2021-01-13 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, January 13, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/94929270967?pwd=MOFMaU5SNXFwTIRZMkFDTGcxVnRaQT09
Meeting ID: 949 2927 0967. Password: 914397.
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 # 5230)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve December 9th, 2020 meeting minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB201209d (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 11812021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda January 13, 2021
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5191)
Director Report
Background/History
The Director Report is typically reviewed during each Planning Board meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Review Director Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Director. Report. 01.13.2021(PDF)
6. Public Hearings
7. Unfinished Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5223)
Tree Code Regulations Update
Background/History
The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree code since October 2020, specifically at
the October 14, October 28, November 12, and November 18 Planning Board meetings. The
Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree code on December 9, 2020. Minutes
from all of these meetings are attached.
Staff Recommendation
Make a recommendation on the draft tree code as provided in Attachment 1 to the City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1:
Clean Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB 01.13.21
(PDF)
• Attachment 2:
Redline Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB 01.13.21
(PDF)
• Attachment 3:
Edmonds Urban Forest Managment Plan (PDF)
• Attachment 4:
Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix
(PDF)
• Attachment 5:
October 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
(PDF)
• Attachment 6:
October 28, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
(PDF)
• Attachment 7:
November 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
(PDF)
• Attachment 8:
November 18, 2020 Planning Board Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 9:
Draft December 9, 2020 Planning Board Minutes
(PDF)
• Attachment 10: Tree Code Comments as of 01.08.21 (PDF)
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 11812021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda January 13, 2021
8. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5225)
Climate Goals Planning - Status Update and Discussion
Background/History
Edmonds has supported specific climate protection activities for at least a decade, as well as
related "sustainability" activities for even longer. In 2017, the Mayor signed the Mayors
National Climate Action Agenda and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1389 (attached) to
achieve or exceed at the local level the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord. The
resolution contains seven sections related to climate issues, particularly for reducing
greenhouse gases.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Resolution No. 1389 (PDF)
• Attachment 2: Resolution No. 1453 (PDF)
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5228)
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 3 Printed 11812021
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/13/2021
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Board
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve December 9th, 2020 meeting minutes
Narrative
Draft Minutes attached
Attachments:
PB201209d
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
December 9, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no general audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
m
c
0
0
L
0.
a
Q
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING ON TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on the Tree Code in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was
presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board
recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the
Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation
includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the
downtown.
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 w
to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. W
• Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. c
• Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. 2
4-
• Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. G
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been o
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10 a
(exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, and violations). There will also be a Q
new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in a new
T
chapter Edmonds City Code (ECC 3.95). He reviewed each section.
• ECDC 23.10.020 -- Definitions
Mr. Lien advised that the following definitions were added and/or amended.
A. Significant Tree. A tree that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the
ground.
D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.
K. Protected Tree. A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection
plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant
restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations.
• ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all short
subdivisions (up to 4 lots), subdivisions (5 or more lots), new multifamily development, and new single-family development
on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-family house. A tree plan would also be required for tree removal on
developed sites that are not exempted by ECDC 223.10.040.
• ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions
Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new
multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions
would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means.
o Removal of trees for utility maintenance.
o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park Department.
o Routine landscaping and maintenance.
o Routine re -topping of trees to a previously -topped level.
Mr. Lien explained that the removal of hazard and nuisance trees would not require a permit, but supporting document would
be required. An example of a nuisance tree would be a healthy tree that is buckling a driveway or continually plugging the
sewer line.
• ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, the following would be prohibited:
o Removal of protected trees unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees.
o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance
trees.
o Removal of trees during permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition
activity. 0
o Removal of trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in ECDC 23.40 — 23.90.
0
• ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements
0
L
Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed tree retention requirement for proposed development would be 30% of all significant trees a
for new single-family, short plats and subdivisions. The retention requirement for new multifamily and unit -lot subdivisions Q
would be 25%. He reminded them that the focus of the tree code update is to retain more trees with development, and the
Planning Board has considered the following priorities:
o Priority 1 — Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas and trees
over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH.
o Priority 2 — Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function and
other significant native and non-native trees.
o Priority 3 — Alders and Cottonwoods.
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed, and the number
of required replacement trees would be based on the diameter of the trees removed. One replacement tree would be required
to replace trees that are 6 to 10 inches DBH; two replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are 10.1 to 14 inches
DBH; and three replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are above 14 inches DBH.
• ECDC 23.10.080(E) — Tree Replacement Fee -in -Lieu
Mr. Lien explained that if all of the required replacement trees cannot be planted on a project site, the current proposal would
require $1,000 per tree not planted to be paid into the City's Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund would have to be used
to purchase trees to be planted elsewhere within the City limits.
• ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title
Mr. Lien recalled that questions were raised at a previous meeting about how a subsequent property owner would know that a
tree on his/her property is protected. This provision was added to require that protected trees be recorded as Notice on Title.
When someone purchases the property, they will see the notice when reviewing the title. The language was copied from the
Critical Area Ordinance, which also requires Notice on Title.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
• ECDC 20.75 — Conservation Subdivision Design
Mr. Lien 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 the lot layout of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact
development. The priority of tree retention, as noted earlier in the presentation, 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 could be reduced to no less than 15 feet for street setbacks, 10 feet for rear setbacks and 5 feet for side
setbacks.
2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone.
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.
• ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund
Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under W
the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also c
go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. As proposed,
the funds could be used: o
M
1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds. L
2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional. 0.
a
3. To pay for services that support urban forest management and health. Q
4. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City.
5. To purchase supplies and materials for Arbor Day and other education purposes.
• ECDC 23.10.030 -- Permits
Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit
process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and
multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be
processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural
exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed
with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit.
• ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
Mr. Lien explained that, as per the proposed code, civil penalties would 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.
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, etc.).
c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal of the tree value by the City's tree
protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. using
the 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 the code.
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" DBH and the appraised value of trees
12" DBH or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the City's Tree Fund.
e. Violators will be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the
Director.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Mr. Lien added that a new section "Aiding and Abetting" would make the tree cutter equally as liable as the property owner.
• Examples Illustrating How the Proposed Tree Code Provisions Would Be Applied
Mr. Lien shared examples to illustrate how the proposed tree retention, tree replacement and tree fund provisions would be
applied to new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. He also provided examples of
how the conservation subdivision design provisions would be applied. For each example, he pointed out the number of existing
trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number
of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments.
Mr. Lien explained that, in addition to the Tree Code, there are a number of other provisions that apply to new development
such as access easements, landscaping, setbacks, utility easements, etc. These other code requirements also have a significant
impact on a developer's ability to save existing trees. Using the conservation subdivision design concept, the houses could be
clustered closer together in order to retain more trees. In the example he provided, the lot widths, access easement and setbacks
were reduced. Using the flexible design concept, the developer would be able to save 62 existing trees as opposed to just 15.
Because more trees could be retained on site, the Tree Fund payment would be reduced from $315,000 to $202,000.
Mr. Lien said he is concerned that the required Tree Fund payments are too high. He referred to the example he provided
earlier of the 4-lot subdivision, noting that although the developer could retain 40% of the existing trees, the required Tree
Fund payment would still be substantial. Using Park and Traffic Impact Fees for comparison, the 4-lot subdivision example
would require a $58,000 Tree Fund payment compared to a combined payment of about $27,000 for Park and Traffic Impact
Fees. He proposed the following alternatives to reduce the required Tree Fund payment:
o Reduce the replacement ratios to 1 replacement tree for trees that are 6 to 14 inches DBH, 2 replacement trees for
trees that are 14.1 to 24 inches DBH, and 3 replacement trees for trees that are greater than 24 inches DBH.
o Reduce the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500.
o Place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund.
Mr. Lien reviewed each of the examples again to illustrate how they would be impacted by the alternative language. He pointed
out that, in most cases, the Tree Fund payments would be substantially less than the required Park/Traffic Impact Fees.
However, with the conservation Subdivision Design, the Tree Fund payments would still be substantially greater than the
Park/Traffic Impact Fees.
Mr. Lien reiterated that the proposed Tree Code was primarily focused on how to retain trees with development. The Tree
Code, in and of itself, will not help the City meet its no -net -loss requirement. Additional work on potential incentives to
encourage property owners to retain trees on their sites will follow. In addition to the voucher program to encourage people to
plant trees, the City is working to update the Street Tree Plan. There are many things the City can do to retain trees, including
educating the public about their importance. The City is currently working on a Heritage Tree Program, which will be a
voluntary program to recognize special trees on private properties.
Board Member Monroe asked if staff is suggesting that they retain the 30% retention ratio and $1,000 per tree fee. Mr. Lien
responded that a fee of $1,000 per replacement tree resulted in some very high replacement costs. He suggested that the Board
consider the alternatives he recommended: reducing the replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu amount and/or placing a
cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund.
Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing.
Anna West, Edmonds, said she spoke before the Board a few weeks ago about the need to address the protection of water
views in the Tree Code. Trees have potential to block views. She said she lives in the Edmonds Bowl, and tree topping comes
up in a lot of discussions because it helps to maintain water views. She is concerned with the phrase "illegal tree topping" and
its associated penalties. She is also concerned about the definition for tree topping, which is "the significant cutting back of
the leader stem or major branches resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. " She expressed her belief that
there should be an exception for when tree topping is used to maintain a water view. She noted that the draft Tree Code includes
m
c
0
0
Q.
a
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
a lot of exceptions for pruning canopy growth to protect utilities. Knowing how important the water is to Edmonds, she
suggested the code should also include exceptions for when trees impact water views. From a physical perspective, residents
with water views pay more in taxes, which is valuable to help the City thrive in a variety of ways. She said she is prepared to
ask for a tax reduction if the revised Tree Code impacts her water views, which seems like a lose/lose for everyone. She said
she reviewed the archives and watched the video recording of the Planning Board's May 27, 2015 public hearing on the Tree
Code where some residents requested that the code provide more balance, addressing both trees and water views. However,
the current draft does not take this into account. She summarized that, in her opinion, not including view protection in the Tree
Code highlights a disconnect in how valuable the Puget Sound is to Edmonds residents and visitors. The current draft has the
potential to penalize residents who are trying to maintain their water views, and she believes it will backfire on the City in the
long run. She asked that the Board consider verbiage regarding water view protection, or at the very least, remove the tree
topping penalty clause altogether.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code update represents a great start. The provisions that would
apply to new development are better than he expected, but he is concerned that they are already considering modifications that
would weaken them. He said he is not in favor of the alternative replacement criteria suggested by Mr. Lien. It is important
to plant multiple replacement trees for every three that is lost. Following adoption of the proposed update, he suggested it will
be time to address tree loss on land that is already developed, which is where most of the City's tree canopy is located. He w
noted that most cities limit the number of trees that can be removed in a given period of time. He urged the Board to finish the
job of writing a thorough and meaningful tree code. He asked the Board to consider the thoughts he shared in a letter he c
submitted to the Board prior to the meeting.
