site and more to be donated to the town master tree program. We would also encourage you to provide an incentive for use of larger trees in mitigation by reducing the number of trees required by 20, 30, 40, or 509/o if they are 3", 4", 5" or 6", respectively. (Please see our other broad comments in our memo of 5.23.06.) We also support identifying big leaf maple as inherently hazardous and should therefore be a non -mitigated tree. End of Memo encl: 6,23.06 memo F�� i5l'�11 The Barger ParinershiP PS Landscape Architecture 1721 8th Avenue N Seattle,WA 98109 v 206.325.6877 f 206.323.6867 bergerpartnershi p.com NOV-27-2006 14:26 P.01/03 TransrnRUI TO; City Council Page: 1 including cover Date: 11.27.06 City of Medina Sent via: fax f: 425-454-8490 Project n/a From: Sharon Paul Rom Transmktod Memo dated 11.27.06 Memo dated 5.23.06 Remarks Please feel free to call with any questions or concerns. If armbsums are not as nofedJ plswse contact us immediately. Tho asrgor Partnership Ps Landscape Architecture 1721 Sth Avenue N Seattle,WA 98109 v 206.325.6877 r 206.323.6867 bergerpartnership.com VAm'. vaul Demitnades 2254 Everareen Point RD Medina WA 98039 eqz� — /% —'C,5, y r � 5 2 o 1�s 4d v f� 4ov� � r c Oj f--g 47- Lo--e Pam® v /cue e-f cd is L-1 i-6 -f / e-'5 �- �la-n '(- W346 ' e /G� 7L -le<� �- -- () L) ave , Pw l P . ;�Fn c . i SEATTLE TREES et eattle's new study of its trees has planted a seed of discussion. Bringing about Iasting changes will require lots of nurturing. There's exciting potential in the study by Mayor Greg Nickels' administration of ways to put the green back into the Emerald City. The initiative fits his and Seattle City Council's interest in environmental protection, healthy air and con- trolling the effects of global warming. Due in part to climate change, the health of Northwest forests is severely threatened. Within their limited but substantial land bases, cities can do a good deal to restore urban forests while poli- cymakers address the larger regional challenges. The city's draft Urban Forest Management Plan shows a troubling loss of trees and their benefits of cleaner air, reduced stormwater runoff and more shade and habitat. Since the early 1970s, the tree canopy covering the city has declined from 40 percent,to just 18 percent today. The plans calls for a goal of restoring the cano- py to 30 percent in three decades. There could be a case for shooting even higher. Portland already is at. 6-percent; Baltimore wants to move from just under 20 percent to 39.6 percent. But the Se- attle plan's 30 percent goal is dramatic when viewed in terms of continuing growth, how much land already is developed and the needed changes. As the report amply demonstrates, naivete, ne- *ect and complacency played roles in creating a. Gory where even the parks and streets depart- ments often ignored the health of existing trees. The report sets goals for increased tree plantings in areas as varied as parks, downtown and street rights of way. For city -owned trees, the key could be bigger budgets for planting and care. But the report rightly places much of the po- tential with single-family residential properties, which comprise moreI�han half the city. The study iuggests adding 350,000 new trees to bring the comes' canopy coverage from 18 percent to 31 percent. . Along with education, the report suggests Planting and preservation incentives and regula- tions, beyond current rules that primarily affect new development. Modest incentives, maybe as discounts on utility bills or property taxes, sound Promising. But with this a new area of formal pol- icy, it's important for discounts, disincentives (higher bills) or regulations to be justified and studied openly. In a city where debates about views can be emotional, a greener Seattle will require informed discussion. The report gives tas a start. UkRV i /.. S O Q�ScO 0, Z) O p tQ 5l0 M C' 5 E 3 � *� rD rD n 0 � G �+' t0 O d r. S rD rD C O rD D °i D o o `< n rTD S 0 O = ID x = 3 p n O d a ro 0 3 O N n rD o O O LO °1 6 p rD r rD -* Q rD 3 0 f� rD rD O_ rD -0 rD ru a a +w :,D3 — �C. rD :3Lo a C_ to O n C 5 0 rD = rD a rD r s M 7 c 7 5 07 ° = 5 rD v, O_ LO rD l< a O O o� O v < Q d = r-,d a rD - 3 v-CI. = a O O = rD 3 N � 3>_jDmorND �. 3 rD 0 rD �o0ZTrD . n a, °-' o r=-r f:I-D Q l0 n d rv,D O N rD rD rD d rD 0 = d a O rD O O N O rD O a to fD O o < O< ' o Z OrD Z O -n Q. C rt W LnO rD ��= O_ p No O of N S :4 (C-r � o Er m rD p� rD fll p N �L v, ��m 0) 0 rD = v, N s. y r y� rsi rD 0- N Q rD O O d N rD rD :3 3 no �; 6 n rD o fD � n ID sO '<n a Q m c p rD +^ ID N O =r � ID v+ C _0El3 D� d C O- ;= rD n p� O o, (D Q n N r rD C n rD a n' n0 O n c 3 =:o�S 3 °i rD a S rD rDID ET X fD n v+ � � �• � C rD rD O O o Z rD fl, D O pCL rD <fDN�OoDrD LO I O o p m= _ s rD a UDO Q= ? F ZT O rD S 0- LO rD a 3- p N 2,, On0 N rD rCi rCD rD ,n fD O= Q W Q r) w rD d rD Lo p< n =O 3< p v d �. rD O Cl- rD c- rD rD rD = O' =J, CL d Q O Q D a C' rD r-r rD l0 rD pr rD CV -p v, � = fD =� Q� n 5 < N 00 01 r(D m - a, o = rD rD a a <-Lo a C Mi co c Mi I• CL m N 0 V Vision Seattle's urban forest is a thriving and sustainable mix of tree species and ages that creates a contiguous and healthy ecosystem that is valued and cared for by the City and all of its citizens as an essential environmental, economic, and community asset. Vision Seattle's urban forest is a thriving and sustainable mix of tree species and ages that creates a contiguous and healthy ecosystem that is valued and cared for by the City and all of its citizens as an essential environmental, economic, and community asset. List of Figures Figure 1 Tree Canopy Cover in Seattle.........................................................................................................8 Figure 2 Street Trees and Parks Owned by the City of Seattle....................................................................17 Figure 3 Seattle's Urban Forest Canopy Cover: Distribution by MU.........................................................47 List of Tables Table 1 Seattle's Urban Forest Framework and Goals...............................................................................13 Table 2 Seattle Street Tree Species Mix.....................................................................................................16 Table 3 City of Seattle Urban Forest Responsibilities by Department.......................................................21 Table 4 Canopy Cover Goals by Management Unit(MU).........................................................................33 Table 5 Goals and Recommended Actions for the Seattle Urban Forest Management Plan......................36 Table 6 Citywide Management Unit (MU) Data........................................................................................48 Table 7 Single -Family Residential Property MU Data...............................................................................49 Table 8 Multi -Family Residential MU Data..............................................................................................52 Table 9 Commercial/Mixed Use MU Data................................................................................................54 Table10 Downtown Seattle MU Data.........................................................................................................57 Table 11 Transportation Corridors/Street ROW MU Data...........................................................................60 Table 12 Diameter Classes of Seattle Residential Trees..............................................................................61 Table 13 Industrial Property MU Data.........................................................................................................64 Table 14 Institutional Property MU Data.....................................................................................................66 Table 15 Developed Parks and Boulevards MU Data..................................................................................68 Table 16 Parks Natural Areas MU Data.......................................................................................................71 111 Public Review Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Or" City of Seattle September 2006 •VU ��j 5�t�v�et�i1�� -fic'z ` I v 114U t✓�j f ��%l 61 %7�'��"� (� ("20& (- � The City also creates incentives for private tree planting through programs like the Neighborhood Matching Fund as well as requirements for preservation through our development regulations. Seattle's First Comprehensive Urban Forest Plan While having a positive impact, these efforts have not been enough to preserve Seattle's urban forest. A resource of this magnitude requires careful management to ensure its preservation, restoration, and enhancement. For that reason, the Urban Forest Management Plan has been developed as a roadmap for the long-term management of Seattle's trees. Managing trees in a city differs from managing forests in natural settings. Urban forest management goals such as increasing tree canopy, improving public safety, and providing native habitat and recreational and educational opportunities must be balanced with other goals such as accommodating growth and facilitating transportation. The Urban Forest Management Plan is the City of Seattle's plan to integrate management of the many issues and opportunities posed by Seattle's tree resource. Additionally, all natural systems change over time. If we want these changes to enhance the urban forest, they must be actively managed. Nationally -based studies repeatedly support the fact that the resource deteriorates when human intervention is not a proactive part of urban forest management. This decline can be seen in many of Seattle's greenbelts where ivy is strangling trees and preventing native species from growing because historically these areas were considered `natural' and did not require maintenance. It is also evident where trees are planted in places that either don't allow for growth or that conflict with power lines. Proactive management is needed to keep our trees sustainable and in balance with other urban priorities. Organization of the Plan The Urban Forest Management Plan is organized into the following sections: • Urban Forest Sustainability Seattle's Urban Forest Today • Recommended Goals and Actions • Goals and Actions by Management Units • Moving Forward: Implementing the Plan 3 In 1903, an ordinance was passed that authorized the Superintendent of the Board of Public Works to improve the "parking" strips along Seattle's streets. Local Area Improvement Districts were formed to build, plant, and maintain street medians in many neighborhoods. As a result of these actions, Seattle now has over 135,000 street trees, 35,000 of which are directly maintained by the city. Also in 1903, the Board of Park Commissioners hired the Olmsted Brothers Landscape Architecture firm to develop a plan for a citywide park system. The