2020-11-18 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04
� O
Planning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/96445975245?pwd=WHJ6bUpranFDeUY3ZXBWSmxacXBUdz09
Meeting ID: 964 4597 5245. Password: 226747.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5080)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
The Thursday, November 12th meeting was scheduled and held in lieu of Wednesday,
November 11th Veterans Day Holiday.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of November 12th meeting minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
• PC201112d (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 1111612020
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda November 18, 2020
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
6. Public Hearings
7. Unfinished Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5085)
Tree Code Regulations Upate
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing on December 9, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (PDF)
• Attachment 2: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix (PDF)
• Attachment 3: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations (PDF)
• Attachment 4: Public Comments (PDF)
8. New Business
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5086)
Review of Extended Agenda
Background/History
The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 1111612020
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/18/2020
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
The Thursday, November 12th meeting was scheduled and held in lieu of Wednesday, November 11th
Veterans Day Holiday.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of November 12th meeting minutes
Narrative
November 12th meeting minutes attached. The Planning Board's regular meeting scheduled for
Thursday, November 25th, 2020 has been cancelled due to the following Thanksgiving Holiday.
Attachments:
PC201112d
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Special Meeting
Via Zoom
November 12, 2020
Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty,
their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
c
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager O
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager 70
Todd Cloutier Phil Williams, Public Works Director o
Alicia Crank Rob English, City Engineer a
Nathan Monroe Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Q
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services M
04
Roger Pence
T
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT N
Matthew Cheung (excused) a
Conner Bryan, Student Rep. (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Board Member Crank pointed out that the Planning Board's public hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) will take place the same time that staff will be presenting the two plans to the City Council. Per a
conversation she had with Council Member Paine, the City Council will discuss the plans at the November 171h meeting, as
well. She asked if minutes from the Planning Board's discussion would be included in the City Council's agenda packet for
that meeting. Mr. English answered that the public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for November 24`h rather than
November 17', and the minutes from the Planning Board's public hearing will be included in the packet that is provided for
that meeting.
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
Board Member Pence voiced concern that the agenda was unclear that the Tree Code Regulations Update would be discussed.
In the future, he suggested it would be appropriate to highlight that item rather than simply listing it as a "Generic Agenda
Item." Mr. Chave commented that the software that is used to create the agendas has limitations about how items can be named.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding was that tonight's meeting would only be a public hearing on the CIP and
CFP. She thought that the schedule that was agreed to at the last meeting would stand, and the Board would continue its review
of the Tree Code Regulations on November 18'. Mr. Lien responded that, because the Board had to add another meeting for
the CIP/CFP public hearing, he thought it would be a good idea for them to also continue their review of the tree code
regulations. However, they do not need to redo their discussion from the last meeting.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Anna West, Edmonds, suggested that some verbiage regarding protecting water views should be included in the intent and
purpose section of the revised Tree Code. It hasn't been included in the draft yet, and the City would be remiss not to include
it. Puget Sound helps define the City of Edmonds, and the water is one of the reasons that new residents purchase homes,
current residents stay, and visitors spend money in the City. Adding verbiage in the Tree Code to protect water views is
important because trees have the potential to block those cherished views. She is hoping the City can work with the citizens to
come up with language that protects both trees and the water.
Chair Robles emphasize that this is a Tree Code and not a View Code. View will not likely be specifically mentioned in the
Tree Code, since it is a different category of regulation. Mr. Chave added that the City has had a number of discussions about
views in its history of policy and codes. Up to this point in time, the City has chosen not to regulate private views.
Ms. West commented that it seems the City is spending a lot of time regulating private trees, and she thought it might be a good
segway into a piece that really defines the City. The City has a symbiotic relationship with the trees and the water. She supports
>
tree retention, but there needs to be some guidance for residents. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Ms. West is requesting
that some reference to the City's stance on private view protection be incorporated into the Tree Code. Ms. West said she
a
would actually like the City's stance to change from what it has been for the past three decades. She is cognizant it will be an
Q
uphill battle, but it needs to be addressed, as water views play a huge role in the City. She asked that the City have dialogue
M
with the community on the best way to maintain that piece of the City as it continues to thrive and grow. Board Member
04
Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. West is suggesting that the City consider options for protecting private views. Mr. Chave
c
suggested the Board consider this request as they review the draft Tree Code later on the agenda.
V
a
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he serves on the City's Citizens Tree Board. He asked that the Board Members consider his
written comments from two letters he submitted prior to the meeting as they review the draft Tree Code. He invited them to
reach out to him with questions and comments.
E
t
0
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Q
Chair Robles referred to the written Development Services Director Report and noted that it appears to be outdated. There
were no other questions or comments regarding the report.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP)
Chair Robles briefly reviewed the rules and procedures and then opened the hearing.
Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is tied to the Comprehensive Plan and is required by the Growth
Management Act to identify long-term capital projects related to addressing growth and demand. It covers planning horizons
of 6 and 20 years. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is tied to the City's budget and is organized by the City's financial
funds. It includes not only projects that are budgeted for the upcoming year, but also identifies the maintenance and capital
projects anticipated over the next 6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects
with funding sources.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and a description of each project was included. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation
Plan and Utility Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is
tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document:
• Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the
gas tax.
• Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET).
• Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET.
• Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
It is funded by grants.
• Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
Ms. Feser explained that the park -related projects contained in the draft CIP and CFP are based on the seven primary goals in
the adopted Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. She explained that projects for 2021 will focus on finishing large
N
projects, maintaining and upgrading the City's current assets, and preparing for future projects and opportunities. She shared
a;
the following highlights:
• Waterfront Redevelopment. This project will be completed by the end of the month, with the Certificate of
o
Occupancy for the Waterfront Center Building slated for December 71. There was a bit of a delay with the concrete
E
exterior work as a result of the pandemic, but the project is still on track. The parking lot and beach front restoration
o
work dealt with the discovery of some soil contamination and more than 50 creosote pilings that were buried
underground were removed the site.
Q
• Yost Pool. The City was able to conduct the repairs that were slated in 2021 for Yost Pool despite it being closed for
the pandemic. The pool grates, CO2 injector and pool cover were all replaced. Funds are programmed in the draft
04
CIP for ongoing maintenance of the pool facility.
T
• Marina Beach Park. This year, $30,000 was used to bring the park renovation design up to 30% and assist in grant
N
application development. The City submitted for two $500,000 grants from the State of Washington through the
Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) programs. The City's Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
a
(ALEA) Program application ranked lst, and the request was for $500,000. The City's grant application for the Local
Park Category scored 191 out of 80 projects, and the request was also for $500,000. They are hopeful but not relying
E
on the funding for the Local Park Category. Due to the pandemic, some projects may withdraw and there may still be
an opportunity for the City to receive the funds. The total current cost estimate for the project is about $5 million and
Q
will require additional grant funding, park -related funding (BEET and park impact fees) and some General Fund
dollars. Design development and permitting is programmed for 2022 and 2023, with construction in 2024 and 2025
if all goes well. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working with the Public Works
Department to support the Greater Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, and daylighting Willow Creek is a
major part of that project.
• City Park Walkway. A 6-foot walkway parallel to the drive aisle is planned at City Park. This has become a safety
issue after the spray pad was built and a crosswalk was installed on 3' Avenue where the drive aisle meets the street.
The project will include some transplanting of some small trees, as well as a short retaining wall to deal with the slope.
Design details are being finalized and staff hopes to complete the work in late winter before the busy spring season
starts.
• Gateway Sign. The Gateway Sign on SR-104 has been fabricated, and staff is working on the best approach for
installation, using a combination of in-house labor and contracted services. The project will require relocation of the
sign, which incorporates earthwork, rock placement, irrigation modifications and plantings.
• Civic Park. The $12.1 million budget for this project was be split over 2021 and 2022. The design is complete, the
construction documents and permits are finished. They are currently conducting additional peat and soil testing on
site and modifying the approach of the bid for more accurate submittals in the first quarter bid process. The goal is to
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
start construction in the spring of 2021, with estimated completion in late fall of 2022. Grant funding is still available
in its complete amount, and the $3.7 million in bonds that were issued to the City in late 2019 remain available, as
well. They will also draw from the Park Impact Fees and Funds 125 and 126. The City has received a commitment
from the Edmonds Rotary club for $400,000 to construct the inclusive playground improvements that were beyond
the original scope and design of the project.
Greenhouse Replacement. The CIP identifies replacement of the City's primary greenhouse at the shop at an
estimated cost of $100,000. The funding for the project is proposed to come from two areas: $50,000 from the flower
program portion of the Parks Trust Fund (Fund 136) and $50,000 from the REET Account (Fund 125). The foundation
of the current greenhouse is rotting away and settling, causing the plastic covering to tear. It is the only climate -
controlled greenhouse and is where the City staff starts and grows the thousands of plants for the flower baskets and
corner parks. The current greenhouse is at least 10 years past its lifecycle.
General Park Fund. The City owns, operates and maintains 47 parks and open spaces that consist of more than 230
acres. The City also maintains more than 1 mile of beach and shoreline amenities. The General Park Fund supports
major maintenance and in-house small capital projects that prolong the life and usage, as well as increase capacity of
the existing facilities. Examples of this work include resurfacing sport courts and parking lots, trail reconstruction,
bridge replacements, upgrading irrigation and mechanical components at Yost Pool, etc. It also includes a line item
of $50,000 for professional services and $105,000 for capital replacement and repair. In prior budgets, $55,000 was
allocated to small projects at specific park sites in increments of $5,000. The draft CFP was reorganized to combine
all of the small, individual project allocations into one line item.
Park Acquisition. An additional $200,000 will be allocated to Fund 126 in 2021 for park and open space acquisition.
Previously, there was an allocation of $300,000 for a community garden adjacent to Yost Park, but the negotiations
have stopped at the request of the owner. This money was set aside, as well as an additional $200,000 allocated in
both 2019 and 2021. The total amount in this fund will be $700,000. Moving forward, an additional $200,000 will
be allocated per year starting in 2022, and the funds will continue to accumulate.
o
Fishing Pier. The Fishing Pier repair will continue into 2021, using a carry forward of unused funds (about $54,000)
o
from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The amount was insufficient this year to contract out the
a
services needed to repair cracks underneath the concrete decking of the pier, and the City is working with the state to
Q
determine the next steps and how to most effectively use the remaining funds to complete the work, possibly in house.
�—
Ms. Feser reviewed the list of future projects that extend beyond the 2021 budget as follows:
• Phase 2 of Civic Park Implementation.
• Design and construction of Marina Beach Park.
• Completion of design and construction of 41 Avenue Cultural Corridor.
• Acquiring land and open space as approved by the City Council.
• Edmonds Marsh restoration and Willow Creek daylighting.
• Completion of the waterfront walkway (the one section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium).
• Ongoing trail development.
• Sport fields and playground partnerships.
Vice Chair Rosen recalled his question at the last meeting about the extent of the 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor. He had thought
it would extend past Daley Street and connect to 31 Avenue, and now it appears it will terminate at Daley Street. Ms. Feser
explained that the project will extend beyond Daley Street, past the Edmonds Center for the Arts, and up to 3`d Avenue.
Board Member Pence asked how important the acquisition of park land near Yost Park is to the future vision of the PROS Plan.
Ms. Feser said it is always good to try to expand existing facilities by acquiring adjacent properties because access is already
available. The property is heavily treed and no significant development would need to be maintained or removed. The land is
a significant parcel that would be a good addition to Yost Park. Board Member Pence asked if it is important enough for the
City to consider imminent domain. Ms. Feser said it is her understanding that the owner is planning to donate the parcel to the
City in her will. The City was negotiating with the owner to gain access to the property sooner, but the negotiations have since
been stopped. However, the City is still in a position to accept the property at some point in the future.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that, at the last meeting, she asked why the proposed new Park Maintenance Building at
City Park was proposed to be only 1 story. Ms. Feser said her understanding is that the design is very preliminary at this point
and was intended to identify a potential footprint. When the project moves forward, there will be a discussion about what the
actual building should look like, and a 2-story building will more than likely be a better solution.
Mr. English shared the following highlights on the public works and utility projects:
• Pavement Preservation Program. The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program accomplished 4.7 lane miles at a
project cost of about $1 million. The bulk of the funding was provided by REET revenue, with a smaller contribution
from the General Fund and Fund 112. In 2021, $800,000 is budgeted for the program, and the plan is to pave 2.9 lane
miles. This allocation is lower than in past years.
• Pedestrian Walkway Plan. Two high -priority sidewalk projects were accomplished in 2020 (Dayton Street from 71'
Avenue to 81 Avenue and Walnut Street from 31 Avenue to 41 Avenue). Both projects were funded via a State
Complete Streets Grant with no local dollars required.
• The Highway 99 Revitalization Project. This project continued in 2020 utilizing a $10 million state grant, with
some money from the 126 Fund. The entire cost of the project is estimated to be $183 million. The corridor study
was completed a few years ago, and the City has been working on a plan for improvements on the corridor since that
time. Earlier this year, the City Council agreed to move forward with the installation of a center median to control the
left -turning traffic on Highway 99 to reduce the number of accidents. Another big project is a Hawk signal just north
of 2341 Street to improve pedestrian safety in crossing the highway. Gateway signs will also be added at the southern
�
and northern edges of the City. Design work will continue in 2021, with the goal to start construction in 2022.
• Bicycle Improvement Project. In 2021, the 112 Fund will fund the design of a citywide bicycle improvement project,
with anticipated construction in 2022. There has been a lot of conversation at the City Council level about the impacts
o
of adding bike lanes or sharrows on key streets: 1001 Street Southwest/91 Avenue from 2441 Street Southwest to
Walnut Street; Bowdoin Way from 91 Avenue to 841 Avenue, 2281 Street Southwest from 801h Avenue to 78t''
o
Avenue, and 80' Avenue from 228' Street Southwest to 220' Street Southwest. These projects will all be funded by
a
a Sound Transit grant to help improve access to the stations, and design work started last week.
Q-
Q
• 76' Avenue/220t' Project. This project was identified as a priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The City has
been working to obtain grant funding over the last several years, and the project has scored well for both planning and
N
right-of-way funds. Design will kick off in 2021, but it is not likely the project will go to construction until 2024 or
2025.
• Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project. This project is funded with federal dollars, with matching funds from the
126 Fund. The project is currently out to bid for construction, and bids will be opened on November 191. It is
anticipated the project will start in late spring of 2021. The project includes 2 Hawk signals (one on 1961 Street near
801 Avenue and another on SR-104 at about 232" d Street) and 7 rapid -flashing beacons at 7 different intersection. It
also includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to crosswalks at different locations within the
City.
• 76' Street Overlay. The City received a Federal grant to overlay 76' Avenue between Perrinville and 196t' Street.
This project will be a joint effort with the City of Lynnwood. Design work will begin in 2021, with an anticipated
construction start in 2022.
• Other Transportation Projects. In addition to the Pavement Preservation Program, the REET funds will support a
number of other transportation projects. A small amount is earmarked in 2021 for the Pedestrian Safety Program (i.e.
radar feedback signs, rapid -flashing beacons, bulb outs, etc.), and the public can recommend where the City might
want to take action to improve pedestrian safety.
• Traffic Signal Upgrades. Several upgrades will be done in 2021 using REET funding. The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to add more features that are necessary and good additions to the system to allow
differently-abled people to find and access safe street crossings. In addition, instead of cameras, pucks could be
installed in the pavement to identify when traffic approaches an intersection.
• Sidewalk Capital Maintenance Program. A few years ago, the City staffed a crew that builds small segments of
sidewalk or ramps, and the 2021 CIP identifies $100,000 in REET funding to continue that program. The funding
will provide the tools, equipment and supplies needed for the crew to perform the work.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
• Traffic Calming. REET funding will be used for traffic calming, with the intent of slowing cars down. Each year,
citizens are invited to identify problem areas. The City studies these areas and ranks the requests. The top two or
three requests get funded.
• Sidewalk Project on Elm Street. Design work will be done for a project on Elm Way from 9' Avenue going west.
The project will be more complicated because the topography is quite steep in places and retaining walls will likely
be involved. Once the design work is done, the City can apply for grant funding.
• Guardrail replacement and repair. Several guardrails in the City have questionable structural integrity. The City
has spent, and will continue to spend $20,000 each year to replace and add guardrail as needed.
• Dayton Street Utility Improvement. This project was substantially completed in 2020. All of the water, storm and
sewer infrastructure on Dayton Avenue from 91 Avenue to 31 Avenue have been replaced. The street was repaved,
and a new sidewalk section (funded by a State grant) was installed.
• Utility Infrastructure Replacement. At the end of 2020, approximately 4,000 feet of watermain, 1,600 feet of storm
pipe and 2,300 feet of sewer main will have been replaced. Another 3,500 feet of sewer main was rehabilitated with
a fiberglass liner, which is a less costly option than total replacement.
• The Dayton Street Pump Station. This project at Beach Place was designed to reduce and virtually eliminate the
flooding that occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104 during heavy storm events. It will also take
stormwater from Harbor Square, which currently flows into the Edmonds Marsh. The project is now complete, and
they are currently working out the programming. The project was funded via the stormwater fund, a State grant and
a loan from Snohomish County.
• Utility Projects in 2021. In 2021 the City will replace about 6,200 feet of new watermain, which will also require
overlaying about .75 miles of street. About 2,000 feet of sewer main replacement is planned for 2021, along with
about 2,000 feet of sewer main rehabilitation. About 2,300 feet of storm pipe will also be replaced.
• Storm -Related Projects. The City will work on other storm -related projects, including the 2nd phase of the infiltration
o
facility at Sea View Park. It will be the same size as the first one, and will take the load off of Perrinville Creek. Over
70
the years, with climate change and development, any significant rain storm creates a very rapid response in flows in
o
Perrinville Creek, and erosion is a huge problem. The project will help reduce the peak flows.
a
• Ballinger Regional Infiltration Facility. The City is looking into adding a regional infiltration facility at Lake
Q.
Q
Ballinger that would take a lot of the runoff from Highway 99, which currently flows to Lake Ballinger. The project
M
will enter into the design phase in 2021.
04
• Comprehensive Stormwater Plan Update. The plan was last updated in 2010. Staff will be reviewing the City's
r
capital and operational needs and do some basic modeling to identify the high -priority capital needs. The project is
N
on track to start in 2021 and be completed in 2022.
a
• Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects. A few projects are identified in the 2021 budget. One is
tied to doing water treatment along the catch basins on the west side of SR-104 that are adjacent to the marsh. Another
is identifying an alternative alignment for the creek until the Unocal property is sold to the Washington State
E
Department of Transportation and the larger project can move forward.
• Perrinville Flow Management Projects. These projects are yet to be identified, but they are looking for some
Q
additional project sites to install infiltration facilities, rain gardens, etc. to reduce the runoff into Perrinville Creek.
• Sewer Utility Projects. About 2,000 feet of sewer main is planned for replacement in 2021, as well as 3,000 feet of
cured -in -place work. These projects will include an overlay program. He provided a map identifying the location of
the proposed utility projects.
• Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. This study is in progress, with the goal of figuring out the best way to
rehabilitate the gravity sewer main on the west side of Lake Ballinger.
• Waste Water Treatment Facility. A new gasification system will be installed at the Wastewater Treatment Facility
in 2021 to replace the current incinerator. The total cost of this project will be over $26 million, and will be shared
with all partners.
Mr. English concluded his presentation by explaining that the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Departments begin conversations and start to develop the capital budgets in July, and proposals are submitted to the Finance
Department in August. The draft CFP and CIP updates are then prepared for City Council consideration. The draft CFP and
CIP are typically presented to the Planning Board for review and a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City
Council. The two documents are currently being presented to the City Council for the first time tonight. Following the
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Planning Board's recommendation, the City Council will hold a public hearing on November 24t''. The goal is for them to be
adopted along with the budget in early December.
Chair Robles noted that electric bicycles are getting faster and quieter. He asked if the City's effort to create bike lanes will
accommodate this new technology. At what point will they become electric scooter lanes and alternative bicycle routes will
need to be created elsewhere? Mr. English agreed that electric bicycles are becoming more popular, and they can be used in
the bike lanes. Chair Robles asked if the City's Bicycle Plan would accommodate this increased demand. Mr. English answered
that the current Transportation Plan includes a facility map showing where the existing and proposed bike lanes are located. It
also shows where sharrows are needed in locations that are too tight to accommodate a bike lane. The Transportation Plan will
be updated again in 2022, and some changes might need to be considered as electric bike usage grows.
Chair Robles asked if the City is planning on the assumption that pandemics are temporary, or if consideration is being given
for future pandemics. For example, wider sidewalks are needed to accommodate the currently required 6-foot separation. Mr.
English said that, for planning purposes, the City views the pandemic as more of a temporary situation. The standards are not
being changed in response to the pandemic.
Chair Robles opened the hearing for public comment. No one indicated a desire to participate, and Chair Robles closed the
public hearing.
Board Member Monroe referred to the comments he made at the last meeting regarding the equitable and accurate taxing for
the Edmonds Marsh and Stormwater Projects. He felt the Board and staff had a good conversation about this issue, and it
should not be lost as the plans are forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and final approval.
Board Member Monroe said he read the letters that were submitted by Mr. Phipps, who represents the group, Save Our Marsh.
Mr. Phipps raised some interesting and good points that should also be incorporated into the record. Mr. Chave said all of the
>
minutes from the Planning Board's discussion on the CIP/CFP will be forwarded to the City Council along with their
a
recommendation.
Q.
Q
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2021— 2026 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT/CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS,
RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER MONROE VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
BOARD MEMBER PENCE (ALTERNATE) DID NOT VOTE.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Mr. Lien announced that the City Council adopted a 4-month moratorium on new subdivision applications in the City
(Ordinance No. 4200). The intent of the moratorium is to allow the City time to work through the Tree Code update. The City
Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium on December I'.
Mr. Lien announced that the City is hosting a new website for the Tree Code (www.treecode.edmonds.wa.gov). The website
will provide links to all of the Planning Board's agendas, minutes and videos as they become available. He advised that all
written comments the City receives pertaining to the Tree Code will be attached to the Planning Board's future agendas.
Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention
with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well
as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are
addressed in the draft update include:
Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations.
Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according
to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
• Goal I.0 — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas.
• Goal LD —Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
Mr. Lien referred to Ms. West's comment, made earlier in the meeting, regarding protection of views. He advised that none of
the goals and policies in the Urban Forest Management Plan specifically address views, but views were discussed as they relate
to planting the right trees in the right places.
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.
There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree
fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC).
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board started its review of the draft Tree Code on October 281. Following tonight's work, the
Board will continue its discussion at a special meeting on November 181. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively
scheduled for December 9'. He advised that the draft proposal will be updated to incorporate the Planning Board's feedback
following the special meeting on November 18t1i.
• ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements
Mr. Lien reviewed that, as proposed, for new single-family short plats or subdivisions, 30% of all significant trees on the aa)
developable site must be retained. This mirrors the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance for tree retention on RS-12
and RS-20 sites in critical areas. For multifamily sites, the requirement is 25%. For replacement, the proposed language would
require a 1:1 ratio for tree replacement. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board requested information about how other o
jurisdictions address tree retention and replacement requirements, as well as how they determine the appropriate dollar amount
per tree. They also raised a concern that the replacement requirement might not be sufficient. He referred to the memorandum o
he sent to the Board prior to the meeting, outlining the results of his research that focused specifically on what other jurisdictions a
require for tree retention with development. Some of the jurisdictions have general density requirements, which isn't something Q
the City is considering as part of the Tree Code update. He briefly reviewed the results as follows: --
o Lynnwood does not have a specific tree retention requirement, but they do require trees that are removed to be
replaced based on the number of tree units, which is derived from the diameter of the trees that are cut. If
applicants choose not to plant trees for the required tree units, they can pay a fee into the city's tree fund at a rate
of $187 per tree. If a site cannot support the required number of replacement trees, the applicant would be required
to pay $106 per tree into the fund.
o Shoreline requires that 20% of significant trees be retained if there aren't any critical areas on the site and 30%
if critical areas are present. They require replacement if more trees are removed than what is allowed by the
retention requirement. The replacement requirement of up to 3 trees is based on the size of the trees that are
removed. They don't have neither a tree fund nor a fee -in -lieu option.
o Redmond requires that 30% of significant trees be retained, and the replacement ratio is 1:1 for each significant
tree that is removed, except landmark trees, which must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. They do not have a tree fund,
but they do have a fee -in -lieu program to cover the cost of tree replacement. They don't specify a specific dollar
value for each tree, but just a cost that covers tree replacement.
o Kirkland has a tree -density requirement based on a tree -credit system. Developments are required to have 30
tree credits per acre, and larger trees are worth more tree credits. They have a fee -in -lieu program that is paid
into a City Forestry Account if trees cannot be planted on site. The dollar amount is based on the current market
value.
o Issaquah requires retention based on zone. In single-family zones, 30% of the total caliper of all significant trees
must be retained. In multifamily zones, the requirement is 25%. While Edmonds calculates percentage based on
the total number of trees on the site, Issaquah calculates based on the total caliper of all of the trees on the site.
Replacement is required if the retention standard is not met, and they have a fee -in -lieu program that doesn't
identify a specific dollar value for each tree.
o Medina has a fee -in -lieu program that is based on the size of the tree, and the dollar value is based on the diameter
of the tree at breast height (DBH). They require $200 per inch for trees with a DBH up to 20 inches, which would
equate to $4,000 for a 20-inch tree.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 11
Mr. Lien commented that, while Medina's dollar values might be too much, he likes the way their program is structured.
He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board discussed that larger trees should be valued greater than small trees. He
suggested that Edmonds could consider a similar approach, but lower the dollar value. Chair Robles agreed that Medina's
approach is creative, and he suggested the dollar values are not really out of line when you attach them to the increase in
property value associated with improved view. Mr. Lien commented that not all properties in Edmonds have potential
views, so he cautioned against attaching that high dollar value to all properties in Edmonds. Again, he said he likes the
structure, but the dollar values seem excessive.
Board Member Rubenkonig said the principle found in Issaquah's code stands out to her as a clear approach. It requires
replacement if the retention standard is not met, which makes it clear that the goal is retention. She suggested that Edmonds
should also identify a specific principle that underscores its approach. She said she didn't find the other examples to be as
clear. Mr. Lien noted that Shoreline also requires replacement if the retention standard is not met. The current proposal
simply requires a 1:1 replacement, but it could be changed to incorporate this concept.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that Issaquah's replacement requirement is based on caliper (DBH) of the tree.
Mr. Lien said Shoreline's approach, which is based on "significant trees," would be the easiest to implement. Rather than
having to measure the size of each tree, it counts the number of trees that are at or greater than a specific size. Board
Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be an acceptable approach, but she still wants language that makes the intended
principle clear.
N
am
Board Member Monroe asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting the best thing to do is retain the existing trees,
3
and the next best option would be to replace the trees. If you can't do that, you should pay a fee -in -lieu. Board Member
Rubenkonig agreed that the best approach is to require tree retention as a first priority. Board Member Monroe agreed, as
well. He said replacement should be an option, but it should be the second choice. Replacement should be more difficult
>
than retention, and it should be more costly still to pay an in -lieu fee. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that the first
a
option should be retention, followed by replacement, recognizing there is a lot of innovation available when it comes to
Q.
planting trees. She also supports having a tree bank or fee -in -lieu program in place.
Q
Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the Board's direction, the tree retention should remain at 30% and 25%, and replacement
would be required if the retention requirement is not met. He will consider options for what the appropriate replacement
ratio should be. As the tree gets larger, the replacement ratio should increase, too. The Board indicated support for these
changes.
Chair Robles suggested they consider the scenario of a tree that is blocking the view of the sound. If the tree is cut down,
the property value would increase substantially. Would the property owner be able to purchase the extinction of the tree
for the property value benefit? Mr. Lien reminded them that, as currently drafted, the Tree Code would apply to certain
new development applications: short subdivision, subdivision, new multifamily and new single-family. The requirements
would not apply to a developed single-family site with no critical areas. Board Member Monroe suggested that the Purpose
and Intent Section should clearly explain when the requirements apply.
• ECDC 20.75.XXX — Subdivision Design Flexibility
Mr. Lien shared a diagram of a sample subdivision application, pointing out how the development requirements (utility
easements, access easements, setbacks, etc.) reduce the buildable area and impact a developer's ability to retain existing
trees. He explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and
natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for
low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, which was discussed at the last meeting, would be applied to this
section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following
flexibility is proposed:
1. Setbacks may be reduced up to 20% in all residential zones provided that no side setback is less than 5%. The
required front setback may not be reduced more than 5 feet, but an additional 5-foot reduction may be allowed
for covered entry porches.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering so dwelling units can be shifted to the most suitable locations, but
the overall density cannot be increased.
3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not
exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone.
4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire
and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes.
Mr. Lien advised that, prior to the public hearing, he will create a drawing that illustrates how these flexible options might
be applied on a property that is being subdivided.
Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed flexibility, but he questioned how the City would ensure that the
protected trees are retained after the properties are developed and sold? Mr. Lien said that, as proposed, trees that are
required to be retained with development would be classified as "protected trees, and the term is defined in the Tree Code
(ECDC 23). Chair Robles asked about the administrative cost of keeping a track of protected trees. Mr. Lien explained
that a tree plan would be required when flexibility is granted, and the City would use that plan to track the trees. There are
some other ideas for addressing the issue via the permit process, too. Chair Robles summarized that, when purchasing a
home in Edmonds, due diligence may include going to the City to research the property's tree liability. Mr. Lien said that
if a tree is retained as part of a subdivision, the condition could be specifically listed on the face of a plat. For multifamily
development, a landscape plan would be required.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to record a tree plan as part of a subdivision plan. She agreed
am
that it is important that subsequent owners be required to maintain the protected trees per the approved tree plan. However,
without proper documentation, it would be difficult for the City to identify problems. Mr. Lien explained that, typically,
subdivision approval is based on certain conditions that are listed in the staff report and on file with the City of Edmonds.
The tree plan could be recorded as one of the conditions, and someone doing due diligence would be able to contact the
>
City to find the list of conditions that apply to the property. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a new
0-
development that tied into a regional stormwater system. The water flowed a certain way, and the individual yards were
Q.
designed to assist with the flow. However, the homeowners landscaped their yards in a way that interfered with the
Q
programmed flow. She summarized that, oftentimes, plans look good on paper, but they need to consider what the City
M
needs to do to make sure that the plans are maintained and enforced.
04
T_
Mr. Lien agreed that, if the City does allow design flexibility to retain trees, it makes sense to ensure that the conditions
are documented, either by recording the tree plan or specifically calling the requirements out on the plat plan. Board
Member Rubenkonig suggested that many people are looking for accountability with the tree code, and accountability is a
big part of making a program successful.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has made a case for the priority of tree plantings the City prefers. In addition
to planting the right tree in the right place, do the regulations stipulate a preference for a grove of trees versus stand-alone
trees. Mr. Lien said that, for retention, this is specifically called out in the proposed language. He referred to the priority
list that was discussed at the last meeting, noting that the grove environment is priority one. Similar language is also
included in the replacement section. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is important to get the best return
for the environment. Mr. Lien said the current proposal does not include a preferred tree list, but it could be added. The
Tree Board is currently working on a list that could be provided to property owners to educate them on the right tree for
the right place. Board Member Rubenkonig said it is important that the list include trees that support habitat.
Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is interested in adding language to ensure that the protected trees are documented
when this section is applied to a new development.
• ECDC 23.10.060(B) — Tree Retention Plan
Mr. Lien explained that a tree retention plan must be submitted as part of an application for new development. As proposed,
the tree retention plan must include a tree inventory that contains a numbering system of all existing significant trees on
the property and identify the size of all the trees, the proposed tree status (retained or removed), the general health or
condition rating, and tree types or species. The tree retention plan must also include a site plan that shows the location of
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
all proposed improvements, the accurate location of significant trees, and the location of tree protection measures. Trees
must be labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system, and the limits of disturbance must be drawn to
scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances. The proposed tree status must be identified, as well as the
proposed locations of any supplemental replacement trees as needed.
Board Member Rubenkonig said it isn't clear as to which professionals can do each part of the Tree Retention Plan. Mr.
Lien responded that, as proposed, a qualified tree professional may be required to prepare certain components of the tree
plan. For example, an arborist will need to make a determination on the health of the trees, but a surveyor will identify the
location of trees. Like with all development applications, a team of consultants will put together the plan. Board Member
Rubenkonig commented that some jurisdictions are tightening their requirements and specifically calling out who is
qualified enough to develop the tree plan. The Board should discuss how exacting it wants the requirement to be.
Chair Robles said he would be reluctant to get too particular, since it could result in a barrier. He asked if there is any
incentive for a property owner to submit a tree plan for his/her property, thereby adding to the tree inventory the City can
possess without having to produce. Ultimately, a City's tree inventory will provide the information to make the bigger
decisions about the canopy going forward. The barrier to this is the resources to count all of the trees. It isn't so much of
a problem if individual property owners submit tree plans. Mr. Lien said this concept is not in the proposed Tree Code.
The City is currently doing a partial inventory of the street trees, and the Urban Forest Management Plan talks about a
canopy assessment. However, he doesn't know if it would be possible to conduct an inventory of all of the trees in the
City. Again, he reminded the Board that the proposed Tree Code would only apply to new development. He doesn't know
what the City would do with tree inventories submitted by random private property owners. When they discuss permits,
3
he will highlight some ideas that have come forward that could get to the tracking of trees, what has been planted, and
what has been removed. He summarized that a tree inventory is required with new development because there will be a
retention requirement. The City will need to know what trees are on the site, so they know how many have to be retained
to meet the retention requirement. Chair Robles pointed out that 90% of the trees in Edmonds are on private property. He
questioned the scope of the tree plan if it only accounts for a small number of trees (10%). Mr. Lien reminded the Board
0-
that the proposed language is not intended to be a tree plan. Instead, it provides regulations that deal with trees that are
Q.
associated with development. The Urban Forest Management Plan is a tree plan that talks about canopy assessment,
Q
coverage, tree inventories, etc. However, this information is outside of the tree code, itself.
N
Mr. Lien advised that the tree retention plan must also include an arborist report that provides a complete description of
c
each tree's health, condition and viability, a description of the methods used to determine the limits of disturbance, etc.
V
Board Member Monroe pointed out that some trees may not be viable for retention because they are in the way of the
a
proposed development. He asked if these situations are adequately addressed in the proposed code. Mr. Lien referred
back to the priorities for tree retention. There is also language in the code that talks about working in good faith with the
applicant and the City. Obviously, a tree cannot be retained if it is located where a building is proposed. Board Member
z
Monroe voiced concern that, as proposed, an applicant would be required to provide an arborist report to support this
0
claim. He suggested that staff review the language and decide if clarification is needed.
Q
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the proposed design flexibility that allows structures to be grouped differently
on a site would relieve some of the pressure when it comes to deciding which trees can be retained. She concluded that,
if they allow more flexibility in the design standards, the approach will not be as rigid.
Mr. Lien explained that, oftentimes, when subdivision applications are reviewed, applicants don't know where the actual
buildings will go. This makes it more difficult to do a tree retention plan. As proposed, they can do an initial version of a
tree retention plan as part of the subdivision submittal, and a more detailed plan when the project reaches the building
phase.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its work session on the draft Tree Code at their November 18 special
meeting. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 91h. He reminded them that they will
also need to elect new officers for 2021 at their December 9' meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank announced that she was elected to serve as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission, just in
time for the big project the Commission has been assigned, which is the Airport Master Plan. Landrum & Brown has been
hired as the consultant for this project, and a special virtual meeting is scheduled for November 1911 at 6 p.m. She invited those
interested to tune in.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 15
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/18/2020
Tree Code Regulations Upate
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing on December 9, 2020.
Introduction
The City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) in July 2019 which included
goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City (Attachment 1).
Goal 1 of the UFMP is to maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage which included the following
actions to achieve this goal:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban
forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code
violations.
B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks
according to the PROS plan
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree
programs
Goal 3 of the UFMP is to incentivize protection trees on private property which included the following
action:
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
A code update process has started to begin implementing these portions of the UFMP. In September,
staff presented an outline of topics and possible concepts that will be explored with the Planning Board
in review and updating of the City's tree related regulations (Attachment 2). These broad topics include:
Tree retention during development - Including: exploring low impact development principles
that may provide more flexibility in development in order to retain trees, specific tree retentions
standards during development, and providing incentives for tree retention
Establishing a tree fund into which development contributions or tree penalties can be tracked
Packet Pg. 16
7.A
and the proceeds spent on tree planting and preservation
Reviewing penalties for illegal tree cutting
Moving the main tree regulations for private property into the Natural Resources title of the
City's development code
Reviewing the existing permitting structure and exemptions for tree removal on currently
developed property
A first draft of the updated tree regulations addressing the above referenced UFMP Goals and Actions
and the identified concepts is provided in Attachment 3.
Schedule for Review
The tree code will be discussed at each of the Planning Boards through the end of the year which the
goal of having recommendation on the draft code from the Planning Board by the end of 2020. In
addition to this evening the Planning Board will discuss the tree code at a November 18th special
meeting and hold a Public Hearing on the draft tree code on December 9th.
October 28, 2020 Planning Board Meeting
1. 23.10.000 - Intent and Purpose
2. 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
a. Subsection A - Intro. What type of development this applies to.
3. 23.10.040 - Exemption
a. What this code does not apply to.
4. 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
5. 23.10.030 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
a. Subsection C - Tree Retention Requirements
b. Subsection D - Priority for Tree Retention Requirements
November 12, 2020 Planning Board Meeting
1. 23.10.030 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
a. Subsection C - Tree Retention Requirements
b. Subsection D - Priority for Tree Retention Requirements
2. 23.10.080 - Tree Replacement
3. 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
4. 23.20.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
a. Subsection B -Tree Retention Plan
5. 23.10.070 -Tree Protection Measures During Development
November 18, 2020 Planning Board Meeting
1. 23.10.090
- Bonding
2. 23.10.030
- Permits
3. 23.10.110
- Liability
4. 23.10.100
- Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
5. Chapter 3.95 ECC - Tree Fund
December 9, 2020 Planning Board Public Hearing
Staff will present a broad overview of the code (as amended from the October and November meetings)
Packet Pg. 17
7.A
touching on the key pieces and then open up the public hearing for comments on the draft tree
regulations.
Tree Code Update Web Page
A webpage has been created for citizens to follow the tree code update at treecode.edmondswa.gov.
Back ground information on the tree code update is provided as well as links to the Planning Board
meeting agendas, minutes and meeting video.
Public Comments
As public comments are received on the tree code update, I will be including those comments in the
Planning Boards agendas. I will only include comments received since the last meeting on each agenda.
Comments since the October 12t" Planning Board agenda was prepared provided in Attachment 5.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan
Attachment 2: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix
Attachment 3: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations
Attachment 4: Public Comments
Packet Pg. 18
� _
L
Y
� i i � i ■.1.+�
n a � u�
� �..
'1•� t ' ' Y
•ry4^�'Z� -�' r r� Vie• o f � i r
} A' h.. �t- •yam. �'- r �. r
IA
Mir
-`-NM1•10010101*
JUrban Fores��lanagement Plan
July, 2019 4&r.r OIk
oNi�+
7.A.a
a
Packet Pg. 20
7.A.a
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Management Plan
July, 2019
DAVEYI-.
Resource Group
Prepared for:
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A
Atascadero, California 93422
Phone: 805-461-7500
Toll Free: 800-966-2021
Fax: 805-461-8501
www.davey.com/drg
Packet Pg. 21
7.A.a
Acknowledgments
CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS
Shane Hope, Director, Development Services
Carrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Services
Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Terri Arnold, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Debra Dill, Parks Senior Laborer, Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department
Jennifer Leach, Environmental Education &
Sustainability Coordinator, Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services Department
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager,
Development Services Department
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager,
Public Works Department
CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD
Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair
Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair
Gail Lovell, Position 2
William Phipps, Position 4
Barbara Chase, Position 5
Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6
Vivian Olson, Position 7
Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt.
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - Chair
Matt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair
Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1
Daniel Robles, Position 2
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5
Alicia Crank, Position 6
Todd Cloutier, Position 7
Mike Rosen, Alt.
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Position 2 — Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Position 4 — Council President Pro Tem
Kristiana Johnson, Position 1
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3
Dave Teitzel, Position 5
Thomas Mesaros, Position 6
Neil Tibbott, Position 7
Cli E D 41
0
DAVEYI-O,.
ResourGroup
a
Packet Pg. 22
7.A.a
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation
Introduction
Community
Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest
What Do We Have?
r
Edmonds' Urban Forestry History Regulatory Framework
Regional Plans and Legislation Regional Urban Forestry Resources
Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies
Existing Urban Forest Practices
What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and Community Input
How Do We Get There?
Goals and Actions of the Plan
How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and Measuring Results
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Appendix C: Community Survey Responses
Appendix D: Open House Summary Report
Q
Packet Pg. 23
7.A.a
Executive Summary
Background &
Purpose
Urban forest simply means the trees in an urban
area. An urban forest management plan is a long-
term plan for managing trees in a city.
The purpose of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest
Management Plan is to provide guidance for
managing, enhancing, and growing trees in the City
of Edmonds over the next 20 years. Special emphasis
is placed on managing trees on public property and
along the public rights -of -way.
Public Involvement
;n Process
Public involvement has been part of developing and
finalizing the Urban Forest Management Plan. The
involvement has included open houses, website
postings, informal survey, press releases, and
submitted public comments, as well as formal public
meetings by the Tree Board, Planning Board, and
City Council.
Plan Overview and
Conclusion
Edmonds, like many cities in the Pacific Northwest,
once had large stands of old -growth trees that
included Douglas fir and Western red cedar. Most of
these were logged off years ago and development of
streets, homes, businesses, schools, churches, and
additional settlement followed. In some places, new
trees have grown up or been planted. For Edmonds
today, tree canopy coverage is estimated to be about
30.3% of the total city area.
Trees have many benefits, but also some challenges.
Selecting the right tree for a particular location
makes a difference in how the tree will perform and
thrive. Appropriate planting methods and tree care
are important too.
The Cty has a program of planting and caring for
trees in public places —such as City parks and along
various streets. In addition, the City has regulations
about certain aspects of trees on private property.
Notably, Edmonds is certified as a "Tree City USA"
city and supports an active Citizens Tree Board. The
Tree Board, as well as City staff, helps provide public
education and participation in volunteer events
to plant trees. Throughout the community, many
residents also value and take care of trees on their
property.
To promote future sustainability and urban forest
health, thoughtful planning and actions are needed.
The Plan identifies five long-range goals to help the
City move forward. The goals are:
1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
2. Manage public trees proactively
3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on
private property
4. Provide resources to the community
to educate/inform on tree planting and care
5. Promote "right tree, right place".
Specific action strategies are identified to address
each of the Plan's long-range goals. These would be
implemented over time, as resources are available,
to address priority needs. Furthermore, the Urban
Forest Management Plan should be reviewed every
five to ten years and updated as needed.
a
1 Scope & Purpose
Packet Pg. 24
7.A.a
Overview
The plan includes long-range goals and action
strategies to promote sustainability, species diversity,
and greater canopy cover. Publicly -managed trees
along streets, in parks, and at City facilities are
collectively referred to as the community urban
forest. Privately owned trees are also considered
part of the urban forest in this plan because of their
function and contribution to the sustainability of the
overall urban forest in Edmonds; however, the City
recognizes that it has a limited role in the care of
private trees.
Recognizing the significance of environmental and
socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their
relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP
aims to:
• Illustrate the value and benefits of trees.
• Promote shared vision and collaboration
between community residents.
• Establish benchmarks and metrics to monitor the
long-term success of management strategies.
• Enhance the health and sustainability of the
community urban forest.
• Increase the vital benefits that the trees provide
to Edmonds and the region.
• Ensure that resources are in place to support the
care and management of the community's trees.
This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for
the long-term and short-term in support of this
purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to
adequately manage community trees. It is intended
to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the
exploration and implementation of the actions as
funding and resources permit.
The development of the UFMP included a
comprehensive review of existing policies and
regulations, currentfunding and maintenance levels,
analysis of the extent, condition, and composition
of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns,
and community input.
Plan Foundation
Spending any amount of time outdoors in Edmonds
will reveal the abundant and diverse natural
resources found within City parks and surrounding
residences and businesses. Besides the obvious
amenities available to a city on the coastline of the
Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder
in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the
buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the
shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help
people achieve the unique experience referred
to as; "an Edmonds kind of day." All of the trees
in Edmonds make up the City's urban forest tree
resource. Without active management, this urban
forest is at risk.
What What
Do We Do We
Have? Want?
How How Do I
Are We -ql% We Get
Doing? There?
as
a
a
N
c
0
3
as
a�
0
U
m
L
c
0
a
c
as
E
a�
a�
c
0
as
L0
LL
c
0
L
c
0
E
W
0
U
r
c
as
E
a
c
as
M
U
0
a
Scope & Purpose 2
Packet Pg. 25
7.A.a
In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan that formally recognized that the community
places a high value on the conservation of the urban
forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
is intended to be an element that aligns in support
of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP
aligns with the intentions of, "providing a framework
for moving the Edmonds community toward a
sustainable future that integrates and responds
to environmental, economic, and social needs in a
way which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs" (Comp Plan, 2016).
Thefollowing principlesfor urban forest management
set the framework for the UFMP:
• Optimize the ecosystem services provided by trees.
• Control tree maintenance costs to the community.
• Create pathways to stable and predictable funding.
• Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with trees.