0
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, agreed that it is important to protect the existing tree canopy, but the effort must be addressed on a 70
more global level in order for it to succeed. He noted that about 98% of the property in Edmonds is already developed, and a 0
small percentage is undevelopable. He questioned the fairness of passing the entire cost of protecting the tree canopy to new 0.
property owners when the overall society will benefit. He suggested they consider other ways to accomplish the overall goal. Q
For example, they could raise the fees for cutting down trees on developed properties or providing incentives for people to
plant additional trees on their lots. These approaches would result in more trees. While there is a lot of friction coming from
the general public, equal participation from all citizens is important when it comes to meeting the needs of the community. He o
expressed his belief that the net effect of the Tree Code, as applied to new development, would be negligible, and the costs A
would be high. They need to come up with a code that is more equitable for all citizens of the community. If proposed properly,
the City's residents might be more willing to save trees on their own properties. He pointed out that clear cutting has happened
on developed property, as well, specifically about twenty-four 10-inch trees were taken down recently at 527 12' Avenue North w
with just one permit. The danger of losing trees is as great on developed land as it is on undeveloped land. N
Chris Yockey, Edmonds, said that from a developer standpoint, the proposed Tree Fund payments seem awfully high. He
voiced concern that the payments will significantly increase the cost of each unit, making it more difficult to address the need
for affordable housing in the City. While he understands that topping can kill a tree, he asked if the proposed Tree Code would
allow him to take care of the limbs from trees on adjacent properties that hang over into his yard by 30 feet.
Louise Favier, Edmonds, commented that the access given to street and sidewalk seating for her business has made a massive
difference in her life. She appreciates the work the City puts into creating a good plan for the businesses in Edmonds, in
particular the restaurants and bars to be able to continue to use the rights -of -way during these challenging times. They would
like to continue to have street and/or ongoing sidewalk seating for another year or two so the businesses can have an opportunity
to recover. She said she loves the City's tree retention efforts and appreciates the existing tree canopy.
Larry Vogel, Edmonds, said he was present to cover the public hearing for MYEDMONDS NEWS. He requested a copy of
Mr. Lien's PowerPoint presentation, and Mr. Lien agreed to send it along.
Lora Hein, Edmonds, asked the Board to weigh their recommendation based on the broad -scale impacts. She recognized that
the current culture prioritizes monetization of business and financial gain over preservation and conservation of natural systems,
which are more challenging to assign a dollar value. One indication is how many people express being tired of the impacts
endured in the face of multiple crisis in 2020 and wish to return to normal. However, 2020 has presented an essential
opportunity. The challenges they are facing are the culmination of gross mismanagement of the planetary ecosystem. Until
and unless they take a serious look at combined effects of colonization and monetization mindset, they will be looking down
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
the barrel of 2020-like years and worse for decades to come. On the other hand, if they take time to stop, listen and look both
ways, back as well as forward, they may yet have a chance to halt the juggernaut of climate destruction that is becoming
increasingly out of control.
Ms. Hein commented that forging ahead without a plan only compounds the current dilemma. A flawed result is not better
than none, it is worse because it gives the impression that something has been done. She proposed that the City adopt a
moratorium on removing any trees in any development until a functional tree ordinance can be crafted. Such a moratorium
needs to be accompanied not only by hefty fines, but a halt to any construction that continues in violation of a moratorium.
They need to end, or at least pause, business as usual, take a deep breath of the air provided courtesy of the arboreal neighbors
and decide how they will manage to pay back the dept that is owned to the living forest they have inherited from the first
inhabitants recognized in words at the beginning of each City Council meeting. She observed that before the Salish-speaking
tribes took up residence on these shores, other inhabitants as deserving of our honor, not only in word, but in deed, made their
lives and ours possible.
Ms. Hein emphasized that without more stringent replacement and enhancement requirements, incentives and penalties, they
will continue down the path of ever decreasing quality of the natural support system. They need more widespread
understanding of the essential benefits trees provide in saving energy, not to mention sequestering carbon, our only current w
hope to prevent global catastrophe from climate transformation. Goals for trees on single-family residential lots in non -critical
areas, which are the majority of land resources in the City, are woefully inadequate. The City must go far beyond asking for c
voluntary public participation. Instead, they should ask how much the air we breath is worth. Trees are more than pretty
individuals. They require a network of supporting species to remain viable. The same can be said of humans, as a species. c
Without trees and the communities that support them, we too are doomed to years far worse than what we have experienced in
2020. 0
L
0.
CL
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, said she was disappointed to hear the proposed reduction in Tree Fund payments. With minimal Q
fees, the City will lose the motivation to protect the trees. She said she submitted a letter prior to the meeting emphasizing her
points of concern. She is concerned that there is too much emphasis on exemptions to the proposed regulations. There is also
too much focus on replacement rather than retention, which is far more valuable. What is missing is scientific evidence to 0
determine the goals of the Tree Code and the effects of the exemptions. Lack of environmental analysis, measurable goals and A
baseline data limits the value of the code. She said she hopes the Board will continue to adjust the Tree Code to achieve the (D
goal of retaining trees in Edmonds.
Richard Bologna, Edmonds, asked how an illegal tree removal fee would be enforced and collected and who the City would
retain to assess the health of trees. He also asked if anyone has ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual
tree and how much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council.
Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he is speaking as a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for six years, as
well as chair of the citizen's group called TreePAC. He commended the City for pursuing with the proposed Tree Code update.
He said the City of Seattle has been working to update its tree ordinance for 11 years, and it appears that the City of Edmonds
will be adopting a number of steps that have been recommended for Seattle but haven't yet been put in place. He said Portland
is an example of a City that has taken steps to preserve trees, including a tree fund, and a few years ago they raised about $1.5
million to help plant new trees within their City. Portland just recently updated its tree ordinance to address trees with new
development. They changed the replacement requirement to apply to trees over 20 inches, and it had previously been 36 inches.
They have been charging $450 per inch for trees that are 12 to 20 inches DBH, and they are now proposing $1,800 per tree
removed. When considering replacement requirements, it is critical to take the approach that the larger the tree that is removed,
the greater the replacement requirement. He suggested that an additional category be added for trees over 30 or 36 inches. The
priority should be to preserve existing trees, as it takes decades for trees to reach their ultimate size. Existing trees provide
immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by smaller, younger replacement trees. Replacement trees also need
more maintenance, and not all of them will survive. He suggested that the Tree Code specifically require that the replacement
trees must be maintained for a certain number of years. He summarized that the proposed Tree Code is a great first step to
protect the urban forest and the benefits that trees provide to the City's citizens.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, commented that no trees have ever been retained in her neighborhood when new development has
occurred, and she is happy to see that the City will be requiring tree retention. She said she would like the City to have a goal
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
to increase the tree canopy. She is worried about the impacts of climate change in the future. They will need every tree they
can get to provide shade, cooling, etc. She said she is interested in the emphasis on education. She has been running the
Edmonds Wildlife Habitat and Native Plant Demonstration Garden at the fish hatchery for the past 10 years, and they have
done a lot of education. She said she is looking forward to sponsoring some tree planting workshops and teaching people how
they can plant trees. She will work with the Snohomish County Conservation District on this effort. They have a lot of good
materials, and they sell trees and native plants at a low cost. She said she appreciates that the Tree Code indicates a preference
for native plants and trees, but she would prefer Alders to non-native trees. She said she misses the trees that have been lost
over the years.
Chair Robles closed the public portion of the hearing.
Board Member Crank voiced concern that developers would lean towards tree replacement rather than tree retention, and she
doesn't see how this would result in increased tree canopy. She said she would not support decreasing the fee -in -lieu payments
because developers tend to be okay with paying in -lieu fees, especially if they are in areas where the housing market prices are
high. Mr. Lien explained that the UFMP did not adopt a goal to increase the tree canopy. The UFMP adopted goals of no net
loss of the overall canopy and continuing to enhance the tree canopy in parks as per the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
(PROS) Plan. The current proposal is a Development Code update that is specifically focused on retaining trees with w
development and was not intended to achieve all of the goals spelled out in the UFMP. If the City's Council chooses to address
trees in a more holistic way, other actions will be needed and could include incentives, a heritage tree program, more education, c
planting trees with vouchers from the Tree Fund, etc.
0
Board Member Crank asked if any thought has been given to establishing a cap on how much of the replacement requirement
can be satisfied with the in -lieu payment. Again, she voiced concern that developers will take full advantage of the fee -in -lieu
0
opportunity. Without a cap, it will be difficult for the City to achieve no net loss when development occurs. Mr. Lien explained
0.
that when he prepared the examples, he felt that the replacement costs were too high. He applied the alternatives (reducing
Q
replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500 and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be
...
paid into the Tree Fund) to show how the replacement costs would be impacted in each scenario. He felt this information
would be informative to the Planning Board's discussion. He pointed out that, in some situations, the replacement costs could
0
be excessively high for a development impact fee. 0
Mr. Lien responded to the following questions raised by Mr. Bologna during the public comment period.
• How would an illegal tree removal fee be enforced and collected? Mr. Lien explained that the City's code includes Notice
of Violation Procedures. The City investigates reports of illegal tree cutting. If it is determined that a tree has been cut
illegally, a Notice of Violation will be issued to the property owner and fines will be assessed depending on the situation.
The process is clearly spelled out in the code.
• Who would the City retain to assess the health of trees? For hazardous tree removal, Mr. Lien advised that the City would
require that the tree be assessed by a certified arborist, and the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Assessment
Form must be filled out. If the assessment comes back as high or extreme, the tree would be classified as a hazardous tree
that could be removed.
• Has anyone ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree? Mr. Lien said there are a variety of
tools to calculate the value of a tree. While some early drafts of the UFMP identified values based on the ecological
services that trees provide, some questions were raised about how accurate they were and the section was removed.
• How much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council? Mr. Lien said this provision was
included as just one of the ways that funds could be placed into the Tree Fund, but there was no specific dollar amount
associated with it.
Vice Chair Rosen thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work preparing the update, and for his quick responses to the comments and
questions raised by the Board to date. He also thanked the citizens who provided both oral and written comments. He found
them to be very thoughtful, and they absolutely influenced his thinking. He asked if the City considers wildlife corridors as
critical areas. Mr. Lien answered that the Critical Area Ordinance recognizes the Priority Habitat Species Layer, which is
maintained by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are a few wildlife corridors identified in the City,
and one of the main ones is Shell Creek from Yost Park down. While habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, there
are no specific regulations or setback requirements associated with them. Most of them are associated with stream channels.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
There are forested areas in the northern portion of the City, and there is a 30% native vegetation requirement for development
in these areas. He summarized that habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, but they don't have any specific regulations
that apply to them because there aren't any species of local importance.
Vice Chair Rosen observed that the City's tree canopy is currently at 30%, and the maximum potential is 57%. The City is
nearly built out and the current proposal will not achieve even no net loss. If the City is serious about no net loss, they need to
be more aggressive. They must either change what they are doing or change the goal. He said he understands staff s sensitivity
when it comes to applying the tree replacement requirement to larger developments, but he felt the City should be agnostic to
the use of the land. Loss of trees and loss of land has an impact. Whether it is for a few units or 30 units, there is an economy
of scale and profit that comes with that. While he appreciates that staff offered the alternatives, he encouraged the Board to
follow the original proposal.
Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's historic position when it comes to protecting views, but it is important to
acknowledge that views are both financially and emotionally valuable and cherished in the community. Passions run high
when it comes to views. To address this, he suggested that the following language could be added to the Intent and Purpose
Section:
"The City of Edmonds recognizes and celebrates the value of our proximity to and views of Puget Sound and the
mountains. While the City does not enforce tree limits for views, except as expressly stated in this code, property c
owners are encouraged to consider mature heights when planting to avoid planting things that will block views down 2
the road and to allow windowing, drop crotch and other pruning methods that won't damage the tree at the c
beneficiary's expense when asked. "
0
Vice Chair Rosen also suggested that the Board send a parallel recommendation to the City Council that they consider, through a
the Board if they prefer, addressing vegetation that is used as fence. While there are reasons why a hedge is desirable to a Q
property owner, neighbors, the community, etc., that is not always true. He recommended the following language be added:
"Vegetation used as a fence be restricted to the maximum height allowed for fencing if there is a demonstrated cause
by someone negatively affected by the greater height and for those that already exist at the expense of the person who
would benefit. "
Vice Chair Rosen explained that the language could be very narrowly defined to address situations where hedges block solar
panels, result in the inability of a neighboring property owner to grow plants due to shading, block light from entering into a
home, or reduce safety. This issue has been out there for a while and could be addressed as part of the proposed update.
Board Member Monroe recalled the citizen comment/question regarding tree topping. He said his understanding is that there
would be no penalty associated with a private property owner topping trees on his/her property. The penalty would come if
you top a tree on someone else's property. Mr. Lien explained that tree topping is considered tree cutting and would be
prohibited on properties that are not exempt from the Tree Code. Trees on properties that are exempt from the Tree Code, such
as developed single-family properties with no critical areas, can be topped without a fine. However, topping is bad
arboriculture practice and opens trees to rot and damage. On properties that are not exempt, a property owner could apply for
a permit to remove a tree that is blocking view and then plant a tree that is more appropriate for the location.
Board Member Pence asked about the cost associated with planting trees off site using money in the Tree Fund. He suggested
that perhaps the per -tree fee should be attached to the actual cost of planting new trees elsewhere. Mr. Lien said he doesn't
know the cost associated with purchasing and planting trees, but he could ask the Parks Department to respond. If the planting
cost is reasonable, Board Member Pence observed that the City could plant more than one tree for each of the trees that are
removed. Mr. Lien reminded them that, based on the proposed replacement ratio, more than one replacement tree would be
required for most of the trees that are removed. He said that in some jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu programs are based on the
cost for planting and maintaining a tree. When the concept was initially introduced to the Planning Board, the feedback was
that developers would be more likely to find ways to retain and/or plant more trees on site if the dollar value is a little higher.
Board Member Cloutier summarized that, as proposed, someone who has been topping a tree to protect a view would be allowed
to continue to top the tree. However, new trees that are planted and eventually grow to block a view could not be cut down
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
without a penalty. Mr. Lien referred to the last sentence of ECDC 23.10.040.E, (routine maintenance exemptions), which states
that, "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these
trees alone. " He explained that if a tree has been previously topped, a property owner could continue to do so back to the
previously topped level. Whether or not a new tree that grows to block view would require a permit would depend on whether
or not the property falls under any of the other exemptions. On developed single-family properties with no critical areas, trees
could be topped without a permit, but it would still be considered poor arboricultural practice. On developed single-family
properties with critical areas, a tree cutting permit would be required to replace the tree.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that critical areas include steep slopes, properties near watersheds, etc. That is not the case
in most of the City's neighborhoods. Mr. Lien noted the steep slopes on properties in the bowl area and explained that critical
areas include erosion hazard areas (slopes between 15% and 40%). However, in the proposed code, the exemption was
modified to exclude trees on properties with a slope of 25% or more. Developed single-family properties with slopes of less
than 25% would be exempt from the tree code.
Chair Robles asked if the Board is ready to send the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval or if more
work is needed before that can happen. Mr. Chave said that is something the Board will have to decide. The Board can either
make a recommendation at the end of the meeting or identify specific issues they would like staff to work on further. w
m
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, based on her own review of the proposal, as well as the written and oral public
c
testimony, she found that, whereas the general nature of the code rewrite is acceptable, it is time for the Planning Board to
2
support a more robust approach to retaining existing tree canopy and its habitat. Upon hearing from the citizens of Edmonds,
c
she believes the current proposal falls short because it is limited to retaining only 30% of the existing tree inventory of the
original lot. If there is little inventory, there would be no gain for additional tree canopy. Instead, the City should encourage
o
retention and even increasing available tree canopy, which includes shrubs and ground cover, by proposing that subdivisions
a
provide 30% coverage of the lot to be tree canopy, typical of the Pacific Northwest forests, include retaining, which can count
Q
towards the 30% of the significant trees and the understory shrubs and ground cover. This approach would be similar to the
...
Snohomish County regulations, which seemingly provide more coverage for tree canopy, understory and ground cover, along
with flexibility for site design to meet the requirements. She expressed her belief that this approach would be a workable
o
solution that would honor the goal of the UFMP towards zero net loss of the tree canopy and would provide developers with
A
flexibility. Increasing tree canopy habitat, which would be more than what exists in the current code, along with site design
4)
flexibility, which the proposed update already addresses, would be a workable solution for Edmonds. She summarized that
she would be interested in having Snohomish County's approach being considered as part of the proposal. At the very least,
w
she would like it to be included as an item that deserves further attention if the Board decides to forward a recommendation on
N
the proposed Tree Code to the City Council. She would also like the City Council to give attention to the proposed replacement
N
schedule, as well as Vice Chair Rosen's suggestion that language be included to address private view sheds.
M
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many of the citizens who provided comments stressed the importance of tree
retention. They are not as interested in replacement. She would rather have an approach that hinges on retention as opposed
to replacement.
Board Member Monroe summarized that Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting there is a preference for having a final
result of density on the property at the end of the day. If there is a limited number of trees, a developer would be required to
plant more trees than are there right now. To that extent, he suggested that the retention requirement be increased to 40% or
50% or 30% total density, whichever is greater. This would challenge the developers to figure out how to make that work and
size the houses right to fit on the lots. He suggested that the Board ask staff to evaluate this option's impact on the cost of
development. While the numbers might be high for an entire development, the per home cost would be consistent with what
is happening in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Chave commented that Mr. Lien's analysis had less to do with the number of homes and more to do with how many trees
were on the property. The most expensive example was on a property that was being subdivided into four lots. The cost
associated with the 10-lot example was far less. Board Member Monroe said his approach would raise the price of the 10-lot
subdivision because a developer would no longer be allowed to take advantage of open grassland. It would force a minimum
of 30% density when the project is completed. He noted that is the benchmark the City is trying to achieve.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that when she uses the words "tree coverage," she is looking at the site plan and wants to
see where the trees have been maintained. Significant trees that are retained could go towards the count, but it would be evident
on the site plan how much the site would create towards the City's total tree canopy. She said she is not as comfortable with
the word "density" when applying it to Board Member Monroe's recommendation because the public better understands the
coverage that is needed for the lot. Board Member Monroe said he understands her concern, but the UFMP specifically states
that the City's current canopy is 30%. That same mathematical equation should be applied to properties that are being
developed. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed. She pointed out that Snohomish County requires 30% coverage, and it is up
to the developer to determine how that 30% will be provided on the site. This approach is more direct and emphasizes retention,
which is what the citizens seem to prefer.
Board Member Cheung recalled that, at the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Lien mentioned that the current proposal is only
intended to address one topic of the UFMP. The Board could have a separate discussion on trees that are on private properties.
Mr. Lien responded that the current proposal is focused on retaining trees with development. At this time, he can't say that
another update will follow to address trees on developed properties. However, other steps will need to be taken to reach the
goal of no net loss of overall tree canopy. These steps include educating property owners on the importance of retaining trees,
providing vouchers for private property owners to plant trees, reviewing opportunities to plant more trees in city parks, updating
the Street Tree Plan and creating incentive programs to encourage tree retention. Again, he said the primary focus of the current
update is how to retain trees with development.
Mr. Lien said he would need more information to create language to implement the concept put forward by Board Member
Rubenkonig. Is she suggesting that 30% of the lot must have trees on it as canopy coverage, or would one very large big -leaf
maple tree meet the requirement? While counting the existing trees and applying the replacement ratio would be easy to do, a
30% lot coverage requirement would be significantly more complicated to apply.
Board Member Cheung said a number of citizens voiced concern that the proposed update doesn't do more to protect trees on
private property, which is where the majority of the existing trees in the City are located. It would ease their concern if they
knew that the City would be considering other actions at a later date. He noted that the issue of view would be better addressed
by private property tree regulations. Mr. Lien said the update would only regulate trees on private property as part of
development. They could add a provision in ECDC 23.10.030 (Permits) that would limit the number of trees a developed
single-family property could remove during a set period of time. However, this would require the City to establish a tracking
system and additional code enforcement would be necessary.
Board Member Cheung recalled that, when the last Tree Code update was presented for a public hearing in 2015, there was
significant opposition to the idea of regulating trees on developed single-family properties. He suggested the Commission
focus on solving the immediate problem at hand, which is tree retention and replacement requirements associated with
development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the current proposal addresses a concern that staff hears most frequently, which is
clearcutting on properties that are being developed. However, the City Council may direct the staff and Planning Board to
address trees on developed properties at a later time. Board Member Cheung said it is important that the public understand that
this is the first step, and additional steps can be taken in the future that might address their other concerns.
Board Member Rubenkonig explained that the beauty of Snohomish County's approach is that they give credit for the canopy
size of any retained tree. This credit goes towards the total tree canopy that must be provided on the site. They also give credit
towards species that are planted that will provide a healthy canopy within so many years. Snohomish County's approach
appears to be creating mini Pacific Northwest forests around the County, which is healthy. Their approach appears to practice
retention of the tree canopy and its understory shrubs and ground cover, which create the necessary habitat. She would like the
City's code to focus on retention versus replacement, as well.
Board Member Robles reminded the Board that the proposal before them relates strictly to tree retention and replacement as
part of development. Any comments related to trees on private properties that are already developed are mute in this discussion.
At this time, the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council with some caveats, or they could decide that the
proposal needs more work and the recommendation could be postponed to a future meeting.
Board Member Cloutier commented that, while the Snohomish County code emphasizes retention, it also has the exact same
replacement consideration outlined in the draft proposal. If the trees are located where a structure needs to go, they cannot be
m
c
0
0
0.
a
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 1 I
Packet Pg. 15
retained. The 30% requirement is only applicable to one specific kind of lot. The requirement for a single-family home is
20%, and it goes down as low as 15% in urban areas. As Mr. Lien pointed out the goal of the Development Code should be no
net loss, and increasing the tree canopy can be addressed by implementing the goals and policies outlined in the UFMP. As
proposed, the trees could be shift from one side of the property to the other, new trees can be planted, or money can be paid
into the Tree Fund for trees to be planted somewhere else. It is not the objective of this code to create new forests in the City.
If they want to change the objective of the code, they will need to start all over. He expressed his belief that the proposed Tree
Code adequately accomplishes what it is intended to: no net loss and requiring developers to pay for the offset.