Olmsted proposal recognized existing parks, recommended areas for future acquisition as either a developed park or natural area, and designated a system of connected boulevards and scenic roads. In 1908, the City received their "A Comprehensive System of Parks and Parkways" report: now commonly referred to as the "Olmsted Plan." Following the Alaska -Yukon -Pacific Exhibition in 1909, a new Municipal Plans Commission was formed to work with the board to consider land acquisition. The commission hired Virgil Bogue, a world -renown engineer who had worked previously on projects directed by Frederick Law Olmsted. Bogue proposed creating a civic center at Fourth and Blanchard. In 1927, the first phase of construction began on what would become the 87-acre Seattle Center campus. In 1959, a Citizen Advisory Group planning for the 1962 Seattle World's Fair proposed planting street trees along Third, Fourth, and Fifth Avenues with trees from the Central Business District to the Seattle Center fair grounds. Weyerhaeuser donated the trees to the City, who charged the City Engineer with their planting and maintenance. In 1967 "Operation Green Triangle" was approved as part of the King County Forward Thrust Bond measure. This led to street beautification, including over 50 "triangles," throughout the city. Since then, street trees plantings have been funded by federal block grants, state grants, and City initiatives. City efforts include the Urban Tree Replacement Program at Seattle City Light, the Millennium Woods Legacy Project, and the Department of Neighborhoods Fall Tree Fund. In 1989 Seattle voters passed the $41 million "Open Space Bond Measure." By 1998 the original $41 million had been leveraged with other fund sources to about $100 million allowing Seattle Parks and Recreation to acquire nearly 600 acres of openspace properties, to be maintained in a natural state in perpetuity. In 1994 the City allocated funds from the Cumulative Reserve Fund (CRF) for the purpose of restoring forested parklands. This action was important for several reasons. For the first time trees were identified as city infrastructure assets. This made forest restoration eligible for CRF funding. This action resulted in Park's successful Forest Restoration Program. • 1994. Seattle's first Heritage Tree, a Japanese Umbrella Pine, is recognized by City Council at the Curry Temple, 172 - 23rd Avenue. 5 forested stretches that provide added habitat and connectivity. In addition to making our city more livable for a growing population, Seattle's urban forest provides habitat to a variety of wildlife and native and migratory songbirds. Specific programs like the Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary Program administered through Washington State Fish and Wildlife encourage urban stewards to create habitat that supports dwindling urban wildlife populations. Typically this involves an emphasis on planting native plants. In general, there has been a trend in the Seattle area for a number of years to favor native plants over ornamentals when possible for a variety of environmental reasons. Economic Values Have you ever thought of a tree as a stormwater conveyance system? Probably not. We commonly think of stormwater systems and other infrastructure such as highways, bridges, powerlines, and sewage treatment plants as highly Value of Seattle's Urban Forest engineered systems built of steel and concrete. This infrastructure requires major capital The city's trees provide an economic investments to develop and ongoing funding to benefit of $20,643,000 in stormwater retention and $4,894,000 in air cleaning maintain. If we manage Seattle's urban forest each year. well, we can maximize the infrastructure services that these trees provide for substantially less cost than the concrete and steel alternatives. "Green infrastructure," notably trees, also provides "ecological services" that include the ability to capture rainwater, to reduce stormwater runoff and flooding, to improve air and water quality, and to sequester global warming pollution. Many recent studies estimate a dollar value for these benefits. The extent of that economic value is directly related to the amount of tree canopy. Just as we do for engineered infrastructure, it is important to consider the value of these ecological services when budgeting for green infrastructure. Seattle's innovative pilot Street Edge Alternatives project (SEA Streets) is a great example. These projects are Canopy Loss is Expensive designed to provide drainage that more The American Forest group's 1999 analysis concluded closely mimics the natural landscape that between 1972 and 1996, Seattle lost 46% of its before development. Two years of heavy tree cover and 676/6 of its medium tree cover. monitoring show that SEA Street That loss costs Seattle an estimated $1.3 million per projects reduce by 98% the total volume year in rainwater storage and management capacity and $226,000 per year in air pollution -related health of stormwater leaving the street during care costs. a 2-year storm event. In 1999, the City of Seattle asked American Forests, a leader in the science and practice of urban forestry, to conduct an `Urban Ecosystem Analysis' using their CITY Green software combined with Global 7 The average tree canopy coverage for Seattle is 18%, too low by national standards. In 1972, areas with heavy tree canopy coverage (50% or greater) comprised 10% of Seattle's 54,000 square acres, or 5,400 acres. By 1996, areas with heavy tree canopy coverage (50% or greater) had decreased by half, to 5% of Seattle's 54,000 acres, or about 2,800 acres. Economic implications of canopy loss for stormwater management and clean air were clear: The total stormwater retention capacity of Seattle's urban forest cover was reduced by 27% from 1972 to 1996. • This tree loss in Seattle from 1972 to 1996 resulted in an estimated 7.5 million cubic feet (cf) of additional stormwater runoff. The lost tree canopy would also have removed many thousands of pounds of the pollutants sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter of 10 microns or less from the atmosphere annually. The net result is dirtier air in Seattle which also carries a cost. Based upon the above, one would assume that restoring and enhancing Seattle's tree canopy coverage would reverse these trends and would increase the stormwater and air cleaning values of the urban forest, and such is the case. By applying cost/benefit modeling provided by the Western Washington and Oregon Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting, E. Greg McPherson, et at, it has been determined that an increase in Seattle's tree canopy coverage from the present 18% to 36% would more than double current environmental and economic benefits. The values are based upon the assumption all current canopy is retained and continues to grow, while new canopy will be added and wilt grow: • The additional tree canopy would remove air pollutants annually, at a total value of about $9.8 million per year. • The stormwater retention capacity of the urban forest would also more than double at an annual value of $41,300,000 million per year. Many other cities have undertaken similar urban forest ecosystem analyses. A 2002 San Antonio study showed that a 20% canopy cover provides a one-time savings of $1.35 billion in construction costs for flood control systems and sewers. The San Antonio study estimates a 25% canopy cover would avoid having to pay for an additional stormwater storage capacity of 65 million cf (valued at $129 million). In 2003, a New York City pilot study of urban trees placed a value of $9.5 million/year in anti -pollution benefits. The study concluded an average cumulative lifetime value of $3,225 per tree. See Appendix A for the methodology for deriving ecological services data. In addition to their widely recognized aesthetic worth in an urban setting, trees provide other significant economic value that can be measured. Recent studies from the University of W Seattle's sustainable urban forest model is built around four principles from the model: • Sustainability is a broad, general goal that results in the maintenance of environmental, economic and social functions and benefits over time. • Urban forests primarily provide services rather than goods. • Sustainable urban forests require human intervention. • Trees growing on private lands compose the majority of urban forests. Seattle's Urban Forest Management Plan has adapted the sustainability model to provide a structure that organizes our goals and the actions needed to achieve them. Although we've altered the main titles, we use the same three management elements as those of the model: 1. Tree Resource: an understanding of the trees themselves, as individuals or in forest stands 2. Management Framework: assignment of responsibility, resources and best practices for the care of trees 3. Community Framework: the way residents are engaged in planning and caring for trees. Because most trees in the urban forest are on private property, a successful program requires that the community plant and maintain trees on their property. 11 Table 1. Seattle's Urban Forest Framework and Goals Tree Resource Management Framework Community Framework Understand the Facilitate interdepartmental Enhance public awareness characteristics and communication and of the urban forest as a complexity of Seattle's cooperation to provide community resource urban forest decision -makers the information they need to Engage the community in Maintain trees to promote support the UFMP active stewardship of the health and longevity Develop and implement urban forest Maximize canopy cover and resource management tools Promote citizen - optimize age and species Preserve and protect existing government -business diversity trees, and encourage new tree partnerships Maximize the ecological planting throughout the city and environmental benefits by improving management of of the urban forest trees on private property Model good stewardship in City practices Achieving these goals will result in the following outcomes: • Improved condition of the urban forest in terms of increased canopy, health, and diversity. • Increased ecological service benefits such as stormwater mitigation benefits. • Clear policy framework to guide City actions. • Consistent approach to urban forest management and public outreach among City departments. • Improved management and accountability within City government. • Equitable distribution of urban forest resources across the city. • Engaged and informed community. 13 • Competition for space lost to development. • Residents' desire for views and light on their property. The following section describes the current conditions of Seattle's urban forest after decades of such pressure. 