Cmd030221EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
March 2, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
CALL TO ORDERIFLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Dave Turley, Finance Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rolide, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge
the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection
with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATION
PROCLAMATION HONORING MARY LOU BLOCK
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation honoring Mary Lou Block and acknowledging that her contributions
to the City of Edmonds will be missed.
Councilmember K. Johnson shared that her last memory of Mary Lou was sitting on park bench
overlooking Marina Beach; they had just completed a tour of the entire Edmonds waterfront that was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 1
organized by Val Stewart and led by Bill Phillips and included his activities on the Planning Board, Mary
Lou's activities as Planning Director and Mr. Cook from Edmonds-Woodway High School. The tour of
the waterfront provided a history lesson of everything on the waterfront from Brackett's Landing to the
Marsh and beyond, a wonderful day for all of them.
Mary Lou Block's husband, Peter Block, accepted the proclamation. He thanked Mayor Nelson, the City
Council, the Port Commission and friends and coworkers in attendance for honoring Mary Lou with the
proclamation and her many contributions to the City, County and Port. She would have been so pleased
and proud to receive this recognition as she greatly valued her work in public service. He commented
there was never a day when she did not look forward to going to work and she treasured the many
relationships she developed over the years through her service.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, commented Perrinville flooding has been so severe that the City stormwater
engineers were unable to control it, , salmon are unable to access Perrinville Creek, and moving the
streambed is considered an option. This tragedy in the Perrinville Watershed proves the area is in crisis
and adds greater urgency of the issue of development of the land above the creek known as Perrinville
Woods. It is imperative that Perrinville Woods be left to do its work of absorbing rainwater. The City
must find a way to keep those trees and as many others as possible. The destruction of Perrinville Creek
demonstrates the necessity of creating a tree code that will actually preserve trees needed for stormwater
absorption throughout the City. The Perrinville Watershed problem and the dramatic loss of tree canopy
citywide are the result of decades of shortsighted development. Now the City Council and Mayor are
faced with the job of figuring out how to clean up the mess. Fortunately, the City has dedicated elected
officials who care deeply about the environment. To start with, the citizens are counting on them for an
effective tree code.
Gregg Schwab, Assistant Superintendent, Edmonds School District, provided an update on reentry plans
to bring back K-2 and special education students beginning March 22"d. Fall sports are also underway
with the first round of contests this week. Students in grades 3-12 will be brought back in smaller groups
beginning on March 29"' There is a capital levy on the upcoming ballot; to the question of how can the
District have a capital levy going to voters in less than two months while dealing with the COVID-19
pandemic, he said how can the District not continue to move forward with a 2021 capital levy.
Harmony Weinberg, Communications Manager, Edmonds School District, explained the 2021 capital
levy needs to go to voters next month because the District's capital needs are critical. The need to
preserve schools does not go away just because not all students are back in person yet. Students will be
back and the buildings need to be ready for them. Ballots are due April 27"' and will be mailed around
April 8"'. More information about specifics regarding the capital levy and information about the tax rate,
which would remain a steady education tax rate if successful, is available on the District's website. She
offered to return to the Council to provide more details on the levy. She summarized four reasons for the
capital levy, 1) preserving buildings by making necessary repairs, 2) safety, security and accessibility
improvements are necessary, 3) addressing capacity issues; many Edmonds schools are over capacity and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 2
the population will continue to grow, elementary schools are currently at 107% capacity, and 4) replacing
two very old schools, Spruce and Oak Heights Elementary Schools.
(Written comments submitted to PubIicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENTS AND PAYROLL CHECKS
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM NATHANIEL
COOK
4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH
HBB FOR DESIGN OF THE GATEWAY SIGNS AS PART OF THE HWY 99
REVITALIZATION & GATEWAY PROJECT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2021 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT
Finance Director Dave Turley explained there are 31 requests; detailed decision packages are contained in
the Council packet, including three he will present tonight as they. He reviewed three new decision
packages that were added late and were not discussed during the Finance Committee meeting:
• Mayor Nelson's proposal to add $25,000 to this year's Development Services budget for a study
to assess the City's current tree canopy coverage
• Reauthorize Crime Prevention Officer related cost center (frozen in the 2021 budget)
+ Reauthorize PD Police Officer First Class (frozen in the 2021 budget)
Mr. Turley commented the Police Department currently has seven vacancies; the request to reauthorize
these positions is necessary now to allow recruitment to begin. With the exception of the tree canopy
study, the remaining items have been previously approved by full Council. The first 28 decision packages
were reviewed and approved at the February 91' Finance Committee. The overall effect would be to
increase beginning fund balance by $3,256,000, increase revenue by $4,272,000, increase expense by
$6,554,000 and decrease ending fund balance by $25,000 for the tree canopy assessment. He
recommended approving the ordinance in the packet amending Ordinance No. 4211 as a result of
unanticipated transfers and expenditures of various funds and fixing a time when the same shall become
effective.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the City's funding of an SRO officer was not deleted from the
budget because it was being used for another purpose. She asked if the proposed budget amendment
would delete the SRO and create another crime prevention position. Mr. Turley relayed the Edmonds
School District decided a couple years ago they did not want the SRO so the Police Department
repurposed it to a different position, possibly the crime prevention officer. Both these positions and all the
other positions in the budget were approved 18 months ago in December 2019 and included in the 2020
budget.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 3
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the SRO was still in the 2020 budget even with the addition of a
crime prevention officer. Mr. Turley answered the SRO position was repurposed to something else so
there is not an SRO in the budget. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the position was
repurposed to. Mr. Turley did not recall and Mayor Nelson said there was no one present tonight from the
Police Department to answer that questions.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented there was one omission.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
CARRY FORWARD $10,000 FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ALLOCATION FOR INTERNS TO DO AN EXTENSIVE STUDY OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained this was previously approved in the budget but due to difficulties
in the Planning Department and COVID, the positions were not filled. Carrying forward the funds would
be a placeholder and could be used to hire interns this summer or next. She summarized this was not
adding anything new to the budget, it had already been approved. She relayed Development Services
Director Shane Hope's comment that it was an oversight.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the $10,000 would pay for, commenting interns generally
did not cost $10,000. She would not support it without an understanding of how the $10,000 would be
used. Ms. Hope said the $10,000 amount was identified previously and she did not recall the exact plan
for how it would be spent. She recalled there would need to be at least two interns and their work would
take a period of time. While interns do not cost as much as staff, obtaining interns with the right
background does require some money. That amount was identified to allow them to do a detailed study,
compile information in a professional manner and make a presentation.
Councilmember Olson commented the prioritization of historic elements in downtown Edmonds was one
of her priorities and was reinforced during doorbelling, specifically the movie theater which
Councilmember K. Johnson and she have been in conversation with the owners about. She was excited
about this carry forward and joined the past Council in supporting it. She also supported paying the
interns, commenting only the wealthiest students can afford to do unpaid internships so this would open it
to all.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Councilmember K. Johnson's comment that this would be a
placeholder and that not including it as a carryforward was an oversight. Given the current situation, she
asked if it was feasible to do this now or was that why it was a placeholder. Ms. Hope answered the intent
had been to start early in 2020 but COVID changed the focus and it was put on the back burner. Life got
so busy that staff did not think about again until Councilmember K. Johnson brought up again. The
question is whether to include it in the budget as a placeholder so later in the year when students can be
hired the project could begin.