In terms of the best approach to meet the goals of the UFMP, Board Member Rubenkonig said she sees both options as equal.
Option 1 would be to recommend the approach presented by Mr. Lien and Option 2 would be to consider Snohomish County's
approach of requiring 30% retention. She cautioned that they need to be very mindful that development will either take away
or add to the tree canopy. Although she always respects Board Member Cloutier's approach to make sure they are on firm
ground and focused on what they are being tasked to do, she would have a hard time seeing the option outlined by Mr. Lien as
being any different than the option she is recommending. Both options would meet the same objective.
Board Member Crank commented that, if the Board decides to recommend approval of the proposal as currently drafted, she
remains firmly opposed to the alternatives put forward by Mr. Lien that would reduce the replacement ratios, reduce the fee-
0
in -lieu for each tree planted or place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Edmonds is a fairly expensive
real estate area, and she doesn't foresee developers choosing to retain trees rather than paying into the Tree Fund regardless of c
the amount. Vice Chair Rosen concurred.
0
Board Member Monroe commented that, after hearing from Board Members Rubenkonig and Cloutier, he is comfortable 70
withdrawing his suggestion that they increase the retention requirement to 40% or 50%. However, he felt that Board Member L
Rubenkonig's suggestion is worth further exploration. He agreed with Mr. Lien that the replacement cost might be too high, 0.
and there needs to be a balance of property rights, community rights, views and the environment. Q
Vice Chair Rosen asked if any of the Board Members would object to adding additional language to the Intent and Purpose
Section to address views. Mr. Lien pointed out that, without specific regulations that protect views within the code, it wouldn't
make sense to have it in the Intent and Purpose Section. He sees this issue being addressed via education. For example, they
could educate property owners about planting the right trees in the right places. The Tree Board has been working on a tree
list that can be used as an education piece. Mr. Chave agreed that codes are not a good vehicle for messaging. Codes are
generally used to tell what is allowed and not allowed. Folding the view issue into the education piece would be a better
approach. Vice Chair Rosen respectfully disagreed. While he understands staff s point of view, views are such a high interest.
The draft code addresses trimming and maintenance, and views should be part of the equation.
Board Member Cloutier summarized that Vice Chair Rosen is suggesting that the City should be mindful of property rights and
people's desire to have a view and should make regulations that are aligned with that. However, he said he doesn't believe the
issue should be addressed in this particular development code. There is nothing in the proposed update that would change the
rules related to view, and there is nothing in the current code that addresses retaining and/or maintaining views. The proposed
update would not grant any special rights or place any limitations based on view. He voiced concern that adding language
stating that view is important would imply that properties with views would get special treatment, which is not the case.
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that they can use their meeting minutes to share their concerns with the City
Council. For example, the minutes could reflect that the Board is interested in reviewing regulations related to private view
sheds. The minutes could also reflect that the Board is interested in regulating the height of hedges and bushes the same as a
fence if used for privacy purposes on a lot's perimeter boundary. While the issues would not be addressed as part of their
recommendation on the Tree Code, they could emphasize the issues as warranting further consideration in the future. Vice
Chair Rosen agreed that would be an appropriate approach.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THEIR
INTEREST IN REVIEWING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE VIEW SHEDS AND PRIVACY
SCREENS SUCH AS HEDGES AND BUSHES. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 16
Board Member Cloutier asked if Mr. Lien's alternatives for the tree replacement fee were incorporated into the language that
is currently before the Board. Mr. Lien said they alternatives have not been incorporated into the draft code language. He
suggested the Board specifically look at the replacement ratios, which is directly tied to the high fees in the examples he
provided. He suggested that the replacement ratio he recommended in his presentation would be more appropriate. The larger
trees (greater than 24 inches) would still be replaced at a ratio of 3:1. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Snohomish
County code doesn't use ratios. Developments are simply required to provide 30% tree coverage. He suggested the City's
measure of tree retention is better. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that would only be true if there are few trees on a
property to retain. Board Member Cloutier observed that the current proposal would not require a developer to plant more trees
than are currently located on the property, while the Snohomish County code would require a developer to plant additional
trees to a minimum of 30% coverage.
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the current proposal would base tree replacement on the inventory of the
current trees on a lot. But if there are no trees, there would be no retention requirement or requirement to provide additional
trees. This is a big negative for that approach. She noted that the public is tired of the number of trees that are being cut down
for new subdivisions. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern about how the Snohomish County concept would be applied on
a commercial lot in downtown Edmonds. It wouldn't make sense to require that 30% of the lot be covered with trees. Retaining
the existing tree coverage would make more sense. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that requiring 30% tree
w
coverage would be a proactive approach, recognizing that such things as utility easements, rights -of --way, etc. would be taken
W
away from that.
c
Mr. Lien advised the Board that they are not required to make a recommendation on the Tree Code tonight. He said he would
c
like more time to review the Snohomish County code to provide helpful feedback to the Board, and he is still a little confused
about how the current proposal is different than the proposal recommended by Board Member Rubenkonig. There are other
o
minor tweaks he would like to make before the document is forwarded to the City Council. He summarized that it appears the
a
majority of the Board wants to retain the $1,000 fee for each tree not planted, but they still need to provide feedback on the
Q
replacement ratio.
Board Member Cheung asked staff to provide calculations of what the fee would be based on $1,000 per tree but with different
replacement ratios.
The Board agreed to carry their deliberations over to the January 13' meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the citizen Planning Board has benefited from each and every Board Member who
has given of their time, experience and hopes for the City of Edmonds. The Chair brings a unique approach to helping all
Board Members participate fully and professionally. Her recommendation of Board Member Rosen as her nomination for the
2021 Chair of the citizen Planning Board would do no less. They already know his measure and have been rewarded by his
presence and contribution. He will endeavor to lead the Board and encourage robust deliberations with fair outcomes. She
said she welcomes his support and offer him hers in his role as the 2021 Chair.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER ROSEN TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR 2021.
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN
FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER ROSEN AS THE 2021 CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
Board Member Monroe commented that the duties of Vice Chair are leadership and engagement. He has known Board Member
Crank for over five years and has found that she has these leadership capabilities. She is a member of a variety of community
groups, including the Snohomish County Airport Commission and Snohomish County Tomorrow. She can do a great job as
Vice Chair of the Planning Board.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CRANK TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR
2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED
IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER CRANK AS THE 2021 VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 17
2.A.a
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its deliberations on the draft Tree Code Update at their January 13'
meeting. He advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will provide an update on January 27'.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles thanked the Board Members for allowing him to chair the Board during this fascinating time. The Board set their
agenda and got some very important things done. The Board Members thanked Chair Robles for his leadership.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Rosen thanked the Board Members for their trust and kind words. He thanked Chair Robles for his leadership,
particularly for engaging him in such a meaningful way as Vice Chair. He appreciates the way he advocated for the Board.
He also appreciates his desire to engage more of the residents and increase collaboration with other boards and commissions.
Vice Chair Rosen commented that in recent years, the country has experienced and observed the impacts of dysfunctional It;
government organizations and individuals, and he has never observed the Board looking for either a Republican or Democratic
answer. Rather, they have worked to search for the best answers. He has never seen the group seek to blame others, but only 0
to accept personal and group responsibility for the job they have been given and the impacts of the decisions they make. Each 2
Board Member has demonstrated grace and respect, and he appreciates how they model the best of how local and national 0
government can and should be.
0
Student Representative Bryan said he appreciates the diversity of perspectives that were acknowledged amongst the Board a
during the hearing. The residents voiced a lot of concerns on a huge range of topics. For the most part, the Board discussed Q
them well and thoughtfully. He said he is proud to be part of a board that strives to do the right thing.
Board Member Pence announced that the City Council extended the duration of the Housing Commission to the end of January.
They will be reporting their policy recommendations soon, and he expects the Planning Board will be tasked with reviewing
the recommendations to the extent they affect the code. This could be a time-consuming endeavor.
Board Member Crank thanked the Board for their vote as Vice Chair. She commented that 2020 has been an interesting year
for her from a professional, community service and personal standpoint. She attributed a lot of her success on the Snohomish
County Airport Commission to her experience on the Planning Board. She appreciates that the Board has remained functional
throughout the pandemic. Everyone has had a passion to move forward and get as much done as possible, when they had every
excuse to rest on their laurels and not get much done. This speaks a lot about each and every Board Member. She hopes the
Board can continue its momentum into 2021. She particularly voiced appreciation to staff, who has had to adapt to a new way
of doing business while still providing excellent support to the Board.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 14
Packet Pg. 18
2.A.a
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
m
c
0
0
L
0.
CL
Q
T
C
0
A
NNd
LPL
0
0
N
T
0
N
CO
IL
c
m
E
0
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 15
Packet Pg. 19
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/13/2021
Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Board
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
The Director Report is typically reviewed during each Planning Board meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Review Director Report.
Narrative
Director Report attached.
Attachments:
Director. Re po rt.01.13.2021
Packet Pg. 20
5.A.a
Date
To
From
MEMORANDUM
January 13, 2021
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
"If the plan doesn't work, change the plan not the goal."
L
0
a
—Unknown
o:
L
Next Planning Board Meeting L
0
The Planning Board is scheduled to meet January 131", 2021 @ 7:00 p.m. to make its N
recommendation on the proposed tree -related regulations and to get an update on the climate N
goals planning project.
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
Legislature
The Washington State Legislature officially begins its 2021 session on January 11, though much of
this year's business will be conducted virtually, due to coronavirus conditions.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ PSRC's Growth Management Policy Board met January 7 to hear from Puget Sound
Partnership about the health of Puget Sound and the actions needed for its recovery.
The Puget Sound Passenger -Only Ferry Study is nearing completion. The study reviewed
45 potential routes and identified 7 routes for more detailed assessment. For more
information, see: https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/blog/passenger-only-ferry-
study-update.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
This year's Annual Assembly will be held January 27 and feature speakers on public
health, economic opportunity, and wireless communication, with special emphasis on
working in the current COVID environment.
SCT's Planning Advisory Committee will meet January 14 to discuss topics including:
11Pag�
Packet Pg. 21
5.A.a
o Growth targets
o Buildable lands report
o Update from PSRC.
Growth Policy Framework
A new report, intended to make recommendations for updating the state's growth policy
framework, has just been published by the University of Washington. The report follows from a
collaboration effort that included cities, counties, businesses, tribes, and other entities. To read
the full report, see: WA-GPF-Final-Report.pdf (uw.edu). This effort tackled climate change,
housing, and other significant issues but the parties were not able to achieve broad consensus on
solutions. The report recommends more work be done to build support and make progress.
CITY NEWS
Ll Streateries �E
"Streateries" (generally, dining places located in the parking lane of public streets) are
allowed in Edmonds under new regulations, effective for one year, adopted by
L
emergency ordinance on December 15. Each streatery must now obtain its own permit °
and meet certain standards. The requirements also apply to streateries that were ;v
existing prior to the new regulations. A City team has developed information to help
businesses. Several businesses have also made suggestions that are useful for the City to c
implement the new rules. Permit applications have begun to come in and more are likely
M
in January.