2.1. Tree Resource The urban forest can be evaluated using many factors, including extent of tree canopy, species diversity, age, and health of trees. As previously discussed, canopy cover in Seattle has declined to 18%. Without a more extensive canopy cover, the value of environmental and ecological services of the urban forest is greatly reduced. Urban trees are under pressures not present in native forests and require active management intervention to sustain them. Urban trees lack some of the natural buffers and protection found in wildlands. In native forests, the combination of soil micro-organisms, [What is a Tree? understory plants, an ample seed source, number of trees, and variance in topography, and stable hydrology all contribute to impede or stop extensive destruction due to diseases, insects, and invasive plants. Diverse tree composition reduces the risk of major losses to virulent pathogens such as chestnut blight or Dutch elm disease. While A tree is a single or multi-trunked plant capable of attaining a height of at least 15 feet and traditionally referred to as a `tree' in common reference materials such as the Sunset Western Garden Book or similar publications. experts debate the recommended maximum percentage of a single species in the tree population to be either 5% or 10% (Barker 1975, Miller 1991), the number of genera (subdivisions) and species that thrive in Seattle allows for increased diversity to safeguard against disease. Other pressures on trees in the urban environment are from development. These threats include land clearing to accommodate growth and views and tree removal to reduce conflicts between trees and power lines and street signs and to provide sight lines along roadways. Street Trees Seattle's estimated 130,000 street trees have a broad range of sizes. Some of our older trees were planted as part of coordinated projects in the 1920s and 1930s and others in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the past 20 years, there have been several focused tree plantings that have created more tree -lined streets organized by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), the Department of Neighborhoods, Seattle City Light, nonprofits, neighborhood and individual residents. Seattle street trees range in size, but, overall, tend to 15 Although large trees are a rather small part of Seattle's total street tree population, people consider them highly important and resent the aesthetic impact of their loss. For example, a 40-year-old tree is perceived to be a large tree according to a study on the benefits of trees in business districts (Wolf 1998). Outreach, public notification, and education provide information about why trees are being removed, but public response can be emotional and focused on saving individual trees regardless of their condition. SDOT requires developers to preserve healthy street trees with an extended useful life when they are compatible with projects. Redevelopment may require tree removal when preservation is not an option. With new construction, however, stressed or ill -suited trees get replaced with trees better suited to site conditions and new construction allows for introductions of new species. 17 Private Trees About 74% of Seattle's land base is privately owned and includes a wide spectrum of land -use types ranging from single-family to industrial and institutional. Although there is no inventory, it is apparent from looking at trees on private property, that there is a wide spectrum of tree density, age, and sizes throughout Seattle's neighborhoods. While some areas of the city enjoy proximity to nearby greenbelts, ravines, and parks, there are other neighborhoods that are defined by towering stately street trees with welcoming green archways. Some neighborhoods to the north still have scattered stands of remnant second- or third -growth conifers. Conversely, some neighborhoods have little mature canopy cover. Throughout the city, there are opportunities to plant new trees. The greatest loss of Seattle's tree canopy has been from private property. While most Seattle residents value and enjoy trees, there are situations where trees are regarded as troublesome and either removed or topped (a very poor maintenance practice) for blocking views and sunlight or dropping leaves or fruit. While trees in business districts may be appreciated by shoppers, business owners may have concerns with their signs being visible and with maintenance. Trees in parking lots offer shade but may reduce the number of stalls. On institutional and industrial campuses trees soften buildings, absorb noise and dust, and provide outdoor space for employees and visitors to enjoy, but trees require an investment in maintenance. Improper maintenance impairs tree health and shortens tree lifespan. Being the owner of healthy trees requires an investment in proper maintenance. Seattle has many good arborists and PlantAmnesty, a local not -for -profit, has done much to teach people how to correctly prune. They have also worked hard to foster public awareness that tree topping is bad for tree health and creates ugly and unsafe trees. Education is an ongoing process, but even for people who know how to prune, it is difficult and sometimes costly to prune mature trees that require climbing, large equipment, and specialized skills. These challenges have lead to relatively poor tree maintenance practices on private property overall. 19 Partnership brings Parks, SPU and the Office of Sustainability and Environment together with the Cascade Land Conservancy to restore 2,500 acres of forested parkland by 2025. This 20- year project leverages extensive volunteer support to remove invasive plants and restore the forest in a staged, multi -year effort. Table 3. City of Seattle Urban Forest Responsibilities by Department Department Responsibilities Seattle Parks and 0 Parks manages trees distributed over 6,000 acres of developed parks, Recreation (Parks) boulevards, natural areas, and other publicly -owned open spaces. • The 2004 budget for all forestry related programs within Parks was $1,460,157 to $563,948 in general fund support, $301,209 from the Pro Parks Levy and $595,000 from the City's CRF • The staff consists of a Senior Urban Forester, a Forestry Crew Chief and three 3-person tree crews. Staff is responsible for tree maintenance and response to citizens and City staff on tree -related issues: view pruning, hazard trees, and damaged trees and sidewalks. • An urban forester heads the Forest Restoration Program (CRF-funded). Begun in 1994, the program is designed to plan for the restoration and long-term health and integrity of forested parklands. • A 3-person Pro Parks Levy -funded Natural Area Crew is focused on forest restoration and trail maintenance work. • Parks Trails Restoration Program is the Forestry Unit's CRF-funded program. It's focused on the rebuilding and restoration of existing park trail systems. Two full-time positions are assigned to this program. Contact Horticulture & Forestry Manager, 206-684-4108 Senior Urban Forester, 206-684-4113 Parks tree maintenance: http://www ci seattle wa us/parks/Horticulture/treemaintenance.htm Forest restoration: http://www ci seattle wa us/parks/Horticulture/forestrestoration.htm Seattle Department of a SDOT Urban Forestry is responsible for design, installation, and Transportation (SDOT) stewardship of trees and landscapes associated with public ROW. • Seattle has over 130,000 street trees. SDOT is responsible for maintaining 35,000 of these. The remaining 90,000 are the responsibility of adjacent property owners. SDOT-owned street trees have an estimated, conservative value of over $100 million. • SDOT dedicates $450,000 to tree operations and maintenance each year which includes a 3-person tree crew and supervisor. • The City arborist regulates planting, pruning, and removal of street trees through SDOT's permitting process. • An arboriculturist coordinates volunteers who maintain traffic circles and other streetside plantings throughout Seattle. Contact Urban Forest Manager, 206-233-7829 City Arborist 206-615-0967 httr)://www.cityofseaftle.netttransportation/forestry.htm 21 Table 3 (cont.). City of Seattle Urban Forest Responsibilities by Department Department Responsibilities Department of Since 1996, the Neighborhood Matching Fund's Tree Fund program has Neighborhoods provided over 17,200 trees to over 600 neighborhood groups for Seattle's streets and parks. Groups of five or more households on residential streets with planting strips and sidewalks can apply for 10 to 40 trees. Neighbors are responsible for planting and maintaining their trees. Current funding remains stable at about $50,000 per year. Contact 206-684 0320 Department of Planning DPD enforces regulations relating to trees on private properties. Relevant and Development (DPD) regulations and plans include the following: • City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies for trees on private property and City -owned land. • Environmentally Critically Areas Ordinances regulates vegetation and tree removal within wetlands, wetland buffers, riparian corridors, landslide prone areas and wildlife habitat areas (ordinances 116253 and 116976). • Land Use Code includes provisions that provide an option for preserving trees in single- and multi -family zoned properties undergoing development (ordinance 119792). • Chapter 25.11 of the Land Use Code (Tree Protection Ordinance, #120410) generally protects trees greater than 6 inches in diameter on undeveloped land and it protects exceptional trees on private properties during development whenever practical. • Director's Rule 13-92 addresses landscape standards. Contact 206-684-0432 Fleets and Facilities The Fleets and Facilities Department manages properties and facilities owned or leased by the City. This includes vacant property, as well as buildings serving the Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, downtown office buildings, campuses housing construction and heavy maintenance vehicles and various buildings throughout the community. Their goal is to preserve as many trees as possible on all sites, and to create landscaped areas around buildings/properties. 