Council President Paine asked for clarification that this amount was approved in 2019 for the 2020
budget. Ms. Hope agreed it was.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked about the cost center. Mr. Turley said it was in last year's budget so it
will be carried forward exactly the same. If this item is approved, lie recommended the motion state "as
amended."
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 4
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Mr. Williams address the budget amendment related to the
gasification project, such as what is going on with the amendment and how that wonderful project is
progressing. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the most notable thing about this budget
amendment is it is very large; the reason it exists is when the budget was being developed in mid-2019 for
2020, it was anticipated the carbon recovery project would be in construction toward the end of 2020 and
would have spent money rapidly. That did not happen so the spending authority needs be to carried over
into 2021. Nothing has changed related to the cost of the project; it is still a $26,121,040 project. This is
simply an accounting adjustment related to when the funds will be spent.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked him to address how things in general were progressing with COVID
and if there were any additional expenditures. Mr. Williams said with regard to COVID, the department
has gotten by surprisingly well during the past 12 months. Employees worked split shifts March to May
but since then were able to get all the PPE and protocols in place to do all their work. It has been a strain
but not a financial burden on the department. Some expenses have been reimbursed by CARES Act
funding but not a major amount. CARES Act funds were used for additional janitorial services that were
required as well as to support LEAP that Parks is operating in the Frances Anderson Center which
required a full-time temporary custodian. COVID has not had a major impact on the underlying budget.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS WITH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT.
At Councilmember Distelhorst's suggestion to include the ordinance verbiage, Councilmember Buckshnis
restated the motion:
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 4211 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. 2020 YEAR END FINANCE PRESENTATION
Finance Director Dave Turley reviewed:
■ Diagram of 32 City funds (propriety funds [5] and governmental funds [27])
• 2021 Expenditure budgets by fund type (in millions of dollars)
General Fund $46.11
Sewer Fund $35.63
Water Fund $10.58
Special Revenue Funds $9.04
Storm Fund $6.85
Capital Projects Funds $5.36
Debt Service Fund $2.75
Internal Service Funds $2.54
• 2020 Sales Tax Revenues
Sales Tax Receipted
For sales made in
Budgeted
Actual
Over(Under)
Actual as a
in
Collections
Collections
Budget
Percentage
of budget
January 2020
November 2019
$635,000
$692,248
$57,248
109%
February 2020
December 2019
800,000
847,349
47,349
106%
March 2020
January 2020
595,000
648,279
53,279
109%
April 2020
Februar 2020
565,000
501,725
61 275
89%
Ma 2020
March 2020
73 0,000
500,196
229,804
69%
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 5
June 2020
Aril 2020
666,000
570,127
95,873
86%
Ju!l 2020
May 2020
707,000
688,334
18,666)
97%
August 2020
June 2020
785,000
734,031
(50,969)
94%
Sept 2020
July 2020
730,000
736,091
6,091
101%
October 2020
August 2020
748,000
799,304
51,304
107%
November 2020
Sept 2020
789,000
803,547
14,547
102%
December 2020
October 2020
1 700,000
793,815
93,815
113%
$8,450,000
$8,317,046
$ 132,954
98%
• Graph of 2020 Sales Tax Receipts, Projected v Actual
• Graph of Sales Tax Revenues Year over Year and Quarter over Quarter by category
■ Sales Tax Revenues Year over Year and Quarter over Quarter by category
Year over Year
Quarter over quarter
Retail Automotive
-2%
+13%
Misc Retail
+16%
+25%
Construction Trade
-7%
+19%
Business Services
+8%
+16%
Eating & Drinking
-21%
-16%
All other
-2%
+4%
• Pie chart of 2021 General Fund Expenditure Budgets (from largest to smallest)
o Police Department
o Fire District Contract
o Parks & Rec
o Development Services
o Engineering
o Facilities Maintenance
o City Attorney, Prosecutor, Public Defender
o Comm. Srvs/Econ. Devel.
o Municipal Court
o Mayor's Office & HR
o Finance
o Prisoner Care
o Other
o Transfers to Other Funds
o City Clerk
o Public Works Admin.
o City Council
• IJndated General Fund Results for 2020 (nreGminarv)
Amended Budget
Actual Results
%
Total Revenues
$44,055,157
$41,660 318
95%
Revenue Under Budget
-5.4%
Total Ex enses
$49,365,292
$44,014,931
89%
Expenses Under Budget 1
-10.8%
Revenues minus expenses
$ 5,310,135
$ 2,354 613
Beginning Fund Balance
$15,552,187
$15 552,187
Ending Fund Balance
10 242,052
13,197,574
• Fund Balance in the General Fund
o Reserved and unreserved
o General Fund Operating Reserve = 16% of GF Operating Adopted Expenditure Budget (in
millions of dollars)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 6
General Fund & Subfunds
GF Operating Reserve
Civic Field
Dec 2019
$9.33
$7.72
$2.00
Sept 2020
$5.24
$7.72
$2.00
Dec 2020
$7.04
$7.72
$2.00
• Further financial information about the City of Edmonds, presentations are given in Finance
Committee each month, and recordings of all Council meetings and Committee meetings are
available on the City website at http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx
• PDF copies of the monthly and quarterly reports are also available on the City website at
http://www.edmondswa.gov/financial-reports.htmi
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the fire contract was settled in 2020 or 2021. Mr. Turley said
the payment was made in December 2020 so it was reflected in 2020 expenses. Councilmember
Buckshnis recalled Mr. Turley recommending that it not be included in the 2021 budget and he was right.
3. DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT
Development Services Director Shane Hope commented as the City Council and Planning Board, who
have met regarding this many times, know this set of tree regulations are not the total sum of what tree
regulations may be in the future but represent an important first step. This is being presented tonight as
the first stage of the tree regulations, particularly related to development. The presentation will also
include a review and opportunity for input on the timeline for Stage 2. She recommended the Council
adopt the ordinance with any amendments and then move forward with Stage 2.
Environmental Project Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Recommendation
o Staged Review of Tree Regulations
R Stage 1 - Updated Draft Tree Regulations
■ Stage 2 - Provide direction on next round of tree regulations and programs
Stage 1 Updated Draft Tree Regulations
o Updated regulations in Attachment 1
■ Added definition for canopy
■ Added additional parameters for maintenance of previously topped trees
■ Tree plan must show trees on adjacent property where tree canopies extend onto project
s ite
■ Development sites that lack significant trees are required to plant so there are at least 3
trees per 8,000 square feet of lot area
• Minor housekeeping and corrections
Stage 1 Ordinance
o Adopting this ordinance is intended to establish the initial round of new tree regulations
primarily related to development:
■ Strengthen tree retention and protection as development occurs;
■ Set priorities for tree retention;
Strengthen tree replacement requirements;
* Establish a fee -in -lieu replacement program;
■ Clarify permitting exemption for single-family properties;
• Establish a tree fund allowable uses for it;
■ Strengthen civil penalties for tree violations; and
Provide opportunity for conservation
o This is a strong start, does not address all the goals in the UFMP, more goals addressed more
in Stage 2
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 7
Ms. Hope reviewed
• Stage 2 Upcoming Tree Related Items
Item
Timing
Inventory of downtown Streets
Q2 2021- 3 2021
Inventory of other public trees
2022 or TBD
Street Tree Plan update
Q2 2021- 4 20221
Tree canopy assessment
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Heritage Tree Program
Q32021- 4 2021
Tree Canopy Goal
Q3 2021
Assessment of staffing and other resource needs
Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Exploration of other incentive programs
2022 or TBD
Open sace acquisition
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Tree retention on grivate 2roperty (not related to development)
4 2021
Partnerships with other organizations
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Annual reports on City tree activities
Q2 2021
Treegive-away program
2022 or TBD
View corridors
2022 or TBD
Wildlife & habitat corridors
Q3 2021- 4 2021
Expanded public education & Information
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Stormwater & watershed Analysis
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Other tree -related issues
2022 or TBD
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers
asking one question during their turn. As the first two Councilmembers did not have any questions,
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested returning to questions by request after one round of round robin.
