Snohomish County Planning and Development Services John Lovick County Executive Clay White, Director 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S #604 Everett, WA 98201-4046 unchomish COUNT (425).Jgtg. Ax (425) 3 ^v32 To: From Snohomish County Council David Killingstad, Principal Planner, PDS, rr'0, L 11 l Date: July 11, 2013 ^. RE: Comments on Ordinance Amending Snohomish County Code Section 30.25.016 Relating to Tree Retention and Replacement This memo provides the Departments of Planning and Development Services (PDS), Public Works (DPW) and Parks and Recreation (Parks) analysis of implementation concerns with a proposed ordinance amending Snohomish County Code Section 30.26.016 relating to tree retention and replacement. PDS also provides some additional feedback based on our experience with the adopted regulations. Lastly, PDS has identified some additional options to address the issues identified. :_ In 2009, the County Council adopted Amended Ordinance No. 08-101 relating to design standards. Contained within that ordinance were new regulations pertaining to tree retention and tree replacement; specifically, SCC 30.25.016. The regulations lay out where significant trees need to be retained and at what ratios the trees need to be replaced when cut down. In addition, Amended Ordinance No. 08-101 modified the definition of what constitutes a significant tree. General comments An overarching concern of ours is the relationship between tree retention/replacement, the Growth Management Act, and policies encouraging infill development within urban growth areas. Under GMA the majority of new growth is supposed to be located within urban areas. By code these same urban areas are required to retain and replace significant trees. These two goals seem to be at odds with one another. As an example of the consequences of the requirements to retain and replace significant trees, we've heard anecdotal evidence that developers are passing on heavily wooded parcels in unincorporated urban growth areas. We also recently had a developer apply for an EDDS Deviation request (which was denied) to not require the connection of a public road based on the argument that the amount of grading for the new connection would reduce the area Page 1 of 5
available for the development in order to comply with the tree retention ratios. These are areas where according to the GMA, density is supposed to occur. The difficulty in having sufficient land available for complying with the tree replacement ratios after meeting the density requirements, combined with the high cost of the tree survey has forced developers to look elsewhere to develop land. Another general concern is that the intent of the tree retention and replacement regulations is not overly clear within title 30 SCC. There is some guidance in SCC 30.25.010 (Purpose) which states: (1) The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for landscaping, tree retention and tree replacement to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan and to achieve the following objectives: (a) Enhance neighborhood livability and mitigate potential land use incompatibility through landscaping and screening; (b) Reduce tree loss during land development and construction; and (c) Mitigate tree loss by providing for tree replacement. (2) The provisions of this chapter should enhance compatibility between uses and zones and build continuity within neighborhoods while reducing the impacts of new development and minimizing the visual impact of parking areas and detention facilities and other special uses that require screening from residential uses. Additional guidance on intent is found in two findings taken from Amended Ordinance No. 08-101 on Urban Residential Design Standards. They read as follows: Trees play a pronounced and important role in county-wide soil conservation, soil enrichment and erosion control, and provide wildlife habitat. According to water budget studies prepared in developing the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, approximately 50 percent of annual rainfall is intercepted by foliage, including trees, and evaporated during the rainy season, which serves as a stormwater management tool. Trees enhance the value of property by creating a visually, psychologically, and aesthetically appealing environment. They improve soil stabilization, improve water quality, reduce stormwater runoff and better preserve the forested character of our region and county. Amendments to SCC 30.25.010 are necessary to incorporate tree retention and replacement objectives into the purpose statement. The addition of tree retention and tree replacement requirements as a part of land development activity enables the county to advance multiple objectives for neighborhood livability and environmental quality articulated in various chapters of the GMACP. Specifically, these provisions are intended to produce the following benefits to the natural environment and to the citizens of Snohomish County: enhanced residential property values; improved soil stabilization; improved water quality; reduced stormwater runoff; improved air quality; enhanced wildlife habitat; and better preservation of the forested character of our region and county. PDS believes that a good starting point for discussing possible changes to the regulations in SCC 30.25.016 would be to clearly define the intent of the county's tree replacement and retention requirements as they relate to the GMA and other County and state requirements. Page 2 of 5