23 expected. It also means that when the trees are pruned, much more work is required than would be expected with a shorter pruning cycle. In other words, part of the reason that Milwaukee's tree crews can prune 2,500 trees per year is because their shorter pruning cycle requires less work per tree when pruned. As mentioned earlier, Parks is responsible for 90,000 trees in developed park properties and along park -owned boulevards. Until the late 1980s, Parks had only one 3-person tree crew for all park tree maintenance. With a pruning cycle at the time that exceeded 50 years, over 90% of Parks available tree crew time was spent responding to demand -based tree -related emergencies, primarily the removal of dead, diseased or fallen trees. A second 3-person crew was added in 1988, which reduced the apparent pruning cycle to 26 years, but the percentage of time spent on demand maintenance did not change. The second tree crew was actually reduced by two positions in a 1990 budget reduction and then fully restored in 1992. The 2000 Pro Parks Levy added a third 3-person tree crew to Parks that was dedicated to providing preventive tree maintenance in high -use park locations. As a result, Park's tree pruning cycle went from 26 years to 18 years. After operating for over 100 years with only one tree crew and pruning cycles of 26+ years, Parks is still catching up with the natural process of tree growth and death. In 2000, Parks funded a `hazard tree mitigation program' that now allocates over $80,000 per year in contracted hazard tree removal and replacement. Maintenance of Private Trees While the City does have some influence on preserving trees on private property (Appendix B: Tree Regulations and Policy), ensuring that private citizens know what appropriate tree maintenance is can be a challenge as evidenced by the all too frequent topping practice still employed by some tree maintenance firms. Encouraging private citizens to preserve trees can also be a chatlenge given concerns with leaf drop, views, solar access, competing uses of space, and the cost of hiring profession tree care workers. Likewise, encouraging private homeowners to plant more trees can be a challenge for the same reasons. Still, many Seattle residents as individuals or as neighborhood groups are eager to plant trees. The City's Department of Neighborhood's tree fund and City Light's Urban Tree Replacement Program offer free street trees to neighborhood groups and provide information on proper tree planting and care. These publicly -funded programs, however, do not meet the need to provide incentives or assistance for tree planting on private property. In the past, the City successfully partnered with private businesses to sponsor discount tree coupons, which were popular and gave residents flexibility as to where trees were planted. However, still more can be done to educate and inform the public about the value of trees that will lead to more tree preservation and planting. Standards of Practice The standards of practice followed by City staff and their contractors are the industry standards as defined in the International Society of Arboriculture's (ISA) Tree Pruning Guidelines and/or those in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards and the Z133.1 Safety standards. Many of Seattle's urban forestry managers and 25 inventory was undertaken in 1997 but has subsequently been determined to be incomplete. Parks does not have information by species, size, and specific location. Although trees in Landscaped portions of parks require maintenance comparable to that for street trees, they are not currently part of an integrated inventory or work management system. Acquiring reasonably accurate information for Seattle's estimated 130,000 street trees and 90,000 trees in developed park areas will require adequate staffing and budget. Once this inventory information is in place, maintaining the inventory need not be costly given the City's GPS and GIS technology. Forested Parklands Tree Inventory Seattle's 3,200 acres of remnant forests have been inventoried in recent years using two different methods. The nonprofit, Seattle Urban Nature Project (SUNP) has undertaken a thorough ecosystem -based analysis of all the City's remnant forests. The City was involved with this project in an advisory capacity and has full access to the information collected. In 2004 Parks staff used Lidar (aerial laser radar) to determine citywide canopy cover percentages. Together, these two sets of data provide an excellent inventory of our remnant forests. Maintenance Record Keeping Seattle's lack of detailed maintenance records makes workload planning difficult and contrasts with cities known for effective urban forestry programs. Many cities maintain records of per - unit costs and person -hours required for tree establishment, pruning, inspection, removal, and other procedures. Many tracking systems identify such components as time in travel, work set- up, production and crew productivity. Having such information available also assists greatly in answering questions from the public regarding how and where tree maintenance resources are being used. SDOT currently uses a system that provides basic cost information about tree care operations but is not integrated with any other system or inventory data. City departments are developing the ability to better track maintenance activities. New systems are anticipated to be operational in 2008. Performance Measures Though departments track program information such as the number of trees planted or removed, there is currently no citywide system for comprehensively evaluating the condition of the urban forest and tracking our progress in implementing actions that are the goals of this plan. Because the City lacks a performance monitoring system, it cannot as effectively make program and budget decisions, adapt to changing conditions over time, or effectively communicate with senior management and the public. Some suggested performance measures that evaluate the social, economic, and environmental progress are: Public involvement as urban forestry stewards. • Calls for assistance and information • Site inspections 27 2.3. Community Framework A sustainable urban forest is a community asset. Community appreciation for the benefits and needs of trees and engagement in planning, planting and caring for trees is essential to the long-term health of the asset. Citizen input and volunteer participation are critical to the success of City programs that support trees and have been since the days of the Olmsted plan. Without the active support and engagement of the community, urban forestry programs cannot succeed. This section describes the ways the community is currently informed about and participates in stewardship of the urban forest. Outreach The City has an important role in fostering residents' understanding of the environmental, economic, and community benefits of trees as well as proper tree selection, planting and care. City departments provide information through the City's website, brochures and other publications, environmental learning center activities, and during volunteer events. The book and companion video, A City Among the Trees, produced by the Urban Forest Coalition, with a grant from the USDA Forest Service, was designed to provide the public with information on proper tree planting and care and is available at libraries. This document has been shared with literally thousands of Seattle residents. Different departments within the City communicate with the public about tree -related issues pertinent to their specific missions. For example, DPD provides information on tree planting and preservation requirements during development. MOT provides information about tree selection, care and related permit requirements regarding planting trees in the street ROW. Parks provides broad information about tree care, benefits and the threat that invasive species pose to trees. Training is also a requirement for receiving Neighborhood Tree Fund grants for planting trees in the ROW. Despite this good work, the amount of coordination between different departments on outreach activities is sometimes limited, and it can be difficult for a resident to know exactly who in the City to contact with questions. Volunteer Opportunities Seattle citizens volunteer many thousands of hours of support for the City's urban forestry programs each year. The Parks department's three volunteer coordinators facilitate 110,000 hours of outdoor volunteer stewardship each year in City parks. In 2000, engaged citizen volunteers contributed over 50,000 hours of community service to forest restoration efforts alone. By 2005 that number increased to over 70,000 hours as a result of the work of the Green Seattle Partnership. Neighborhood and civic groups are the major source of citizen involvement in tree planting and stewardship. Volunteers plant trees and maintain park vegetation in developed and forested parklands. In many cases, specific individuals stand out 29 master plan. Jerry Clark, City Arborist from 1988-1997, revived the Street Tree Advisory Board for a brief period to help build private support for street tree planting. Partnerships Early in Seattle's history, a few people of vision rallied an entire city behind funding and building the foundation of Seattle's parks and boulevard system with an Olmsted designed plan. In preparation for hosting the World's Fair in 1962, The Weyerhaeuser Company donated 1,000 street trees that were subsequently planted. It was another partnership of insightful civic Leaders motivated by the Women's Division of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and supported by voters who envisioned and passed the Forward Thrust Bond in 1968. Forward Thrust funded the construction of over 50 planted triangles and thousands of street trees. In more recent times, in addition to working with neighborhood volunteers on tree programs, the City continues to partner with individual businesses, chambers of commerce, nonprofits, the media, neighborhood councils, business improvement districts, and state and federal agencies. These partnerships illustrate that urban forestry is about community as much as it is about trees. One partnership of note is the 1999/2000 Millennium Woods Legacy Project which, in celebration of the new millennium, surpassed the goal of planting 20,000 trees in city parks, yards and streets. Sponsors included ATT, GTE Wireless, Eddie Bauer; TREEmendous Seattle, and PlantAmnesty. The Green Seattle Partnership was formed in 2004 by a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Seattle and the Cascade Land Conservancy. The partnership a 20-year program to restore 2,500 acres of forested parklands by 2025. To get there, the partnership plans to restore an increasing amount of forested parkland each year reaching 150 to 160 acres per year at program peak in 2010. In addition to removing invasive plants and re-establishing forest tree canopy and understory, valuable in its own right, the partnership will restore the ecological services of Seattle's remnant forests. Volunteers are the key to the success of the program. At its peak of restoration work, the Green Seattle Partnership will require over 100,000 hours of volunteer support annually from youth, community and business groups. With over 15 years of experience in building neighborhood -based volunteer support, Parks has proof that Seattle citizens are up to this task. These initiatives would not have happened without individuals and organizations contributing their talents, energy, and dollars to ensure that there is a green Seattle legacy established for future generations. 