Mayor Nelson agreed.
Councilmember L. Johnson referenced the outline for the future, specifically tree retention on private
property, recalling during discussions a couple weeks ago, Ms. Hope anticipated the additional parts of
code could be completed six months. However, from the list of items in Stage 2, it appears the quarter she
anticipated work on the topic would end is now when that would begin. Ms. Hope answered it depends on
how long the Council takes on each item. The list illustrates a conservative view, the dates shown are
when the items would come to Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed the Council has not yet had a discussion about the broader issues.
She suggested taking them one by one and reaching a consensus before editing the proposed regulations.
For example, there is a lot of concern about conserving native species, protecting views, and impacts on
the watershed due to development.
Councilmember Olson referred to tree retention on private property and view issues and suggested taking
those together because views are not just for homeowners, but residents and visitors who want to see the
water. It is a balancing act and to the extent you cannot have it all due to climate and environmental
pressures, the scale is tipped to tree protection. Taking those two issues in silos would not work for the
ultimate objective to find the right balance for all the priorities. Ms. Hope commented one of ways staff
looks at it is views themselves are part of the thinking related to tree retention on private property. View
corridors may be a more specialized topic related to City streets, etc. Councilmember Olson relayed her
understanding that view corridors would be a separate issue but the view issue related to private property
would have a different timeline. Ms. Hope agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 8
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the issues cannot be considered in silos; issues include housing,
stormwater, and trees that are being cut down and not replaced with native or trees with like diameters.
She commented a tree with a 12 inch diameter is 60 years old. The Council received a letter from Mr.
Farmen stating 57 trees were cut to build a 4,000 square foot home. She suggested determining in the
timeline how to include housing codes such as low impact housing development that addresses retaining
trees and zero lot lines as well as view versus non -view. She believed the City should mail the small tree
brochure to all the residents in the bowl to assure people the intent is not to put big trees in the bowl or
view areas. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson about having a discussion about the overarching
global aspect and the Council's intent regarding how to retain and enhance the tree canopy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the City of Edmonds does not have regulations that protect
views. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the only place she was aware that had
such regulations was Innis Arden. Ms. Hope said that was a notable one although there may be others, but
it was not a common thing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she wanted to be sure people were clear
the City's codes do not protect views.
Council President Paine appreciated the desire to have a broader discussion, but what is before the
Council is the conservation subdivision design flexibility tree code. Those broader discussions will bring
in the desires within the proposed code and she wanted those discussions to occur during code
amendments. This is at least the third time the Council has seen the draft codes as well as presentations
and discussions at the Planning Board. There is some pressure related to approval of this ordinance as the
building moratorium ends on March 10"' so the Council has tonight and the March 9t" meeting to get
through this.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section 23.10.040 Exemptions, commenting it does not require a
permit, but exempts removal of trees on single family lots except if within a critical area. However,
Section 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity, refers to retention of trees for
new single family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single family house.
She asked if the intent was to exempt single family homes from the tree regulations. Ms. Hope answered
the proposal in Stage 1 is to deal with it at the development stage, require retention or planting of trees at
the development state, to maintain the existing exemption for non -developing single family properties,
but put that on the list of topics for Stage 2. That will be a very complex issue such as permitting
requirements, notification requirements, criteria, and resources to implement and provide education to the
public and property owners.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if was the intent to apply the regulations to single family lots that were
being developed or redeveloped. Ms. Hope answered yes.
Councilmember L. Johnson made the following motion, recognizing there were time constraints and to
facilitate discussion of amendments:
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW
TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN
REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND 23.10.000 INTENT AND PURPOSES, BY ADDING A NEW C "PRESERVE, THROUGH
DESIGN AND INTENTION WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 9
Councilmember Olson asked for clarification of the definition of intention in this statement. Council
President Paine answered it is to affirmatively address the preservation of wildlife corridors and habitat,
look at that as a meaningful element during design review for each project.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if that was addressed within the packet. Council President Paine
answered no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her question was to Ms. Hope. Ms. Hope said wildlife
corridors and habitat are addressed in critical area ordinances and there may be a reference in the
regulations. She said Council President Paine may be interested in ensuring that was also stated in the
intent statement. Mr. Lien said most wildlife habitat corridors are along stream channels which are
protected by the critical area code and the critical areas code is referenced several times in this code. One
of the things that could be done during Stage 2 with regard to wildlife habitat corridors although it may
not be regulatory, would be to improve the quality of habitat corridors by partnering with groups such as
Adopt a Stream and Students Saving Salmon as well as stormwater crews who often come in contact with
property owners. There are regulations related to wildlife corridors in the critical area code but education,
outreach and partnership with other organizations will help improve the quality of corridors. Much of the
City was developed before critical area regulations, SEPA, etc. and although there are buffers established
in the CAO, they often do not exist on the ground. Improving the habitat corridors will be incorporated
into Stage 2 regulations.
Mr. Lien offered to display Word version of the code (Attachment 1) to illustrate amendments.
Councilmembers agreed that would be helpful.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked about the definitions of preservation and habitat and how would this
amendment be implemented. Ms. Hope said typically the purpose statement did not get into the regulatory
detail. The regulatory detail will state how it will be implemented and it did not necessarily need to be
identified or defined separately.
Councilmember Olson asked staff's thoughts about addressing this in the critical area ordinance or
including in the intent. Ms. Hope said she did not see it as necessary, but it was not harmful. Wildlife
corridors and habitat are an important issue, but that will be spelled out in more detail in the tree retention
scheme and will be handled in a greater extent in the critical area regulations which govern wildlife
corridors and habitat in quite a lot of detail. She summarized it would not hurt to include the language but
its inclusion in the intent statement did not necessarily change things.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND SECTION 23.10.000 INTENT AND PURPOSE TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AS A
NEW SUBSECTION C. "IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY'S
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN."
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City did not have a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and she was
unsure this was relevant until the CAP was approved by the City Council.
Councilmember Olson commented knowing there is a CAP now and the Council would not be revisiting
the code once the new CAP is approved, she favored including this amendment.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 10
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO AMEND TO ADD TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION A DEFINITION FOR NATIVE TREES
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE ITEMS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 303 OF THE PACKET AND
LISTED IN APPENDIX F AND WOULD INCLUDE BOTH BROADLEAF TREES AND
CONIFERS SUCH AS BIG LEAF MAPLE AND DOUGLAS FIR.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented there has been a lot of discussion about maintaining native trees,
but it is not defined or spelled out in the code, an oversight that needs to be corrected.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien said that was not really a definition as the only specificity was bigleaf maple and Douglas fir and
there are many other native trees. Native trees are currently mentioned in the code and the critical area
code states replacement trees need to be native and indigenous; many trees are native to the region but not
necessarily indigenous to Edmonds. He would need soiree time to draft a definition of native trees and
could not have it ready for the ordinance tonight.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to packet page 303, which Mr. Lien said was from the UFMP.