The structure and organization of the UFMP are
based on the understanding of what we have, what
we want, how we get there, and how we are doing.
This structure, referred to as adaptive management,
is commonly used for resource planning and
management (Miller, R.W.,1988) and provides a good
conceptual framework for managing community
forest resources.
The plan development process involved a
comprehensive review and assessment of the
existing community tree resource, including
composition, value, and environmental benefits.
The process explored community values, existing
regulations, and policies related to community
trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders,
internal and external, who played a role in the
planning, design, care, and advocacy around the
community forest. These stakeholders include the
general public, City departments, the Citizens' Tree
Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD).
Each of these stakeholders contributed to the
development of this Plan.
What Do We Have?
Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget
Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region,
Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and
waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown
in population, the forest has been urbanized and
divided for parks, homes, and businesses. Recognizing
the role of trees in the community and the necessity
to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape
Plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines
as part of the general aesthetic goals for the
community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015,
elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy
that has since been the source for many of the City's
tree management decisions.
In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest
is generally understood to be required by the Growth
Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017)
The City
Acres 6,095
Population 41,841)
Land lower
Tree Ca nopw
30%
brass & Vegetation
27%
1 m pervio us Su rfaces
34%
Bare Soils
2%
Open Water
7%
Tree Canopy Corer
Maximum Potential Canopy 57%
Investment
Tree Care Per Capita
$7,74
r
Q
.3 Scope & Purpose
Packet Pg. 26
7.A.a
Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by
the City's Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the
Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents
define the reach of existing regulations and policies
within which care for the urban forest is mandated:
• Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental
Quality Goal A - "...Protect environmental
quality within the Edmonds community
through the enforcement of community -based
environmental regulations."
• Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016)
- Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation
Goal 4 — "Preserve and provide access to
natural resource lands for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education."
• Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest and
increase tree canopy in Edmonds.
• Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban forest using
appropriate maintenance of street and park
trees, clear removal and replacement policies
and providing information about urban forestry
to property owners.
• Streestcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate
Sustainable Practices. In redesigning the corridor,
it is critical that the new interventions improve the
street's performance. This includes enhancing the
street environment and gateways for pedestrian
benefits through an Urban Forestry program in
the Downtown/Waterfront area.
The urban forest is a combination of both public
and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct
control of and responsibility for are defined as the
community tree resource. This includes public
trees in parks, along rights -of -way, and around City
facilities. Managing any resource begins with defining
what is being managed and establishing benchmarks
along with clearly defined goals and expectations.
While public trees along major arterials and high -
profile areas are well-known and routinely cared for
by City staff, other public street trees are expected
to be maintained by the adjacent property owner.
Aside from individual development applications, the
City does not have a method to take an inventory
or track the history, status, or location of public
trees. In addition, providing adequate care for trees
requires a level of knowledge and a skill set that
many property owners do not have.
The planning process for this UFMP included an
assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study
provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution
of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the
average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of
historical change estimates that the City has lost 114
acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there
was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%.
The primary challenges and opportunities for urban
forest management are:
• Private owners control the majority of tree
canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit
tree removal, except when the trees are
associated with development or are within an
environmentally critical area.
• There is limited knowledge about the condition
of trees in the urban forest.
• There is an estimated 1,651 acres is
theoretically available for planting to expand
the urban forest canopy'.
The views of scenic places are fundamental to
Edmonds' identity as a community and require
balanced consideration with the care of the urban
forest. Scenic views are highly valued in long-
established development. At the same time,
appreciation of trees —especially "the right trees in
the right place" —is a value shared by most residents.
1 This estimate is partly based on an analysis of low-lying
vegetation areas.
r
Q
Executive Summary 4
Packet Pg. 27
Land Cover
7.A.a
V
Bare Soils
2%
Grass/Vegetatic
27%
Figure 1: Land Cover
-anopy
npervious
34%
2 1,: N RT
City ijmits r
Tree canopy
R �zani
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation sr ISTHsr
Impervious Surfaces #
Bare Soil
open Water Y
N r �
$T
0 025 0.5 1 y
Miles
Figure 1: Land Cover
Jr Executive Summary
Q
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.a
17
What Do We Want?
The plan development process included substantial
outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and
non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad
perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds'
urban forest. Through open house forums and
public meetings, the City has found an engaged
set of residents with varying opinions on matters
pertaining to the care of the urban forest.
City Staff were also consulted during plan
development, with City code and public safety
being the main considerations when making tree
care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive
approach to tree management by performing work
on trees as problems are discovered, but they also
look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic
public places.
Open house forums and public meetings provided perspective
on community interests and concerns about the urban forest.
In general, stakeholders from both the community
and City Staff share the following desired outcomes
for the UFMP:
• Preservation and Enhancement of Tree Canopy
• Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the
Community Tree Resource
• Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and
Habitat
• Increased Outreach and Education
• Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and
Non-profit Groups
• Strategies and Policies to Minimize Potential
Tree Conflicts
Executive Summary 6
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.a
How Do We Get
There?
The long-range strategic goals provided in this
Plan are proposed to address the three components
of a sustainable urban forestry program through
specific actions:
Urban Forest Asset Actions - which are intended
to improve the urban forest resource over
the next 20 years by developing detailed
How Are We Doing?
The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the
urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching
framework for urban forestry operations, policies,
and programs. It presents a high-level review of
urban forest management in the City, including
historical context and an exploration of the benefits
of Edmonds' trees. Building upon that information,
the Plan connects the community's vision for the
urban forest with appropriate goals and actions.
expectations for the urban forest. This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a
20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short
• Municipal Resource Actions - which are and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting
intended to drive improvements in City policy the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of
and practices by developing efficiency and operational objectives. The success of the UFMP
alignment of efforts within City departments. will be measured through the realization of goals
• Community Resource Actions - which are and will be demonstrated through the health of
intended to build stronger community the urban forest and increased environmental
engagement and public participation in urban benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement
forest stewardship. of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore,
the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP
will be how successful it is in meeting community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
community tree resource.
Goal 1- Maintain citywide canopy coverage
Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro -actively
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
Goal 5 - Promote "Rieht tree. rieht glace"
Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management.
E
a
E
U
a
Q
7 Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 30
7.A.a
Introduction
Trees play an essential role in the community
of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and
intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring
communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research
demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve
the local environment and lessen the impact resulting
from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees can improve
air quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage
stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat
for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature.
In addition to these direct improvements, healthy
urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a
community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were
found to add an average of $8,870 to homes' sales
price as well as reduce time on the market for home
sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies
on the business benefits of trees have shown how
retail districts promote longer and more frequent
shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban
trees support a more livable community, fostering
psychological health and providing residents with a
greatersense of place (Kuo, 2003). Communitytrees,
both public and private, soften the urban hardscape
by providing a green sanctuary and making the City
of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work,
and play. The City has emphasized the importance
of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so
much so that public trees are defined as a valued
community resource, a critical component of the
urban infrastructure, and a part of the City's identity.
Edmonds' trees are a valued community resource
Community
Early settlements were built in the City to access
natural resources, where shingle mills became the
primary industry. Although construction of the
Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was
expected to be the main source of growth in the
City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to
Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the
town grow and prosper.
Edmonds' population, from 2017 State estimates, is
41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square
miles. It is the third largest city in the county after
Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is
expected to be 45,550.
The urban forest in this community is defined by its
public and privately managed trees. Through parks
and public rights -of -way, the City maintains a diverse
population of trees intended for city streetscapes
(typically nursery grown hardwoods), as well as
native trees (naturally regenerating conifers and
deciduous trees). Privately managed trees may be
remnant forest trees connected with early logging
history, naturally growing native trees and even
invasive hardwoods.
Community Vision for the UFMP
Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of
the City as an attractive, sustainable community for
all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees
as contributing to that vision and directs that an
urban forest management plan be used as a guide for
decisions on managing the forest resource, especially
focusing on public land and rights -of -way. For private
lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives
to encourage good tree management practices.
r
Q
Introduction 8
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.a
Benefits and
Challenges of the
Urban Forest
Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate
the effects of urbanization and development, which
protects and enhances lives within the community.
In general, there are five (5) important ways in
which trees provide benefits: Water Quality, Carbon
Sequestration, Energy Savings, Air Quality, and
Socioeconomic benefits.
Water Quality
Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of
contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian
areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human
health and wildlife, including salmon populations.
Requirements for surface water management
are becoming more stringent and costly for both
developers and the City.
By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into
stormwater management planning, runoff volumes,
peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all
be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need
for constructing stormwater management facilities
and the cost of treatment to remove sediment and
other pollutants.
Typical overview of waterfront homes in Edmonds.
9 Introduction
Trees improve and protect water quality by:
• Intercepting Rainfall —Trees intercept rainfall in
their canopy, which act as a mini -reservoir. Some
water evaporates from the canopy and some
slowly soaks into the ground, reducing the total
amount of runoff (Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy
interception also lessens soil compaction, which
in turn further reduces runoff.
• Increasing soil capacity and infiltration —
Root growth and decomposition increase
the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by
rainfall and snowmelt resulting in slower
percolation rates and increasing the filtration of
contaminants (Xiao, et al., 2007).
• Reducing soil erosion — Tree roots reduce
the flow and volume of stormwater runoff,
avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and
other pollutants from entering streams, rivers,
Lake Washington, and the Puget Sound (WA
Department of Ecology, 2011).
• Providing salmon habitat — Shade from trees
helps to cool warm urban runoff, which poses a
threat to anadromous fish, like salmon. Shade
from trees provides lakeside and riparian habitat
for salmon and cools water temperatures,
increasing dissolved oxygen, which is essential to
salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012).
r
c
as
E
a
c
as
E
M
U
a
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 32
7.A.a
Carbon Sequestration
As environmental awareness continues to increase,
governments are paying particular attention to global
warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes
the Earth's surface it is reflected back into space as
infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb
some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in
the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the
Earth's surface. Many chemical compounds in the
Earth's atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO), water
vapor, and human -made gases/aerosols. As GHGs
increase, the amount of energy radiated back into
space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the
atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature
of the earth is resulting in changes in weather, sea
levels, and land -use patterns, commonly referred
to as "climate change." In the last 150 years, since
large-scale industrialization began, the levels of
some GHGs, including CO2, have increased by 25%
(U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces
greenhouse gases. The carbon -related function of
trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored
in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption
rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways:
• Directly —Through growth and the sequestration
of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass.
• Indirectly — By lowering the demand for air
conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions
associated with electric power generation and
natural gas consumption.
Stormwater runoff from streets needs to be controlled. Trees
will slow and intercept stormwater, reducing the burden on
stormwater infrastructure.
Energy Savings
Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation
solutions to keep rates low for their customers,
reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately,
to be good environmental stewards. Energy services
delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by
Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD).
This organization recognizes how trees can reduce
energy consumption and encourages Edmonds
residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy
for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017).
Urban trees and forests modify the environment
and conserve energy in three principal ways:
• Shade dwellings and impervious surfaces —
Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed
as 34% of the total land base (Edmonds,
2017). Shade from trees reduces the amount
of radiant energy absorbed and stored by
these impervious surfaces, thereby reducing
the urban heat island effect, a term that
describes the increase in urban temperatures
in relation to surrounding locations (Simpson
& McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also
reduces the amount of energy used to cool a
structure (Simpson, 2002).
• Transpiration —Transpiration releases water
vapor from tree canopies, which cools
the surrounding area. Through shade and
transpiration, trees and vegetation within
an urban setting modify the environment
and reduce heat island effects. Temperature
differences of more than 97 (5°C) have been
observed between city centers without canopy
cover and more forested suburban areas
(Akbari, et al., 1997).
• Wind reduction — Trees can reduce wind speeds
by up to 50% and influence the movement
of air and pollutants along streets and out of
urban canyons. By reducing air movement into
buildings and against conductive surfaces (e.g.,
glass, metal siding), trees can reduce conductive
heat loss.
Introduction 10
Packet Pg. 33
Q
7.A.a
Air Quality
Urban trees improve air quality in five
fundamental ways:
• Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and smoke)
• Absorbing gaseous pollutants
• Shade and transpiration
• Reducing power plant emissions
• Increasing oxygen levels
They protect and improve air quality by intercepting
particulate matter (PM10), including dust, ash, pollen,
and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in
the tree canopy where they are eventually washed
harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb
harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (0), nitrogen
dioxide (NO), and sulfur dioxide (SO). Shade and
transpiration reduces the formation of 03, which
is created during higher temperatures. Scientists
are now finding that some trees may absorb more
volatile organic compounds (VOC's) than previously
thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010).
VOC's are a class of carbon -based particles emitted
from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other
human activities.
By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce
emissions from the generation of power. And,
through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase
oxygen levels.
The needles of these douglas fir trees help improve air quality.
Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic,
and Health Benefits
While perhaps the most difficult to quantify, the
aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from trees may
be among their greatest contributions, including:
• Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics
• Shade and privacy
• Wildlife habitat
• Opportunities for recreation
• Reduction in violent crime
• Creation of a sense of place and history
• Reduced illness and reliance on medication and
quicker recovery from injury or illness
Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage
of property values, through higher sales prices where
individual trees and forests are located.
In addition, trees and forests have positive economic
benefits for retailers. There is evidence that trees
promote better business by stimulating more
frequent and extended shopping and a willingness
to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf, 2007).
Trees and forestlands provide important habitat
(foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals,
birds, and fish and other aquatic species, along
with limitless opportunities for recreation, offering
a healthful respite from the pressures of work and
everyday stress.
11 Introduction
Packet Pg. 34
7.A.a
Tree Selection related to
Location and Other Factors
Selecting tree species that are appropriate for the
expected functions, maintenance requirements, and
locations in which they are planted is important.
Generally, native trees should be considered for
planting or replacement whenever practical.
Along City streets, relatively compact trees that
add color and interest, without tending to upheave
pavement, are typically desirable. An example is the
Bowhall maple, which has been used in numerous
street -side locations in Edmonds. When street
trees are planted on the same side of the street as
SnoPUD overhead power lines, additional caution
is needed in selecting appropriate species. These
poles also usually carry major communication lines.
Such facilities are often located at the very edge of
the City's rights -of -way or in planter strips between
the sidewalk and the curb. Trees should be selected
that do not result in the need for frequent topping
or heavy pruning to keep them underneath the
communication space on PUD poles, which can be
as low as 15 feet above ground level.
In large spaces, native coniferous trees may be very
appropriate. Some of these species (such as Douglas
fir) can grow very tall (up to 200 feet) and wide (30
feet). They are well -suited to the Pacific Northwest
climate and have needles year-round. Also, various
types of deciduous trees, including maple and oak,
may be appropriate in large spaces.
In view areas and in many relatively small spaces,
lower -growing or less -spreading trees may be a
good choice. For example, vine maples have colorful
leaves in autumn and at mature height are generally
no more than 15 feet tall. However, the branches of
this species can spread wide, up to 20 feet. Other
species, even fruit trees and small specimen trees,
may fit well in settings where tree height or width
needs to be limited.
In critical areas where wildlife habitat exists, native
trees should generally be chosen for planting.
Depending on the type of habitat and space
availability, such trees could include Western red
cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and dogwood.
A mix of large and small trees in a park.
a
Introduction 12
Packet Pg. 35
Right tree, right place
7.A.a
Factors to consider when selecting a tree to plant.
Planting a tree is something that provide a sense
of accomplishment and something to admire for
decades. However, it is not a decision that should
be made without careful consideration. When
considering what tree to plant and where to plant it,
one should remember the widely used phrase "Right
Tree, Right Place." Choosing the right tree depends
on many factors including soil type, climate, and the
amount of space the tree will have both underground
and overhead.
It is important to choose a tree that does not require
more space in the future than a site can provide. To
avoid any conflicts with overhead obstructions (e.g.,
power lines, utility poles, buildings) or underground
obstructions (e.g., pipes, building foundations),
consider the tree's height, root growth, and shape
at maturity. While above -ground growth is a little
easier to envision, a tree needs plenty of room to
grow underground too; tree roots can extend up
to two to three times the width of the crown (the
leaves and branches of the tree).
Apart from the physical space available for a tree to
grow, one may consider whether the property is in a
view shed and how the tree at maturity will impact
the views.
Trees in streetscapes can grow into conflict with sidewalks.
1. The tree's purpose will impact the suitability of
different tree species, whether used for shade,
aesthetic beauty, wind protection, screening, or
other purposes.
2. Size and location of the tree, including available
space for roots and branches, affects the decision
on which species to plant.
3. Crown form or shape varies among species,
including round, oval, columnar, V-shaped, or
pyramidal shapes. Consider how the shape of the
tree works in the space available.
Note on Native Trees: Edmonds was once covered in
forests of old growth Douglas fir, western red cedar,
and western hemlock. While these trees were once
the right tree in the right place, they often may not
be appropriate for urban environments. In natural
conditions, a Douglas fir can grow to more than
200 feet in height with a diameter of five to eight
feet. While the City's parks and the larger zoned
properties (12,000 — 20,000 square foot minimum
lot size) primarily located in north Edmonds may
provide sufficient growing space for these large native
species, they may not be appropriate landscape
trees within the Edmonds "bowl area" with its more
dense development and view concerns.
� 0.
Tree roots lifting a sidewalk.
Q
13 Introduction
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.a
Trees and Views
To some people, trees are the view and to others, trees
block the view. The City of Edmonds is blessed with
magnificent views of Puget Sound and the Olympic
Mountain range. These views add to the quality of
life here, as well as to property values. When views
become obstructed, enjoyment of one's property as
well as property values may be impacted. The City's
Comprehensive Plan has many policies recognizing
the protection of public views (views from parks or
view corridors down streets and at street ends), but
does not specifically address private view protection.
Not all areas of Edmonds have views of Puget
Sound and the Olympics. While a view shed study
of the City of Edmonds has not been completed,
the primary view areas are located in the Bowl and
the properties on the west facing slopes of north
Edmonds. When considering planting trees in these
view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve
the views of neighboring properties.
Topping of trees for views is often the first
consideration of landowners. However, topping is not
generally recognized as good arboricultural practice.
A topped tree requires periodic maintenance to
maintain its reduced size. That can become expensive
in the long-term. Also, conifers will often form a
An example of skirting -up; the lower limbs on this tree have
been removed to provide drivers with a clearer view.
weakened top as the side branches all try to grow
up. In addition, the cut top often becomes an entry
site for decay organisms that weaken the tree and
increase the danger of a top breaking in high winds.
For broad-leaved trees such as maple, madrone or
oaks, severe topping is even more damaging. It can
seriously harm the tree's health and cause various
safety hazards.
While views are important, otherfactors such as critical
areas must also betaken into consideration. The north
Edmonds view shed is associated with significant
slopes (potential landslide hazards are slopes 40%
and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that
has specific regulations that apply to development
in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC — Earth Subsidence
and Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical
area regulations. The mechanical and hydrogeological
benefits which trees and other vegetation provide
to maintain slope stability and reduce erosion are
well documented. Tree maintenance activities that
maintain the health of existing trees will also help
maintain slope stability.
A landowner should explore alternative options to
tree removal or topping. Below is a list of several
trimming practices derived from Vegetation
Management: A Guidefor PugetSound Bluff Property
Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in
combination to create views without compromising
tree health or slope stability.
View -enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers
1. Windowing
2. Interlimbing
3. Skirting -up
• Note: In any pruning practice or combination,
60% or more of the original crown should be
retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The
removal of too much live foliage can reduce
the tree's ability to supply food to the roots,
thereby weakening them.
Windowing. This pruning practice allows a
view "window" through the existing foliage of
the tree's canopy. In pruning major limbs and
Introduction 14
Packet Pg. 37
as
�a
a
N
c
0
as
a�
0
U
d
L
c
0
a
c
as
E
a�
a�
c
0
as
`0
U_
c
0
c
0
E
w
4-
0
U
r
c
as
E
a
c
as
E
U
0
r
r
Q
7.A.a
branch whorls, sections that obscure a view are
removed. Many people find that this technique
creates an aesthetically pleasing effect.
• Interlimbing. The removal of entire branch
whorls or individual branches throughout the
canopy allows more light to pass through, as
well as reducing wind resistance of the tree.
This practice can be used in conjunction with
windowing to improve views.
• Skirting -up. Limbing the tree up from the bottom
allows a clear line of sight. Instead of an obscuring
mass of foliage, the tree trunk is the only object
between you and the view. This technique is
useful when the tree in question is located high
on the bluff face or upon the tableland. Relatively
more branches can be removed with this
technique because the lower branches contribute
less nutrients to the tree than higher branches.
Pruning Broad-leaved Trees
Pruning and trimming of broad-leaved trees is usually
more complicated, especially for trees grown in the
wild. Generally, short-lived species such as alder,
willow and Bitter cherry are not worth pruning,
while trees like madrona, white oak, bigleaf maple,
and vine maple will warrant the expense. Crown
reduction is one of the most common methods that
arborists use to control the size of the tree and keep
its shape perfect. This method involves reducing the
foliage of the tree while still preserving the general
structure of the crown; doing this successfully trims
the overall shape of the tree and controls its size.
In a general sense, limbs that are located on the
uppermost portion of the tree canopy are cut shorter
in order to decrease the tree's height. However, they
are only removed to the next lateral growth to be
able to ensure that they heal faster and grow again
properly. It is highly recommended that only 20%
or less of the tree's canopy should be cut at once in
order to avoid the tree from suffering.
Properties owners should consult a certified arborist
prior to undertaking any tree maintenance activity.
Challenges
Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest
requires the coordination of many different
stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated
resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with
many other elements of the city. This can result in
conflict or challenges including:
• Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure -
Roots and branches of trees can damage nearby
sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings.
• Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to the
community. Storm events, accidents, improper
maintenance, and the natural death of trees can
all create structural weaknesses for trees and the
surrounding area.
• View Issues - Edmonds is known for the
majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is possible
for trees to block these views if they grow too
large or were planted in improper locations.
• Maintenance - Trees are living infrastructure.
As such, they require active and regular
maintenance. Structural pruning, irrigation, and
the management of pests and diseases are some
critical maintenance practices that must occur to
ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest.
• Choice of Tree Species - Different tree species have
different needs, growth patterns, and resistances
to pests and diseases. A diverse palette of species
improves the resilience of the urban forest.
A tree with multiple stems may become a hazard without
Q
15 Introduction
proper care.
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.a
What Do We Have?.
To effectively manage the urban forest, it's essential
to have knowledge and understanding of what exists
today. This section lays the groundwork for the
UFMP with historical context, current policies and
practices and understanding about the existing state
of the urban forest.
History of Urban
Forestry in Edmonds
Trees have been an important part of the City's
character and economy since its founding. However,
to understand and manage the urban forest has
depended upon which trees are being considered and
where the trees were located. This is evident from
the various locations where trees are referenced in
the City code as well as the variety of departments
whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds
had been designated by the National Arbor Day
Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has
had city staff in different departments managing
tree issues within the City for decades.