31 r- 3. Recommended Goals and Actions This section identifies goals and specific actions needed to enhance and preserve Seattle's trees. Establishing the City's goals for canopy cover overall and by management unit is a necessary first step and will help guide the identification and prioritization of actions. 3.1. Why Does the City Need Canopy Cover Goals? A good measure of the health and value of an urban forest is the percentage of land within the city that has tree canopy cover. In order to measure success in canopy cover enhancement, canopy cover goals must first be established. These goals will help the city to rally the community around a clear set of common targets. They also help to plan implementation steps that consider planting opportunity, planting limitations and other priorities specific to individual land -use types. With canopy cover goats, we can target limited budget to areas with the greatest potential for new trees or the greatest lack of trees. Finally, having canopy cover goats allows us to target new tree plantings to maximize the ecological services potential (e.g. stormwater mitigation, carbon sequestration) across the city. Within this context, 30-year citywide canopy cover goals has been established to increase existing canopy cover by 2/3 to 30%. 3.2. How Did We Derive Canopy Cover Goals? American Forests, leaders in urban forest management and research, measured tree cover in 440 communities. They recommended that a canopy cover goal of 40% would be appropriate for Seattle and other cities in the Pacific Northwest region. In developing canopy cover goals for Seattle, the Urban Forest Coalition started with the American Forests recommendation and went through the following process to define an ambitious but doable goal for the Urban Forest Management Plan 30-year planning horizon ( ): • Considered American Forests' recommendations and benchmarked with other cities • Considered land -use mix in Seattle and other City land -use goals (e.g. encouraging density, facilitating freight mobility, etc.) • Considered current canopy cover and planting opportunities • Defined goals for each land -use type 33 Urban Forest Inventory and Estimates The forest canopy of a city can be measured in a variety of methods. For this plan, Seattle's canopy was measured using LIDAR. LIDAR measures the height and location of objects based on reflection of a laser. The data collected is high definition —five measurements for each 1 meter square. The elevations, which are within 2 feet of actual heights, were used to create a topographic map of the city. A by-product of this data is a highly accurate, 3-dimensional map of Seattle's tree canopy. Existing GIS data for the Management Units (MUs) was used to develop values for canopy cover in each MU. 3.4. Recommended Actions shows the general goats of the plan, the rationale for the goals and associated recommended actions. The goals and actions have been grouped into the three elements of the urban forest sustainability model: Urban Forest (Tree) Resource, Management Framework and Community Framework. Each goal statement is followed by the supporting rationale for the goal, which is then followed by short, mid- and long-term recommendations/actions to achieve the goals. Implementation will require policy, program, and budget coordination, as well as long-term and stable funding. Accomplishing these goals is essential for the City to achieve urban forest sustainability. These actions generally apply to trees throughout the city as opposed to those trees found within a specific forest Management Unit (MU) as described in the next section. The timeline definitions for implementing the proposed actions are as follows: Short-term actions will be done within the next 5 years. Typically these are actions that are either already partially implemented, `budget neutral,' or have agreed upon new funding in place. Mid-term actions are 5 to 10 years out. These are actions that might require operational restructuring or reorganization, limited additional funding, or `tooling -up' on the part of internal or external partners. Long-term actions are 10 or more years on the horizon. These actions may have significant budget implications, may involve organizational change, and might require significant fund raising. 35 -0 M O y as a) y c)� 0 3 > and yEo c3 > a)mm o.�a E a'>L4Q)i Q � om��mo:� a)mmm uEc c ui Uac >ycn m a -O C '_ w m mO U i O N aCy X- m C d U�p a) m a) L= oa)a)cocwwa)m a)_L) wE Q U • a) C L ,�. N y O a) o mm'mE�@o ��a y 'w4) � y � m y m N N °r fCa �yo a� a;:>�� 0 U m 'D y E v, C N 7 V m" 0 y N N` a) C E E U) U O a) c 4 N y 0 N C N C_) _0 C y 00 0 U 0 L C N a o m .L. C 'O cn � m m 0 -ao) C • V UO m C C t� O C a) U C y a) m 3 m ac N .� 0 O M C" 7 W rn a c� m m m m 0 o m m a N y N O c N N 'a o a�a m cn 2 a) CD m o� c 0 C >` -p on N ,"O" > y c �-C 0 C'0 s 6 U) 7 tM N m X' a •� dLm. cca o'uFFn `� Ui a- �n U 2 co m 3 (' v» o f wpsM E w 0.0 3 co co( _ a) E O .Lm.y L '0 y O) o c 7 N O m m ji;in m 01 y N 'p U _ m -` 01 a) c cm m a) a) a) N C C 0 O C N in m m y o m C "O > o C m fl. C y m E c= C _'L m a) U m O w ;� N U y c 0 m m mC E C N L � U O C a) m m •0 N O C A o o O C ccc� a) `a) o N -0 �c c m'� �ay m 22 m �� msL 4) CL m am aci o 0 oa C 0 U) w am �;a-5; c c c o aa0 CC O O a U m .� = Q m a) m y m e m a) C E 0 m U U rn U C m �y C p �0 d C� v E E N 4+ m 0 L L o O� O 0 2�� _ .L-� E� � N y j� O O E E L) V E N N a) U d M N -0 O N C w C .y '2 N N E ui M C •0 y N E a) c > U w O> m d m rn c N m •> 'c Z m m p 0 N '� N E in m "O C O m m .- () V) y a) O d C 7 a) C O O L) .. N y m m O U m U O C a) a) a) O �- o 0 0 '� C c L E m >, C O N a w 0 In a o U LL Q 3 a a) Q1 H. U y m y y m m 0 0.0 toa) 0 m oQ O)7 L �:C- m - r- � u) - Y a)y my a) U a N '� -io0��_'�c�'� CA m a)cCicmio�o �3a d_ a a O U to C y ._ y C' a) .O a) m C -0 m "o _ c c a�U8 tA o •> C C m y a) m CoC 0� 0 "� C m m _Q) C a U N C �-' C a) m O - C.- aN rnm N U m ao�0oEEco >.E mc> �. a) 'R ' c a) �. E c Cam U) 5 mo m °'� m m 1 0 0 c o Q.c fl� m >' �_ c m a) E II c° E m y C N _ > C >. y m 0 C O m m m E cy > y L a) y E �0rn:° 0) 2w0a0iacicoac� IL- mLOi0 C:�u=i F-�voiEum,mW3cNmca) d N Q N O - d 'a d C aV a) C ,.,,, = �,•, M a) a 'o L Ca r a) — y a) y N -p �+' m E N C r� .E L lC4 i Q d Q M 1x4 > 0 tM X> C 0 d M O a g 41 c O V_ C a i O E an 71 Q) N ' O r U. ro � b G LL 47 C 41 LA 41 L 402 d C E O u O .o c r� m O t7 Ln B m E u) () c ac) m m >)mv)Em Co 000> c0 a>ic0 nL�L �a.2 @ ao mw a) c da.o ui a)o�a)ID Em`cc� E w )0L�CO0ZuCMR mc0 )) Z. •c 'O : c0 c1 E 'EC C a) N O` ti 7 �' cc c '6 cm E ' Q1 4U_- a) m c 2:6Ew a) a E 3 0 0� > aNi of 3 E U LL y cYi cci c) a p U�m3ouoimo w°>mm �� oa) _gym-0a) J . , • c a) a) 'C a) (n u) N � .m -00 O a) U Za O E 0 0 a) ;Q LL = to C E �i m a N � ._ U c� O U) O 'C 0 m O N C O) > N U O pf .` 0 •cII �' - m c v a m uc) c c Ti'c C..E z2CL cc-�a°))�Em f0a� �coaa))aui o 0� cuo U o .L 0 m aa) a) E:° c m c rn� d �c o c E E o 0� d �rncu'>a)3c U�Oo) 3co)Eu"'i m o =p m _ U O .Y �- U m N N m �C `° mao)�€E occicc U ,� .6 a-D-oc N 0 00 X y � 0 m m m LL U 3 U m C_rn coF`- oin E a mM.o • d m (D m u' rn O w L w U N u1 N C tl1 E O a) LL t0_n a) CL 0" p �j m> = C. M c p p O ca c LL m a) OL 5 T N U N o a) O m c m Urn w U- m�' �� a) m� - d o U) cc aa) 0 rn3 LL Co m m m c c� cm.. c m E c m E mU > 0) m a'c �)o E c`> E o 0 o E a> m E mEa `n E a) �mc m m o c E o ac E rno• o n 0 Cl mE ccn E rn� c (nc a �� E Q,N m o 0) m 0 =w cp 0 0` to a 0` m O m m X 0 C m c aj CCD 4) m '.' a 7 0 6 N a) U U 0) �'v �2U a)Z _3 EU d a E m O N U a m� U) • • • • • • O 0) > O m m c 15 L7) cn Ec ioa �rNE �`� �> m f� tc6 c.0 N m ca = a` ) C c6 U 0 :a E m ui "O m m .0 G O c0 CL CD U C my EU cin Ea) m a) m= E a) N t6 a) L y o '6 In .'a)U)0))0. mm emu, C U O a `a U -m0 N U c 2 O EE O L d E mm ai 3 o a0 0 me vi m r0 N m'` c 0:. N C C � c E u'i cm E E o -E>2,LJao?O o3-0) aai ) 0' O d � -o > r d C 0.r Cd = C aL mLL LL O.W = d Y O.O. w = E C m O m c m C O E 0 w ` 0cc ni N L E 0 Q m v 0 E O.Ow a LL U' O O d m LL. i a) D)o cccn S.Fa O=a uCO a) a a N N tlj C N -° CO N :> c o_ > •moo � caca m c m t°�� ma o -° E a () °)OO CL Oaa CD a) Cc° c0 a) m O wcc 'O 'O m a) N N cta n COCD N O C- QN ❑aa - pa•c 5> q uaO 0a m �m o) oL �o a � 0 m rnMoE rna �x U w ca:) N C T C: ° 3 '�-' O N C Q a� N a) ( w a) U cc ` w d U c 0 N �� N �� Q- N U cn 30 cn 4) 0) N m a a> c N C U° C C 3 U ° .- > •° .a) a) C o a N 'm M `� � m m d ate.° c vim) .2 a) c U � �� °c Vim : uf6i c 3 °— > >- c m a) a� ° � ° a.Q '0 cc o d EQ No a-- 0 Ta E ° N �� CL tS c_ N c E X c 2 0 m 0o rn° t`a m> v, `a `6a 12) 0 1) 4)° m Q) a) N° m > �? a) da a� > c C O in m a) s .0 CO C N c — 4 U >, rnoi ° �. 3 rn0 U E o 0 N L E > N a) ° °'� E 3o E 2 f0 C� ac) N uc)� ' ono: Scans>a: E 0• Y n) a) > C m e ca N fl- C p 0 U)U o N C C N a) c E m U .c c a N U '- -p � u, C � •.-+ N O.. O N N N N w T NCO U ° C U O Q) X c — a . N N N �6 � v.0 ° CU a. N "O _ N O O O) m O) u) C a) -p 0- 0 N a) "° U N c w ° E C N U C "° 07 aJ c .•.C-. a m E fa U N U n3 O. E N y 0 C cc.0 ..�+ f6 c '•LN Q - 0 L N 'yd 0 t6 a) � N E a s •C�-i 'Y N � "> o m �° 0 as as o M'o cJ O >.o C c Ga CD �' .- to N N m d t N 'C L � V7 a) � N V � V O '- tm = d OU d CD 2 c e- c m a v, u; U m 3 o ~ U> N c • C U a 7 U U m C O U. _� N C L N 0 0 m a 0 0 C U 0 C N aC� w •N V a0 ONp0 0NaC � 00 a�oCNm w3ca UU N0U, 1 0 .0 = � . 00 ai mZN �fN6 2O�N ovU �2 o� uC Ca �CpL�n .tao-i a) i.UCELa)o- NU N V ) O a) aa) N >Oa)a a) �V $XwwaacawcU -p in 0 C C O O O N 02, C O m Z' ,,N,, N m m L -2 al U O Uf 0 >> N r :EE R U C N O >, > a) is O •C y U C .0 O O E 2 •U C m a) m L m 0 o 0 +L.•' 7 C 0-a m C.0.0) a 0 o o. N' N 0 f6 7 O.m <6•: C. .Q a rnL m3 E,00 C C�•C :%' D C= p O O ..' 00 X' a U C m C� V C T N y m w .0 L E a. C C C �' C S C C '� a v GI N 0 O N d (0 O G N d C O y E N O .0 o-c-o rn o c `off c m o•m,p c a� a� N 3 fl.. a) N N N N� �•� c z c 0 �.� o oo > 0 a) 0 Q o m En Co C @a m o m o m '� Y Q�'ma U 7 7 C Umc n om� U�3a woo3CL aaE n �Emm�YaSma��m w N O y N y ,:., CL"a °C-' O N rn m a) C a. E N O C 7 N� w .� C N E c -p C 0 C 0 0 O � C A >i S` C N y •C O yO N N C m m L a 0 �DoaM c m a m� ao U) U) c 16 0- CL t6 C� d n a nMI) ago c o m n Qm c E m o 0 0 N y 0o m amit a oL 0 c m=a o 3L U) cNiN c6 0 a) U' 'a mz 0 a m a U 3. rn () O. 7 m• 2 N d D p d 0 O 7 a) aai a CL 0 0 p M y CL aX' aT> oacimrna Ca> o�ui� Xu; oa�oo a�a >>cnmc 0 >aEoN oCL wa UC7 � 0 win CL rn> Q2¢ m c m m m. E g cn ma ro mn m U) U O5 c min Qm m U)i c .a C C 0 0- C O S T > rn 0 0 tC ui c 0 d C O O a) fl'O mom' O C U C c6 C Of O 4) M= C p)a 0 E p o R` 010 �6 U N300ocCZE Ea �-0o MM mr w m a0 o m o m c`6 m �" m m c �' 3 amia 2 m °� oln o a m U o 0,> c C o CL `_'LncLdc�Q. o Mmn="« NN$�aci�� .0 aci �E�m O CD .., « 0 E N 0 C 0 OC 0 m N m :E0 a •C $ y 0 'm a O? -0B � m O a O O� .0 goy 030CE mo0: .0 fl_.�(DELa)cu w. oo o !n O 0— 0 L m a) p "' N a O s a) L L N E to •- C �n � O '� L.. C N a) a) N N j i6 U a) '.'�-� m y m N CO U .Q M C '� .