Councilmember K. Johnson said that page includes a description of native trees and a list of common
ones and states a more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F. Ms. Hope supposed there could
be a definition that refers to the UFMP as identified on page X and in Appendix F. Ms. Hope agreed it
was difficult to make complicated amendments on the fly; if that was an acceptable approach and it was
later determine that was not working, it could be amended.
Councilmember K. Johnson said that that was her initial suggestion; she wanted to refer to the UFMP's
definition of native trees. She commented if trees were not growing in Edmonds, they would not be
indigenous to a certain extent.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO AMEND TO REVISE FORMER SUBSECTION C WHICH IS NOW SUBSECTION D AS
FOLLOWS "TO PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY BIODIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF EDMONDS, AND PROVIDE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATION BY PRESERVING... ".
Councilmember Olson suggested replacing "by" with "and," change "preserving" to "preserve," and
remove "and" prior to "provide." Councilmember L. Johnson accepted that friendly amendment.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
REVISE SUBSECTION D TO READ, "TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY,
BIODIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
RESIDENTS OF EDMONDS, AND PROVIDE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATION By
AND PRESERVEING...'I
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said a lot of people do not believe hazard and nuisance need to be defined
separately. She suggested changing the definition of hazard trees to "a Li ni ican tree that is dead, dying,
damaged..." and deleting the definition of nuisance tree because a hazard tree is a nuisance tree and a
nuisance tree is a hazard tree. Mr. Lien said he had seen another amendment that would make a hazard
tree and a nuisance tree the same. By only adding "significant," there is still a difference between a
nuisance and a hazard tree. He referred to the definition of a hazard tree, "A tree that is dead, dying,
diseased, damaged, or structurally defective tree." A nuisance tree may be a big, perfectly healthy tree but
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page l l
it is buckling a driveway, clogging a sewer line, or close to a house but is not in danger of falling. That is
the reason a distinction was made between a hazard tree and a nuisance tree.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented they are both hazards. Regardless of the tree, if it is buckling a
driveway, it is a hazard. She clarified a healthy tree that was causing a hazard was a hazard tree not a
nuisance tree. Mr. Lien said the definition could be amended to cover both. The way the definitions are
now, if nuisance was deleted, the current definition of hazard tree would not cover a nuisance tree. Ms.
Hope recalled an amendment that was submitted that could cover both added, "or causing significant
physical damage to a private or public structure, sidewalk, curb, road, water, sewer or stormwater utilities,
driveway or parking lot."
Councilmember Buckshnis commented some hazard or nuisance trees are good for the environment
because they can be used for snags. Perhaps that could be a reason to differentiate the definition because a
nuisance tree is a hazard and a hazard tree may not be nuisance but could be kept for snag purposes. Mr.
Lien said there are hazard tree regulations in critical areas that encourage creation of wildlife snags rather
than removal because if a snag fell, it would not cause damage, but would provide some habitat. That
would not fit in the definition of a hazard or nuisance tree.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out there are different decision criteria for hazard trees and nuisance
trees. Unless the decision criteria was changed in 23.10.040.17, there needs to be different definitions. The
type of documentation the code asks for is different for nuisance trees and hazard trees.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO ADD "SIGNIFICANT" TO THE HAZARD TREE DEFINITION.
Council President Paine said a significant tree is 6" D13H.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if there were times a hazard tree was not 6" but rather 4" and then
would not qualify as a hazard tree. Mr. Lien answered a tree smaller than 6" could be hazard tree but that
was much easier to remedy than a larger tree. These regulations are tied to the cutting and removal of
significant trees. If a tree is not a significant tree, it is not subject to these regulations provided it is
outside a critical area. If a tree is a hazard tree but is not a significant tree and there are no critical areas, it
could be removed. The regulations apply once the 6" threshold is met. Councilmember Distelhorst
observed the proposed amendment would not have any change to implementation.
Councilmember Olson asked how the amendment adds value to the definition. If a tree is smaller and it is
a hazard, it may not be restricted from removal, it may be a greater hazard if it were bigger. A tall skinny
tree that could fall on a car is still a hazard tree. She prefer not to approve the amendment and said the
fewer words to get the point across, the better. If the Council is iffy on something, she preferred to err on
leaving it out.
Councilmember Buckshnis said a hazard tree is a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally
defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees. She wanted to add "significant" because
younger trees are typically not dead, dying, diseased, damaged, etc. Mr. Lien said there may be a tree that
is not a significant tree (less than 6") but is considered a protected tree by this code. A protected tree is "A
tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a
permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction." These are trees
that are required to be retained or planted through development. It may not be 6" but has specific
protection requirements including a protected tree covenant that's recorded on property. Including only
"tree" in the definition instead of "significant tree" would cover both a significant and a protected tree.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 12
Council President Paine asked if the hazard tree definition followed the tree assessment tool used by the
ISA. Mr. Lien answered removal of a hazard tree outside a critical area requires a tree risk assessment
form completed by an arborist. There are times that is not required such as if there is a large, obviously
dead tree next to a house. The tree risk assessment form is required for a live tree.
Councilmember Olson asked for additional clarification. Mr. Lien explained there is a different category
of trees created by this code, a protected tree. It may/may not meet the definition of a significant tree. Not
including "significant" in the definition of hazard tree would cover both significant and protected trees.
Adding "significant" limits it to a tree 6"+ DBH.
Mr. Taraday commented adding "significant" to the definition could make it difficult to remove a
protected tree that has become a hazard as it is smaller than 6". Councilmember Olson asked if that would
be a bad thing. Mr. Taraday said it could be a bad thing; he assumed the City wanted to make it easy to
remove hazardous trees.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the tree code is about significant or bigger trees. She asked if a permit
was required for a hazardous significant tree or could a hazard tree of any size be cut. Mr. Lien answered
documentation is required, not a permit. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if documentation was only
required for significant trees. Mr. Lien answered alteration'of a critical area required critical area review
and there are specific requirements in the critical area code related to hazard trees. Outside critical areas,
this code would address a hazard tree. Councilmember Buckshnis said this code is dealing with big trees.
Councilmember L. Johnson said it was shortsighted to consider only big trees, big trees started small so
the code is about all trees and what they will eventually be. While there is additional emphasis on
protecting large trees that cannot be replaced in our lifetime, there is also emphasis on what can be done
within our lifetime to benefit future generations. She wanted to ensure that fuller picture was kept in
mind.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to a tree in Yost Park by the pool that was cut down because it was
hazardous, but the first 15 feet were retained and provided a lot of insects for birds, etc. She asked if
consideration had been given to retaining the trunks of trees for that purpose, observing it may not be
attractive on single family property. Mr. Lien said the critical area code does specifically address that;
rather than removing a tree it should be turned into a wildlife snag. Ms. Hope said the challenge would be
requiring all hazardous trees to become snags such as on a small single family property. That is
encouraged and will be part of the public outreach.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON, AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON
ABSTAINING.
Councilmember Olson referred to Section 23.10.020 definitions, N.2, pointing out the second "track"
should be "TRAQ." Mr. Taraday said that could be handled as a scrivener's error.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.A INTRODUCTION. "...THE CITY REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A
TREE RETENTION AND PROTECTION PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH..."