Recognizing the role of trees in the community and
the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a
Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting
guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of
the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015,
elements of this plan introduced tree care policy
which has been the source for much of the City's
tree management decisions ever since.
In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens'
Tree Board to assist in the development of tree
ordinances and to encourage the planting and
maintaining of trees. This is an early example of
the City taking steps towards management of tree
resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public
and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this
board was a proposal to the City for updated tree -
related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree
codes, through a public comment period, were
rejected in part due to public concerns about private
property rights, but also because the City felt that it
had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the
recommended codes.
From these related events, it's clear that the
community has assumed an increasing level of care
for the urban forest that would benefit from long-
term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from
the State and Federal Government for environmental
stewardship requirements have also played a
significant role in defining the level of care for the
urban forest that exist in Edmonds today.
Of special note are three policy sources that directly
influence the management of urban forestry
and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State
Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The
PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive
Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on
the development and operation of Edmonds urban
forest are discussed below.
Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement.
a
Introduction 16
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.a
Growth Management Act (1990)
In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the
Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated
and unplanned growth posed a threat to the
environment, sustainable economic development
and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique
among states, the Act requires that municipalities
prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide
for growth and development in a manner that is
locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and
affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are
required to adopt critical areas regulations by the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines
critical areas as:
"Critical areas" include the following areas and
ecosystems:
a. Wetlands;
b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers
used for potable water;
c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
d. Frequently flooded areas; and
e. Geologically hazardous areas. I�+*
The state of Washington +' ,
requires the City of Edmonds
to manage and protect it's
critical areas.
` 1889
Common ground vegetation in wetland areas
Cities are required to include the best available
science in developing policies and regulations to
protect the functions and values of critical areas.
Further to that end, jurisdictions must review,
evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas
ordinances per an update schedule.
Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical
areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps
with the protection of the urban forest. The trees
in the urban forest increase soil security to protect
wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the
branches and canopy provide ample real estate for
wildlife to call home. It is important that the City
plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole,
not just critical areas.
This notion is reinforced in Washington
Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which
specifies when classifying forest land resources
that "Cities are encouraged to coordinate their
forest resource lands designations with their county
and any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities
should not review forest resource lands designations
solely on a parcel -by -parcel basis."
Edmonds has established environmental qualitygoals
in support of the legislation and in order to protect
critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying
policies for the jurisdiction's critical areas program.
wa
Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas.
r
Q
17 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 40
7.A.a
The Comprehensive Plan (2016)
As an overarching guiding document, the
Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions and
plans into one cohesive document. The Comprehensive
Plan is structured by element, then goals, then policies.
The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These
elements include goals and policies that can be
directly supported through this UFMP. These are the
community sustainability elements of the plan and
include goals and policies associated with:
• Sustainability
• Climate Change Goals and Policies, including
support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US
Mayor's Climate Change Agreement
• Community Health
• Environmental Quality
The urban forest is a key component of the community
sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks to
protect environmental quality and sets the first policy
(A.1) as to: Ensure that the city's natural vegetation,
especially native vegetation, associated with its urban
forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are
protected and enhanced..." A.2 sets to protect and
retain the urban forest, native vegetation, and wildlife
habitat areas. This includes techniques such as tree
retention, which should be integrated into land use
and development codes. As the urban forest grows,
so too does the habitat and environmental quality.
The community culture and urban design element's
implementation involves tree policy as well. In this
element, the streetscape section defines the many
ways that trees enhance the community: "Trees are an
asset to the community. They help absorb stormwater,
provide habitat for wildlife, clean pollution from the air,
and give both summer shade and aesthetic pleasure."
In this way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the
policy commitment to Community Health, through
the preservation and expansion of the urban forest.
Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape
Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and
Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006.
The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for
the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a
"Complete Streets" program which accommodates
the needs of all users along streets, including a safe
space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree
management component. This section concludes
with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds
should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an
Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
The community sustainability element also includes
two other sections that are interconnected with the
urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas.
Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues
surrounding the environment and climate change,
the City of Edmonds formally expressed support
for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No.
1129, and joined the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No.
1130. A crucial component of these climate change
policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with
several benchmarks:
1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green -house
gases in the state to 1990 levels;
2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse
gases in the state to twenty-five percent below
1990 levels;
3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global
climate stabilization levels by reducing overall
emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels,
or seventy percent below the state's expected
emissions that year.
The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of
meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon
through many ways including; reducing energy
demand forshaded buildings, acquiringcarbon dioxide
for the photosynthesis, and sequestering carbon. The
potential for carbon sequestration is determined
by maximum tree sizes, lifespans, growth rates, and
tolerances to urban stress. Therefore, growing long-
lasting and healthy trees directly contributes to the
success of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan climate
change goals.
Q
What Do We Have? 18
Packet Pg. 41
7.A.a
The PROS Plan (2016)
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the
management and development of Edmonds' parks,
recreation and open spaces, and the services
provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department. The PROS plan has been
regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to
remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves.
Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community
Cultural Plan on a six-yearcycle, in alignmentwith the
requirements of the Washington State Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility
for federal and state grant programs. To this end,
the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous
species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is
also an important tool in meeting Washington's
Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and
achieving the important citywide goals outlined in
the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan
defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically
addresses urban forestry.
Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat
Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access
to natural resources for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education. The
eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting
areas with critical habitats and natural resources.
Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective
4.5, which states "Expand the urban forest and
increase tree canopy in Edmonds". Under each
goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and
initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal
4 is: "Steward the urban forest using appropriate
maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal
and replacement policies and providing information
about urban forestry to property owners." This
demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the
people of Edmonds as manifested through existing
official documents addressing the urban forest and
urban tree canopy.
19 what Do we Have?
Purchasing of Forested Properties
The City's policies with regard to the acquisition
of open space (including the potential purchase of
forested properties) are contained with the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land
acquisition is included in the capital project budget
and the PROS plan notes that "expansions of the
parks system will target the gaps identified in this
plan and take advantage of opportunities as they
emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds,
this approach will require vigilance and proactive
pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities
for both parks and open spaces. The City's inclusion
of this item in the capital projects list recognizes
the importance of swift action when rare property
acquisition opportunities become available." A
specific policy addressing the purchase of forested
properties could be considered for adding to the
PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining
the City's tree cover through the selective purchase
of forest properties as opportunities arise.
Forested properties can be valuable acquisitions to maintain
City's tree cover.
a
Packet Pg. 42
7.A.a
Summary Considerations for
Planning
These documents demonstrate the existing
regulations and policies within which care for the
urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope
defined within these documents that the values of
the Edmonds community, and Washington State at
large, require that urban forest management include
strategies to improve the care and conservation
of all trees. This includes updating the Street Tree
Plan, consideration for improving and preserving
trees near waterways, critical areas, habitats,
and on private parcels. Equipped with this policy
background and mandate to manage the urban
forest, it's essential to plan with as much knowledge
about the community tree resource as possible.
The PROS plan (2016) has specific goals for the City to steward
the urban forest.
Community Tree
Resource
Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights -of -
way and around City facilities are the community tree
resource. These trees can be the most actively managed
population by the City and provide the best indicators to
showcase its vision of a well -managed and sustainable
urban forest condition. A well -managed urban forest
is healthier and more resilient to pests, disease, and
climate fluctuations. As a result, a well -managed urban
forest is also more cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve
over time, managers revise their strategies for individual
tree species based on past performance and emerging
prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived
organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds, are
often a combination of well -adapted, high-performance
species mixed with some species that may be less
desirable and require more attention.
There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree resource
management that no single species should represent
greater than 10% of the total population, and no single
genus more than 20% (Clark et al, 1997). Achieving
a diverse population of trees can help to minimize
detrimental consequences in the event of storms,
drought, disease, pests, or other stressors that can
severely affect an urban forest and the flow of benefits
and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such
as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald
ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) are both examples
of unexpected, devastating, and costly pests and
pathogens that highlight the importance of diversity
and the balanced distribution of species and genera.
Current operations in the City that care for the
community trees do not keep suitable records of their
tree resource to summarize within this UFMP. Publictrees
along major arterials or high -profile areas of the City are
well-known and routinely cared for by City Staff, but as
an overall management tool, the City does not maintain
data about these trees as a collective inventory of their
green infrastructure assets. Managing for appropriate
tree species can help control maintenance costs, reduce
damage to infrastructure, and manage the need for pest
and disease control measures.
Q
What Do We Have? 20
Packet Pg. 43
7.A.a
Tree Canopy Cover
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is
the driving force behind the urban forest's ability
to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al,
1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits.
Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and
stems of trees and other woody plants that cover
the ground when viewed from above.
Understanding the location and extent of tree
canopy is critical to developing and implementing
sound management strategies that will promote the
smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds' urban
forest and the invaluable benefits it provides.
In addition to understanding the tree canopy as a
whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is often
categorized by the amount of fragmentation. Often,
the health and diversity of the overall canopy will
vastly improve when there is less fragmented canopy,
and there are more linkages between multiple patches
of forest. These categories of canopy include:
• Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists within
and relatively far from the forest/non-forest
boundary (i.e., forested areas surrounded by
more forested areas).
• Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that defines
the boundary between core forests and
relatively small clearings (perforations) within
the forest landscape.
• Patch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small -forested
area that is surrounded by non -forested land cover.
• Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the
boundary between core forests, and large
core forests and large non -forested land
cover features, approximately 328 feet. When
large enough, edge canopy may appear to be
unassociated with core forests.
The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment
in June 2017 using a heads -up digitizing approach
and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf -on aerial imagery
captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall assessment
does not distinguish between publicly -owned and
privately -owned trees because trees provide benefits
to the community beyond property lines. The results
of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and
distribution of tree canopy within Edmonds.
The data developed during the assessment becomes
an important part of the City's GIS database. It also
provides a foundation for developing community
goals and urban forest policies. With these data,
managers can determine:
• The location and extent of canopy over time
(tracking changes)
• The location of available planting space
(potential planting area)
• The best strategies to increase canopy in
underserved areas
• The data, combined with existing and emerging
urban forestry research and applications, can
provide additional guidance in two ways:
• Finding a balance between growth and
preservation
• Identifying and assessing urban forestry
opportunities.
An example of perforated canopy in a park setting.
c
as
E
a
c
as
E
M
U
0
r
r
Q
21 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 44
7.A.a
Canopy Cover Summary ♦ 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads,
parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres)
The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of
9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of ♦ From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from
tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 32.3% to 30.3%
square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. ♦ Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering
By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the
Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of
CU
cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: 3,495 acres
♦ 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and ♦ Private residential properties have most of the o
woody shrubs (525 acres) canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and
♦ 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground commercial (4.1%) properties.
♦ 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy ♦ Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County W
is unfeasible Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) 0
followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and
♦ 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres)
vegetation
a
12,
- _ INS
} ti•$ •may �-'a
PF
_9W R
pr
71 I !} '~ OP* . #' is i
P.
W
do
Ar
f �'� I4-r } *ry �l �rl t� *. f#'i�'a � max' }.}�t I'*F •F, � � •4 Gc�
10*
Ir Pr
Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds "bowl" area.
What Do We Have? 22
Packet Pg. 45
Land Cover
7.A.a
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
Grass/Vegetation
27%
Figure 1: Land Cover
C4 Limits
Free Canopy
GraWLow-Lying Vegetation
impervious Surfaces
1 Bare Soil
M Open Water
0 0.25 0.5 9
Miles
Figure 1: Land Cover
r
Q
2.3 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 46
7.A.a
Canopy Fragmentation
As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds' existing
UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the
distribution of canopy (Figure 3). The overall health 4 _
of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the
ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and
humans to interact collectively as a whole.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
CU
will vastly improve by creating linkages between
o
multiple patches of forest.
Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable
managementtool duetothe importanceof Edmonds'
critical areas and environmental stewardship. The
o
analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes
the following:
• 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy
a
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
a
• 8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy
Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to
E
• 55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy
improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top)
c
* 26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy
leads to isolation and declining habitat quality.
` 4i
YEA
:'^ I .`*
—
Y�
�'
•�* `i.
+� ti ' l
U-
}
'•
; '
• x 4 { '
Y 5''
f
Ir
r y
O
W
4 _
E
i'*
a _
+
'. mot• r.F
F.
G
Ir
Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy
categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest.
What Do We Have? 24
Packet Pg. 47
7.A.a
Forest Fragmentation
Patch Forest
56%
Core Forest
10%
Perforated Ta',.�+ 7D
Fo rest
8%
Edge Forest
26% 191j!I }I
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
!�fti�l ti"
' � y
r'Ut:E-r i_iON
t
�! C
75
14 k�-
Ity I- I I I a ..: :
® M1 a 1 H r r
Core Forest
Ec4 a Forest 27ATRsr
Patch Forest }
:D
k r —
Perforated Forest i t
..
0 0.25 0.5 1Poo r.
IY1Res
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
25 What Do We Have?
7F5fW57
Q
Packet Pg. 48
7.A.a
Park Canopy Cover
The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344
acres (5.6% of all land area) (Figure 4). Edmonds'
parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%.
Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site
and size. Edmonds' largest park, Southwest County
Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and an
average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second-largest,
Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres of canopy
cover, which represents 93.5% of the land area. The
high canopy cover of Yost Memorial Park reflects
that it is one of the few areas of native vegetation
that remain in Edmonds. The park contains mixed
stands of douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), sitka
spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja
Canopy cover in Yost Park.
plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural
history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest
park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy
(9.9 % canopy cover).
Of the four largest parks (Southwest County, Yost
Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all
have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%).
However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not
currently near maximum potential canopy.
An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the
parks where there is a much larger gap between
current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. The
5 biggest parks are listed in Table 7 of this section .
Q
What Do We Have? 26
Packet Pg. 49
7.A.a
Tree Canopy By Park
Meadowdale
Beach Park
Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Park Name
CanopyTotal
Acres Acres Canopy
Canopy
Southwest
118.55 117.05 98.7
County Park
_
Yost Memorial
44.14 41.28 93.53
97.45
Park
Meadowdale
Beach Park
25.54 25.16 98.50
99.77
Southwest J
County Park
Pine Ridge Park
23.78 21.36 89.83
96.66
Edmonds Marsh
23.37 5.66 24.21
24.91
�r
Hutt Park
:;
Seaview Park
Sierra Park
Hummingbird
+F+'��. � `{'• �,
Hill Park
'' :�=��,}' _ � �� •'
' A. L
Maplewood
Yost Park
µ"`"- t
Park
Edmonds
City Park
Pine Ridge Park
Edmonds-
Marsh-
f<: a
;
Under 15%
15% - 0%
30% - 45%
45% - 60%
Over 60%
N
A
V ii4J-�
M II
T �/'
��.-_ - -
Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park
27 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 50
Critical Areas
The Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in
Washington are required to adopt critical areas
regulations. The GMA states that critical areas
include the following categories and ecosystems:
• Wetlands
• Areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water
• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
• Frequently flooded areas; and
• Geologically hazardous areas
Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree
canopy can reveal the important relationship that
trees provide in the conservation and protection of
these environments. Two critical area designations
are especially important to urban forest management
in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep
slopes (Tables 8 & 9).
Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority
habitats and species that have been identified for
conservation and management.
DRG analyzed the relationship between forest
fragmentation and the following priority habitat and
species list categories:
7.A.a
• Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding and
Refuge)
• Nesting Habitat (great blue heron)
• Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon)
• Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle)
• Wetlands Area
Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are
areas of habitat that are relatively important to
various species of nativefish and wildlife. In Edmonds,
most of the biodiversity areas and corridors are in
core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest. This is congruent
with what theory would suggest, because corridors
are continuous areas of habitat.
Nesting habitat for the great blue heron is comprised
of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round
and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre -
nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area,
habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the
outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests.
In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to reduce
human noise pollution during the breeding months
(February - September). Nesting habitat in Edmonds
is located primarily in non -forest areas (58%). This
value warrants further investigation to determine
optimal canopy levels.
Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 1.35 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 10.52 35.32 4.61 16.53 51.36
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21
Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 IlIM 0.51 1.76 59.36
r
Q
What Do We Have? 28
Packet Pg. 51
7.A.a
Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in -stream
physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water
quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.).
However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly
influenced by watershed processes beyond the
waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian
condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces
and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road
location and maintenance, watershed hydrology,
and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of
sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non -forest areas.
The second largest forest fragmentation category
for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%).
Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined by
areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies of
water and generally buffered from human activity
(Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting
behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area
located in edge type forests of Edmonds.
However, nest trees are often among the largest
trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in
18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest.
Around wetlands, the Washington Department of
Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic
resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from
adjacent land uses (Washington Department of
Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some
of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland -
dependent species that require both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers could
be described by their canopy fragmentation, where
73.6% of wetlands were classified in non -forest
areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge forest, with
only 2.2% in the core forest.
The protection of steep slopes against landslides and
erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington
Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several
benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the
prevention of soil erosion:
Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing absorptive
and evaporative losses that reduce rainfall
available for infiltration.
Roots extract moisture from the soil which is
lost to the atmosphere via transpiration, leading
to a lower pore -water pressure.
Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear
strength.
It is important to understand the significance of steep
slopes because of their influences on local wildlife
and habitat quality. For example, increased erosion
can negatively impact spawning salmon by increasing
sediment and particulates in streams and other water
bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation that prevents
erosion protects critical habitat for wildlife.
Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree
canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as
trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing
erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees,
66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious,
19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil.
Table 4: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80
Wetlands Area 80.65 6.79 16.81 0.63 2.18 73.60
Q
29 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 52
7.A.a
Considerations for Planting
Opportunities
Edmonds' existing tree canopy covers 30.3% of the
City, and decision -makers can set a target canopy
cover goal to pursue. Regardless of the canopy
coverage goals established by the City, the following
are planting opportunities that may be pursued
in order to maintain and potentially increase the
existing canopy coverage:
• Incentivize tree planting on private property.
• Increase canopy with tree planting in areas of
patch and fragmented canopy to reduce forest
fragmentation and improve wildlife habitat and
corridors.
Conducting outreach to the community as an
important tool for engaging public interest and
support.
Define goals and identify actions that will support
these goal(s).
• Develop clear policies and standards to meet
the 30% native vegetation requirement codified
by ECDC 23.90.040.0 (Retention of Vegetation
on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels) in
undeveloped (or redeveloped) Subdividable lands
zoned as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream or
stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland buffer.
Park trees in Edmonds.
Currently, forestry operations in the City do not
document the community tree resource according
to industry best management practices. A public
tree inventory is important because it provides
information on species diversity, forest age, and
relative performance of different tree species. An
inventory that is maintained with continued updates
also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree
maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban
forest managers have the following opportunities:
Establish and continually update a public tree
inventory.
Integrate maintenance cycles with the public
tree inventory database.
• Study genus/species compositions to ensure
best -management diversity recommendations
are being followed.
r
c
as
E
a
c
as
E
M
U
a
r
r
Q
What Do We Have? 30
Packet Pg. 53
7.A.a
Existing Urban
Forest Practices
There are three departments within the City of
Edmonds that have influence over the management
of the urban forest; Development Services (DS),
Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services (PRC). Although they share
and communicate any issues related to tree care
and urban forest management, decision -making
authority is determined based on the location of the
trees. There is no specific staff person or leadership
team with overarching responsibilities forguiding the
management of the entire urban forest in Edmonds.
Tree Maintenance
Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree
life, but is especially critical for young trees as they
benefit from early structural pruning and training.
Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders
or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground
Table 5: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest
Management in Edmonds
Locations
Department!Tree
City
Permits for Tree
Removal
Trees on Private
Development
Permits for Tree
Property
Services
Pruning
Permits for Tree
Planting
Hazardous Tree
Parks,
Inspections
Trees in Parks
Recreation and
Tree Pruning
g
Cultural
Tree Removal
Services
Tree Planting
Public Works
Hazardous Tree
Trees within
and Utilities
Inspections
City Rights -of-
(with Parks'
Tree Pruning
Way
assistance in
Tree Removal
downtown)
Tree Planting
31 What Do We Have?
level with minimal cost when a tree is young.
However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into
very expensive structural issues and increase the
risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may
be impossible to correct the issue without causing
greater harm.
Over -mature trees require more frequent inspection
and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the
risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget
for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan
the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage
when it is most beneficial and cost-effective.
At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most
frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related
to trees are identified by City Staff, work is
prioritized based on existing and available budgets.
Planning associated with tree management on
public properties is minimal with priority attention
given to ensuring the successful establishment of
new tree plantings and responding to hazardous
tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department
performs certain routine tree inspections and
provides limited proactive maintenance activities
(typically associated with the care of trees after
planting to encourage successful establishment).
Within City rights -of -way, tree issues are uncovered
as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks
and streets, where trees are only identified when
infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree
hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly,
in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance
when safety concerns are observed through routine
park maintenance activities.
Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for
public safety.
a
Packet Pg. 54
7.A.a
Tree Maintenance Budgets
The majority of tree maintenance costs are
accounted for as general line items through the
parks department budget. As part of the annual Tree
City USA application, departments will summarize
their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds' urban forestry
expenditures were $7.74 per capita, which is more
than the minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA
designation and more than the $7.50 national average
reported by the National Arbor Day Foundation.
Documented Edmonds' expenditures have been in
the range of $3 per capita in prior years.
Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment
as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds' urban forest
produces about $1,567,000 in environmental
benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of
approximately $319,542.
Service Levels
To assess current urban forest workload and staffing
levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were
identified as persons who work with tree issues on
at least an intermittent basis every week. From those
who are involved with forestry issues or operations
on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were
identified with a quantifiable amount of time each
week working with trees or tree -related issues.
Table 6: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures
tone"M11MERTIM
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance $79,779
Tree Removals $37,565
Management $62,771
Volunteer Activities $134,579
TOTAL $319,542
Budget Per Capita $7.74
UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000
Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental
cooperation. These general conclusions about the
shared responsibilities among staff resources at the
City are very important when the City evaluates
future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently,
no one single position is designated as a Full -Time
Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry.
Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and
Staffing Levels
City Services
UrbanCommon
Related Activities
Hours per
Development plan review for
Permit Intake
compliance with tree
and Review
protection codes
2
Public inquiries (online,
phone, and counter)
Code
Investigating and resolving
Enforcement &
tree complaints
Complaint
Investigating and resolving
2
infrastructure damage
Investigation
complaints
Tree planting and
Parks & Public
establishment
Tree
Structural pruning on smaller
40-60
Maintenance
trees
Inspection and identification
of hazardous trees
Contract
Managing contract tree crews
1
Management
Emergency
Community Service Requests
0
Response
Response Management
Urban Forest Management
Comprehensive
Plan stewardship
(Long-range)
Federal, state grant
<1
Planning
procurement
Tree City USA applications
Volunteer events
Community
Coordinated tree planting
Education Action
Neighborhood association
1
and Outreach
support
Website content and public
education
Tree Board
Addressing public issues
1
Meetings
related to trees
Q
What Do We Have? 32
Packet Pg. 55
7.A.a
Staff Training
The science of arboriculture, and the management
of urban forests are domains that are increasingly
recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials
are increasingly requested by many municipalities
as evidence of competency. Bachelor's degrees in
Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences,
and Horticulture are often the base requirements
for leadership roles in urban forest management.