Ll On -Site Outdoor Dining
An emergency interim ordinance was adopted on December 15 to allow outdoor dining
on commercial property without a specific land use permit so long as certain standards
are met. Building and/or fire permits are required wherever temporary or permanent
structures are part of the use. Because this is an interim ordinance and amends Title 17,
it is only valid for 180 days. The Planning Board will be asked to review this and make a
recommendation (as part of the regular ordinance process) to adopt it as -is or with
changes.
Ll City Council
The next Council meeting is Tuesday, January 13. , (Meeting materials are generally
posted on the Friday before each meeting.) The Council's three committees will meet
sequentially, starting at 4 pm that day. (NOTE: the Council has voted to discontinue
"committee meetings of the whole" and instead have three separate committees (same
as before), except that the committees would each meet before the Council's regular 7:00
pm meeting on the second Tuesday of each month.
o An update to the Building Code will be reviewed at the January 13 Public Safety,
Personnel, and Planning Committee meeting. The Building Code is periodically
updated to reflect changes in the International Codes and state laws.
Ll Highway 99 Community Renewal Plan
21
Packet Pg. 22
5.A.a
Preparation for developing a Highway 99 community renewal plan has begun. Under
state laws, community renewal plans are meant to address short- and mid-term needs
related to blight or similar problems in specific areas. While Edmonds has an award -
winning Highway 99 Subarea Plan and updated zoning regulations, some portions of the
area (especially, the south end) have ongoing deterioration, nuisance and other
problems. A community renewal plan can help remedy such problems and, at the same
time, achieve progress in implementing the visionary subarea plan.
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Architectural Design Board
The next meeting is scheduled for January 20th, 2021 @ 7:00 p.m. The January 6th meeting has
been cancelled. All virtual meetings held for year 2020 are available on-line.
Arts Commission
The next meeting is scheduled for January 4th, 2021. The Edmonds Arts Commission last met a
December 7, 2020 (via Zoom). Agenda items included:
❑ Creative Programs WOTS Update o
o Financials, grants, best books programs i
❑ Grants Program Discussion c
❑ Capital Projects
❑ New Business
❑ Staff report
Cemetery Board
The next meeting will be available online. The Board last met November 19th, 2020 (via Zoom) its
agenda included:
❑ Chair's report
❑ Staff report on sales, burials, finances
❑ New Board members update Use of Cemetery funds
❑ Election of Board Officers
Climate Protection Committee
The next meeting is scheduled for January 71h, 2021 @ 8:30 a.m. The Mayors' Climate Protection
Committee met last on December 3rd, 2020, the agenda included:
❑ Tree Code Briefing
❑ Diversity & Inclusion Progress
❑ City Council report
❑ Announcement and Resources
❑ Public Comment
Conservation Advisory Committee
The next virtual meeting will be available online. The Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
last met via Zoom on November 12th, 2020 @ 3:00 p.m. The latest Agenda highlights included:
❑ Message from the Mayor
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 23
5.A.a
Community Development Presentation
❑ Director's Report comments
❑ Subcommittee Reports
o MCAC Green website
Diversity Commission
The next virtual meeting is scheduled for January 6th, 2021. Agenda highlights included:
❑ New Commissioners Review of Guiding Principles & OPMA
❑ Budget Update
❑ Equity and Justice Task Force
❑ Proposal of Retreat
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC met December 16th, 2020, online, with the following agenda highlights:
❑ Idea Review, work priorities and 2021 planning
❑ Work group discussions
❑ Liaison Update
❑ Roundtable Discussions
Hearing Examiner
Next meeting schedules, agenda materials and meeting videos for previous meetings held are
available online.
Housing Commission
The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for January 141h, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. The last meeting
was held December 171h, 2020. Agenda items included:
❑ Policy Proposal Review & Preliminary Selections
❑ Community engagement
Additional Housing Commission information is on the website.
Historic Preservation Commission
The next virtual on-line meeting will be available online. The Commission last met on December
10th, 2020 via zoom. Agenda items included:
❑ Discussion 2021 Historic Edmonds Calendar
❑ Approval of minutes
❑ Commission Chair Comments
❑ Unfinished Business
❑ Action items.
Housing Commission
The Housing Commission is on target to wrap up its recommendations to the City Council by the
end of January. Meanwhile, the Commission's progress was featured in an online open house
and a January 7 webinar. Current draft recommendations are identified in an online survey and
public input is invited through January 11. To view the open house or take the survey, go to:
https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/events.
41. Qy-
5W
Packet Pg. 24
5.A.a
Planning Board
The Planning Board is scheduled to meet virtually on January 131h, 2021 @ 7:00 pm. The same
members who served on the Planning Board last month will continue to serve at the upcoming
meeting. Starting in January, Mike Rosen will begin the duties of board chair, taking "the gavel"
over from Dan Robles, who filled this role last year.
Tree Board
The Tree Board last met on January 7. Agenda items for the virtual meeting included:
❑ Forterra follow-up
❑ ACE group presentation
❑ Tree Code update
❑ Partnering with Snohomish County Conservation District.
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission last met on December 16th. Agenda items included:
❑ Discussion with representative from Fair vote WA
❑ Round table on supporting youth needs.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
The Community Calendar has some updates.
5 1 P a g e
1�
Packet Pg. 25
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/13/2021
Tree Code Regulations Update
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree code since October 2020, specifically at the
October 14, October 28, November 12, and November 18 Planning Board meetings. The Planning Board
held a public hearing on the draft tree code on December 9, 2020. Minutes from all of these meetings
are attached.
Staff Recommendation
Make a recommendation on the draft tree code as provided in Attachment 1 to the City Council.
Introduction
This is a public hearing on draft tree regulations intended to begin implementing the City's Urban Forest
Management Plan. The current version of the draft regulations is contained in Attachment 1.
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 3).
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,
Packet Pg. 26
7.A
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 4). 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
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
Draft Tree Regulations
The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree regulations since October and has provided
feedback to staff for potential revisions to the draft. The draft tree regulations provided in Attachment
1 incorporate Planning Board's comments in the first draft as well as additional revisions resulting
internal staff review of the draft regulations. Attachment 1 is a clean version of the draft regulations.
Attachment 2 is a redline/strikeout version of the draft regulations presented at December 9th public
hearing so the Planning Board can see where recent changes have been incorporated into the code.
The primary focus of this tree code update is to develop regulations that will result in more trees being
retained when properties are developed and requiring replanting for the trees that are removed.
Some highlights of the draft regulations include:
Development single family properties not capable of being subdivide are exempt from the tree
code, unless there are critical areas on the property
Tree retention requirements for new development. The retentions requirements apply to
(ECDC 23.10.060):
o Short subdivision and subdivision application
o New multi -family development
o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of an
existing single-family house
o Tree removal not exemption by the tree code (ECDC 23.10.040)
Retention and Replacement Requirements
o New development must retain 30% of significant trees on site (ECDC 23.10.060.C)
o Replacement is required for every significant tree that is removed (ECDC 23.10.080)
o A fee -in -lieu program established if site will not support required replacement tree at a
cost of $1,000 per tree (ECDC 23.10.080.E)
Flexibility is proposed for subdivision design to aid in the retention of trees during
development (ECDC 20.75.XXX)
A Tree Fund is established (Chapter 3.95 ECC)
o Tree Fund is support by the fee -in -lieu programs, penalties, or monies allocated by the
City Council
o Tree Fund may be used for:
§ Providing vouchers to individuals for purchasing and planting trees
§ Acquiring and preserving wooded areas within the City
Public Hearing Review
Packet Pg. 27
7.A
Following the public hearing, the Planning Board wanted to explore a couple more items before
forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. One item was the replacement ratio for trees
removed based on the diameter of the tree. The draft tree code in Attachments 1 and 2 has modified
the tree diameter associated with the replacement ratios. At the Planning Board meeting staff will
provide an explanation of how this impacts the fee -in -lieu provision for replacement trees not planted.
The other item the Planning Board wanted to explore was a canopy coverage requirement similar to
Snohomish County tree code. This has not been incorporated into the draft tree code; however, staff
will present how this coverage requirement may work in the draft code and the impacts that code
change could have on provisions such as the fee -in -lieu program.
Public Comments
All the written public comments received as of January 8, 2021 are provided in Attachment 9
Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Clean Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB 01.13.21
Attachment 2:
Redline Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB 01.13.21
Attachment 3:
Edmonds Urban Forest Managment Plan
Attachment 4:
Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix
Attachment 5:
October 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 6:
October 28, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 7:
November 12, 2020 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 8:
November 18, 2020 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment 9:
Draft December 9, 2020 Planning Board Minutes
Attachment 10:
Tree Code Comments as of 01.08.21
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.a
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
c
23.10.020
Definitions
o
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
o
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
v
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
a
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
~
23.10.090
Bonding
N
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
r
23.10.110
Liability
c
m
20.75.XXX
Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
a
N
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund
3
a
m
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
m
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection,
m
enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees. This
includes the following: L
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; N
c
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; o
E
C. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the w
residents of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the
L
prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or o
partially improved property;
D. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in v
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; r
c
E. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
E
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; r
a
F. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
E
z
G. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development U
2
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of Q
development.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 1 of 14
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.a
H. 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;
N
C
I. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development 0
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;
a�
0
23.10.010 Administering Authority v
a�
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
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 one (1) inch of tree 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. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
I. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
J. 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.
K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan,
replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or
covenant restriction.
L. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 30
7.A.a
M. 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;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track (or equivalent);
N
C
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; o
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
m
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 o
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival c�
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for W
the preservation of trees during land development.
N. 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. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
O. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional..
P. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries
Q. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
T. 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 significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.a
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.
N
C
O
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: o
1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. N
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or r
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: o
m
1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths. a-
N
C
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or o
interruption of services provided by a utility.
a�
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A m
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
m
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
for these trees alone.
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
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.
b. 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.
c. 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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 32
7.A.a
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 in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except
N
r_
0
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 native growth protection easements, tree removal is
m
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
o
U
a�
a�
L
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
01!
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
M
r
City requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following applications:
c
1. Short subdivision
m
a
N
C
2. Subdivision
0
3. New multi -family development
a�
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-
m
family house, and
0
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. rY
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 Retention Plan
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);;
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.)
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 33
7.A.a
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed
N
C
0
improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is
required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be
m
required).
W
o
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
a)
W
L
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;
M
r
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out;
0
op
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080.
a
c. An arborist report containing the following:
0
Cc
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
CD
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
m
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
L
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
~
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
o
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
E
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
w
r
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
v
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
0
those in a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current
phase of development and limits removal to the impacted 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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 34
7.A.a
1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, 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.
3. 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. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
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 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.
3. 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.
r
c
m
E
0
r
a
a�
E
z
U
2
r
Q
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.a
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.
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. 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;
Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
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.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, 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. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director 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.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.a
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
N
r_
0
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
m
W
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
o
equipment.
v
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
a�
W
or building activity.
..
N
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. C6
D. 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.
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.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 37
7.A.a
F. 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
N
C
0
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
I
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 14 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
0
2. For each significant tree between 14.1 inches and 24 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are
01!
required.
r
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
O
m
IL
1. 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
0)
complies with the standards in this section.