Mr. Lien said tree retention plan is mentioned at least 13 other places in the code; therefore if this change
is approved it would need to be changed throughout the code. Council President Paine recommended the
change be made throughout the code wherever it makes grammatical and useful sense.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 13
Councilmember Olson asked what Council President Paine saw as the value of that amendment and
whether the plan offers any tree protection. Council President Paine said tree protection plans often
include the perimeter around the trees that is protected during development, an area where trucks,
equipment or storage will not occur in the critical root zone and the tree protection zone is clearly
identified on the plan. A tree can be retained, but if the critical root zone is not also protected, tree could
be protection would be for naught. Ms. Hope said the idea of protection is included in the plan. The
amendment would make it clear that that protection is included. Council President Paine agreed that was
her intent. Mr. Lien referred to a section that describes the protection measures for trees during
development. Council President Paine said that was done beautifully. Ms. Hope said if the Council
approves this amendment, it will be amended in all the appropriate places in the code.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.II TO READ, "ACCURATE LOCATION OF SIGNIFICANT
TREES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHERE THE
CANOPY AND/OR CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF ADJACENT SIGNIFICANT TREES EXTEND
ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY..."
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND SECTION 23.10.040.E, BY REMOVING, "PROVIDED PRUNING WILL BE
UNDERTAKEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TREE
HEALTH."
Councilmember Olson explained when a tree topped inherently the regrowth is weak and can present a
hazard for people, animals, or dwellings underneath at the wrong time, especially in wind or post storm
when trees are further weakened. A requirement like this asks the homeowner to show compliance that it
meets the standard which is an expense and a burden. Topping is a bad practice that creates weakened
regrowth; this is not good code and she recommended not including that language. Mr. Lien asked if she
was referring to the pruning of previously topped trees or only the language, "providing pruning will be
undertaken only to the extend necessary for public safety and tree health." Councilmember Olson said she
wanted the added language removed.
Councilmember L. Johnson spoke against the motion, referring to the statement "Pruning existing trees
back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees
alone," commenting that is leading the person with that type of tree to believe they have to prune them
back to where they were previously topped. She appreciated that once a limb was cut, it was gone forever
and restoring improperly pruned trees can take years and in some cases a tree that is improperly pruned or
topped could be lost forever and cannot to be restored properly. Earlier in that section, there is language
that refers to ANSI A300 (Part 9), Tree Risk Assessment, describes how to restore a tree that has been
severely damaged through vandalism, storm damage or over pruning or topping. She did not want to lead
people to think that a tree has to be re -topped for safety. It may need to be, but whether that is necessary
should be assessed
Councilmember K. Johnson said there have been times when the Council has been faced with improperly
topped trees when the homeowners or HOA topped the trees to protect their views and have been fined.
However, once the trees have been topped, they have to be re -topped again and again which is essentially
rewarding them for maintaining their views. The City should have a replacement program; if someone
illegally tops a tree that is not terrifically mature, perhaps it should be replaced rather than continuously
re -topped. Mr. Lien said if someone illegally topped a tree, they would subject to the violation provisions
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 14
of the code which potentially include replacement. This section is related to routine landscaping;
numerous trees throughout the City have been topped over and over and it becomes a safety issue. For
single stem trees such as a Douglas fir, it is not possible to rebuild the crown after it has been topped. The
branches have weak connections and create a safety hazard. If a permit were required for the initial tree
topping, the topping would fall under violations and could require replacement. This section is related to
tree previously topped which can be topped to the previously topped level primarily for safety reasons.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented there are many trees along the electric/communication lines that
the utility companies top regardless of the species.
Councilmember Olson clarified how that section was written before that language was added it was
considered maintenance and not a requirement that the City insists be done which appeared to be
Councilmember L. Johnson's assertion. Assessments cost money and citizens should not be required to
have an assessment when by nature that regrowth is inherently dangerous.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the wording could be amended so that it did not lead a property
owner to assume a tree needed to be topped at the level it was previously topped. She understood that
topping a Douglas fir to the previously topped level was appropriate but there are many other trees. The
ANSI A300 (Part 9) clearly states that a number of trees can be restored to a previous canopy. She wanted
to ensure that people were not led to the assumption that all previously topped trees had to be re -topped.
Councilmember Distelhorst suggested changing the language from "for public safety and tree health" to
"for public safety or tree health." Ms. Hope agreed, noting there is reference to the ANSI A300.
Mr. Lien referred to Section 23.10.040.F, pointing out subsections a-c do not require any supporting
documentation and is allowed by the code. If documentation is required to look at previously topped trees
to ensure it is being maintained as necessary for public safety and/or tree health, perhaps the previous
topped trees section should be moved to F and there needs to be documentation.
Councilmember Olson said that was one of her points; some of these trees have been topped for decades
and the current homeowner may not have been responsible for topping the trees in the first place so that
burden should not be added. This is related to finding the balance between views and taking care of
environment; this is not a total plus for the environment and is a potential hazard. It may have been done
at one point for view purposes, but where it has been done in the past, she did not see the value of making
it a thing.
Council President Paine agreed "or" would provide some flexibility to allow a homeowner to continue to
top a previously topped tree or for a new homeowner to allow a tree to regain its crown. It was her
understanding that the prior tree code allowed a topped tree to be maintained. Ms. Hope agreed. Mr. Lien
pointed out there is similar language in the critical area code but not in the tree code.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not like any of the exemption and agreed with Councilmember L.
Johnson. The goal is to educate the public that trees are not bad. With regard to power companies that
trim trees along the power lines, she relayed her neighbors were given the option of having the trees cut
lower and they didn't just because they hoped to regrow the trees even though it had been previously
topped. She questioned how this would be implemented or policed.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not intent that it would be policed, she just wanted it for
clarification so people did not assume that trees had to be re -topped. She agreed with Councilmember
Distelhorst's suggestion to change "and" to "or" as it added additional clarity.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 15
Councilmember Olson said her amendment was to remove the language following "alone." One of the
goals is to turn everybody into tree loves and this provision will have the exact opposite effect.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this section does not appear to require pruning be done, just that if tree
had been topped, they could only be prune back as necessary for public safety and tree health. The
responsibility is on the landowner who topped the tree to begin with. She did not support removing that
language as it was the responsibility of the homeowner, whether or not they were the person who
originally topped the tree.
Councilmember Olson said there was nothing that says it has to be maintained even if that language was
removed. By leaving it in, people can prune at that level and if someone questions it, they can simply say
they did it for public safety and health. It is much cleaner without that language and removing it still does
not require people to maintain the topped tree height; it simply says it is considered maintenance.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
AMEND SECTION 23.10.040 BY REPLACING "SAFETY AND TREE HEALTH" WITH
"SAFETY OR TREE HEALTH."
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.I1, BY ADDING "AND TREE CROWN DIAMETER"
FOLLOWING "SIZE (DBH)."
Council President Paine said by adding "tree crown diameter" would show the size of the tree crown on
the plans. Mr. Lien said there are no regulations related to tree crown diameter; although it would be
shown on the plan, there are no regulations to address it. The regulations related to tree protection are the
critical root zone which is based on the diameter of the tree.
Councilmember K. Johnson said there is also reference to the drip line during construction. Mr. Lien
agreed.