Professional credentials can also demonstrate
competency, with the most widely accepted
credentials in Washington State coming from the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
Image of a tree with a co -dominant branch defect (middle
stem). The city has access to trained staff qualified to provide
expertise for identification of these tree safety risks.
The City provides on -going training to any staff
handling tree maintenance equipment, including
chainsaw, chipper, and lift -truck safety. Stakeholder
interviews revealed that landscape maintenance
workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on
structural pruning or tree care. The following is a
summary description of staff resources and training
within individual City departments:
• In Development Services, staff are trained to
interpret ordinances related to trees, but rely on
reports by ISA certified arborists when necessary
to render decisions. Staff within development
services have backgrounds in Urban Planning
and one (1) person with has an advanced degree
in Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists
within development services staff.
• The Department of Public Works and Utilities
has a director with advanced degrees in
Biology and Aquatic Biology. In addition, the
department has engineers on staff who can
successfully consider relevant tree issues in
terms of asset and infrastructure management,
but tree care expertise is not required for any
staff in this department. Tree related issues are
resolved based on previous experiences and
through hired consultations with ISA certified
arborists when necessary.
• The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department has two staff members who
provide expertise on urban forestry topics.
The first is an ISA certified arborist who is
referenced by all City departments and citizen
groups for opinions on the best practices
associated with tree care. There is also a staff
member who has an advanced degree in Forest
Ecology who works with citizen groups on tree
planting and stewardship projects.
Tree Acquisition and Quality
Control
The City's approach to acquiring trees is not guided
by any formal standard practices that ensure the
quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are
planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties
managed with new trees.
a
33 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 56
7.A.a
Tree City USA
The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit
conservation and education organization founded in
1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow.
It is the largest nonprofit membership organization
dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers
Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City
USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards
of quality urban forestry management: maintaining
a tree board or department, having a community
tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on
urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day.
Currently, the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542.20
towards total community forestry expenditure, and
with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita
investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has
recognized this per capita investment, as well as
recognizing the City of Edmonds' community tree
ordinance and observance of Arbor Day.
Native Trees
Trees native to the Pacific Northwest are well -suited
to our climate. They also tend to provide good habit
for local wildlife. Many native trees, both coniferous
and broadleaved, are part of the City's urban forest.
They are currently encouraged in public and private
plantings but not necessarily required, except in
designated critical areas for wildlife habitat and/or
wetlands. More information about native trees and
their value is likely to be part of an upcoming round
of community education in Edmonds.
Cone from a douglas fir. (Photo by Peter Stevens CC BY)
An example of some native trees for the Pacific
Northwest include the following,:
Broadleaved Trees
• Big -Leaf Maple
• Black Cottonwood
• Oregon Ash
• Pacific Willow
• Red Alder
• Vine Maple
Conifers
• Douglas Fir
• Grand Fir
• Noble Fir
• Shore Pine
• Sitka Spruce
• Western Hemlock
• Western Larch
• Western Red Cedar
• Western White Pine
1 A more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F
Leaves of a big leaf maple.
a
What Do we Have? 34
Packet Pg. 57
7.A.a
Major and Emerging Diseases
and Pests
Another important aspect to tree maintenance is
staying alert to managing emerging diseases and
pests that can be costly to control with individual
trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest,
addressing both potential and actual problems
is critical. Further information on the pests and
diseases that threaten the forest ecosystems in
Washington can be found at:
• USDA's Forest Service website
• Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook
• Collier Arbor Care website —Top 20 Tree and
Shrub Problems in the PNW
• Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Forest Health
Among the many diseases and pests that affect
trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to
the following:
Diseases
• Laminated Root Rot (LRR) is the most important
disease affecting Douglas -fir caused by the fungal
pathogen Coniferiporia sulphurascens. In young
stands regenerated following harvesting, dead
or missing trees will be associated with large
stumps. These decayed trees will serve as an
inoculum source for neighboring trees to become
infected, as their roots grow in contact with
infected stumps/roots. Fungal growth invades the
heartwood and sapwood, resulting in reduced
uptake of water and nutrients, with weakened
support of the upper portion of the tree. Infected
trees are susceptible to windthrow, and there
may be trees in a group in various stages of decay
and dying. Live trees with LRR display symptoms
of shortened terminal growth, sparse foliage,
smaller needles, chlorosis (yellowing) and stress
cone crops. Trees can fall over before developing
obvious symptoms, or die standing. The disease is
very difficult to manage in an urban setting
(USFS, 2017).
• Armillaria Root Rot (ARR) affects the roots of
numerous tree species, notably Douglas -fir and
other Firs and Pines, as well as many hardwood
species. Armillaria ostoyae is the primary
fungal pathogen in the Pacific Northwest,
although A. mellea can also be involved in tree
decline and mortality. ARR disease is usually
associated with stress conditions, particularly
drought. The fungus survives for many years
in infected stumps, roots and organic matter
in the soil. Honey -colored mushrooms are
typically produced at the base of infected trees
in the fall. Typical symptoms include chlorotic
foliage, distress cone crops, significant resin
flow, decline and death. The fungus typically
produces black shoestring -like structures called
rhizomorphs on the bark at the base of the tree
or in the soil (OSU, 2018).
• Verticillium Wilt (VW) is a serious disease of
many tree hosts, but is especially problematic
on Maple species. Verticillium dahliae is a
soil -borne fungus that persists in the soil for
decades. The fungus infects roots and grows
into the xylem where it colonizes the vascular
elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores)
plus defense compounds produced by the
host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the
flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting
results, and is exacerbated during periods of
drought. Leaves on one side of the tree affected
by VW or on one branch suddenly wilt and die.
Subsequently, other branches will wilt as the
disease progresses. Excised branches will have
vascular discoloration which is diagnostic of the
disease. Infected trees may survive for years
or die within weeks. Once infected, a tree will
not likely recover and will require removal. Tree
injections of fungicides are not usually effective
(OSU, 2018).
• Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the
foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused by the
fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii.
SNC is known as a "cast" disease because it
causes the premature shedding of needles (or
casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree
crowns and reduced growth. Although it is
r
Q
35 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 58
7.A.a
called "Swiss" needle cast, the fungus is native
to the Western United States throughout the
range of Douglas -fir. SNC disease symptoms
include chlorotic needles and decreased
needle retention, resulting in sparse crowns
and reduced diameter and height growth (OSU,
2017). Mortality from the disease is considered
rare, but tree care and maintenance of this
disease can be expensive and necessary in an
urban setting.
• Leaf Blight (LB) is a serious disease affecting
Pacific Madrone caused by the fungal pathogen
Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis. At least a
dozen fungi can cause leaf spots and dead areas
on leaves; this is probably the most significant
cause of damage to the host. Older, lower
leaves are infected by spores disseminated by
wind or rain during wet weather in the fall.
Trees located in creek bottoms, valleys and the
forest understory are most susceptible to LB. If
wet weather persists, infection may be severe
and result in significant defoliation. Under these
conditions, the fungus can also infect green
shoots. Pruning dead branches to provide better
air circulation and raking and destroying fallen
leaves will help to reduce fungal inoculum and
subsequent infection (OSU, 2008).
• Anthracnose (A) affects a wide variety of shade
trees, especially Maple, Oak and Sycamore. The
closely related fungi Discula (Maple, Sycamore)
and Apiognomonia (Oak) are the causal agents
of the disease. The disease is favored by warm,
wet springs and several rounds of infection can
occur, each defoliating the tree, resulting in a
tree much more prone to subsequent drought
stress. Lesions on the leaves are typically
associated and limited by the veins, resulting
in discrete necrotic areas. In particularly
susceptible trees under ideal environmental
conditions, twig cankers can also develop. It is
important to rake up and destroy fallen leaves,
prune out twig cankers and water trees during
dry periods (OSU, 2018).
• Sudden Oak Death was discovered in
California in the mid 1990's, has spread
into southern Oregon (2001) and was found
(and has subsequently been contained or
eliminated) in a small area in Kitsap County
two years ago. The causal fungus Phytophthora
ramorum primarily infects species of Oaks, but
can also infect a wide range of other hosts,
including Camellia, Rhododendron, Blueberry
and other landscape plants. The fungus is
waterborne and can be spread in streams or
other forms of moving water. Symptoms on
Oaks include bleeding cankers on the trunk,
dieback of the foliage and mortality. Symptoms
on other plants can vary from leafspots to leaf
blight to twig dieback, but do not usually result
in death of the host. Quarantines are in place
to prevent further spread of SOD, largely from
nurseries (COMTF, 2019).
Insects
• Asian Long -Horned Beetle (ALB), is an invasive
insect that feeds on a wide variety of trees
in the United States, eventually killing them.
The beetle is native to China and the Korean
Peninsula. Signs of ALB start to show about
three to four (3-4) years after infestation, with
tree death occurring in ten to fifteen (10-15)
years depending on the tree's overall health and
site conditions. Infested trees do not recover,
nor do they regenerate. There are a broad
number of tree species this insect will feed in
and most common deciduous trees in Edmonds
are at risk.
• Tent Caterpillar (TC) is a serious defoliator of
broadleaf trees and shrubs in most areas of
the western U.S. Tree hosts include Red Alder,
Cottonwood, Willow, Ash, Pacific Madrone, and
many fruit trees. White silky tents appear soon
after bud break. As the larvae grow in size, the
tents also increase in size. Individual branches
near these tents are totally defoliated. Entire trees
may be defoliated by TC. After feeding has been
concluded, the larvae will turn into moths within
a cocoon. Eggs are laid on the twigs and branches
where they overwinter in protected masses.
Individual tents can be physically removed,
preferably in the early morning hours when the
larvae are contained in the tent (USFS, 2008).
r
Q
What Do we Have? 36
Packet Pg. 59
7.A.a
• Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid (CSGA) is a serious
pest of Spruce and Douglas -fir trees. It swarms
in the spring when the new needles emerge.
Crawler nymphs form galls at the branch tips.
These galls are initially green, becoming red and
eventually dry out. These affected branches cease
their growth, and if enough branches are affected,
the tree may be killed. White cottony specks will
also cover the entire branch. Trees with fewer galls
may be unsightly and foliage can be discolored
and distorted. Most outbreaks of CSGA do not
warrant control measures (NRC, 2015).
• Pine Bark Adelgid (PBA) feeds on the bark of pines
and spruce. They form cottony or wooly masses
on the twigs, branches or trunk. Heavy infestations
will turn the entire area white. Small trees will be
severely affected, resulting in chlorotic needles and
stunting or premature death. Small egg clusters are
laid in the early spring by the adults. Crawlers move
to other areas of the tree or to other trees nearby.
PBA can be removed by hand, preferably done when
the infestation has just begun (OSU, 2018).
• Bronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging pest in
western Washington that has migrated from eastern
Washington in recent years. Periods of extended
summer drought have weakened birch trees and
made them more susceptible to this pest which can
severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic leaves and
sparse upper branches are the first symptoms that
homeowners usually notice from BBB attack. Close
examination will reveal lumpy bark and half -moon -
shaped beetle exit holes (WSU, 2008).
Symptoms of BBB Include Dying Top
37 what Do we Have?
• Douglas -fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a moth
found in Western North America. Its population
periodically erupts in cyclical outbreaks
(Wickman et al., 1998). Outbreaks of the
Douglas -fir tussock moth appear to develop
almost explosively, and then usually subside
abruptly after a year or two. The caterpillars
feed on the needles of Douglas fir, true fir,
and spruce in summer. Forestry management
to prevent tree damage from tussock moth
outbreaks include four activities: early detection,
evaluation, suppression, and prevention. These
four activities must be well integrated to ensure
adequate protection from the pest.
• Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed hundreds of
millions of ash trees in North America. The EAB is
a destructive, non-native, wood -boring pest that
exclusively kills both stressed and healthy ash trees
2-3 years after infestation (NASPF, 2005). EAB is
a jewel beetle native to Northwestern Asia. EAB
larvae feed on the vascular tissue of trees and
populations grow exponentially. This pest has been
identified as moving slowly into the Western U.S.
and is considered a catastrophic pest for ash tree
populations.
• Other Diseases and Pests. Information on specific
diseases and insects that damage trees in our
region have been identified by the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources. Current
online information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/
ForestHealth.
A. Asian Long -Horned Beetle B. Bronze Birch Borer
C. Douglas fir Tussock Moth D. Emerald Ash Borer
Packet Pg. 60
7.A.a
Regulatory
Framework
The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several
components relevant to urban forestry in the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development
Code. These regulations are designed to:
• Authorize the power of government to manage
the urban forest
• Define street trees and, as appropriate,
municipal responsibilities for their care
• Enumerate tree related fees and penalties
• Create regulations associated with tree clearing
on private land
• Require tree protection during construction
• Classify critical areas or buffers
These different regulations cover tree related
topics on a range of land types, and all influence
the direction and management of urban forestry
programs. The following summaries outline the
chapters and sections of city code.
Authorization of Power
The legitimacy of Edmonds' city government to
manage forestry domains and the definition of those
domains fall under the authorization of power:
• Chapter 18.45 provides for the City's Planning
Division Manager to direct and enforce City
codes related to land clearing and tree cutting
on public land and private property. It exempts
Public Works, Parks and Fire Departments in
specific situations where safety is an issue.
• Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director
of Public Works to enforce and inspect work
done to maintain City street trees in healthy
condition, or remove trees from the public
right-of-way as necessary.
• Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree Board,
made up of Edmonds City residents in order
to encourage civic engagement for active
stewardship of the urban forest. The powers
and duties of the Tree Board are to advise and
make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council as appropriate on tree related matters.
Street and Public Trees
The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible
as
a
for the planting and maintenance of public trees.
These trees are on public property parcels or select
o
locations in the rights -of -way. Other planting strips
are the responsibility of adjacent land owners:
• Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction
as
and maintenance, declares that the
c0
responsibility is with the abutting property
owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent
planting strips. This includes all tree care.a.
c
• Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the
regulation of street trees and trees on public
E
property. All street trees are managed by the
Public Works Department and require permits
for all persons who wish to plant, remove,
prune or otherwise change a tree on a street,
L
right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, or
�°
other public place. This code chapter also
includes language defining abuse and damage
to street trees.
u,
c
Tree Related Fees and Penalties
OE
w
To facilitate compliance and remediation for
o
disregarding public tree codes, the City provides
r
penalties as a punitive deterrent:
U
.
• Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive
discretion for trees that are damaged from
disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for trees
less than 3" and $3,000 for trees larger than 3".
a
Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical
areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use,
E
including public right-of-way.
U
r
Q
What Do We Have? 38
Packet Pg. 61
7.A.a
Private Land Clearing
Land clearing on private property is often a critical
challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry canopy
goals. Individual private property rights and objectives
of private landowners can frequently be at odds with
the community aspirations for the urban forest.
• Chapter 18.45 contains regulations associated
with trees on private properties for land
clearing and tree cutting. This code provides for
a variety of purposes that would preserve the
physical and aesthetic character of the City and
prevent indiscriminate removal or destruction
of trees. This chapter also implements policies
of the State Environmental Policy Act. It
provides special exemptions in 18.45.030 for
improved single-family lots, partially improved
single-family lots or certain unimproved lots,
allowing private property owners in these
categories to maintain or remove trees at their
discretion without permits. Additionally, these
land clearing codes provide exemptions for
utility vegetation maintenance or tree work
by City departments when situations involving
danger to life or property are found.
Tree Protection During
Construction
As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific
Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees.
Regulations to protect trees during construction are a
mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are developed.
• Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are
being retained during a land development
project are also protected. The codes describe
the protected area on a site as being within
the drip -line of the tree and attempts to limit
damage to trees by controlling the impact to
trees within this area.
Critical Areas and Buffers
Washington State has special laws to protect critical
areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable
and environmentally significant areas.
Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections and
management requirements for trees located
near wetlands, streams, or steep slopes. Tree
pruning or removal is restricted or prohibited
without a report from an ISA certified arborist,
ASCA registered consultant, or a registered
landscape architect that documents the
hazard and provides a replanting schedule for
replacement trees.
Challenges
One of the more frequent complaints related to tree
removal in the city is when properties are developed
or subdivided. While a goal of the City's code is
that "trees should be retained to the maximum
extent feasible," other applicable development
regulations help determine what is feasible. There
are regulations that prescribe how wide driveways
and roads must be, how far the development must
be from the edges of a property, location of utilities
(water, sewer, gas, and power) that must be installed
underground, and stormwater requirements that
require the installation of stormwater facilities. As a
result, when one of the larger properties in the City
that contains a grove of trees is developed to meet
the many regulations and needs, sometimes only a
few trees are located outside of the development
footprint. Trees that were once stable in their
grove, are susceptible to wind throw and become
hazardous when isolated on their own. Where a
tree was once the right tree in the right location (one
tree protected in a larger grove), it may no longer be
the right tree in the right location (an exposed tree
on the perimeter of a lot) following development.
As the City considers updates to the development
code, updates should provide more ways to
encourage greater tree retention when properties
are developed. An example may be to provide
options for reduced interior setbacks that would
allow houses to be clustered and thus provide
an opportunity to avoid trees where otherwise
development would be placed under the regulations
in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an
update to consider may include evaluating the
required width of access easements.
r
c
as
a
c
as
E
M
U
M
r
Q
39 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 62
Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations
7.A.a
0
a
U
7
a
Developed single-family
property, no critical areas
present
Developed single-family
property, critical areas
present
Removal of hazard trees in
critical area
Prune or trim trees
Multi -family property
and Planned Residential
Developments with
approved landscape plan
Commercial Property
Tree removal with
development
Trees in right-of-way
Street trees
No review, no permit
required
Yes, review and permit
required if tree in critical
area or critical area buffer
Review required, but no
permit
No review, no permit
Yes, review and permit
required
Yes, review and permit
required
Yes, review included with
land use or development
permit.
Yes, review and permit
required
Yes, review and permit
required
Prune or removal of park I No permit
trees
No notification required, but suggested
to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement
Response
Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff
decision with notice)
Documentation of hazard tree
by certified arborist, or clear
documentation of dead tree. Replanting
required at 2:1 ratio
Topping considered same as tree
cutting or removal unless retopping of a
previously approved topping
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice)
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision no notice)
Tree protection measures required for
trees to remain
A right-of-way construction permit is
required for any party other than the
City of Edmonds to perform any removal
or trimming of trees located within the
City rights -of -way
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice)
The City's Parks Department maintains
trees within the City's parks. While no
permit is required, tree removal and
replacement must be consistent with
the Citv's critical area regulations
r
Q
What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 63
7.A.a
Regional Urban
Forestry Resources
Regional urban forestry resources are organizations
that provide services to aid in the protection,
maintenance, and development of the urban forest.
These range from active volunteer groups in the
City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state
and federal government agencies. Some of the
organizations and programs described below have
been used by the City. Others may be good choices
for the future.
Edmonds' community volunteers helping to remove ivy and
improve forest health.
WFOM
WASHINGTON
COMMUNITY
��
Washington State Urban and
Community Forestry Program
Under the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban
and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides
technical, educational, and financial assistance
to Washington's cities and towns, counties,
tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and
educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is:
"To provide leadership to create self-sustaining
urban and community forestry programs that
preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for
public benefits and quality of life."
A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of
financial assistance programs including; Community
Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree
Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree
Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration
Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of
financial assistance, their availability in a given year,
and their associated dollar amounts are dependent
on continued funding through annual grant
allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF
communicates events, educational opportunities,
and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter.
The Washington Community Forestry Council
advises the DNR on policies and programs. The
program does this by teaching citizens and decision -
makers about the economic, environmental,
psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees.
The program also helps local governments, citizen
groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy
trees throughout Washington. The council was
established under RCW 76.15.
a
41 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 64
7.A.a
i
FORT&RRA
FOR THE PEOPLE. FOR THE LEWD. FOREVER.
FORTERRA Green City
Partnerships
The Green City program helps urban communities
in the Puget Sound region effectively steward
their natural open spaces through best practices.
FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to
develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term
plans, and community -based stewardship programs
to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in
our urban environments. Specific services include:
• City-wide forested park and natural area
assessment
• Strategic and restoration planning
• Volunteer program development and guidance
• Education and training for volunteers
• Restoration tracking systems
• Green City outreach and community
engagement
• On- the -ground stewardship projects and
event support
The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core goals:
• Improve the quality of life, connections to
nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities by
restoring our forested parks and natural areas
• Galvanize an informed and active community
• Ensure long-term sustainable funding and
community support
These unique public/private partnerships bring
together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders
to create a sustainable network of healthy forested
parks and natural areas throughout the region.
Municipal Research and
Services Center
The Municipal Research and Services Center
(MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local
governments across Washington State better serve
their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance
on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local
information from parks and recreation departments,
land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations
to promote and manage urban forestry resources.
Example resources include local urban forestry
programs in Washington State, legal references, and
related articles.
A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars.
r
Q
What Do We Have? 42
Packet Pg. 65
7.A.a
future
wise �
Futurewise
Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent
sprawl to protect the resources of communities
in Washington State. Futurewise was founded
to help support implementation of Washington
State's Growth Management Act, and to focus on
preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open
space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions
and development.
Futurewise provides data analysis and research,
community and environmental planning and
policy development, community engagement and
outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy,
legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services
are all provided through strategic collaboration with
businesses, governments, community organizations,
and nonprofit partners.
Wetland stream flowing through Edmonds.
w
COLLEGE
of the
ENVIRONMENT
The University of Washington
Restoration Ecology Network
TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN)
is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional
center to integrate student, faculty and community
interests in ecological restoration and conservation.
Students in the program are required to complete
capstone projects, where students of different
academic backgrounds work together to complete
a local restoration project. Students learn how
to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration
project while working in teams. The Capstone
spans three academic quarters beginning in the
fall. Communities collaborate with the program to
develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the
community and excellent learning experiences for
the students.
a
43 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 66
7.A.a
EarthCorps
EarthCorps is a human capital development
program where corps members learn leadership
skills by working collaboratively, leading community
volunteers, and executing technical restoration
projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget
Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration
events, monitor plant growth, adapt management
plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps
collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and
communities to offer volunteers who are passionate
about conservation and restoration.
The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was
created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with
the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel
Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on-
Forested park canopy in Edmonds.
Forested park canopy in Edmonds.
going, locally -based, expert care for one of the City's
key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a
wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater
marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown
to include three more sites: Brackett's Landing,
Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park.