CD
C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
m
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
m
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
a�
m
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
U)
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
0
E
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
LU
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
0
p`
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
0
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
U
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
E. 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.
r
Q
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the
tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
z
2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.a
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved
tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title
of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's .�
office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this o
provision.
m
23.10.090 Bonding o
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. ..
N
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree ri
r
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year 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 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. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
2. 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 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.a
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
0
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.
d. 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
0
U
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
aa)
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).
f. 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 date(s) 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 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 40
7.A.a
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.
g
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.
°
U
a�
a�
LL
r
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design
..
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
N
ri
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
r
o
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
m
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
w
B. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
c
°
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that:
a�
CD
a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet;
}
°
b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet;
c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and
a�
;v
d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced.
U'
2. Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling
c
E
units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and
w
widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements
cc
of the zoning district in which it is located.
pL
c
3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total, M
coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for c)
the zoning district in which it is located.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
r
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city codes and standards.
°
r
a
C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with
design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC
23.10.085.
e-
3.95 Tree Fund
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 41
7.A.a
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:
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; and
D. Other monies allocated by the City Council
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be 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. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health;
4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational
purchases;
6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor 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.
C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in
23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 14 of 14
a
Packet Pg. 42
7.A.b
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
o
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
23.10.090
Bonding
N
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
M
23.10.110
Liability
c
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 3
a
m
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
a�
r
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection,
enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees. This
includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; -a
c
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; o
E
C. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the w
residents 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;
D. 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; N
E. 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;
F. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development Q
r
requirements;
E
G. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of
development. Q
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 1 of 14
Packet Pg. 43
7.A.b
H. 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;
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;
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
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 one (1) inch of tree 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. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
I. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
J. 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.
K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan,
replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or
covenant restriction.
L. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 44
7.A.b
M. 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;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track (or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
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.
N. 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. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
O. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional..
P. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries
Q. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
T. 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 significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 45
7.A.b
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 trees on an improved single-family lot, except for:
1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:
1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths.
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
for these trees alone.
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
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.
b. 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.
c. 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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 46
7.A.b
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 in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: 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 native 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 or a demolition and replacement of a single-
family house, 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 Retention Plan
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);;
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.)
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 47
7.A.b
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed
o
improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is
required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be
required).
o
U
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
W
L
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
M
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
r
0
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out;
m
a
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080.
c
0
c. An arborist report containing the following:
o
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
ii. 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
as
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
c
E
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
w
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
0
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
c
those in a grove;
-a
3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current
phase of development and limits removal to the impacted 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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 48
7.A.b
1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, 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.
3. 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. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
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 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.
3. 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.
a
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 49
7.A.b
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.
O
grading activity, a preeenstruetien meeting shall -he held- A —A site with the peRnittee and appFE)pFiate
City staff. The p ect site shall be ,rked- in the field- fell ,ws �
O
. IY
1— The extent A-feleaFing and gFadingte r O
V
eritical area buffers with eleaFing4*P4
^M^;M Fd
1'C'I eing L
i
N
4. o r . , r+ines CO)
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. 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 of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
A-.B.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.
9-.C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, 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. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
(6) feet high, URIess etheF type of
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 50
7.A.b
Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director 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.
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:
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.
QD. Grade.
1. 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.
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.
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.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 51
7.A.b
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.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
D-.E.Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
F. 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 as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 440-14 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
2. For each significant tree between 4-9414.1 inches and 4�24 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
3. For each significant tree greater than 4424 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees
are required.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -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 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 52
7.A.b
E. 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.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the
tree replacement requirements of this section and shall 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.
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved
tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title
of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's
office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this
provision.
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.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year 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 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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 53
7.A.b
penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
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;
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.
d. 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.
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 date(s) 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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 54
7.A.b
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
o
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
r
f°
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
a�
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
m
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
v
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
m
L
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
N
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
r
0
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
a
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
°
r
removal authorized under this chapter.
M
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design
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 in all residential zones provided that
a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet;
b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet;
c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and
d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced.
Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling
units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and
widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements
of the zoning district in which it is located.
Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total,
coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for
the zoning district in which it is located.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 55
7.A.b
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 codes and standards.
C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with
design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC o
23.10.085. r
a�
m
m
3.95 Tree Fund v
m
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established
H
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund."
N
M
r
3.95.020 Funding Sources
m
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: N
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.
m
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and
a�
D. Other monies allocated by the City Council
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the c
0
city: E
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; p`
m
3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health;
4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational N
purchases;
E
6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
c�
B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the a
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor 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.
E
C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in
23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting. Q
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 14 of 14
Packet Pg. 56
� -
L
Y
�ii�■ ��
�Rlna�Y���J
L x� �', p+r Y +• 4 — W .I -
r.la R-
~ . ��}� • • 4 ; h stiff Q.. Fw
-41
we
PF
IIA
ti
`-qqM1•1s@[•I@I*
Urban Forest Mana'gement Plan
July, 2019 A& Ho"I'l =k
= i
7.A.c
c
0
r
a�
m
m
0
t�
d
m
L
a
c
a�
E
a�
c�
c
�a
r
a�
L
0
U-
L
0
E
W
M
n
Q
Cd
G
t
V
Q
Packet Pg. 58
7.A.c
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Management Plan
July, 2019
DAVEY#.
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. 59
7.A.c
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
OF EDP
0
DAVEY#-,.
Resource Group
111c. I gqo
Packet Pg. 60
7.A.c
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation
Introduction
Community
Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest
What Do We Have?
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
Packet Pg. 61
7.A.c
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
in 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
Conclusions
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.
1 Scope & Purpose
Packet Pg. 62
7.A.c
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 q
Are We We Get
Doing? There?
a
Scope & Purpose Z
Packet Pg. 63
7.A.c
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 41,8
Land Cower
Tree Ca nopyr
30%
brass & Vegetation
27%
1 m pervio us Su Ffaces
34%
Bare Soils
2%
Open Water
7%
Tree Canopy CDyer
Maximum Potential Canopy S 7%
Investment
Tree Care Pigr Capita
714
.3 Scope & Purpose
Packet Pg. 64
7.A.c
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.
a
Executive Summary 4
Packet Pg. 65
Land Cover
7.A.c
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
Grass/Vegetation
27%
Figure 1: Land Cover
City Limits
Tree Canopy
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation
Impervious Surfaces
Bare Soil
Open Water
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Figure 1: Land Cover
Jr Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 66
7.A.c
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. 67
7.A.c
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
expectations for the urban forest.
• Municipal Resource Actions - which are
intended to drive improvements in City policy
and practices by developing efficiency and
alignment of efforts within City departments.
• Community Resource Actions - which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in urban
forest stewardship.
Goal 1- Maintain citywide canopy coverage
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.
This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a
20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short
and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting
the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of
operational objectives. The success of the UFMP
will be measured through the realization of goals
and will be demonstrated through the health of
the urban forest and increased environmental
benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement
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 2 - Manage public trees pro -actively
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private p
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management.
7 Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 68
7.A.c
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.
a
Introduction 8
Packet Pg. 69
7.A.c
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).
Packet Pg. 70
7.A.c
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
(CH), 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. 71
a
7.A.c
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. 72
7.A.c
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.
Introduction 12
Packet Pg. 73
Right tree, right place
7.A.c
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.
Tree roots lifting a sidewalk.
13 Introduction
Packet Pg. 74
7.A.c
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: AGuideforPuget Sound 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
Introductior 14
Packet Pg. 75
c
0
as
o:
as
0
U
as
as
c
IL
c
a�
0
c
N
L
0
U_
c
E
L
N
c
0
E
w
M
c
m
E
M
a
r
c
m
E
M
a
7.A.c
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
15 Introduction
proper care.
Packet Pg. 76
7.A.c
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 beingconsidered 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.
r
a
Introduction 16
Packet Pg. 77
7.A.c
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.
The state of Washington
requires the City of Edmonds
to manage and protect it's
critical areas.
cif
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.
Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas.
17 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 78
7.A.c
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.
a
What Do We Have? 18
Packet Pg. 79
7.A.c
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 -year cycle, 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.
Packet Pg. 80
7.A.c
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.
a
What Do We Have? 20
Packet Pg. 81
7.A.c
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.
21 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 82
7.A.c
Canopy Cover Summary
The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of
9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of
tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9
square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water.
By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey
Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land
cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds:
• 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and
woody shrubs (525 acres)
• 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground
• 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy
is unfeasible
• 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying
vegetation
Ak
DTI
17
710
� yri f f � y �•
Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds "bowl" area.
• 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads,
parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres)
• From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from
32.3% to 30.3%
• Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering
suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the
existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of
3,495 acres
• Private residential properties have most of the
canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and
commercial (4.1%) properties.
• Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County
Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres)
followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and
Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres)
Q
What Do We Have? 22
Packet Pg. 83
Land Cover
7.A.c
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
Grass/Vegetation
27%
Figure 1: Land Cover
City Limits
M Tree Canopy
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation 22
Impervious Surfaces
Bare Soil
Open Water ,
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
2.3 what Do we Have?
Figure 1: Land Cover
Packet Pg. 84
7.A.c
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
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
will vastly improve by creating linkages between #
multiple patches of forest. O
Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable } r
management tool due to the importance of Edmonds'
critical areas and environmental stewardship. The o
analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes y v
the following:
• 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy _.lie !
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison a
* 8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy
• 55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to E
improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top) c
* 26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy leads to isolation and declining habitat quality.
Al
LL
✓ r: a ff OO
Lu
T`� � �� � — '�r - bra-. • .4' � t
V
ILI
441
Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy
categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest.
What Do We Have? 24
Packet Pg. 85
7.A.c
Forest Fragmentation
Patrh Forest
Core Forest
10%
Perforated
Forest
8%
Edge Forest
26%
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Ifs
�r -;.::
PV;;F' DR
' ?y
�DAVTON Si MAIN Si
eOLWT ST
!., wl
.
�WDON WAI
City Limits
N1Mi' ': 4'.1 •- • .
Core Forest 2XTHST 1 8T
J Edge Forest
7 Patch Forest
Zl2t� ST ��
Perforated Forest
x�n+sT
ti a
xien+sr
0 0.25 0.5 1
a"Te
Miles
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
25 What Do We Have?
JL .-
229TN
'� •a
"e'11 ST
7CJH ST
c
0
fC
NN�
L7�
m
0
U
a
c
m
E
Q1
R
C
f3
L
0
U-
f3
c
0
W
M
C
d
E
t
c,>
a
c
m
t
w
Q
Packet Pg. 86
7.A.c
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 .
a+
a
What Do We Have? 26
Packet Pg. 87
7.A.c
Tree Canopy By Park
Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
=011
i
..
.
Southwest
Ikunty Park
118.55
117.05
Yost Memorial
44.14
41.28
93.53 97.45
Park
ach Padrale
ii 54
25.16
98
Southwest -
County Park
Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66
Edmonds Marsh
23.37
5.66
24.21
Hutt Park
Hummingbird
Hill Park
Yost Park.