Councilmember Olson asked if the input from Mr. Lien was that tree crown diameter would be an
additional burden for the contractor but would not add any value to the information it provides the City
for the purposes of monitoring the construction project. Mr. Lien answered it would not inform the review
of the proposal because there are no regulations related to that. Councilmember Olson concluded the
addition would not provide any benefit. Mr. Lien answered not in reviewing the proposal.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she seconded the motion hoping to gain further understanding regarding
why to document the tree crown diameter with development. She understood documenting the roots and
drip line but not tree crown diameter with relation to development. Council President Paine said she
would like to have it added as it would help show interconnection between a grove of trees; showing the
tree crown would demonstrate the canopy cover on the site or to adjacent canopy cover.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if that was something that a consultant would be qualified and able to
provide. Mr. Lien was not certain what it would take to provide that information. Site plans show a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 16
canopy around the trees which he assumed was relative to the DBH size, but he doubted they actually
measured the tree crown diameter. Surveyed locations of tree are not always required and he assumed the
tree canopy diameter would be estimated.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that it would be a best guess rather than a
measurement. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan that illustrate tree locations with the DBH with some sort of
canopy around it. He pointed out a 40" tree and the canopy, a smaller tree with a smaller canopy, an 18"
tree with a slightly bigger canopy, and a grove of trees and their canopy. Site plans typically show a
canopy but he assumed it was an estimate rather than measured.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed that would be acceptable under Council President Paine's
amendment. Mr. Lien said he would expect to see that but rather than estimated crown diameters it would
be a little related to what was actual on the ground.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD "ESTIMATED" PRIOR TO "TREE CROWN
DIAMETER." COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that the tree
crown for conifers is insignificant compared to the drip line which show the broadest part of the tree.
Confers' more global shape is equivalent to the crown line of tree. She viewed this as an added step that
developers did not need to provide as the current regulations were adequate. For trees more closely
associated, the site plan illustrates protection for groups of trees.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.II TO ADD "AND ESTIMATED TREE CROWN
DIAMETER."
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
Council President Paine suggested continuing the discussion next week and moving on to the remaining
agenda items.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
9. NEW BUSINESS
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY INTERIM REGULATIONS RELATED
TO LANDMARK TREES
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the packet contains an emergency interim
ordinance for six months that can be revisited prior to six months. The intent of the ordinance is to apply
not only to development but apply broadly to all private properties and prohibit the removal of trees
greater than 24" diameter at breast height (DBH) during the interim period unless they are hazardous. The
intent of the ordinance, proposed by Council President Paine and Councilmember L. Johnson and
supported by Mayor Nelson, was to recognize the Council intends to revisit private property tree
regulations. As that will take several months to complete, the emergency interim ordinance will preclude
cutting of those trees during the interim period.
Ms. Hope explained the ordinance also sets a public hearing date of April 20, 2021 to discuss continuing
or changing the ordinance. If approved by a super majority, the ordinance could go into effect
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 17
immediately upon adoption. She referenced Section 3 Prohibition, which states, "For as long as this
ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree."
A landmark tree is defined as 24" DBH unless it meets the definition of a hazard tree or nuisance tree.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how the ordinance will be enforced. She recalled driving down the
street recently and seeing that a row of trees had been removed from the backyard of a house and asked
bow that will be prevented. Ms. Hope agreed that was the most challenging issue with this prohibition. If
a tree code is adopted in the future that applies to all properties, it will also raise issues related to review
criteria, enforcement, etc. and will require extra resources. There are definitely fewer 24" DBH trees so it
will not necessarily affect all the properties in the City. Enforcement would be via seeing it or someone
reporting it. If the emergency interim ordinance is adopted, the City will try to get the word out but
violators could be subject to penalties.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood and trees greater than 24"
DBH being topped or cut down. She pointed out once you hear a chainsaw, it is too late as the tree is
already being cut down and they usually start at the top and work their way down unless they are logging
it for the wood. She suggested once this is adopted, sending a notification to the major tree companies so
they know not to cut those trees in Edmonds without permission.
Council President Paine said she was glad to have this emergency interim ordinance drafted that protects
and preserves landmark trees which are the biggest. She was hopeful it would maintain the status quo and
allow the subdivision tree code to be completed as well as put together the resources and planning for an
effective urban forestry program, look at canopy data through the canopy study and develop a thoughtful
tree code via an extensive public process like was done in 2015. The ordinance will provide that time and
prevents impacts on the tree canopy. A lot of the tree canopy has been removed in the last couple years
and it would be a shame to lose more. The ordinance will provide time for a more thoughtful tree code
that covers all properties.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was excited about this, but it should not use a definition that is not in
the code; she suggested rather than "landmark tree," using "significant tree", and instead of 24" DBH,
using 12" DBH because a 12" DBH is 60 years old. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's
concerns and referred to an application for tree and vegetation removal that the applicant applied for after
the fact to remove 2 hazard trees and 11 additional trees. She emphasized tree are being cut down and she
preferred to err on the side of caution and use language already in the code. She concluded this is a great
step and she applaud the Council for taking it.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the Administration for hearing their concerns and for working with
them to put this together. At the bare minimum, this will protect old growth trees that could never be
replaced and grown to the size they are in our lifetime. This is the minimum that can be done; it is really
important and should have been done a while ago to protect those trees.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson, Council President Paine, Councilmember L. Johnson
and the Administration for their work on this. He appreciate the landmark tree and the focus on the 24"
DBH. He feared going down to 12" DBH would be more difficult and may be too broad a focus for an
emergency ordinance. As with the moratorium, his preference is not to legislate via emergence ordinance
and moratorium in general. He hoped having this in place for six months provided the time necessary for
public outreach and a process by the Administration and whatever resources the Administration needed to
complete that work and to work with residents to have a fuller code and ensure the Council did not
continue to legislate via emergency ordinance and moratorium.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 18
Councilmember Olson said her concern with things that arise on short order is the unanticipated
consequences. She asked if this would apply to someone doing a renovation on their property or was that
covered in another way related to the development aspect. She asked if there could be an exception or
caveat that would allow a Council hearing for a tree that someone feels they need to address in the six
month period and would provide some flexibility for things that may arise that the Council is not thinking
about right now. Ms. Hope said the ordinance does not cover trees going through a permitted
development process because that has different requirements. This is related to other areas where people
are choosing to cut trees for various reasons. As written, the ordinance would apply to roughly 90% of
properties in the City.
Mr. Lien clarified it would not impact trees being removed with a reviewed development. This ordinance
does not apply to any tree removal associated with a permit through a building permit, subdivision or
other land use approval. It is intended to preserve large trees on developed single family properties while
the other regulations are being developed. He concluded trees reviewed with a development proposal
could still be removed.
Council President Paine said she asked similar questions of Ms. Hope regarding a smaller tree diameter.
The challenge is there is not enough code enforcement as well as seeking a balance between preserving
large trees and hoping to have good compliance with the understanding the City is seeking greater tree
canopy and the ability to monitor it. She had inquired about 12" or 16" DBH and was convinced the 24"
DBH during the interim period would be more successful and not overstrain resources.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that trees associated with a permit for a short plat or
subdivision could be removed because the moratorium ends March 10'11. She expressed interest in
extending the moratorium because she was uncertain the code would be approved by March 10". She
concluded if a developer submitted a permit for a subdivision for a property with a lot of trees, they could
be removed regardless of size after March 10"' when the moratorium expires. Mayor Nelson said the issue
before the Council is the emergency interim ordinance, not the emergency moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Mr. Lien's statement that this ordinance would not apply to tree
removed as part of a subdivision. She asked whether subdivisions should be included in this emergency
ordinance since the moratorium ends March 10"'. Mr. Lien answered the thought was that the regulations
that the Council reviewed in the previous agenda item would be adopted; the new Section 23.10
referenced in the emergency ordinance has regulations that preserve trees with development. If that
regulation is not adopted by the time the moratorium expires (Ordinances 4200 and 4201), the regulations
would revert to the current tree code. This ordinance may need to be amended if it is adopted prior to the
other ordinance because it specifically references Section 23.10.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained when the emergency interim ordinance was drafted, it was assumed
the tree code would already be adopted and this would be next. Realizing the Council potentially wants to
make more amendments to the tree, he proposed adopting the tree code tonight with the amendments that
were made and come back next week and continue to make amendments. The result would be instead of
making amendments to a draft code, the Council would be amending an already adopted code. That
would address the concern about the moratorium expiring. He believed if the Council waited until next
week, the moratorium would be expired at the time of next week's Council meeting.