-� n. O 0 O C O O 0 C N a) O O a s .O .? E l m L_ 'p C U N C L O) '0 a M'C U C w co N co C C> N m C> 0 0 7 C N D U 0� 0 a> 0> 1l- y m C O_ m U U) 3 a a m On- ton U m ti U t O.. d 2 d _ = C Q) N N m ;� s ayi v «.=u) 4)E� ma'a° M E m c o=m E d c M N COc� �a L0m U CL U wUwa ma. M D`,.- 717 i- Figure 3. Seattle's Urban Forest Canopy Cover: Distribution by MU 10a Downtown 2°t Major Institutions 11% Manufacturing/Industrial 11-. Multi Family 9-u NelghborhoodfCornmercial 4% Developed Park 7°6 Forests/Watersheds VA RAi= 4.2. Single -Family Residential Property Description Approximately 56% of all property within Seattle is single-family residential. This element of Seattle's urban forest is found on private land and does not include any trees that may be growing along the adjacent street. The percentage of canopy cover within Seattle's single- family neighborhoods varies widely. Some neighborhoods are characterized by large trees species while other neighborhoods have canopy cover characteristic of smaller tree species Because single-family properties occupy so much of Seattle's land base, they also provide the greatest opportunity for increasing the city's overall tree canopy cover. This fact is all the more important as more trees are removed from privately -owned single family zoned property. The City can do more to encourage tree planting and retention through education, tree planting programs, and expanding the scope of a tree protection ordinance to include trees on private property. City tree planting programs such as the Tree Fund coordinated by the Department of Neighborhoods and Seattle City Light's Urban Tree Replacement Program have added thousands of new plantings along residential streets. Table 7. Single -Family Residential Property MU Data* MU Statistics Current 30- ear Goal Acres in MU 29,921 MU as % of City land base 55% Canopy coverage 18% 31 % Number of trees 473,300 823,500 Plantings needed 350,200 One-time cost of plantings $52,530,000 Maintenance Costs r $4,733,000 $8,235,000 Benefits r StormwaterMitigation Value r $7,100,000 $12,353,000 Air Cleaning Value r $1,420,000 $2,471,000 Carbon Sequestration Tons CO2 18,000 31,300 Carbon Sequestration Value $ $544,000 $947,000 Other Benefits (Energy, Aesthetics, & eLc2 $1,349,000 $2,346,000 Net Benefit All Benefits - All Costs r $10,41 1,000 $18,117,000 *All values are based upon estimates and currently accepted models 49 Fall Leaves and Other Debris Sometimes homeowners decide to remove perfectly healthy trees because they drop leaves in the fall or other debris at other times of the year. There may be an opportunity for groups like the scouts or even Master Composters to volunteer or offer leaf collection services to clean up fall leaves and take them to a composting site. It's even possible that the City might be able to provide a location in the future for tree debris to be taken for recycling. Goals and Actions: Tree Resource Select tree to maximize canopy for the size of the tree planting space (i.e., large space with no overhead obstructions = large tree). Focus on tree preservation. • Complete a more thorough tree inventory. Management Framework • Research Portland's private tree preservation program. • Develop/increased incentives for tree preservation. • Increase street sweeping frequency for leaf control. Change local regulation to allow citizens to place leaves in the street for City pickup (sweeper). • Partner with Washington State Nursery and Landscape Association or others to provide free tree vouchers per the Millennium project. • Implement "exceptional tree" program. Community Framework • Produce and distribute tree education materials that address tree concerns and guide good tree care practices. • Include diverse representation on a new "Tree Board." • Provide widely distributed education materials on tree stewardship and the value of planting and preserving trees. • Provide directed tree education materials to realtors. • Increase citizen participation in street tree planting and stewardship programs. 51 Issues/Opportunities: Owner/Developer Education Typically, much less tree space is available in multi -family developments than in single- family. The greatest opportunity for trees begins with design and the developer. Multi- family development design takes on many forms with some being much more conducive to the planting of trees. Incentive programs might allow variations on development regulations in return for planting and retaining trees. Turnover Rates Multi -family developments have high turnover rates. Because tenants are not owners and may not plan to stay in their unit very long, they are unlikely advocates for trees. Goals/Actions: Tree Resource Develop a list of tree species that would thrive in the often smaller planting spaces found within this MU. Management Framework • Consider incentives that would encourage the preservation and planting of trees. Consider applying some of the proposed 'Seattle Green Factor' strategies to this MU to expand the potential for additional trees and related greenery. Community Framework • Work with condominium home owner associations to educate these owners and encourage them to plant additional trees. Educate apartment building owners about the positive aspects of providing well - maintained trees and green spaces as part of their rental environment. 53 forest management opportunities within this MU, which has a 30-year canopy coverage goal of 95%. Issues/Opportunities: Increased Population Density As Seattle moves toward an Urban Village model, increasingly it will be necessary to both plant and preserve trees in parts of the city to increase density. Choosing to both plant and preserve trees now will prepare the city for new residents. Strategic purchase of available openspace can help preserve wildlife habitat within dense residential areas. Working with Business Owners It's not uncommon for some business owners to look at trees as a problem or nuisance rather than a benefit. Cleaning up fall leaves takes time. Trees must be well -sited and appropriate species selected for a successful commercial streetscape. However, repeated studies have shown that shoppers prefer tree -lined streets and, even in Seattle, the shade produced by trees can be truly appreciated on a hot summer day. Opportunities exist to work with business owners to better educate them about the value of trees in a commercial setting and to partner with the City to make repairs and improvements. Green Roofs and Parking Lots This MU typically is associated with a high percentage of area given to building footprints (roofs) and parking lots. Opportunities exist, possibly through incentive programs, to increase the green associated with these necessary elements to effectively increase the canopy coverage in the MU. Goal/Actions: Tree Resource • Develop a desired tree species palette for commercial areas that takes into consideration the needs and concerns of business owners. • Place a high value on preserving existing trees via monitoring construction practices, encouraging professional maintenance practices, educating business owners on trees' value to their business and community. • Work with local businesses and business associations to develop programs for planting additional trees. • Over time, achieve desired canopy coverage goal for the MU. Management Framework • Undertake an inventory of existing trees within the Commercial/Mixed Use MU and document in a citywide database. » Enforce existing code requirements regarding tree preservation and planting. 4.5. Downtown Seattle Description Trees in this MU are found in the City's urban core ( ). Most of the trees in downtown Seattle are located within the street ROW. In addition to limited planting space, the downtown environment can be especially harsh. It has very poor soils, poor drainage, a wind tunnel effect between high-rise buildings and abuse from human activity. The national average lifespan of an urban tree is 13 years, 6 to 7 years for trees in the central business district. Table 10. Downtown Seattle MU Data* Mana er e"i unit Statis6cs Downtown Current 30- ear Goal Acres in MU 811 MU as % of City land base 1 % Canopy coverage 9% 12% Number of trees 9,700 13,500 Plantings needed 3,800 One time cost of plantings $1, 330, 000 Maintenance Costs r $485,000 $675,000 Benefits r StormwaterMitigation Value r $97,000 $135,000 Air Cleaning Value r $49,000 $68,000 Carbon Sequestration Tons CO2 400 500 Carbon Sequestration Value $ $11,000 $15,000 Other Benefits (Energy, Aesthetics, & etc $56,000 $79,000 Net Benefit (All Benefits - All Costs) (yr $213,000 $297,000 *All values are based upon estimates and currently accepted models Current Condition This MU is 810 acres or about 1.5% of the city land base. The current tree canopy coverage is about 70 acres, or about 9%, a fair -to -good percentage by national standards. The estimated 9,656 trees in this unit are equal to less than 1% of the city total, but they are critical in terms of their ability to soften the harsh urban environment. Trees in downtown Seattle are frequently under stress due to limited planting space and other harsh conditions. Given these environmental stresses, the average tree in this MU is typically smaller than in other units and has a shorter lifespan. Changes in development and land -use patterns downtown can also be a challenge to tree preservation. 57 Goals and Actions: Urban Forest Resource • Preserve trees in this MU whenever possible. • Due to the challenges of the downtown planting environment, select tree species with particular care to help ensure long-term success. Management Framework Develop landscape design guidelines that will consider safety, maintainability and other factors as a means of helping to preserve and/or enhance tree plantings. • Promote designs that create more space for tree growth above and below ground. Community Framework • Meet with Downtown Business Association(s) to discuss tree canopy and preservation goals. • Seek partnerships and financial support from downtown businesses in order to plant additional trees. • Also seek financial support from downtown for the maintenance of trees. Current Condition Diversity Street trees have good species diversity except that sweet gum and Norway maple comprise 13.5% and 12.6%, respectively, of trees in retail and commercial zones. Purple -leaf plums comprise 11.2% of residential street trees. More than 10% in any one species is generally discouraged. Average spacing between residential street trees is 152 feet, about 3 times the desirable distance for a medium to large maturing tree. Distribution Seattle's street trees have a broad range of size classes (a proxy for age) although the number of 20-inch-diameter (large) trees has decreased. More trees are being planted than lost, precluding any sudden barrenness as trees reach the end of their lifespan. In residential areas, the size distribution of street trees has been virtually unchanged for a decade. Nearly half of these trees have diameters of 5 