Edmonds
City Park
Edmonds
Marsh
z 0—
Under IS%
15% - 80%
0% - 45%
i 45% - 60%
_ Over 60%
U
A
0 D, 5 1
miles Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park
27 What Do We Have?
Meadowdale
Beach Park
rW
Seaview Park
Sierra Park
Maplewood
Park
—Pine Ridge Park
a
Packet Pg. 88
7.A.c
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:
• 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 native fish 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
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. 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 0.51 1.76 59.36
r
Q
What Do We Have' 28
Packet Pg. 89
7.A.c
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
251.82
0.54
21.42
10.76
58.64
8.65
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
43.40
Sensitive Habitat Area
77.83
18.58
11.92
0.23
3.47
65.80
Wetlands Area
29 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 90
7.A.c
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.
a+
a
What Do We Have? 30
Packet Pg. 91
7.A.c
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 for guiding 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
tnL
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
mmmng�'
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.
Packet Pg. 92
7.A.c
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
Urban Forestry Items MR Expenditure
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance
$79,779
T
Management
$62,771
Volunteer Activities JL _M
$134,579
TOTAL
$319,542
Vdget 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
UrbanV Common
Related Activities
Hours per
Development plan review for
Permit Intake
compliance with tree
protection codes
2
and Review
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
c
0
r
a�
a�
0
U
m
m
1-
c
CU
FL
c
m
E
c
R
L
0
u_
c
N
c
0
E
Lu
C1
c
a�
E
t
0
a
r
a�
w
r
Q
What Do We Have? 32
Packet Pg. 93
7.A.c
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.
33 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 94
7.A.c
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.
What Do We Have? 34
Packet Pg. 95
7.A.c
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
35 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 96
7.A.c
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).
a
What Do we Have? 36
Packet Pg. 97
7.A.c
• 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. 98
7.A.c
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
for the planting and maintenance of public trees.
These trees are on public property parcels or select
locations in the rights -of -way. Other planting strips
are the responsibility of adjacent land owners:
as
a�
• Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction
and maintenance, declares that the
m
0
responsibility is with the abutting property
owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent
planting strips. This includes all tree care.
c
• Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the
a
regulation of street trees and trees on public
property. All street trees are managed by the
E,
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
�0
other public place. This code chapter also
includes language defining abuse and damage
to street trees.
Tree Related Fees and Penalties
c
OE
w
To facilitate compliance and remediation for
M
disregarding public tree codes, the City provides
penalties as a punitive deterrent:
E
• Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive
a
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".
Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical
r
areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use,
Q
including public right-of-way.
What Do We Have' 38
Packet Pg. 99
7.A.c
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.
39 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 100
7.A.c
Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations
L
Qi
Q
0
L
a-
0)
M
a
Developed single-family
No review, no permit
No notification required, but suggested
property, no critical areas
required
to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement
present
Response
Developed single-family
Yes, review and permit
Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff
property, critical areas
required if tree in critical
decision with notice)
present
area or critical area buffer
Removal of hazard trees in
Review required, but no
Documentation of hazard tree
critical area
permit
by certified arborist, or clear
documentation of dead tree. Replanting
required at 2:1 ratio
Prune or trim trees
No review, no permit
Topping considered same as tree
cutting or removal unless retopping of a
previously approved topping
Multi -family property
Yes, review and permit
Design review against landscaping
and Planned Residential
required
requirements. Type I decision (staff
Developments with
decision, no notice)
approved landscape plan
Commercial Property
Yes, review and permit
Design review against landscaping
required
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision no notice)
Tree removal with
Yes, review included with
Tree protection measures required for
development
land use or development
trees to remain
permit.
Trees in right-of-way
Yes, review and permit
A right-of-way construction permit is
required
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
Street trees
Yes, review and permit
Design review against landscaping
required
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice)
Prune or removal of park
No permit
The City's Parks Department maintains
trees
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
What Do We Have? 40
Packet Pg. 101
7.A.c
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.
WASHINGTON
COMMUNITY
FORESM
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.
41 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 102
7.A.c
FORTSRRA
FOR THE PEOPLE. FOR THE LAND. 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
A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars.
What Do We Have? 42
Packet Pg. 103
7.A.c
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.
* ;4,�-11,
43 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 104
7.A.c
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
a
What Do We Have? 44
Packet Pg. 105
7.A.c
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
45 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 106
7.A.c
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?
Packet Pg. 107
City of Port Angeles
7.A.c
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).
47 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 108
Arborist Business Licenses -
7.A.c
City of Lincoln
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).
Community engagement on urban forestry is important to
encourage tree retention on private properties.
• 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. 109
7.A.c
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.
49 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 110
7.A.c
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.
a
What Do We Have? so
Packet Pg. 111
7.A.c
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.
51 what Do We want?
Packet Pg. 112
7.A.c
Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for
community engagement. -
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 113
7.A.c
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%
5%
0%
Improved Air Quality
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
Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Carbon Storage Energy Savings
Quality/Reduced
Stormwater Runoff
Environmental Benefits
Other
53
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 114
7.A.c
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
c
0
r
a�
m
0
U
m
m
L
C
a
c
m
E
a�
c
aD
L
0
U-
c
c
0
w
cYi
r
c
0
E
R
a
r
c
m
E
t
w
r
Q
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 115
7.A.c
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%).
Street tree along Main Street.
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the
(Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear)
but not necessarily every
tree)
Maintenance Expectations
55 what Do we want?
None -Keep them natural
Packet Pg. 116
7.A.c
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.
What Do We Want? 56
Packet Pg. 117
7.A.c
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.
57 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 118
7.A.c
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. 119
IM
Urban Forest Management Plan Goal
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)
59 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 120
7.A.c
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)
How Do We Get There? 60
Packet Pg. 121
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
61 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 122
Urban Forest Management Plan Goal
s
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
Time
1 Year
1 Year, On -going
iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities
C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees 1 Year, On -going
and to provide guidance on tree selection and management
How Do We Get There' 62
Packet Pg. 123
IM
Urban Forest Management Plan Goal
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
63 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 124
7.A.c
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.
Q
How Are We Doina'
Packet Pg. 125
7.A.c
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
0
Bennett, M. and Shaw, D. 2008. Diseases and Insect Pests of Pacific Madrone. Forest Health Fact Sheet EC 1619-E.
r
2
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/
°
U
CensusScope, 2012, "CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data." www.censusscope.org
m
L
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.
a -
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.
`o
City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development
a_
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
c
°
E
Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997.
w
Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
�i
commons/3/3d/Agrilus_anxius_1326203.jpg
Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 2015. Natural Resources Canada.
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313).
a
Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and Urban
Planning.
E
Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/ Q
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.
65 Appendices
Packet Pg. 126
7.A.c
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:gapps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot
Heisler, G.M., 1986, "Energy savings with trees." Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25.
Hartel, D, 2003, "GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets", 2003 National Urban Forest
c
Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information.
Hollingsworth, C.S., editor. 2019. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR:
a,
Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect (accessed 31 March 2019).
i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org
m
o
Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of
U
Environmental Management. 45:109-133
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
a
Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient
c
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.
c
Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
a_
c
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.
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.
http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/
LU
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
M
The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org
a�
E
The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/
a
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.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
w
r
Q
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.
http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded
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
Appendice- 66
Packet Pg. 127
7.A.c
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-pol lution.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.
o
In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference; Seattle.
2
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.
v
The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org
L
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP).
~
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
a
U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. "Green Roofs," Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy
a-
Management Program.
E
Washington Department of Ecology, 2011— Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control,
a�
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.
a
https//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externalreviewdraftJune152009.pdf
L
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
E
Elementl).
w
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. Ustin 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. 128
7.A.c
Appendix B9. Table of Figures
F'iures
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
Tables
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
Appendice- vo
Packet Pg. 129
7.A.c
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):
Improl' Quality
Energy Savings
FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage
Wildlife Habitat
Other
69 Appendices
Packet Pg. 130
7.A.c
Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Strongly Agree
74.86%
131
Agree
21.71%
38
lisagree
2.29%
Strongly Disagree
0.57%
1
kot sur
°
Not Sure
0.57%
1
ther (please specify)
0.00%
0
Question 2 (Extended)
36.W
4.57%
21.715/o
64
8
38
5.14%
9
13.71 /
24
14.29%
26.86%
-M
47
36.57% 64 25.71% 45 9%
18
8.57%
15
8.57%
15
17.14%
30
36.00%
63
28.57%
50
25.71%
45
22.29%
39
12.57%
22
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
49.71% 87
P175.71% 10
29.71% 52
10.86% 19
0.00% 0
175 2.88
175 3.3
0 0
Appendices 70
Packet Pg. 131
7.A.c
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
21.71%
38
17.14%
30
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails
24.00%
42
11.43%
20
2.86%
5
Shaded Parking
3.43%
6
8.57%
15
9.71%
17
rove r reas and neighborhoods
4%
9
104k29%
18
12.57%
22
13.71%
24
Increased Property Values
4.00%
71
5.14%
9
5.14%
9
9.71%
17
Passive recreati
4.00
9
6.86%
12
12.00%
21
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles
13.14%
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.
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)
71 Appendices
Packet Pg. 132
7.A.c
Question 3 (Extended)
rGIF1•
15.43%
27
9.71%
17
6.86%
12
2.29%
4
1 --
5.39
7.43%
13
2.86%
5
2.29%
4
2.86%
5
-15
6.29
9.71%
17
9.71%
17
4.57%
8
1.71%
3
17.71%
31
29.71%
52
8.57% 15
19.43% 34
175
3.03
43%
34
18.29%
32
14.29%
25
6.29%
11
175
4.25
10.29%
18
13.71%
24
22.86%
40
29.14%
51
175
3.05
3%
27
20.00%
35
21.
14.86% 26
13.71%
24
13.14%
23
9.71%
17
6.29%
11
175
4.89
Answered
175
Skipped
Question 5 (Extended)
36.69% 62
23.67% 40
52.07% 88
14.79% 25
12. o
AnswereT .•
Skipped
Appendices 72
Packet Pg. 133
7.A.c
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 AM
13.02%
22
Weekly
11.83%
20
10.65%
18
Severa I Times A Year
34.32 %
58
Never IL30.18%
1
Answered
1691
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?
wx,-- & IWL9-
Weekly 4.14% 7
onthly % 5
Several Times A Year 41.42% 70
Never 46.15% 78
Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree
care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees?
L. :: 0 9
Weekly 2.96% 5
Monthly 5.92% 10
Several Times A Year 43.20% 73
Never 42.60% 72
73 Appendices
Packet Pg. 134
7.A.c
Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds'
public trees.
Strongly agree
10.65%
18
Agree
59.17%
100
Disagree
11.83%
20
Strongly Disagree
8.88%
15
Not Sure L
9.47%
16
Answered
.•
Skipped
61
Appendices 74
Packet Pg. 135
7.A.c
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 the sidewalks 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.
jjWngly Agree
AMMV.87%
6&
Agree
28.99%
49
isagree
17.16%
29
Strongly disagree
5.33%
9
not sure
P, jlz.65%
Answered
169
Skipped
Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.
a
59.17%
100
Open spaces and Natural Areas
60.36%
102
Sareetscapes
59.17%
100
Golf Courses
11.24%
19
p;ovvWwn 7M.60%
Trails and bike paths
45.56%
77
dmonds has enough public trees
20.12%
34
Other (please specify)
17.75%
30
Answered
.•
Skipped
75 Appendices
Packet Pg. 136
7.A.c
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%
17,
169
3.47
r
a
Appendices 76
Packet Pg. 137
7.A.c
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.