Council President Paine said as she understands the emergency moratorium, when the conservation
subdivision code is adopted, the moratorium will expire. Ms. Hope answered yes, the way it is currently
written. Mr. Taraday said there is a repealer section in Section 4 of the tree code ordinance that expressly
repeals the tree moratorium because the new tree code goes into effect. An argument can be made [Mr.
Taraday discontinued participation in the virtual meeting].
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 19
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday and she have been discussing the fact that approving the tree
code repeals Ordinances 4200 and 4201, the moratorium on subdivisions and short plats. If the Council
approves the tree code as Mr. Taraday suggested, she has more amendments that she feels would solidify
the tree code. She was leery of approving the tree code tonight.
Ms. Hope said the tree ordinance in the packet specifically repeals the moratorium which otherwise would
expire March 10". If the Council adopts tree regulations as amended, and cornes back next week to make
further amendments, that may be preferable to extending or creating a new moratorium.
Mr. Taraday said there is language in Ordinance 4200 that tries to avoid this situation from occurring by
stating something like the ordinance will not be presumed to have been repealed or expired but the
Council will do that by ordinance. He was uncertain that language had been tested in court; it was
included as a potential safety net. He would prefer not to rely on that language and would rather the
Council not accidentally allow the moratorium to expire.
Ms. Hope said by adopting the proposed tree regulations with the amendments approved tonight, the
moratorium would be ended, but next week Council could consider making additional amendments to the
adopted tree code. That would prevent the unintended expiration of the moratorium expiring or creating a
new moratorium on the fly. Mr. Taraday agreed.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council has gotten off subject. The issue before the Council is the
emergency ordinance and the Council should make a decision on that before deciding on other things.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained if the Council approves this emergency ordinance tonight, it refers
to definitions in the tree code which haven't been approved. If the Council approves the tree code, it
removes the moratorium. She asked if the Council could approve the tree code and remove Section 4. Mr.
Taraday said Section 4 of the tree code ordinance could be removed. He did not want to represent to the
Council that the moratorium was bulletproof and remained in effect by virtue of removing Section 4
because Ordinance 4200 specifically states it is a 4 month moratorium and the 4 months expire on March
10`1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTERIM EMERGENCY TREE ORDINANCE FOR
LANDMARK TREES AND MOVE BACK TO DISCUSSING THE CONSERVATION
SUBDIVISION CODE WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE SO FAR AND COME BACK NEXT
WEEK.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the emergency ordinance references code that
does not yet exist until the Council adopts the tree ordinance which is why the tree ordnance needs to be
adopted first. Mr. Taraday said the ordinances certainly were not intended to be adopted in the order that
is currently being considered but a few minutes' difference would not be a problem.
Councilmember Olson suggested an option would be holding an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon
to discuss the remaining tree code amendments and the existing moratorium issue. Mayor Nelson said he
was not available on Friday. Councilmember Olson said the Council could have a meeting without the
Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she also was not available.
Council President Paine restated the motion;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 20
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT
THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO CHANGE "LANDMARK" TO
"SIGNIFICANT" AND CHANGE "24" DBH" TO THE DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TREE
WHICH IS 12" DBH. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
TO ADOPT THE AMENDED DRAFT TREE ORDINANCE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER
TONIGHT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING
EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED
REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND
ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was leery of doing this when it was not complete. There have been
examples in the past where there has been an attempt to bring ordinances forward and the minority could
not get it done. She hoped there was a promise that additional amendments could be considered, noting
she has about nine more amendments.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, "ORDINANCES 4200 (MORATORIUM) AND 4201
(ASSOCIATED INTERIM REGULATIONS) ARE HEREBY REPEALED."
Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the Council would spend quality time to consider all the amendments
and address the moratorium next week or when it expires. She felt it was premature to have Section 4 in
the ordinance.
As City Clerk Passey began to take a roll call vote (Councilmember K. Johnson abstained and
Councilmember Distelhorst voted no), Councilmember Olson raised a point of order that the original
moratorium stated the moratorium would expire when the tree code was passed or when it expired,
whichever came first. Ms. Hope recalled it stated a 4-month period which would be March 10"' unless
Council acted to repeal it sooner. Mr. Taraday read from the ordinance, "The moratorium imposed by this
ordinance shall commence on the date of adoption of this ordinance. The moratorium shall not terminate
until four months after the date of adoption unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the
decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to
have to occurred." He explained that is the language he referred to earlier as untested. He suggested if the
Council's intent is not to have the moratorium repealed right away, amending Section 4 to read, "The
effectiveness of Ordinance 4200 shall be extended to March 24, 2021" which would give the Council two
more weeks to resolve anything outstanding in the tree code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with waiting two weeks, anticipating at 10:14 p.m., the Council
could be meeting half the night trying to make all the amendments.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 21
TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, REPEALING ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO; AND
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "ORDINANCE 4200 IS EXTENDED
TO MARCH 24, 2021."
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the motion needed to include Ordinance 4201. Mr. Taraday
recommended they be handled as a package as they were originally adopted as a package. He requested
adding "effectiveness" so the motion stated, "The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 will be
extended to March 24, 2021."
Council President Paine restated the motion:
TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021."
Councilmember K. Johnson asked which ordinances these were, whether it was the moratorium
ordinance. Council President Paine answered yes and Ordinance 4201 was the associated interim
regulations.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO EXTEND FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING NO.
2. 4T" AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PUBLIC PROCESS
Due to late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported today the President and Governor announced additions to those eligible for
immediate access to the vaccine - school educators and licensed childcare workers. As more people
become eligible, hopeful the availability of vaccines will also increase. The numbers in Snohomish
County continue to drop, yesterday's report was 109 cases/100,000 (previously 119/100,000). That is still
not enough fast enough so he encouraged the public to continue wearing masks, washing hands, and
watching their distance.
II. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Olson wished all be well and happy.
Councilmember Distelhorst said March is Women's History Month. He is honored to serve alongside his
colleagues on Council. International Women's Day is March 8"', a big day in his household because in
Mongolia where his wife and two daughters are from, it is actually a national holiday. While he lived in
Mongolia, it was a widely celebrated holiday Anyone interested in learning more about notable figures,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 22
the Sno-Isle Library has a recommended book list for adults and teens including a lot of graphic novels
that are more approachable and easier to read than non-fiction history books. There are also a number of
events this Sunday and Monday related to Edmonds' International Women's Day. He gave a huge shout
out to Dr. Kizzy Corbett, one of the key scientists developing the Moderna vaccine; his mom finally got
her first shot this morning.
Counciltnember Buckshnis wished .lack Beven, a former Councilmember, a Happy 98"' Birthday. Mr,
Bevin is .doing well and often asks abokrt the tree code. She announced the Potlatch Bistro at Edmonds
Waterfront Center is opening March 4"'. Reservations can be made at Open'fable; up to 50 people can be
seated and the view is gorgeous,
Council President Paine said she was excited about tonight's actions. She referenced the recent
difficulties with Perrinville Creek, expressing her appreciation for the Mayor and Administration's
leadership in providing an outline of what has happened and their plans; improvements that have been
needed for nearly a decade. ,She was glad to see the Edmonds School District representatives talking
about the capital levy. She wished everyone be safe and well,
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was excited and relieved teachers are now eligible for vaccination;
they have been shouldering a huge burden with many unknowns. There was a lot of excitement in her
household when then learned teachers would be eligible.