The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward
program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews
as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and
how to perform actions that improve the ecological
health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to
the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents.
Actions include removing invasive weeds such as
Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas
in need of water retention and weed suppression,
and replanting with native plants to foster greater
biodiversity.
r
Q
What Do We Have? 44
Packet Pg. 67
7.A.a
Urban Forestry
Practices:
Case Studies
In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry
programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that
there are urban forestry practices emerging from
other municipalities that could eventually add value
if developed within the City. Through stakeholder
interviews and discussions with City Staff, three
urban forestry practices were selected as important
for further consideration in implementation of this
UFMP: Tree Banks (orfee in -Lieu programs), Heritage
Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This
section explores some examples around how other
cities have adopted these programs.
Tree Banks - Fee -based
alternatives to tree replacement
Often in the course of urban forest management,
there can be logistical challenges associated with
replacing trees at the same site where trees are
removed. An increasingly common solution is
to provide developers and residents with the
opportunity to pay fees in -lieu of meeting their
landscaping requirements. Providing a fee orfinancial
guarantee option creates a system for funding
tree planting projects or even more sophisticated
landscape restoration projects that improve the
overall health and condition of the urban forest.
Precedence for this option can be found at the
National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in -
lieu fee program as:
• "A program involving the restoration,
establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation of aquatic resources through
funds paid to a governmental or non-profit
natural resources management entity to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirements... Similar
to a mitigation bank, an in -lieu fee program sells
compensatory mitigation credits to permittees
whose obligation to provide compensatory
mitigation is then transferred to the in -lieu
program sponsor."
Snohomish County
Here, the government provides options for
permit applicants to engage the county, their own
contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to
ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is
not possible at the proposed project site:
• 'Applicants may choose to perform the off -
site mitigation work on private property either
themselves or through their own contractor,
subject to all other provisions of Section 30.62
SCC, or applicants may enter into a voluntary
mitigation agreement with the County pursuant
to RCW 82.02.020 under which the County
will perform the mitigation work on public
property within the same sub -drainage basin
or watershed resource inventory area (WRIA)."
(POL-6210 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING
OFF -SITE MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO
CRITICAL AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER
SCC 30.62.330)
The following cities are examples of fee in -lieu
programs related to urban forestry. There is some
variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as
where the funds collected get administered.
City of Redmond
The City of Redmond calculates fee in -lieu to include
the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee also
includes all costs associated with establishment
care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations:
• RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement Fee A
fee in- lieu of tree replacement may be allowed,
subject to approval by the Administrator after
careful consideration of all other options. A
tree replacement fee shall be required for each
replacement tree required but not planted on
the application site or an offsite location.
i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base
fee times the number of trees necessary to
satisfy the tree replacement requirements
as
a
a
N
c
0
c�
3
a�
W
W
W
0
U
m
W
Q
45 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 68
7.A.a
of this section. The tree base fee shall cover
the cost of a tree, installation (labor and
equipment), maintenance for two years,
and fund administration.
The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of a tree removal Permit.
Fees collected under this subsection shall be
expended only for the planting of new trees
in City -owned parks, open spaces or rights -
of -way.
• http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-
wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid=005.009&fil
e=doc-005.009-pid-80.pdf
City of Renton
The City of Renton has much more limited code
language. Fee in -lieu options are still at the City's
Community volunteers pulling weeds and improving forest
health in Edmonds.
discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and
installation. No funding for establishment care
is required in this code. However, the code does
directly designate the funds to be allocated to the
Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides more
discretion to the City with how the funds get allocated:
• RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When the
Administrator determines that it is infeasible
to replace trees on the site, payment into
the City's Urban Forestry Program fund
may be approved in an amount of money
approximating the current market value of
the replacement trees and the labor to install
them. The City shall determine the value of
replacement trees. http://www.codepublishing
com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/RentonO4O4/
Renton0404130.html
What Do We Have? 46
Packet Pg. 69
r
c
as
E
c�
a
c
m
E
M
U
a
r
r
Q
City of Port Angeles
7.A.a
City of Seattle
The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in -lieu
option, but it only appears to relate to street tree
replacement requirements. Another distinction in
this code is the fee is determined by the Community
Forester (a city staff position):
• PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree requirements
in previously developed area. In addition to
the above requirements, the following also
apply: Where new street trees cannot be
planted due to portions of rights -of -way having
been previously paved or otherwise rendered
unsuitable to plant trees, a fee -in -lieu of planting
is required. Such fee shall be determined by
the Community Forester per City Policy and
deposited into the Community Forestry Fund.
https://library.municode.com/wa/port_angeles/
codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT11STSl_
CH 11.13STTR_11.13.050STTREN RE
Heritage Tree Programs -
Recognizing Historical
Significance of Trees
In many cities around the nation, trees are often
recognized for their historical significance to the
community. This recognition is commonly referred to
as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These programs
provide communities with a way of officially
recognizing trees, and with the recognition, can offer
a variety of benefits to the community, including:
• Increasing public awareness of trees and the
urban forest
• Drawing attention to and protecting unique and
significant trees
• Reinforcing how trees are a key component of
a city's character and sense of place
• Engaging citizens with the purpose and
activities of a city's urban forestry program
• Encouraging public participation in the
identification and perpetuation of heritage
trees throughout the City
In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities
have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest
programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when
PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program that
eventually became co -sponsored by the City. Seattle's
program provides the broadest set of categories for
designating a tree as a heritage tree. Trees can be
designated according to the following categories:
• Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form,
or rarity.
• Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age,
its association with or contribution to a historic
structure or district, or its association with a
noted person or historic event.
• Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a
community.
• Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue,
or other planting.
City of Vancouver
The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had
a heritage tree program in place since 1998.
Unlike Seattle, which already regulates the care
of exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on
private property, the City of Vancouver uses this
designation to protect trees on private properties
where tree removal permits would not ordinarily
be required. This is a voluntary program for private
property owners, thus protecting the rights of the
property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/
publicworks/page/heritage-trees).
City of Lynnwood
Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of
Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined
in municipal code. Although many aspects of this
program are similarto other cities, their specific code
language binds all successive owners of the tree to
the protection obligations within this designation.
This language has the added benefit of ensuring
long-term protection and care for the tree unless it
is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070).
c
as
E
a
c
as
E
M
U
0
r
r
Q
47 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 70
7.A.a
Arborist Business Licenses -
Ensuring Best Practices in
Tree Care
Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require
a general business license to work as an arborist.
This is not uncommon, but many cities are now
recognizing how the complexity of city codes
associated with tree care and the expectations
of the community necessitate special licensing
for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care
industry professionals and researchers in the
science of arboriculture routinely convene as the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the
Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups
collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care
and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community
has companies that are adequately trained and
qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing
that ties the business with these organizations
is increasingly popular. The following cities were
selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of
different approaches for arborist business licensing:
City of Herrington
• Herrington, KY — Businesses that practice
arboriculture must submit an application to
the City for a Tree Contractor license. The
application identifies the business as practicing
arboriculture and requires proof of sufficient
insurance (http://www.cityofherington.com/
pview.aspx?id=32514&catl D=547).
Jim
Community engagement on urban forestry is important to
encourage tree retention on private properties.
City of Lincoln
• Lincoln, NE — In Lincoln, applications for tree
services and arborists not only require proof of
insurance, but also proof of ISA credentials or a
tree worker test administered by the parks and
recreation department. http://Iincoln.ne.gov/
city/parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm
City of Denver
• Denver, CO — Denver has two classes for their
"Tree Service License." This is a distinct feature
of their licensing process. Licenses can be
issued to businesses working on "Large Trees,"
which require workers to leave the ground,
or an "Ornamental" license, designed for
companies doing landscaping work on small
trees that do not require an aerial lift. https:H
www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/
Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-license-
info-packet.pdf
City of Spokane
• Spokane, WA — Spokane has a commercial tree
license that businesses must secure if they are
doing work on public property trees (e.g.,street
trees and park trees). https://my.spokanecity.
org/urbanforestry/permits/
What Do We Have? 48
Packet Pg. 71
r
c
as
E
c�
a
c
m
E
M
U
a
r
r
Q
7.A.a
Incentives - Encouraging Tree
Retention on Private Properties
From the urban tree canopy assessment, it was
determined that the majority of tree canopy in
the city is privately owned and managed. For cities
to manage their urban forests, collaboration and
voluntary commitments on the part of private
property owners can be a beneficial strategy that
encourages desirable tree care and retention
practices. (Note: In some "incentive programs,"
cities have first established by code minimum tree
density requirements for private properties and
then used incentives to allow property owners some
flexibility in retaining the minimum tree density). The
following are example methods that cities, counties,
and states have used to incentivize desirable tree
stewardship on private property:
City of Portland
Portland, OR — The City of Portland has a
"Treebate" program which provides a one-time
credit on individual utility bills for planting
a tree in a residential yard. The amount of
credit depends on the size of the tree. (Certain
types of trees are excluded from the program.)
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/
article/314187
Brevard County
• Brevard County, FL— In Brevard County,
incentives were created to encourage tree
preservation as they relate to landscaping
requirements during development. This code
language incentivizes by providing credits for
exceeding tree canopy density, preserving
native trees of significant size, or vegetation of
special concern. These credits reduce the tree
re -planting requirements otherwise associated
with development projects. (Code Sec 62-4344).
http://brevardcounty.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_
appid32777_ch62_artxiii_div2_sec62-4344
City of Rocklin
• Rocklin, CA — In an effort to preserve its
native oak population, the City of Rocklin
established incentives in their code. Projects
that save 25% or more of the surveyed oak
trees receive expedited processing by the
Community Development department. In
addition, development projects can have traffic
mitigation and capital facility fees deferred from
3 months up to 12 months depending on the
trees being saved. http://www.rocklin.ca.us/
sites/main/files/file-attachments/oak_tree_
preservation_guidelines.pdf
State of Hawaii
State of Hawaii — In an effort to encourage the
care and maintenance of trees determined as
"exceptional", residents can deduct up to $3000
per tax year for their costs associated with
tree care. The code language has an additional
limitation that this tax deduction can only be
allowed once every three years. (HRS 235-19).
http://files.hawaii.gov/tax/legal/hrs/hrs_235.pdf
When the City of Edmonds updates its development
regulations, incentives for tree retention and tree
planting should be considered. These may include:
Tree bank
Tree bank funded by development. Developer
pays X dollar for each significant tree removed
during development into a tree bank. This
"incentivizes" tree retention because the
developer may find ways to maintain trees rather
than pay into the tree bank.
• Tree bank could be used to supply property
owners with certificates to purchase trees to
plant on their property.
Tree bank funds could be used towards
purchase of forested properties when they
become available.
r
c
as
E
a
c
m
M
U
a
r
r
Q
49 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 72
7.A.a
Development flexibility to maintain trees
• Allowing reduced interior setbacks may allow
more flexibility in home placement and provide
opportunities for tree retention.
• Allow for deviations from access and road width
requirements to allow more flexibility in design
and home placements.
• Encourage low impact development techniques
which promote tree retention.
Heritage Tree Program
• Develop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program to
recognize unique or special trees as a way to
recognize stewardship of the urban forest by
local property owners.
Further consideration of the above —and any
additional —ideas should be explored in more detail
as part of the code update process in the near future.
Summary Considerations for
Urban Forest Practices
Historical practices and regulatory requirements
provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the
City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular,
the City has special authority over property it owns
or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no
comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City
also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to
direct the City's urban forest management activities.
Instead, the City has multiple departments that are
guided by codes and policies for site -specific decisions
without overarching strategic level guidance of the
forest. An example encountered by public works staff
is when a tree removal is being considered. One tree
may need to be removed and replaced for safety
reasons, but additional trees may get removed and
replaced to maintain the aesthetic of the streetscape.
Without overarching urban forest strategies, removals
of trees for simple rights -of -way improvements can be
seen as reactive solutions resolved through political
discourse instead of planned practical decisions for
city managers.
This reactive approach to urban forest management
also extends to the tree care budget. The City does
not maintain sufficient tree related information
(such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget
for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry
benefits models show how trees in Edmonds
provide environmental and economic benefits that
are much greater than their reactive management
costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage
this disparity and direct forest management toward
proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree
maintenance pruning, and tree inspections.
With approximately 13%ofthe City's entire tree canopy
in public ownership, other methods to encourage or
require tree planting/protection will be needed for
the community to have influence over tree care in
the remaining 87% of the forest. Some strategies that
have been engaged in at other municipalities include
the fee in -lieu programs to support variances in any
tree replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs
that protect special trees, and arborist business
licensing to encourage best practices in tree care, and
incentive programs.
The City's policies with regard to the acquisition
of open space (including the potential purchase of
forested properties) are contained with the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land
acquisition is included in the capital project budget
and the PROS plan notes that "expansions of the
parks system will target the gaps identified in this
plan and take advantage of opportunities as they
emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds,
this approach will require vigilance and proactive
pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities
for both parks and open spaces. The City's inclusion
of this item in the capital projects list recognizes
the importance of swift action when rare property
acquisition opportunities become available." A
specific policy addressing the purchase of forested
properties could be considered for adding to the
PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining
the City's tree cover through the selective purchase
of forest properties as opportunities arise.
Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and
nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds
maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued
and greater engagement, the City may realize more
grant -funded opportunities, volunteer resources,
and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve
its urban forest management goals.
as
�a
a
N
C
0
as
a�
0
U
m
as
c
a
c
as
a�
c
as
`0
U_
c
M
L
c
0
w
4-
0
U
c
as
E
a
c
as
E
M
U
a
r
Q
What Do We Have? 50
Packet Pg. 73
7.A.a
What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and
Community Input
Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public
stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency
stakeholders. Connections and relationships that
develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes
of the urban forest outreach process. This provided
a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds'
urban forest. As community awareness and actions
associated with urban forestry move forward, it will
be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the
value of their contributions to their community in
the trees that grow around them.
Stakeholder Interviews
In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey
Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting
met with several municipal and regional urban
forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews
occurred over two days and included urban
planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree
board representatives, and City staff leadership.
Their valuable contributions guided the framework
of the UFMP.
Virtual Open House
Throughout the development process, the City
hosted a website that provided community access
to the planning process. In addition, the website
provided access to videos of public presentations,
surveys, and invitations for public comments. This
approach provided further opportunities for public
input outside of scheduled community meetings.
Community Meetings
The first public meeting was held with the City of
Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board on May 4, 2017.
During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values
about the urban forest were explored with members
and visitors in attendance.
Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted
the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall
to share information about the UFMP development
process and gather input from community
residents. The open house included a presentation
and a brief discussion with the audience to answer
clarifying questions. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster
boards. Each poster board contained a broad
topic followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green = a positive "vote"/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative
"vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color as necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each poster board. In addition,
each poster board provided an area for Additional
Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write
down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions
on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered
to the poster board for other attendees to review
and "vote" on.
A third meeting which was with the Planning Board,
occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity
to solicit public participation early in the UFMP
development process. The results of these public
meetings helped the City to understand the needs
and concerns of the community and guide the
development of the online survey.
a
51 what Do we want?
Packet Pg. 74
7.A.a
dp
Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for
community engagement.
What Do We Want? 52
Packet Pg. 75
Q
7.A.a
Online Community Survey
As part of the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey
was developed with the intention of understanding
and benchmarking Edmonds' community values and
views on the urban forest. It was not conducted as a
statistically valid study but as one to guage community
values and get public feedback. Survey data was
collected online. The survey platform only allowed
one survey response per household to control for
multiple entries from a single respondent. The survey
closed in September of 2017 with 175 responses
having been gathered through the summer (Appendix
C). Responses increased following the public open
house and a presentation to the planning board.
Although the intent was to gather feedback from a
broad representation of the community, 40.9% of the
respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds
Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the
Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had less
than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3% of the
combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not affiliate
within the survey -defined neighborhood groups.
The results showed how seventy-five percent
(74.9%) of respondents "strongly agree" that public
trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents "agree"
or "strongly agree" that Edmonds needs more public
40 %
35%
30%
25 %
20 %
15%
10%
Edmonds' fountain and traffic circle trees.
trees. The most popular location for more trees is
in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed
by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails
and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf
courses (11.2%).
When asked to rank the environmental benefits
most valued from the urban forest, respondents
expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality
benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most
important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and
water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least
important at 4.6% (Figure 4).
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
0%
0/
Improved Air Quality
Wildlife Habitat
Protect Water
Carbon Storage
Energy Savings
Quality/Reduced
Stormwater Runoff
Environmental Benefits
Other
a�
CU
a
N
C
0
M
Cn
a�
(D
0
U
a)
0
L
F_
Q
53 what Do We want?
Packet Pg. 76
7.A.a
View of street trees at 5th Avenue South and Main Street.
On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees
as the most important intangible benefit, followed
by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then
40
35
30
25
20
15%
10%
attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded
parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic
benefit (Figure 5).
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
50
■
■
■
■ ■
0/o
Beauty/Aesthetics
Shaded
Attractive to
Shaded Improve retail Increased Property Passive recreation Shaded Parkin
Trails,sidewalks,
Residents
streets/Buffer areas and Values
and bike trails
from vehicles neighborhoods
Intangible Benefits
a�
R
a
N
C
0
R
7
a1
O
W
O
0
U
O
d
LL
r
CL
C
0
E
C�
C
a�
L
0
U-
C
v,
C
0
w
4-
0
U
r
C
0
E
t
r
a
c
m
E
t
r
Q
What Do We Want? 54
Packet Pg. 77
7.A.a
In general, respondents are satisfied with the
current level of maintenance, with 69.8% saying they
"Agree" or "Strongly Agree." When asked to rank
various options for the level of maintenance that
public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents
indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to
receive hazard maintenance (Figure 6).
Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would like
to seethe City help preserve trees on private property.
Education and outreach were considered the best
ways to encourage tree planting and preservation
on private property, with 79.0% of respondents
identifying these as their preferred methods.
Respondents were asked to select the types of
education and public outreach they would like to
see offered by the urban forestry program. The
most popular educational materials were website
resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails
and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks
(55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Take care of hazardous trees.
Street tree along Main Street.
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
Holistic Plant Health Care
(Improve the urban forest,
but not necessarily every
tree)
Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the None -Keep them natural
should look good) sidewalks and streets clear)
Maintenance Expectations
55
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 78
7.A.a
Summary Considerations for
Public Outreach
Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds
residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further
improve the urban forest through increased
public outreach and community engagement.
Public engagement on urban forestry issues has
demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied
with the City's activities on public property, but
prefers to have the City only provide guidance and
education as opposed to regulation when it comes
to stewardship of trees on private property.
There is general agreement from survey respondents
that trees impact views for many residents, and the
issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue
in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other
scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds' identity
as a community. Scenic views are also considered
a property right of long-established development.
At the same time, appreciation of trees —especially
"the right trees in the right place" —is a value shared
by almost everyone.
Private property trees have canopy that can shade public streets.
Street trees along 5th Avenue.
as
a
a
N
C
O
as
as
O
U
O
L
F_
c
M
a
c
as
E
aD
aM
c
R
as
L
O
LL
r_
M
L
O
E
LU
4-
0
U
r
c
a�
E
t
ca
Q
c
m
E
t
v
cv
r
r
Q
What Do We want? 56
Packet Pg. 79
7.A.a
How Do We Get There?
Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of
Edmonds will be able to enhance management of
the urban forest through implementation of actions
recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop
a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based
on the precedence established by the City with
other long-range planning documents. Additionally,
growing and improving Edmonds' urban forest are
slow processes. Tree physiology for most trees in
Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years
to establish after planting, and anotherten (10) years
before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide
the majority of their ecosystem services when they
reach functional maturity. For this additional reason,
it is essential that urban forest planning consider at
least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as
a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired
state of the urban forest.
The five (5) long-range strategic goals provided
in this Plan will guide actions and activities that
address the three components of a sustainable
urban forestry program:
• Urban Forest Asset Actions, which are intended
to improve the urban forest resource over the
next twenty (20) years by developing detailed
expectations for the urban forest. To accomplish
this, most activities will increase the amount of
information the City maintains about its urban
forest resource. This includes activities like
routine tree canopy assessments and a public
tree inventory, both of which are fundamental
to management and are substantial expenses to
an urban forestry program requiring significant
consideration.
• Municipal Resource Actions, which are
intended to drive improvements in City policy
and practices by developing efficiency and
alignment of efforts within City departments.
The common activities for accomplishing these
goals center around developing policies that
promote routine tree inspection and formalized
tree management strategies for City -owned
trees. The results will encourage the City to
improve its awareness and mitigation of tree
hazards and eliminate barriers to effective
urban forest management.
• Community Resource Actions, which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in urban
forest stewardship. The activities coordinate
with the public and encourage the participation
of citizens and businesses to align with the
City's vision for the urban forest.
The research into current and historical efforts in
urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous
opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the
understanding of the urban forest resource as well as
improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations.
The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al.
(2011) were used as a standard to assess the current
urban forestry practices in the City, and provide
the management reference necessary to frame the
following recommended goals for this plan.
Each action contains time designations which
estimate the anticipated timeframe for completion
of the action/activity once it is started.
r
Q
57 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 80
7.A.a
Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can
obstruct the view, but can also be the view.
How Do We Get There? 58
Packet Pg. 81
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goad 1 Time
Goal 1- Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success
with this objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees
and a deeper understanding of the population of trees on private property. The
following actions will support this objective:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development
On -going
impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement
requirements and penalties for code violations
B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to
1 Year
enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan.
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
On -going
D. Develop a voluntary heritage tree program
3-5 Years
E. Enforce city regulations on tree cutting
On -going
i. Reach out periodically to tree maintenance and landscaping firms to
make sure they know Edmonds' requirements for pruning or removing
trees
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree
3-5 Years
planting and other tree programs
i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs
G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees
On -going
H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist
On -going
I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage
10 Years, On -going
J. Periodically review and, if needed, update Urban Forest Management Plan
5-10 Years, On -going
(generally, every 5-10 years)
r
Q
59 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 82
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 2 Time
Goal 2 - Manage public trees proactively
The city has identified opportunities within this plan to improve its risk
management associated with trees and create better pathways for community
engagement. The following actions will support this objective:
A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties
On -going
and ROW
B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to
On -going
monitor the health of public trees and make decisions on their care
C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example,
On -going
along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk
D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically
5-10 Years, On -going
E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the
On -going
health of public trees
F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff
On -going
person to guide approach and activities
G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to
3-5 Years, On -going
help ensure:
i. Age and species diversity;
ii. And suitability of species to location
H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees,
3-5 Years, On -going
consistent with best management practices
I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property
1 Year, On -going
and rights -of way
J. As part of City -sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate
On -going
trees in rights -of -way and on City properties
K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management
On -going
for City properties and right-of-way (ROW)
r
Q
How Do We Get There? 60
Packet Pg. 83
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 3 Time
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that
voluntary public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will
support this objective.