Implementation issues with current ordinance before Council The proposed amendments would require creation of a new administrative program during implementation. It is PDS' view that the administrative program would not be dissimilar to that required for parks, schools and road mitigation programs, with associated staffing costs. In considering such a program, while reconciliation of the following would not necessarily need to be included in code, we highlight the questions to identify the breadth of areas that would need to be addressed in implementation: 1. Would the PDS director be the final authority? 2. A number of departments would be involved in implementing the proposed code amendments. Would applicants negotiate with the departments independently? 3. Which department would administer the installation, maintenance, and permanent protection if trees were replaced in County parks, right-of-way, or other county property, or within a city? 4. Who would maintain and permanently protect, and who would bear the cost of tree replacement on private property in easements or tracts? 5. Who will administer the fees identified in 30.25.016(9)(b)? As other fees are included in Chapter 30.86, can any proposed fees be included in that section of code instead of the proposed section?. 6. How would the fees that are collected be used? Where? By when? Who would administer it? 7. What if a department, city or private property owner is not interested in planting trees on their property? Does the money sit in the fund sit indefinitely? 8. What are impacts to the value of property that contains off-site replacement trees? 9. What are the impacts on future development of property that contains off-site replacement trees? Individual department comments on current ordinance before Council Department of Parks and Recreation The Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) notes that it will require significant staff time to manage requests for tree placement, which will require applicant coordination, identification of suitable sites, possible PDS coordination (for planting in NGPA areas), tree installation, maintenance and program monitoring. Staff time is not currently available to handle this workload. If planting is envisioned to be accomplished by the applicant on Parks properties, staff time will be required to monitor work. Also, Parks requires individual Rights of Entry (ROE) for this type of activity. An individualized ROE must be developed for each installation, evidence of insurance collected and installations monitored. Page 3 of 5
There are a limited number of park sites that would benefit from replacement tree installation and the majority of these are located outside of urban areas. If installation were to occur at these sites, the benefit realized from these plantings would be far less than the ecological value of the original stand (assuming the majority of projects that would take advantage of this program would be located in urban areas). Parks is supportive of collection of a replacement fee and sees the value in the fees being available for tree purchase and installation for specific projects. As an example, this type of funding could be used to purchase the trees scheduled for installation at Miner's Corner Park (currently under construction). This project will be adding a significant number of trees to a previously grassed property and it is located adjacent to an Urban Growth Area. Ideally, Parks feels that this program should be restructured such that the tree replacement fees were used to acquire lands within the same watershed as the project, and that the lands be located in urban areas such that reforesting of the property could replace the function of the removed trees. Additionally, Parks thought that this funding should also include staff costs to oversee the program and manage the acquired properties and plantings. Department of Public Works The Department of Public Works is concerned that with the ever changing drainage and environmental requirements that impact DPW's management of the County's roads, locating replacement trees in the county right-of-way could have long term impacts on road replacement, future expansions and public safety. For example, if DPW needed to acquire additional right-ofway at a future date are they responsible for replacing any trees that were planted under subsection (9)(a)? Alternatively, what if a replacement tree planted under subsection (9) becomes a hazard, can they remove the tree without having to replant it? Issues with tree retention and replacement provisions (30.25.016) not in the current ordinance Based on recent experience with the regulations in SCC 30.25.016, PDS has identified additional issues beyond those addressed in the proposed ordinance. PDS believes that any code project amending this section should also consider the following: 1. SCC 30.25.016(1) states "engaged in residential land development or construction within unincorporated urban growth areas...". Yet the second sentence states "County approval shall be integrated into the permit review process...". This section needs a clear applicability statement. 2. The phrase "special requirements" in SCC 30.25.016(3)(a) is not defined. 3. The language in SCC 30.25.016(3)(c)(iii) appears to require a survey of significant trees despite the fact that they could have already been removed. 4. The language in SCC 30.25.016(4) seems confusing and contradictory and could be revised to improve readability. 5. It is not clear if the replacement trees are required to meet the general landscaping requirements in SCC 30.25.015. 6. SCC 30.25.016(7)(d) specifies that a significant evergreen tree must be replaced with comparable native species. Unfortunately no such requirement exists for significant deciduous trees which are also valuable to the natural environment. Page 4 of 5
Conclusion In closing, we are concerned about the impact of this ordinance on our existing work program, should the Council choose to refer it to PDS for further processing. In our estimation, this code development project will require a moderate amount of resources and time to complete. For example, there will need to be stakeholder outreach to other departments, cities and towns, and stakeholders including the development and the environmental community. Our recent experience with the changes to sign regulations and billboards provides some guidance on the level of effort required. Rather than a Council referred ordinance, our preference would be to work with you on determining an appropriate timeframe under which to complete the work taking into consideration available staff resources and work already committed to for the remainder of the year. This will also provide the opportunity to develop other options that could be considered for tree retention and replacement provisions. PDS has already developed some preliminary options in this area. CC: Clay White, Director PDS Peter Camp, Executive Director Barb Mock, Manager PDS Tom Rowe, Manager, PDS Jacqueline Reid, Supervisor, PDS Tom Teigen, Director, Parks Erik Olson, Transportation Specialist, DPW Will Hall, AICP, Legislative Analyst, Council Page 5 of 5