Student Representative Roberts was delighted to hear that educators are now able to get the vaccine and
glad it was one step closer to going back to school. Ile was able to get the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine
a few weeks ago as a volunteer :for Swedish and he encouraged everyone to get vaccinated when it is
offered to them so this virus can be put in the past. He urged the public to wear a mask, make safe choices
and check in with each other as we're all in this together,
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
MI AEL NELSON, MAYUR_
c_
SC6 ASSEY, CITY CLER
Edmonds City COnneil Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 23
Public Comment for 3/2/21 Council Meeting:
From: cdfarmen
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:17 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Prposed Tree code
Dear Council Members,
Amending the proposed tree code to meet the expectations of retention and no -net -canopy
loss will be no easy task.
The terminology used throughout the proposed code is not restrictive enough to prevent the
unabated cutting of the trees the city wants and needs to protect.
Initially, I was under the impression the 35% tree retention was a requirement. But, what I
came to find out it was not a precondition nor an obligation on the developer to retain 35% of
the trees on the property. When I asked Mr. Lien about that, he said the intent expressed by
the Planning Board, was to make the 35% retention the first effort (or step) in tree retention.
That being the case, if the developer chooses not to meet that level of retention, the next
option becomes cut and replace followed by a third option of cut and pay.
No matter how you perceive the proposed tree code, clear -cutting is still a viable option for the
developer. Without some true retention requirements, how do you achieve a goal of no -net -
loss of canopy or anything ecologically related?
The statement at the top of page 7 where it says "significant trees on lots proposed for
development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows". That clearly is a
misrepresentation of reality. Doesn't the definition of "shall be" indicate that there is an
obligation to preserve rather than an option?
There are parts of the tree code where the term prohibited is used such as in the case of certain
situations within described critical areas or in the case of "protected trees". Why not prohibit
the cutting of a specified percentage of all viable trees on the property? Why not make the
applicant be a responsible partner in tree retention?
There needs to be a " stop limit" required so that, at a minimum, for example, 20% of all
existing viable/significant trees must be preserved. Such a required retention limit is needed so
the developer cannot clear-cut the entire subdivision site and "buy their way out" of any tree
retention measures.
The other weakness in the proposed code is that the Director has far too much discretion in
deciding how to apply the tree code. There are more than 12 cases where the director reserves
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 24
the right to take certain discretionary actions. How can the tree code be appropriately applied
under those circumstances?
It is very important that you develop a vigorous tree protection code, one that can prevail in its
first real test of its effectiveness when applied to the development of the Seaview Woods
subdivision.
Respectively submitted,
Duane Farmen
Seaview resident
From: Bonnie Kirby
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:23 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree issue
Hello! I want to second the email sent to you from Johanna Malloy, my neighbor. She has stated exactly
what I would have sent to you. New tree issues really need to be addressed. Thank you. Bonnie Kirby
From: Johanna Molloy
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:33 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: New Tree Code
Dear Edmonds City Council,
Thank you for all you do to maintain our beautiful town of Edmonds. As you are reviewing the
new Tree Code, we would like to call your attention to a few issues that we feel are of vital
importance:
1) Safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles around street corners that are extremely
dangerous because of overgrown trees, bushes and out of control vegetation. This includes not
only visual impairments as people approach an intersection (both walking and driving), but
potential dangers from falling trees and limbs -especially during stormy weather.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 25
2) Trees that infringe on PUD, cable and/or other communication wires that can cause potential
fires, lack of quality in communication lines and repeated trimming trips to the same location to
try and keep areas clear. This can cause aesthetically negative outcomes, as well as rising costs
for consumers. (See pictures below -facing both directions and directly from across the street.)
3) Real Estate Values on "View" properties that decline because of neighbors that do not honor
other's views and financial investment by keeping the trees on their property
maintained/trimmed.
4) Please make sure that there is reasonable consideration for individual situations that may
need extra attention because of extenuating circumstances.
For example, the measurements used to address whether or not a tree is an issue in the
pictures below, may not reflect the fact that during non-Covid lockdowns, many children cross
that intersection on field trips to the water, which is one block away. There are also many
joggers, parents with strollers and dog walkers that make visiting 2nd and Edmonds their daily
routine. One can clearly see that these limbs (that now spread almost completely across the
entire street since these pictures were taken) are a danger and annoyance as people try to
avoid them, regardless of the actual measurements.
We hope that you will consider these community concerns. We know that MANY neighbors
where we live on 2nd Ave N, have complained over the years regarding the overgrown trees on
the NW corner of 2nd and Edmonds Street. PUD has approached the owner of the property
there (121 Edmonds St) and offered to remove the trees at no cost to the owner and even
provide a voucher for new trees, but the owner refused.
We love the trees here in the Pacific Northwest. However, we also love being civically pro-
active regarding safety in our community, preserving our exceptional views and keeping our
financial investments secure.
Thank you again for all your hard work.
We appreciate your time and attention to these concerns,
Johanna and Bill Molloy
PS Please forward this email to any parties that may be helpful to addressing our topics and
concerns.
From: Katy Bigelow
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:31 PM
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 26
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Dill, Debra <Debra.Dill @edmondswa.gov>;
Spellman, Jana <Jana.Spellman@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Notes to consider for the tree code
Basic edits are needed:
1. Revise: 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track to read
"TRAQ" not "Track"
2. Should be noted that development which contains a Critical Area are held to different
standards .. and those standards locations need to be referenced.
Questions:
1. How are 30% or 25% retention requirements determined? Is it by total tree diameters? By
best looking trees according to the developer/tree professional? By canopy cover?
2. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 8.3.e Packet Pg. 386 Attachment:
Attachment 5: Tree Ordinance (Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment) 15 1.
The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor - By determination of a tree professional?
3. Under civil penalties, "If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be
required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in
addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. " what if the tree professional
determines that pruning is not the best course of corrective action or can not be completed
as the tree is close to a total loss?
Final thought:
The City would benefit from having an actual arborist on the Tree Board. This is a strong
recommendation that could yield better advice in future rounds of edits.
Katy Bigelow
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist®
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist PN-6039B
PNW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Registered Consulting Arborist® #490
Member - American Society of Consulting Arborists
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 27
From: Eunice Jones
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 8:02 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Citizens Housing Commission
Please vote NO to urbanize and up zone all of Edmonds.
Affordable housing will NOT be accomplished with the Urban Density proposals that are
scheduled to be presented to you on Tuesday, March 16. And our family lot suburban
neighborhood will likely be gone if you approve those policy proposals. Those consequences
would be tragic.
Please do not destroy our Edmonds.
Thank you,
E. A. Jones
From: art jones
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizen Housing Commission
02/26/2021
Open Letter to Edmonds City Council
RE: Citizens Housing Commission
believe the Commission should be thanked for their time and effort to achieve more
affordable housing in Edmonds.
believe their final list of 15 proposals is a VERY large negative for current residents of
Edmonds.
believe implementation of those proposals would have an irreversible effect on the ambience
and character of Edmonds and ultimately help produce the opposite outcome of the original
intention.
PLEASE! PLEASE! DO NOT ALLOW SUCH TO BECOME IMPLIMENTEDH
Thank you,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 28
A.L.Jones
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 29