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds 3-5 Years, On -going
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore 3-5 Years, On -going
establishment of:
i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes;
and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of
tree planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property 1 Year, On -going
owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
r
Q
61 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 84
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 4
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree
planting and care
The city recognizes the importance of the privately managed tree population in
the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The
following actions will support this objective:
A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees
B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to:
i. Develop community education materials;
ii. Participate in or initiate tree planting and tree care activities, including
outreach to citizen volunteers
iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities
C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees
and to provide guidance on tree selection and management
Time
1 Year
1 Year, On -going
1 Year, On -going
r
Q
How Do We Get There? 62
Packet Pg. 85
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goad 5 Time
Goal 5 - Promote "Right tree, right place"
Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when o balanced combination
of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees ore growing in suitable
spaces to maintain views, support wildlife (pollinators, birds, mammals, etc) and
provide optimum environmental services. The following actions will support this
objective:
A.
Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds
1 Year
of local settings
i. Indentify: large native tree species that can spread out in large spaces;
low -growing trees in view corridors, trees with appropriate root systems
near sidewalks and underground pipes.
ii. Provide lists of suitable trees to support pollinators and backyard wildlife
habitat.
B.
Identify key areas to increase canopy and:
1-3 Years
i. For any such private properties, encourage appropriate tree planting or
other techniques; and
ii. for any such public properties, consider and take action to appropriately
plant trees or otherwise increase canopy.
C.
Identify and plan for the care of unsuitable trees and, as necessary, for
On -going
pruning or removal when they are potentially damaging to people, buildings
or infrastructure
D.
Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation
On -going
to be planted in critical areas, especially near streams and other wildlife
habitat areas
E.
In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should
1-2 Years
be planted to be compatible with the street environment
r
Q
63 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 86
7.A.a
How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and
Measuring Results
The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring
the success of planning strategies. It is intended
that the Plan serves as a living document. As new
information becomes available, this section of the
UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine
plan updates, annual reports, and community
satisfaction surveys.
5-10 Year Plan Update
(Plan 2023)
The UFMP is an active tool that will guide
management and planning decisions over the next
twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be
reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress
and integration into an internal work plan. The
UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates
are intended to be flexible in response to emerging
opportunities, available resources, and changes
in community expectations. Therefore, each year,
specific areas of focus should be identified. This can
inform budget and time requirements for Urban
Forest Managers.
Annual State of the Urban
Forest Report
This report, delivered annually, should include
numbers of trees planted and removed by the City,
and any changes to the overall community urban
forest. It will serve as a performance report to
stakeholders and an opportunity for engagement.
The report is also an opportunity to highlight the
successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to
inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling
blocks. This information can be integrated into
urban forest managers' Annual Reports and used to
pursue additional project support and funding from
state agencies and Tree City USA applications.
Community Satisfaction
The results of the UFMP will be measurable in
improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs
for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals
and actions will support better tree health, greater
longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However,
perhaps the greatest measurement of success for
the UFMP will be its ability to meet community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
urban forest resource.
Community satisfaction can be measured through
surveys as well as by monitoring public support
for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan.
Community satisfaction can also be gauged by
the level of engagement and support for urban
forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest
stakeholders will help managers ensure activities
continue to be aligned with the community's vision
for the urban forest.
a
How Are We Doing? 64
Packet Pg. 87
7.A.a
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings
25:139-148.
American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org
Bennett, M. and Shaw, D. 2008. Diseases and Insect Pests of Pacific Madrone. Forest Health Fact Sheet EC 1619-E.
California Oak Mortality Task Force, 2019. https://suddenoakdeath.org.
Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017.
http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/
CensusScope, 2012, "CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data." www.censusscope.org
Ciesla, WW.M. and Ragenovich, I.R. 2008. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 119. Western Tent Caterpillar. USFS.
City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens' Tree Board.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Planning
Division, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services.
City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development
Services, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/
Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of
Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997.
Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/3/3d/Agri I us_a nxi us_1326203.j pg
Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 2015. Natural Resources Canada.
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313).
Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and Urban
Planning.
Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning,
Washington State Department of Commerce.
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_ forestry_programming.pdf
Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, "Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?" State
of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using and
Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
b: Appendices
Packet Pg. 88
7.A.a
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624.
Forest Insect and Disease Leaflets, 2017 - Laminated Root Rot. USDA Forest Service
https://apps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot'
Heisler, G.M., 1986, "Energy savings with trees." Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25.
�a
0
Hartel, D, 2003, "GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets", 2003 National Urban Forest
N
o
Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information.
Hollingsworth, C.S., editor. 2019. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect (accessed 31 March 2019).
a�
i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org
0
U
Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of
i
Environmental Management. 45:109-133
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge:
M
Cambridge University Press.
a.
Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient
E
Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. http://www.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816
Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and
Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117.
Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
0
r_
Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special Section.
N
Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155.
o
Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
-0
http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/
"'
0
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
r
The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org
U
.
The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/
Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
2005. Forest Health Protection —Emerald Ash Border. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
a
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown
Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
r
http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded
Q
Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast.
http://sncc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17
PNW Plant Disease Handbook
PNW Insect Handbook
Appendices 66
Packet Pg. 89
7.A.a
Pscheidt, J.W., and Ocamb, C.M., senior editors. 2019. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management
Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease (accessed
31 March 2019).
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/
Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com
Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html
Simpson, James, 2002. "Improved estimates of tree -shade effects on residential use," Energy and Buildings
34, 1067-1076.
Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 2000. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting.
In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference; Seattle.
Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112.
"Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1." Trees Near Power Lines I Residential I Snohomish County
PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219.
The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP).
https://www.fs.fed. us/psw/topics/urba n—forestry/
U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. "Green Roofs," Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy
Management Program.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2011— Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control,
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst—externa I reviewd raftJu ne152009.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/
Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use
Elementl).
Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing,
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/ebl380e/ebl380e.pdf
Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas -Fir Tussock Moth 86.
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban — forestry/
Wolf, K.L. 1998, "Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho -Social Dimensions of People and Plants".University of
Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1.
Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers Research
Review. 14, 3:39-43.
Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential scale.
Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188.
Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Usfin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall
interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188
67 Appendices
Packet Pg. 90
7.A.a
Appendix B: Table of Figures
P-jures
Figure 1: Land Cover Classes 5,23
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison 24
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation 25
Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park 27
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit 53
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit 54
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations 55
Tabler
Table 1: Benchmark Values 3
Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks 27
Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 28
Table 4: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 29
Table 5: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds 31
Table 6: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures 32
Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels 32
Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations 40
r
a
Appendice, 68
Packet Pg. 91
7.A.a
Appendix C:
Community Survey Responses
Introduction:
The survey questions provided a public feedback
opportunity during the early stages of plan
development. They were designed to solicit
input from residents and businesses in the City of
Edmonds and help guide the plan development
by understanding about how respondents.
The questions were arranged into 4 groups:
• How do you value trees?
• Your opinion about public trees. (City
managed trees on streets and in parks)
• Your opinion about private trees. (privately
managed trees)
• Who are you? (Simple Demographics)
While providing valuable information, the results
of this survey should not be interpreted to be a
statistically significant survey representing all
of Edmonds. 175 individuals responded to the
survey (0.4 percent of the Edmonds population)
and the geographic distribution of respondents
was not a control factor, as a result the survey
responses may include an over representation
of view properties. However, these responses
do represent views of many citizens who are
particularly interested in the management of
the City's urban forest.
Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5)
the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 =
least valuable):
Ilmprovec ' Quality
Energy Savings
FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage
Wildlife Habitat
Other
E
r
a
E
r
69 Appendices
Packet Pg. 92
7.A.a
Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Responses
Strongly Agree
74.86%
131
Agree
21.71%
38
lisagree
2.297.
Strongly Disagree
0.57%
1
Not sur
0.00%
0
Not Sure
0.57%
1
Other (please specify)
0.00%
0
Question 2 (Extended)
36.57%
64
24.00%
4
7
14.29% jA
4.57%
8
5.14%
9
13.71%
24
26.86% 47
21.71%
38
36.57%
64
25.71%
45
10.29M 8
8.57%
15
8.57%
15
17.14%
30
36.00% 63
28.57%
50
45
22.29%
39
12.57% 22
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00% 0
49.71% 87
P5.71%14FRO
29.71% 52
10.86% 19
0.00% 0
175 2.88
17
175 3.3
1175]64.49
0 0
Appendice, 70
Packet Pg. 93
7.A.a
Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8)
the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1= most
valuable and 8 = least valuable):
Attractive to Residents
14.86%
26
21.71%
38
16.00%
28
13.14%
23
Beauty/Aesthetics
34.29%
60
21.14%
37
14.86%
26
14.29%
25
_
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails
21.71%
38
17.14%
30
24.00%
42
11.43%
20
Shaded Parking
2.86%
5
3.43%
6
8.57%
15
9.71%
17
rover wand neighborhoo
14%
9
10.29%
1
°
22
13.71%
24
Increased Property Values
4.00%
7
5.14%
9
5.14%
9
9.71%
17
Passive recreati0
9
6.86%
12
12.00 /
21
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles713*14%/o
23
16.00%
28
12.00%
21
16.00%
28
Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds'
public trees.
Answered 60
Skipped
115
Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City's urban forest program? Please check all that
apply.
I was not aware that t
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City
Other (please specify)
a
71 Appendices
Packet Pg. 94
7.A.a
Question 3 (Extended)
15.43%
27
9.71%
17
6.86 %
12
2. 29%
4
7.43%
13
2.86%
5
2.29%
4
2.86%
5
9.71%
17
9.7�7
4.57%
8
1.71%
3
29.71%
52
8.57% 15
17.71% 31
19.43% 34
1.143%
34
18. 9%
32
1F29%
25
6.29%
11
10.29%
18
13.71%
24
22.86%
40
29.14%
51
14.86%
26
20.00%
35
21.
15.43% 27
13.71%
24
13.14%
23
9.71%
17
6.29%
11
Question 5 (Extended)
36.69%
62
23.67%
40
52.07%
88
14.79%
25
0
�5.39
175 6.29
175 3.03
175 4.25
175 3.05
175 4.89
Appendice, 72
Packet Pg. 95
7.A.a
Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue
with trees in the public rights -of -way.
Daily 13.02% 22
Weekly 11.83% 20
10.65 % 18
Several Times AYear 34.32% 58
Never J 30.18% 51
Answered .•
Skipped 61
Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may
be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees?
&J 9
Weekly 4.14% 7
- 2.96% 5
Several Times A Year 41.42% 70
Never 46.15% 78
T
Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree c
care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees? E
i 5.33AMb 9 a
c
Weekly _ 2.96% 5 E
/lonthly 5.92% 10
Several Times A Year 43.20% 73 a
Never 42.60% 72
73 Appendices
Packet Pg. 96
7.A.a
Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds'
public trees.
Strongly agr�
10.65%
18
Agree
59.17%
100
Disagree
11.83%
20
Strongly Disagree
8.88%
15
Not Su
9.47%
16
Answered
169
Skipped
61
Appendice, %.-.
Packet Pg. 97
7.A.a
Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following
options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable)
None -Keep them natural
Best possible care (all trees should look good)
Clearance only (keep th ewalks and streets clear)
Take care of hazardous trees.
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)
Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees.
jWngly Agree
A7.87%
64
Agree
28.99%
49
Fsagree
17.16%
29
Strongly disagree
5.33%
9
not sure
10.65%
1
Xnmswwered
169
Skipped
Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.
59.17% 100
Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36%
102
59.17%
100
Golf Courses 11.24%
19
Downtown 42.60%
72
Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77
dmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34
Other (please specify) 17.75% 30
Answered 11F .•
Skipped
75 Appendices
Packet Pg. 98
7.A.a
Question 10 (Extended)
3.55%
6
8.88%
15
10.06%
17 25.44%
43
45.56%
77
6.51%
11
169
1.92
15.38%
26
9.47%
16
21.89%
37 26.04%
44
23.08%
39
4.14%
7
169
2.67
6.51%
11
24.26%
41
27.81%
47 26.04%
44
10.65%
18
4.73%
8
169
2.89
52.07%
88
26.04%
44
14.20%
24 5.33%
9
1.78%
3
0.59%
1
169
4.22
21.89%
37
30.18%
51
23.08%
39 12.43%
21
8.28%
14
4.14%
1
3.47
cu
a
N
C
0
R
7
a1
O
O
0
U
a�
O
LL
r
CL
0
0
E
O
Im
m
r_
C�
C
L
0
U-
r_
m
L
0
0
E
Lu
4-
0
U
r
c
a�
E
t
c,>
to
r
a
E
r
r
a
Appendice, 76
Packet Pg. 99
7.A.a
Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban
forestry program? Please check all that apply.
eminars and workshops 1 44.38%
75
Interpretive trails and displays 59.76%
101
Website resources MMMISM 62.72%
106
Online videos (e.g. YouTube) 24.26%
41
/tree walks 55�
Informational brochures 43.20%
73
Other (please specify) 11.83% 20
Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public
trees.
Answered 40
Skipped 135
Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply)
Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41
Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15
Tree debris in 12.65% 21
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114
rnopy loss 57.83% 96
Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120
Other Concerns(please specify)
%% Appendices
Packet Pg. 100
7.A.a
Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select
any from this list any statements you agree with.
■
Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98% 20
Trees near my property are a dangerous
17.37%
29
Trees near my property block views
29.34%
49
Trees near my property are beautiful
67.66%
113
Trees near nWpropqlF are healthy
59.28%
99
1 want more trees near my property
25.15%
42
have no trees near my property
0.637o
I don't agree with any of these statements.
2.40%
4
Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be
impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?
Answer Choices ..
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
reasonably possible. 53.89% 90
No. This City of Edmonds should not concern
itself with trees on private property. 17.96% 30
Not sure. This issue is more complicated. 28.14% 47
Appendices 78
Packet Pg. 101
7.A.a
Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on
private property? Please select as many as apply.
I
Education and outreach 79.04% 132
Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34% 49
Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74% 48
Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09% 92
Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33% 59
Other (please specify) 22.75% 38
Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private
property.
ditional Comments
Answered .,
Skipped 131
Question 20: Which gender do you identify with?
Answer Choices
Male 28.66% 47
Female 59.76% 98
Lender Diverse R3% 3
Prefer not to answer 9.76% 16
a
79 Appendices
Packet Pg. 102
7.A.a
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
Under 18
0.00%
0
18 to 25
1.22%
2
26 to 35
4.27%
7
36 to 45
11.59%
19
46 to 55
21.34%
35
56+
61.59%
101
Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below
Downtown/The Bowl
40.85%
67
Westgate
7.32%
12
rive Corners
8.54%
14
Perrinville
4.88%
8
IMeadowdale M4.27%
7
Seaview
15.24%
25
Lake Ballinger
22%
2
HWY 99
3.05%
5
ther (please specify)
14.63%
24
Appendice, 80
Packet Pg. 103
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
7.A.a
I am a resident of Edmonds M
95.12%
156
1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds
10.98%
18
1 own a business in Ed on s
6.71%
11
I appreciate public trees
72.56%
119
1 have planted public trees as a volunteer
18.90%
J1
I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property
10.98%
18
have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees
15.85%
31
None of the above
0.61%
1
81 Appendices
Packet Pg. 104
7.A.a
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
Answered 33
Skipped 142
Appendice, 82
Packet Pg. 105
7.A.a
Appendix D: Open House
Summary Report
On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the
first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City
Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds
Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input
from citizens.
The open house included a presentation by Ian
Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and
A from the audience to ask clarifying questions.
The presentation provided attendees an overview
of Edmonds' urban forest, an introduction to what
will be included in the Urban Forest Management
Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has
completed to date. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion
boards where a broad topic was introduced on each
board followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green= a positive "vote"/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative
"vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each board. In addition, each
board provided an area for Additional Suggestions
where attendees were invited to write down their
thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note
and adhere it to the board for other attendees to
review and "vote" on, as well. Lastly, a confidential
and anonymous option was provided for attendees
to provide comments and feedback by writing their
thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index
cards that were placed inside a box and not shared
at the public meeting.
The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link
for attendees to give additional feedback through an
online survey. That survey can be accessed via the
home page on the City of Edmonds website, under
the "What's New..." section:
• https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/
EdmondsUFMP
Local media provided public announcements of the
open house leading up to the event:
• http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/
rem inder-open-house-managing-citys-tree-
cover-set-june-22/
• https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/
open-house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city-
s-tree-cover/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines
My Edmonds News covered the open house and
provided a news story and video of the presentation
to the public:
• http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public-
asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban-
forest/
• http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now-
video-open-house-plan-manage-edmonds-
urban-forests/
r
Q
83 Appendices
Packet Pg. 106
7.A.a
Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate?
A. Improved Air Quality
-
B. Energy Savings
elllbMReduced StormwateglMnoff
■
D. Carbon Storage
ET Wildlife Habitat
■
F. Beauty/Aesthetics
G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike
H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods
I. Increased prope
J. Shaded streets and parking lots
K. Additional Ideas
Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade-
calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi -class (untreed
neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- "the projects"
don't get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams;
coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland
desertification
City revenue increase with more views
Air quality requires big, tall trees
4
0 0
AiL
■ 0
7
1 0
14
0 0
12
0 0
4
0 3
3
1 4
7
2 3
4
1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
Appendice,
Packet Pg. 107
7.A.a
Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are I -
nrAfArrArl /vali iorl7
A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)
2
0
0
i. Species selection
4
0
0
ii
1
0
0
iii. Tree pruning
4
1
0
Interactive tree selector
1
1
0
V. Irrigation
1
0
0
olunteer opportunities
1
0
0
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)
3
0
0
Species selectio�
3
1
0
ii. Tree planting
1
0
0
iii. Tree pruning
3
1
0
iv. Irrigation
0
0
0
C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars)
2
0
0
i. Tree planting
2
0
0
Tree pruning
5
0
0
iii. Irrigation
0
0
0
Volunteer opportunities
1
0
0
D. Additional Ideas
7
1
0
Neighborhoo Ings for education and outreach
0
0
Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest
0
0
0
Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property
amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which
appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe
0
0
0
story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online
circulation]
New name needed
0
0
0
85 Appendices
Packet Pg. 108
7.A.a
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds?
A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9
B. Trees shading my yard
3 0 7
ft Tree debris in
1 5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed
12 0 3
[E. Canopy loss
3
F. Loss of wildlife habitat
15 0 3
Additional Co
Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows
developers to completely clear treed lots for development
1 0 0
(residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban
IS omeone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate
V
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
1
Lto come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
0 0 0
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
0 0
is removed for development
This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which
are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we
2 0 0
have chosen to reside- as the "view". Trees are very connected
to the idea of "the commons" in which we have not much
I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated
additional concern.
'Note: for this opinion board:
Green dots = concerned
Appendice, ov
Packet Pg. 109
7.A.a
Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer
for aublic trees?
A. None (keep them natural)
1
4 2
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)
7
1 3
Mlearan� (keep sidewalks and streets clear)
7
1 1
D. Take care of hazardous trees
10
2 0
lolistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but
not necessarily every tree)
8
3 0
F. Additional Ideas
In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous
and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need 0 0 0
process to effectively deal with dangerous trees.
Utilize/ plant and replace trees that "heave" the sidewalks. ie- 2 0 0
avoid trees that interfere with built environment.
Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash tree 0 0
Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property
owner's views are protected. As a first step/tonight's meeting
0 1 0
working together to protect environment as well as property
owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode.
There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional
Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote "Agree" directly on
the note itself.
87 Appendices
Packet Pg. 110
7.A.a
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees
planted?
A. Parks
10
0 0
B. Open Spaces
10
0 1
Commercial properties
9
2 0
D. Streets and medians
7
3 2
_E. Parking lots
0
F. Private properties
8
1 1
G.
Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all
1
0 0
arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool
Appendices 88
Packet Pg. 111
7.A.a
Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree I M
planting and preservation on private property?
A. Free (or low-cost) trees
10
0
0
B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care
3
0
0
company
Education and Outreach
16i
0
0
D. Tree planting events
5
0
0
Additional Ideas
Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees
when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot.
3
0
1
Education- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all
the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for "views"
0
0
0
we can cut out our lungs.
Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order
3
0
0
to keep both trees and preserve view.
City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:
3
0
0
Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and
streamside property management more important than public
0
0
0
meetings for general public)
a
N
0
a�
a�
0
U
a�
a�
L
F_
a
w
c
0
L
0
a_
c
L
0
E
W
4-
0
U
r
c
a�
E
t
c,>
to
r
a
E
r
r
a
89 Appendices
Packet Pg. 112
1
1. W}Cot tree benefit do YOU M*5t
appreciate?
I
a t'+ Oe a N. A vT y
r ierriri#i i
arrr
twmr*a..iay{E�.3rva7.ceR.r.eYwRrrR.sN
#ii�i##•i*#• •
i '2GF"
o"aanr#rr.r#•
r, Ilrew r/aw.I Wri[.
ii •ereiaiiir
u srwr.a r.. .
irgeeii i.
N. I'•+^^•4 aroma Me.q,y
_ i •aa# � ��s
L �F4• i#
*r� `� orA�Lw,Y ibr
7.A.a
M M: ' r t
2. What types of vutreoth and 3. What is cre your Biggest ' L;
edumtion are preferred valued? : concern(s) for trees in Edrnorlds?
A_ E40ronic (Websile, links, Youfube, Apps)111 A. kaos blocking my aicw 1N
4. Sperm fak.r:an 00 a* •
41.
iil� 1—r,.riinq � *
i,'. I.rrr&&F.+Tn.rsear is S. iroas shading my yard 040q&• •
*. Nrrq.s 0 • •
10
�. 4�lard Cot}y {PPrfrph�otS, P#ewilelt4•es j��
xrex r-anrw,p
:.o # •
C. Tree dnhris in my yard #
0 s •• i
D- Hapllhy srsaTura F.awsL.ing ramoYad •i
•o• • • •••
C• l44adF-On JWorl&shnpsL, Seminar#}IDO F. Canopy loci
i Tr..Phrewp ��
I. Loss ofwBdlrt,alwbgal ������*• �
W. Yelrna.rrOFpa•hn4ier� ��� ��* � �; J
0.1Ldditivnol Idwna ~ 0. A "liDwol Concerns
T _
1
6. Whot are the best ways to
f encourage tree planting and
f 5. Where would you like to e more preservation on Private Property?
v What level of rna�r1.. 'Dote would trees planted? seq. Frap far low-ea31� rroes
you prefer far pul�liI frees?