inches or less and are relatively young (11111 ). Many others are larger, with diameters of 6 to 20 inches, yet are young enough to provide benefits and services for many more years. In residential areas off-street trees are on average generally larger than on -street trees, but no data have been collected on their sizes. Table 12. Diameter Classes of Seattle's Residential Trees Diameter 0 - 5" 6 -12" 13 — 20" 21 — 30" >30" Original 38,232 29,808 8,424 3,240 1,296 inventory (47.2%) (36.8%) (10.4%) (4.0%) (1.6%) Current 63,008 48,190 13,400 2,577 1,675 sampling 48.9% 37.4% 10.4% 2.0% 1.3% SDOT estimates that about 20% of street trees are candidates for removal due to improper location (large trees under utility lines or insufficient growing space) or structural and health issues. SDOT currently removes trees only if they pose an imminent hazard or if removal allows the City to take advantage of opportunities to remove or replace trees as part of a larger planting project. SDOT also frequently removes privately maintained unhealthy trees when they become imminent hazards. Desired Goals SDOT's goals are to have a healthy mix of species and age distribution, with a maximum of 10% for any one species. New trees should be planted to meet canopy the cover goals. A maintenance cycle for small trees of 3 to 4 years and 7 to 8 years for larger trees should be pursued. SDOT will also develop a tree management plan, including a hazard tree mitigation program to ensure that street trees are being managed proactively. Trees planted in 61 • Implement a 2-for-1 tree planting program. • Increase number of trees pruned annually by 20% over 2005. • Continue to evaluate and update SDOT's plant list. • Initiate phase 1 of a landscape assets inventory and condition assessment. • Develop a risk assessment plan. • Continue to identify and designate landmark and heritage trees. • Initiate phase 2 and 3 of the landscape inventory and condition assessment. • Update existing tree inventory. • Reduce pruning cycle from current 18-year cycle to acceptable national standards. . Implement a hazard tree abatement program. Management Framework • Develop a budget adequate to implement ROW trees and landscaping management over the next 5 years. • Revise the street tree ordinance; submit it for management and executive review. • Increase enforcement of BMPs; pass information among tree care and landscape companies. • Study the feasibility of placing all ROW trees under the SDOT management. • Explore creative financing mechanisms to ensure alternative funding to supplement general fund revenues. Develop a long range (20 to 30 years) street tree management budget. • Identify and establish dedicated funding sources for street trees. • Consider SDOT maintenance of all ROW street trees. Community Framework Increase and improve education of the public on tree care responsibilities. • Continue to promote Heritage Tree program. • Continue to promote Arbor Day / Tree City USA. • Develop tree information documents in languages that reflect the diversity of Seattle. • Develop a plan for community involvement in tree management activities. • Educate developers in tree retention benefits and techniques to implement a community involvement plan. C-3 Issues/Opportunities: Finding Space for Trees Seattle's industrial areas are perhaps the biggest challenge to tree canopy enhancement. They are very harsh environments. Because trucks need access and egress, many ROW planting strips are not available for trees. As well, most businesses seem to maximize their available space for business purposes leaving very little land available for trees. However, there are still planting spaces available. As with downtown Seattle, the greatest opportunity for new trees, although limited, is to maximize street tree plantings in the ROW. An Opportunity for Tree Planting Incentives The industrial area probably presents one of the best opportunities for tree planting incentives. Incentives likely provide the best vehicle to entice business owners to plant their own trees. While a significant increase in the canopy coverage percentage in the industrial area may be wishful thinking, it should nevertheless be given a high priority. In this environment, a few additional trees would have significant visual impact. Inconsistent Tree Maintenance Perhaps because trees aren't seen as a primary need in the industrial areas, tree maintenance is good in some locations while only fair to outright brutal in others. A campaign to educate business owners about proper tree maintenance might save many trees that would otherwise become victim to poor maintenance. Goals and Actions: Urban Forest Resource • Locate and quantify potential tree planting sites. • Focus new plantings on "Industrial Landscape Streets." • Select tree species carefully. • Select planting locations carefully. • Protect existing trees. Management Framework • Review current planting requirements and exemptions. • Research what other cities have done in their industrial areas. Community Framework • Create tree planting incentives with business owners. • Develop and implement a tree planting education program for business owners. • Engage the Office of Economic Development and the Freight Movers in any tree planting discussions. �1 quite large. It is not known which institutions have tree inventories and to what extent the trees are actively managed. Desired Condition Institutional lands are typically `designed' landscapes. The selection of tree species and their location in the landscape must be thoughtful. We feel, however, that planting opportunities do exist throughout the range of institutional properties. The 30-year canopy coverage goal for this MU is 20%. Issues/Opportunities: A Source of Significant Trees Institutional properties represent a small percentage of Seattle's acreage, but they contribute to the city's tree canopy in a significant way. Many of these properties, such as the major college campuses, already have many beautiful and large trees. Some of these properties also have space available for additional tree planting. The Challenge of Maintenance The level of grounds and tree maintenance can be quite variable between institutional campuses. When budgets are tight, maintenance may be reduced in lieu of reducing budgets for educational programs. This often can have the double impact of reducing funding for tree preservation as well as new tree planting. Goals and Actions: Urban Forest Resource • Optimize age and species diversity. • Work with institutional land managers to preserve existing trees. • Encourage institutional land managers to focus on replanting removed trees first providing that the current function of the landscape can accommodate the tree(s). Management Framework • Protect existing trees and encourage tree planting. • Maximize opportunities for wood and byproduct salvage and reuse Community Framework • Engage the institutional community as urban forest partners. • Identify and work with the largest institutions first. • Provide opportunities for education based groups such as fraternities, sororities and clubs to become involved with planting trees on their campuses. 67 inventoried and managed. The size and species composition varies widely. Many of these trees are now of great size. Because the park system continues to grow, smaller trees also constitute a part of the standing tree inventory. Hazard tree mitigation is a high priority within this MU because many trees are located in high -use facilities. On average, park trees are currently on an 18-year maintenance cycle. The current canopy cover percentage within this MU is 19%. Desired Condition Trees in Seattle's Developed Parks and Boulevards MU need to continue to represent considerable species and age diversity. The 30-year canopy cover goal for this MU is 25% Issues/Opportunities: Tree Maintenance Currently, Parks has three, 3-person tree crews. One of these crews is funded through the Pro Parks Levy and the other two are general fund crews. Each crew is fully outfitted with an aerial lift truck, support truck and a large chipper. The work unit also has a stump grinder. The current pruning cycle for these crews is 18 years. It is recognized that a preferred pruning cycle is 5 to 6 years depending on location, indicating a need for additional tree maintenance resources. The $80,000 spent each year on hazard tree removal and replanting is a strong indicator that the current pruning cycle is leading to the premature death of park trees. Park staff estimate that $900,000 of additional resources are required each year to meet the preferred pruning cycle. (This assumes continuation of the Pro Parks Levy -funded tree crew.) Current Replanting Capacity Currently, Parks lacks a single, well-defined plan for tree replacement. Trees are removed from some parks without replacement. However, new capital projects typically do include trees as do major maintenance funded landscape restoration projects. The landscape enhancement element of the Pro Parks Levy also includes the planting of trees. A modest number of trees are planted each year within Parks' general fund programs. Still, these planting programs lack a coordinated plan that will ultimately ensure that trees removed from any park are ultimately replaced if so desired. New tree planting should focus first on replacement trees so that the original architecture of a park can be restored as desired. Tree Preservation Tree preservation in parks is more than simply acquiring additional maintenance resources. Situations arise in which park trees conflict with park use, CIP projects, and park safety. When this occurs, it is important that consideration be given to protection and preservation of park trees and other vegetation. If trees have to be removed, consistent with City tree policy, they should be replaced at the original site at a 2-to-1 ratio or at an alternate location as close as possible. Hazard Trees M. 4.10. Parks Natural Areas Description The property in this MU is in public ownership and includes Seattle's true remnant forests typically located within parklands and undeveloped ROWS. These properties include established forests, riparian corridors, meadows, wetlands, and portions of parks that are in a natural state of varying ecosystem value. This MU contains a total of 3,200 acres. Much of it is steep hillsides and watershed ravines ( ). Table 16. Parks Natural Areas MU Data* MU Statistics Parks'-Natbri) Area .. Current 30- ear Goal Acres in MU 3,608 MU as % of City land base 7% Canopy coverage 64% 80% Number of trees 568,700 711,900 Plantings needed 143,200 One time cost of plantings $7,160,000 Maintenance Costs r $2,843,500 $3,559,500 Benefits r StormwaterMitigation Value r $9,099,000 $11,390,000 Air Cleaning. Value r $2,275,000 $2,848,000 Carbon Sequestration Tons CO 21,600 27,000 Carbon Sequestration Value $ $654,000 $819,000 Other Benefits (Energy, Aesthetics, & etc $483,000 $605,000 Net Benefit All Benefits - All Costs r $12,511,000 $15,662,000 *AII values are based upon estimates and currently accepted models. This MU also contains most of Seattle's salmon -bearing streams. About 8 miles of urban creek area ties within 800+ acres of watersheds. The streams include Piper's, Venema, Thornton, Longfellow, Schmitz, Fauntleroy and Taylor creeks. In cooperation with Parks, SPU has undertaken numerous projects within these creek systems to remove barriers to fish passage and to generally improve habitat quality. Current Condition Because this unit contains a wide variety of ecosystem types, the `state of the forest' cannot be easily defined. In general, however, Seattle's forests are about 70% deciduous and 30% 71 An Ambitious Plan to Restore Seattle's Forests Although seriously compromised, Seattle's remnant forests remain an extremely valuable component of Seattle's overall urban forest ecosystem. The Urban Forest Sustainability Model objective to "maintain wildlife corridors to and from the city" is adequately fulfilled by Seattle's woodland. Birds and small mammals (up to the size of coyotes, raccoons, fox and opossums) move freely. Similarly, the creeks within these forests are witnessing increased populations of fish and other aquatic life, thanks in large part to the efforts of many dedicated volunteers and creek restoration projects funded by SPU. However, one only needs to look at the condition of the flora in many of the so-called forests to realize that the habitat values are soon to change for the worse forever if restorative action isn't taken soon. As mentioned earlier, to enhance forest restoration efforts, the Green Seattle Partnership will restore 2,500 acres of these forests by the year 2025. The Role of the. Community The community must play a large rote if urban remnant forests are to be restored and sustained in perpetuity. In 1994, Parks established a forest restoration working model that was then, and remains today, about 95% dependent on community volunteer support for success. In 2004, community volunteers contributed over 50,000 hours to the restoration of Seattle's forests and trails. The Green Seattle Partnership will continue this model well into the future, with its goal of 100,000+ annual hours of volunteer support at the program peak in 2010. Private Views and Public Trees Parks owns and manages many acres of forests on steep hillsides. Many homes are located above the forests. These homes in many cases would have dramatic vistas of mountains and water were it not for City -owned trees. Park's policies on private views have varied over the years. Twenty years ago, trees were allowed to be topped for views at the homeowner's expense. Because topping kills trees, Parks ended the practice. Currently, City park trees can be pruned for private views but cannot be topped or removed solely for that purpose. Goals and Actions Urban Forest Resource • Continue to work with the SUNP to inventory, assess and validate existing and new data on Seattle's remnant forests. • Continue to restore Seattle's forest lands via the Green Seattle Partnership and other means. • Establish a standalone riparian corridor forest inventory. • Establish evergreen canopy guidelines to support watershed protection and wildlife habitat. • Use more understory species, where appropriate, for increased and multi -layered canopy. 73 5. Moving Forward: Implementing the Plan The Urban Forest Management Plan is a roadmap for a strategic approach to manage Seattle's urban forest, in perpetuity. The general approach to guide overall plan implementation will include: • Develop program -wide annual workplans specifying actions, outcomes, responsible departments and staff, and budget implications, based on the goals and recommended actions in this plan. • Develop program -based budgets that bring together all of the initiatives and proposals from the different departments in support of the City's urban forest goals to allow for program -wide consideration of priorities. • Create a performance management system that will include urban forest health and management benchmarks as well as a system for reporting results within the City and the community and for informing budget decisions. • Create a process for updating the plan every 5 years including a mechanism for community input into the update. A broad range of actions that will forward the goal of a sustainable urban forest in Seattle over the next 30 years have been presented. When completed (following public review and comment) this section will identify key actions that have been prioritized and recommended for implementation over the next 1 to 3 years. 75 Average Annual Net Benefits Net benefits. Net benefits are calculated as the difference between total benefits and costs (B — C). Average annual net benefits (40-year total/40 years) increase with mature tree size.: • $1 to $8 for a small tree • $19 to $25 for a medium tree • $48 to $53 for a large tree For the purposes of this plan the estimated average tree for Seattle was a (larger) medium-sized tree based upon the professional review and opinion of City arborists. Average net benefits were set at $22 per tree. 77 lots, 2 caliper inches of tree must be planted or preserved for every 1,000 square feet of lot area. For example, a 6,000-square-foot lot would be required to plant or preserve 12 caliper inches of tree. This requirement could be met by planting new trees, preserving existing trees, or a combination of planting and preserving. In addition, the requirement can be met on the single-family lot or by planting or preserving trees in the public right-of-way (street trees). When trees are proposed to be preserved, a tree preservation plan is required. Multi -family: Tree Requirements in Lowrise Duplex/Triplex, Lowrise 1 and Lowrise 2 Zones. Subsection C of Section 23.45.015. Tree removal, retention and preservation are regulated for new development. This subsection of the Land Use Code requires that trees be planted or preserved when new multifamily dwelling units are constructed. The development standards are identical to the tree requirements for single-family zones, described above. Commercial: Setback Requirements in Commercial Zones. Subsection C of 23.47.014 and 23.47.016.C. This subsection of the Land Use Code requires a 5-foot setback from all street property lines where street trees are required by subsection C of 23.47.016 and it's not feasible to plant them in ROW according to City standards. Commercial: Screening and Landscaping Standards in Commercial Zones. Subsections B, C, and D 23.47.016. This subsection requires, among other non - related items, landscaping for new construction, street trees, and screening and landscaping standards for specific uses, such as parking lots and drive-in businesses. The following are required: • Landscaping for new construction is required at a rate of 5% of the lot area. The landscaping is required to be in an area visible to pedestrians or customers and an area that has adequate sunlight and space necessary to ensure plant survival. No trees are required as part of the 5% landscaping requirement. The Director is often obliged to waive or reduce this requirement based on the building proposal. In most cases, a landscaped planting strip is all that's required. • Street trees are generally required for all new construction, and for significant expansions of existing buildings or uses, in commercial zones. The Director, in consultation with the City Arborist, may reduce or waive the street tree requirements if the trees would obscure the visibility of retail uses or obstruct pedestrian access to retail uses. • Landscaping standards for specific uses, includes general landscaping requirements for surface parking areas, drive-in businesses, outdoor storage, mobile home parks, and lots located within the shoreline. In general, these standards require landscaping but don't specifically require trees. Director's Rule 13-92 (Landscaping standards, Including trees). While the code specifies how much landscaping and trees are required for a given project, Director's Rule 13-92 specifies what types of landscaping and trees are required. The Rule establishes requirements for drought tolerant plants and trees, and lists when landscaping plans are required and what elements they should contain (e.g., common and botanical names, number of trees, number of shrubs, and quantity of ground cover required, etc.). Director's Rule 6.2001 (Exceptional and Heritage Trees) The purpose of Director's Rule is to designate exceptional trees and Heritage Trees. This rule clarifies SEPA Plants and Animals Policy (SMC Section 25.05.675 N 2c.) for determining the value of outstanding trees on sites undergoing environmental review to establish appropriate tree protection mitigating measures. This rule also establishes a procedure for identifying Exceptional Trees under SMC Chapter 25.11. SDOT City of Seattle Board of Public Works Rules Chapter 4.3 describes beautification requirements within the street ROW area including permits, planting, maintenance, setbacks, and authority, 79 gives the decision -maker the ability to condition a project in order to mitigate the adverse impacts on rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species (plants or animals) of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value. Policy Parks and Recreation Policy. Parks Policy Number 060-P 5.6.1. "Tree Management, Maintenance, Pruning and/or Removal" Referred to as the "Parks Tree Policy", this document identifies what can and cannot be done to park -owned trees. Some of the more important elements of the policy pertain to view relief, the development of "vegetation management plans", the permit process for working on park -owned trees and specific areas of responsibility as pertains to park -owned trees. Programs Green Seattle Partnership The City has partnered with the non-profit Cascade Land Conservancy to restore and maintain the 2500 acres of forested parklands in Seattle that are in serious decline due to invasive plants such as ivy and blackberry. Community involvement is the key to the success of this ambitious 20-year program. Tree Fund Every fall the Department of Neighborhoods, provides trees to neighborhood groups to enhance the City's urban forest through the Tree Fund, a component of the Neighborhood Matching Fund. The City provides the trees, and neighbors share the work of planting and caring for the trees. Heritage Tree Program Trees that are unique as landmarks, or having exceptional characteristics or being associated with an historic building or event can be designated as Heritage trees. Community Stewardship Volunteer opportunities for planting and caring for trees and landscapes are available through Seattle Parks and Recreation (Parks) and the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). 81