A. Fora.
A. Noe IKeepnceasaaroral) i *too iiir •!•
�• open $peers
•�• •rr
{. Cvmmerciel Properries
• ii #reel
D. Streets and Medians
i le r
ii r
E. Parking LOT&
% •ee i #
F'- Privaxv Prapsftias
i iii* r r
G. Addlfion011408s
i
i i
$. B.e.rpOaible Sars {olpTraes ilsasrld lank goad]
*
i ii irerr
C. ClIbumn&e only jkawp sidewalks & stroe+s rlrs
•#ii irl #
D, Tckv care of 6.... doo. r �.
i ril •rare i
E. Hdisric Planl firaF+i. Cwe jlmprova rh. ,., hen
ioraSF, but ncl 4e4oFSPrily axery rree)
iii e i e Is
F. Addl;Onalld,�-•t?
B, Inforrnation obour how ra hire a professional
tree care I tympany
is
C. EdtMo600 and OuTraach
:r# •
Il!
0, Troo Naming [venis
•0so*
[. Additionat Ideas
N
C
7
IM
d
d
0
V
L
F_
C
IL
c
m
E
ai
a�
�a
C
ns
..r
N
L
0
IL
C
M
L
N
C
0
lL
0
ci
r
C
E
t
C�
a
C
d
t
u
r+
a
Appendices 90
Packet Pg. 113
7.A.a
Additional anonymous comments:
Change name "Urban Forest"- bad impression,
oxymoron. Suggestion- Best plant/tree for Best
location
• Wondering what is/can be done to encourage
people to maintain views for neighbors
around them?
• Let's separate view areas from non -view areas.
Right tree for right location.
I am concerned about safety regarding older
trees in both private and public spaces. We
have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood
that lose branches with most wind storms.
Who watches out for the health of those trees
and probability of danger? Most people would
have no idea where to begin, let alone be able
to afford to do something like hire an arborist.
(signed J Thompson)
Questions from the public asked during the
presentation:
Question regarding how the 30% canopy cover
was determined- comment that that number
seemed really high. Wondering if there is
a uniform process used by all cities. Made
comment that grants were judged by how much
canopy a City had. Asked for clarification on
what the process that was used to determine
30% canopy cover.
• Question asking for clarification of the intention
of the UFMP- to handle City trees (as stated
in an early slide) or is it actually expanded to
handle private trees too.
Commenter asked for clarification on defining
"what is a tree"- a 30ft lilac ... is that a tree? A
big rhododendron- is that a tree?
• Commenter referring to tree planting
suggestions (provided an sign in table on yellow
paper)- had a question about why is there not
any evergreen on that suggestion guide?
Commenter asked question regarding tree
topping being preferable to cutting a tree to
the ground. Expressed concern over making a
"blanket rule" that tree topping is bad or not
preferable.
• Question regarding information on what kinds
of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a fir
versus an oak- and where is that kind of data
available at?
Question referring to the chart shown in the
presentation comparing Edmonds with other
cities- does that chart take into consideration
view property- does it differentiate where there
are view properties and where there are not?
Commenter suggested that a significant portion
of the City [of Edmonds] has views.
r
Q
91
Appendices
Packet Pg. 114
7.A.a
Attendance
City of Edmonds:
• Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council
• Shane Hope, Development Services Director
• Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Services Director
• Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities Director
• Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
• Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
• Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program
Manager
• Brad Shipley, Planner
• Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff
Project Team Members:
• Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group
• Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group
• Keeley O'Connell, Nature InSight Consulting
Members of the public:
• Approximately 50
Appendice- 92
Packet Pg. 115
7.A.b
2020 Edmonds Tree Regulations Update —Topic Matrix
Topic
Existing Code
Possible Amendment Concepts
Tree Retention
ECDC 18.45.050 notes that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible."
One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are
cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. The City could explore regulations
The critical area code has a 30% retention of native vegetation requirement for
that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed
properties in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones being subdivided if associated with landslide
beyond an established threshold, developers may be required to pay into the Tree Fund.
hazard areas, streams, or wetlands (ECDC 23.90.040.C).
Apart from the 30% native vegetation requirement in the critical area code, there is no
specific tree retention requirement for properties within the City of Edmonds.
Low Impact Development
Low impact development (LID) in the City development code is primarily related to
One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are
stormwater management. ECDC 18.30.010 (definitions related to stormwater code)
cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. One way to maintain more trees on
defines low impact development as "a stormwater and land use strategy that strives to
the site is to employ LID planning principles in the subdivision process. Current subdivision and zoning standards do
mimic predisturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage,
not allow much flexibility and by the time the required access, setbacks/developable area, and utilities are applied
evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site
to a site, often must of the trees end up being removed. Some flexibility during subdivision design that may be
planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a
explored include flexible setbacks (e.g. modify interior setbacks while maintaining standard exterior setbacks),
project design." However, low impact develop principles may be applied much broader,
cluster developments, flexible lot design (altering lot width and/size requirements while maintaining the underlying
for instance ECDC 24.90.030 (shoreline master program definitions) defines LID
zoning density).
principles as "land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -
site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native
vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff."
Tree Fund
The City of Edmonds currently does not have a dedicated Tree Fund
Establishing a Tree Fund will be part of the update. Tree Fund management will likely be established in a new
chapter located in Title 3 ECC. How money makes it into the tree fund and what the funds may be spent on will
have to be explored.
Potential funding options include tree cutting violation penalties, dollar amount per tree removed during
subdivisions (see Tree Retention), or deposit for replacement trees not planted to meet retention requirement (see
Tree Retention topic).
Tree fund could be used to issue tree vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in
the City, funding tree education activities, or other tree related activity.
Incentives
There are currently not incentives to retain trees or plant trees within the City code.
The Urban Forest Management Plan included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private
property which included:
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of:
i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or
type of healthy trees
Allowing more flexibility during development of site, such as discussed in the LID topic, also provides an incentive to
retain more trees during development.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 116
7.A.b
Topic
Existing Code
Possible Amendment Concepts
Tree Definitions
ECDC 18.45.040 currently defines tree as "any living woody plant characterized by one
Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include
main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a
"significant tree", "protected tree", "landmark tree", "heritage tree", or "street tree". Additionally, some
multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown."
jurisdiction except certain species of trees from their tree regulation requirements (such as red alder). Tree
definitions will be explored.
Permits/Tree Cutting Review for
Currently exemptions from permitting requirements are located in ECDC 18.45.030.
The disparity in application fees and process between existing single-family and multi-family/commercial properties
Existing Developed Properties
Generally speaking, developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt
should be addressed.
from tree cutting permits. If there are critical areas present and the tree is not
determined to be a hazard tree (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b) then a permit is required to cut
The current exemption list contains some dated language and inconsistencies with the critical area code. As such
a tree (which includes topping). When a permit is required on single family properties,
the exempt activities should be reviewed. Another exemption consideration should be given to nuisance tree
it is a Type II staff decision with notice. Type II permits cost $1,010 ($970 application
removal. For example, a tree that is not considered a hazard tree but continually damages sewer lines or is buckling
fee plus $40 technology fee). In addition to the application fee additional costs may
a driveway with its roots may be removed without a permit similar to a hazard tree.
include arborist reports and/or critical area reports such a geotechnical report.
For existing multi -family and commercial properties tree cutting is reviewed a Type I
design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping
requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Type I permits cost $315 ($275 application fee
plus $40 technology fee). If critical areas are present, additional reports may be
required.
Hazard tree removal does not require a permit, but does require review by staff. There
are no City fees associated with a hazard tree removal review, however there is cost to
an applicant to hire an arborist to document the tree as a hazard tree.
Penalties/Fines
Violations and penalties for tree cutting violations are currently contained in ECDC
The code currently defines a tree as any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many
18.45.070. Base penalties may be assessed accord to the size of the tree; civil penalty
branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed
in an amount not to exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000
crown. The critical area code also permits the removal of trees less the 4 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) as
for a tree three inches or more. These fines are trebled if the tree is located in a critical
an allowed activity. Given the current code includes penalties for trees that are smaller than the definition of tree
area or the right-of-way for a maximum fine of $9,000 per tree.
and trees which may elsewhere in the code be removed from critical areas as an allowed activity, the penalty
section should be review and evaluated to establish an appropriate penalty for violation of the City's tree cutting
regulations.
Any penalties assessed could be deposited in the Tree Fund account.
Code Location
Tree and vegetation management is spread throughout Edmonds Community
Title 18 ECDC is primarily related to Public Works requirement. Since Chapter 18.45 ECDC is related to tree
Development Code (ECDC). Primary tree code is located in Chapter 18.45 ECDC — Land
regulations on private property and administered by the planning manager, a new chapter (Chapter 23.10 ECDC)
Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. Other tree and vegetation regulations are contained
will be created in Title 23 ECDC Natural Resources to house the main tree related code chapter. Other potential
within Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC critical area code, the Title 24 ECDC — Shoreline
tree related code amendments may be applied to Chapter 20.75 ECDC — Subdivisions that would allow flexibility in
Master Program, and Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements.
subdivision design to encourage more tree retention as noted in the LID and Tree Retention topics.
Page 2 of 2
a�
r
Q.
0
c
0
a�
m
m
0
U
W
0
t=
x
r
.Q
0
W
r
M
a
N
c
0
a�
a�
a�
t=
c
0
E
w
N
r
c
m
E
t
a
E
2
a
Packet Pg. 117
7.A.c
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
23.10.020
Definitions
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.090
Bonding
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.110
Liability
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the
protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance, and use of significant trees. The intent of
this chapter is to:
A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving
the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or
destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
B. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
C. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
D. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
E. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still
allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner.
F. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural
topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g.,
disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 1 of 13
cam;
c
a�
E
z
U
Q
r
c
m
E
U
2
a
Packet Pg. 118
7.A.c
G. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
H. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
23.10.010 Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.020 Definitions (Definitions currently incomplete. Will review definitions to make sure all
terms are defined.)
A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every inch of trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet from grade or otherwise determined
by a qualified professional (example: one (1) foot radius per one (1) inch DBH).
C. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) -The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
E. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
F. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by
recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
G. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
H. Non -significant Tree (i.e. alder)
Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
J. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
Tree Risk Assessor Certification (TRACE) as established by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of ISA
(or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 2 of 13
Packet Pg. 119
7.A.c
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree [protection and
replacement] plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction.
L. Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground.
M. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city
tree protection professional (City Arborist, qualified professional, someone?).
N. Tree Fund - XXX
O. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.
23.10.030 Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any protected, non -protected or
significant tree except as provided by this chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal
permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
Removal of trees in association with right-of-way and easements. Tree removal by a public agency
or a franchised utility within a public right-of-way or upon an easement, for the purpose of installing
and/or maintaining water, storm, sewer, power, gas or communication lines, or motorized or non -
motorized streets or paths. Notification to the City by the public agency or franchised utility is
required prior to tree maintenance or removal within City -owned rights -of -way.
C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain the health of cultivated plants, to contain
noxious weeds, or to remedy a potential fire or health hazard, or threat to public safety.
D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which
is capable of being divided into not more one additional lot, except for:
1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer, excepting erosion
hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 120
7.A.c
E. Trees that do not meet the above exemptions maybe removed with supporting documentation for
the removal of:
1. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been done to
rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
3. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8
23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC
23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for ECDC 23.10.040.E, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolitions: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required
to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement
may be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all natural growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
City requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before
removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish
tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate
preservation of viable trees.
B. Tree Plan Retention Plan
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 4 of 13
Packet Pg. 121
7.A.c
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that
complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain
components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense.
Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following
information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
corresponding tags on trees); the inventory must also include significant trees on
adjacent property with driplines extending over the subject property line;
Size (DBH);
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
plat or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements
cannot be established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in
subsection (3)(a) of this section;
Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be
required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out;
vii. Proposed locations of any supplemental trees and any required trees replacement trees
as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 5 of 13
Packet Pg. 122
7.A.c
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Describe the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in
a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Plats and Subdivisions
a. Phase Review
i. If during the short plat or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, was not able to be
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses trees only
affected by the known improvements at the time of application. Tree removal shall be
limited to those affected areas.
A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as
more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to
all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for project
development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Project Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short plat, or subdivision
30% of all significant trees in the developable
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short plat,
25% of all significant trees in the developable
or unit lot subdivision
site
2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area
hazard tree.
The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
4. If the required retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant shall pay $XX into the
tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: In identifying significant trees to be retained trees should
be retained in the following priority order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 6 of 13
Packet Pg. 123
7.A.c
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches in dbh.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space,
wetlands or creek buffers.
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to
utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may
be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting
the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity.
F. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection with clearing limit fencing of any critical areas and critical area
buffers;
3. Trees to be removed and retained; and
4. Property lines
23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following
standards:
A. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 124
7.A.c
B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant
shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Fences shall be constructed of chain link and be at least six (6)
feet high, unless other type of fencing is authorized by the Director.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree
fence. Said sign must be approved by the d and shall state at a minimum "Tree and Soil
Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement
to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the Director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the Director authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
C. Grade.
The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The Director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 13
Packet Pg. 125
7.A.c
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the Director. The Director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the Director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation.
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
D. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
E. Additional Requirements. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.080 Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced by one new tree in accordance
with subsection ECDC 23.10.080.0 of this section. No tree replacement is required in the following
cases:
The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor.
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
B. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
C. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. Two -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 9 of 13
Packet Pg. 126
7.A.c
D. Tree Replacement Fee-in-leu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval
by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for
each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site location.
The amount of the fee shall be $XX times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree
replacement requirements of this section will be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
23.10.090 Bonding
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration covering trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required
landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure
adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance
bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in subsection B.
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
buffers.
23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any other section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
C. Penalties:
1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
penalty.
Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 127
7.A.c
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree
fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar
growing conditions.
The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in
the absence of the violation(s).
If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified
arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and required tree replacement.
3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the dates) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require
necessary corrective action within a specific time.
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC.
23.10.110 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 128
7.A.c
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced up to 20 percent in all residential zones
provided that:
a. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet;
b. The required front setback shall not be reduced by more than five (5) feet. There may be an
additional five (5) feet of reduction beyond the allowance provided for covered entry
porches.
2. Lot size. Lot sizes may be reduced ("clustering") to allow dwelling units to be shifted to the most
suitable locations so long as the overall density of the project complies with zoning ordinance.
3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that overall
coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allow by the zone.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city policies and codes.
3.95 Tree Fund
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund."
3.95.020 Funding Sources
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources:
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 129
7.A.c
A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC.
B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC.
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes;
D. Sale of seedlings by the City; and
E. Other monies allocated by the City Council
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the tree fund maybe used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the
city:
1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds;
2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional;
3. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
4. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day;
S. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
B. Monies from the tree fund may be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, but may not be used to purchase trees required for replacement
under the conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the
grantee.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 13 of 13
Packet Pg. 130
7.A.d
From:
Chave, Rob
To:
Lien. Kernen
Subject:
Fwd: Revised Tree Code
Date:
Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:19:22 AM
Rob Chave
Planning Manager, City of Edmonds
Begin forwarded message:
From: cdfarmen@comcast.net
Date: November 11, 2020 at 7:35:19 PM PST
To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Revised Tree Code
Dear Board Members,
An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward
controlling the loss of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be
helpful in reducing the loss of significant trees, especially in large wooded
areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern.
I would like to see a provision in the tree code for new construction on
wooded lots that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain
as many trees as possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10,
especially items "C and D" where it talks about development practices that
work to avoid the removal or destruction of trees.
Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed
property. The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of
20% of the existing trees, the same as required for new construction sites.
Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the
city will be relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a
solution, versus tree retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers,
are not capable of absorbing even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared
to significant trees.
The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as
to where those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything
in the revised code that addresses that issue. And, who would decide
where to plant the replacement trees and who would be responsible for
planting them? Is the city going to be liable for planting on some non -
owned property?
Packet Pg. 131
7.A.d
One of the code's alternatives to tree removal is paying for the removal of
significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those
"fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I
recommend the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden
program. Using those dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative
that I could accept.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Respectively submitted,
Duane Farmen
Seaview area homeowner
Packet Pg. 132
7.A.d
From:
Bill Phio)s
To:
citizens- plan ninoboard (c edmondswa.aov
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Proposed Tree Code
Date:
Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:30:06 PM
Greetings Planning Board;
I enjoyed sitting in on your meeting on Oct. 28. It was a good discussion about the tree code.
But first, the subject of public input came up. I would recommend sending a notice to My Edmonds News
whenever you are having a public hearing. They will publish it and people read it.
i would also consider letters to you , the Planning board , as public input. My letter to you, on the tree
code, dated Oct. 14, 2020 wasn't acknowledged by a single one of you. But, I guess you must be
flooded with letters and public comments...
Concerning the tree code, it was good to hear your understanding of the issues around "replacement
trees"; the tree saplings planted to replace the large conifers lost to development.
The next question is where are we going to plant those replacement trees ?! We're talking about
significant areas of open spaces, where it's appropriate to plant large conifers.
I do think you missed one key element of tree codes. Private property owners on already developed land
should be curtailed from removing excessive numbers of trees from their property.. Most cities restrict
tree removal to a certain number of trees per period of time; such as 3 significant trees per year. See the
Exemptions section of the draft tree code, section d).
Previously developed parcels should not be exempt from the tree code.
Should there also be a minimum percentage of tree canopy saved on developed land, just as there will
be for developers ?
What we see is new owners of houses moving in and immediately cutting down all or most of their big
trees, that have been maintained for decades by previous owners of the property.. We could try to slow
that process down, to see if the new owners might end up liking a few trees around them ?!
I have other ideas and concerns, but that is enough for now. Feel free to contact me.
I'm looking forward to attending your next meeting and Mr. Liens' excellent presentation of the proposed
tree code and your insightful and lively discussion about the future of our forest canopy.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bill Phipps
Edmonds resident
Packet Pg. 133
7.A.d
From: ericth uesen (Wrontier. corn
To: Lien. Kernen; Council; Citizens Planning Board
Subject: Tree code /email submittal / notification to property owners / Zoom meetings
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:34:58 PM
From: Eric Thuesen <ericthuesen@frontier.com>
To: citizens-planning@edmonndswa.gov.
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 5:01 PM PDT
Subject Proposed Tree code
Good Afternoon Planning Board members;
1).Normal due time for submittal of written and oral comments is prior to the start of the of a meeting. I
spoke to Kernen today at 3:30 and was advised cutoff date was 3;OOpm.
I am sending this email prior to the 7pm meeting in hopes that it will be submitted as a comment. There
has been only one comment to date from Bill Philipps. Few citizens
are aware of the rules and are not getting a chance to express their thoughts.
2).Landowners - It is my understanding the City was to send out meeting notifications to landowners.. I
am a landowner and did not received an email. Only became aware
of the meeting when I called the Development Services Department and was told there was a meeting.
3).Zoom meetings. A large portion of Edmonds residents are not tech knowledgeable. Because of this
they are locked out of participating in virtual meetings. Please review the address code required to enter
the virtual meeting.
Staff needs to recognizes that citizens have right to have access and notification of the decisions our
Board members and Council are making.
Regards;
Eric Thuesen
Packet Pg. 134
7.A.d
From: Chave, Rob
To: Lien. Kernen
Subject: Fwd: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:22:11 AM
Attachments: image.ona
Rob Chave
Planning Manager, City of Edmonds
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anna Forslund West <forslund.anna@gmail.com>
Date: November 11, 2020 at 3:58:30 PM PST
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "Hope, Shane"
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>, "Chave, Rob" <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views
Hello Planning Board + City Council,
I'd like to follow up on the email I sent over on Oct 13th to City Council, in
regard to including a section in the revised tree code for protecting water
views. I see this is not included in the draft version, as of yet.
The very definition of our city is described as: "facing the Puget sound".
The Puget Sound is a vital part of our identity. In many cases it is the
reason people buy homes here and spend time in our restaurants, bars,
farmer's market + shops vs. spending their dollars in other cities. While we
are spending time revising tree codes that affect private property, and drill
down to the detail (ex: what is defined as an "insignificant tree", size tree
that can be cut, penalties, etc), I do believe we need to add, protecting
water views, to this code. At the very least, a section on hedge height
guidelines/ when vegetation is used as a fence/privacy row and negatively
impacts another resident's water view.
Specifically I'd like to suggest this be woven into the INTENT + PURPOSE
Section. Regardless if you think the tree is the view or the water is the
view, trees have the potential to block water views; and both are important
to our identity as Edmonds residents. We would be remiss to ignore
this.
While the city has not chosen to protect water views in written code over
the past few decades, I do know the water view is of importance, the city
tells me so with increased taxes for private property that have water views.
Taxes which in turn, benefit our community. Our town's logo "It's an
Edmonds Kind of Day" is literally a picture of a ferry, on the water.
Packet Pg. 135
7.A.d
}} P -
Ids an low land of days
How often are our city departments (police, city council, etc) called upon to
deal with a hedge height or blocked view situation? A more concrete
guideline would help take the pressure off these departments.
While the draft version shows we are detailing out the tree code
substantially (and specifically only to trees), if the city chooses to not
include a section on how trees also affect water views on private property,
I feel shows a disconnect. We have max height guidelines for buildings
and fences, but when vegetation is used as a "fence" the sky's the limit —
quite literally.
I suggest we use the Tree Board's "Right Tree in The Right Place"
motto to help write code which will help protect our trees and our water
views, which I think we can all agree, are both vital to our community.
Thank you for your consideration!
Anna West
Packet Pg. 136
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/18/2020
Review of Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board extended agenda is reviewed each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Review the Extended Agenda. (The extended agenda is unchanged from the previous meeting on
November 12th)
Attachments:
Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 137
�y0,0 EDV
o Items and Dates are subject to change
pLAKIMFW� BOARD
Extended Agenda
November 12, 2020
Meeting Item
SEPTEMBER, 2020
OCTOBER, 2020
October 1. Public Hearing on the 2020 update to the City of Edmonds CIP/CFP
28 (Capital Improvements Program and Capital Facilities Plan)
2. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
November. 2020
November
(No meeting —Veterans Day)
11
November
1. Public Hearing on the 2020 update to the City of Edmonds CIP/CFP
12
(Capital Improvements Program and Capital Facilities Plan)
2. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
November
1. Review /discussion on code update work: Tree Codes
18
November
(No meeting —Thanksgiving Holiday week)
25
December, 2020
December 1. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to City of Edmonds Tree
9 Codes (Tentative)
December (No meeting — Christmas Holiday week)
23
idnudry, cuci
January 1. Discussion/Deliberation on Draft Amendments to City of Edmonds
13 Tree Codes (Tentative, if necessary)
2. Climate Goals Planning —Status Update and Discussion
Packet Pg. 138
items ana liates are
9.A.a
o change
January 1.
27 2.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Update
Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging
Packet Pg. 139
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates implementing the UFMP
2020-21 2.
Implementation / code updates implementing climate goals
3.
Implementation / code updates addressing WA state roadmap
4.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
5.
Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
6.
Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
7.
Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs)
8.
Nonconforming buildings and redevelopment issues
9.
Subdivision code updates
10.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
11.
Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — March?
4. Development Activity Update
5. Joint meeting with EDC?
Q
Packet Pg. 140