Seminars and workshops
44.38%
75
Interpretive trails and displays
59.76%
101
2.72%
106
Online videos (e.g. YouTube)
24.26%
41
tree
Informational brochures
43.20%
73
ther (please specify)
11.83%
20
Answered
.•
Skipped
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)
of
Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41
Trees shading my yard
Tree debris i�
9.04% 15
12.65% ■
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114
Canopy loss M 57.83% 91
Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120
Other Concerns(please specify)
%% Appendices
Packet Pg. 138
7.A.c
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
�es nea
59.28%
99
1 want more trees near my property
25.15%
42
have no trees near my property
0.60%
1
1 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?
'IF Answer ..
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
,reasonably possible. M& 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
0
o:
a�
0
U
m
m
L
a
c
m
E
a�
c
L
0
U-
E
L
c
0
E
w
cYi
r
c
a�
E
R
a
r
E
w
r
a
Appendices 78
Packet Pg. 139
7.A.c
Ordinances, Rules or Regulations
Other (please specify)
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.
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
35.33% 59
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?
Male
i
Female
Gender Diverse
Prefer not to answer
28.66%
47
59.76%
98
A1.83%
3
9.76%
16
79 Appendices
Packet Pg. 140
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
7.A.c
W
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%
i
56+
61.59 %
101
Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below.
Downtown/The Bowl
Westgate
Five Corners
Perrinville
Meadowdale
40.85% jMjj
7.32% 12
x 8.54%
14
4.88%
8
4.27%
7
Seaview 15.24% 25
Lake Ballinger
HWY 99 3.05% 5
ther (please specify) 14.63% 24
Answered 164
Skipped ill
Appendices 80
Packet Pg. 141
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
7.A.c
M am a resident of Edmonds M
95.12%
156
1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds
10.98%
18
Own a business in Edmonds
6.71%
11
appreciate public trees
72.56%
119
planted public trees as a volunteerAMMIN
18.90%
31
1 help care for a public tree adjacent to my property
10.98%
18
J[have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public
trees X15.85%
26
None of the above
0.61%
1
81 Appendices
Packet Pg. 142
7.A.c
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
Answered 33
Skipped 142
Appendices 82
Packet Pg. 143
7.A.c
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/
83 Appendices
Packet Pg. 144
7.A.c
nnininn Rnarrl ffl • \A/hat train hanafitc rin vnii mnct nnnrarinta?
A. Improved Air Quality
1n
B. Energy Savings
4
0
0
Reduced Stormwater Runoff
14
W
D. Carbon Storage
7
1
0
E. Wildlife Habitat
14
0
0
F. Beauty/Aesthetics
12
0
0
G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails
4
0
3
H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods
3
1
4
I. �Increasecl prop
7
2
3
J. Shaded streets and parking lots
4
1
0
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"
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
Air quality requires big, tall trees
0
0
1
Appendices 84
Packet Pg. 145
7.A.c
Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are
preferred/valued?
A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)
i. Species selection
Tre
iii. Tree pruning
Interactive tree selector
V. Irrigation
olunteer opportunities
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)
Species selectio
ii. Tree planting
Tree pruning
iv. Irrigation
C. Hands-on (Wormshops, seminars)
i. Tree planting
Tree pruning
iii. Irrigation
Volunteer opportunities
2 _0 0
4 0 0
1 0 0
4 1 0
1 1 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
3 0 0
3 1 0
1 0 0
3 = 1 1 0
0 0 0
2
2 0 0
5
0 0 0
1
D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0
Lleighborhoo or education and outreach 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
circulationl
New name needed 0 0 0
85 Appendices
Packet Pg. 146
7.A.c
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds?
A. Trees blocking my view
11
L-1
9
B. Trees shading my yard
3
0
7
STree debris in
1
5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed
12
0
3
Canopy loss
3
F. Loss of wildlife habitat
15
0
3
G. Additional Concerns
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
omeone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediat
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
1
0
01
to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
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
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
Red dots = not concerned
0 0 0
0 0
2 0 0
Appendices 86
Packet Pg. 147
7.A.c
Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer
for Dublic trees?
A. None (keep them natural)
4 2
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)
7 1 3
Mlearan� (keep sidewalk street ear)
—I= 1 1
D. Take care of hazardous trees
10 2 0
lolistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but
not necessarily every tree)
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-
avoid trees that interfere with built environment.
2 0 0
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
working together to protect environment as well as property
0 1 0
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. 148
7.A.c
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees
planted?
A. Parks s
10
0 0
B. Open Spaces
10
0 1
C. Commercial proper}
9
2 0
D. Streets and medians
7
3 2
r-
E. Parking lots
0
F. Private properties
8
1 1
F. Additional Ideas
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. 149
7.A.c
Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree 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
C. Education and Outreach
16 0 0
D. Tree planting events
5
0 0
JE. Additional Ideas
Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees
3
0 1
when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot.
Education- slow but steady sot at folk begin to know that alll
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:i
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)
89 Appendices
Packet Pg. 150
7.A.c
� r
1. W�at tree benefits do ynu FRTDst 2. What types of outreach and 3. What is Are your biggest l
appreripte? education are preferred valued? concern(s) For trees in Edmonds?
f.a.^,,,e-t-r A. Eleorgnie [Websile, Links, Youtube, APPO S A. Imas blocking my Maow * •
Ar
*see M. I�N+a[i Trte s.i..io. • S. Trees shading my Yaod 0 is • • • •
e eee+#
M. p•rFrArMr—FdN
14#04'�f rdrnr
ME
4. What level of maintenance would
You prefer for public trees?
A. NoneIKeep fhc—pteralj
#
�� BeirpQfFibl+cure {atkfraas sha,rld lank goad]
•
C. Clearance only Ikaap ikda lks d, i"e+, drrreF]I
•
D. Yoko Gorr) Vf 6—dosri tra—
{
ID **IF 404POO
E. Hausa Plane He6l%Cwe1Isnprow the .,bon
F6Fas1, but rsar neLlFF4rily every rreej
000 * # # IM
F. Add6ena11deas
B. Hard Copy IRamphlafs, NtWslel►aFF)#O
i. $P«w Uk", -Sa &
. r�Pdenrnq �
�r. Inipunp„
[- Hond;F•On Morkslrgys. SemIeOFF} 00
e T— Pl.."
R rri WOM
Iv. VA�rl3Wq. e.i ;6,6
C. Traa 6abria in my yard
0 • ♦• i
D, Fleallhy WCTUF4 tFdM%baing ramorad * •
00 • * e :1501
F. Canopy No%%a 00 jo0a00
F. LussotwildRPehabr►of 000*0*Ifib a
•09 sib* • 0
D. Add iGgnal ldenc �"'` 1� G. Add ilional ConL#mf
Oareeei wy Clrl4YRPSh ••
_ 6. What are the Kest ways to
encourage tree planting and
5. Where would you like to see more preservation on private property.
trees planted? A. Fr" (or low-cosl; Trees
A. Parks
® ***e a*�+
aP+0 Spaces
C. Commercial Prapwias.
• 00 Is 0* *i
D. Streeri and Medium
fe
E. Parking Lori
% : e 0 0
•
G. Additional ldeaF
- *
a
IiS. InfoFnio6on about how to hire a prvfemskmal
lrea care SGrnpany
C. Edrxcdion and Ouhaurh #
D. Tree Plpnl;ng Evenis
#0"•
E. Addiiionalldeas
- Ibis
00
fA
C
0
7
d
0
ci
d
L
M
FL
c
at
E
a�
ca
C
�a
r
Cn
at
L
0
LL
c
rn
c
0
E
W
M
C
d
t
Q
C
V
Q
Appendice.,, 90
Packet Pg. 151
7.A.c
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.
91 Appendices
Packet Pg. 152
7.A.c
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 SO
Appendice- 92
Packet Pg. 153
7.A.d
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
c
0
r
a�
a�
m
0
U
m
m
x
r
R
Q
0
Packet Pg. 154
7.A.d
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
c
0
a�
a�
m
0
U
m
m
t=
x
R
Q
0
m
a
0
a
0
am
am
m
m
c
0
E
w
v
c
a�
E
U
c�
a
r
c
m
E
t
R
r
a
Packet Pg. 155
7.A.e
November 101. The City Council will hold a public hearing, as well, and the goal is for them to be adopted along with the
budget.
Board Member Cheung asked if the City has considered providing power outlets on the fishing pier. Ms. Feser answered that
there are power outlets and lighting on the pier. However, the system can be tripped by large number of squidders on the pier
with powerful lights and heaters. There is limited capacity and access to the outlets, so people do bring small generators.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Planning Board spent a lot of time contributing to the Civic Park Master Plan.
She expressed her belief that the plan is good. However, she asked why the "rain garden" was changed to a "stormwater
garden." Ms. Burley answered that it was simply a designer's interpretation of how the area would function to filter
stormwater. There was no change to the plan.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she loves that the view terraces are still part of the plan for the hillside. This area will
provide a nice, long perspective of being able to look out on Edmonds. However, she asked when the scramble wall was
added. Ms. Burley said the scramble wall was part of the originally -approved master plan. Given that it is one of the more
costly elements of the plan, it is being bid as an alternate to ensure the park can be developed with or without it.
Board Member Pence asked if the City has done a survey of which areas are short of parkland. A survey would allow the
City to target future land acquisitions to address these shortfalls. Ms. Feser said they would use the current PROS Plan as a
guide. There is information in this plan that reflects the community's priorities for land acquisition. She has also proposed
that the City adopt a Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan to further identify the community's priorities
for land acquisition. The plan would provide criteria and outline an evaluation process for consideration of potential land
acquisitions. Geographic distribution of resources should be a key piece of the plan. Edmonds is primarily built out, so there
is a lot less opportunity to purchase additional parkland and/or open space. Board Member Pence asked how long it would
take to get the Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan in place. Ms. Feser said a chunk of the project
could be done in house, but statistically -valid community engagement will be a key piece of the project. The community
engagement piece for the Land Acquisition Strategy could be done concurrently with the PROS Plan update. She estimated it
could take up to a year to complete the community engagement work.
Board Member Cheung voiced concern that a budget of $200,000 per year for land acquisition isn't a lot given the high cost
of land. Ms. Feser agreed. She explained that funding is needed for site surveys, appraisals, and other projects that are part
of the City's due diligence process. The funding could also be used as leverage for grants.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on a Tree Code update in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest
when it was presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning
Board recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to
guide the Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway.
Implementation includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing
street trees in the downtown.
Mr. Lien said the goals for the Tree Code Update are to focus on private property, improve tree retention with new
development, implement low -impact development principles, and establish a Tree Fund. Other updates included in the
process include reviewing the definitions, existing permitting process and penalties. Currently, there is a disparity between
the cost associated with tree -cutting permits required for single-family development versus multi -family and commercial
development.
Mr. Lien referred to UFMP Goal 1, which calls for maintaining or enhancing citywide canopy coverage. Actions related to
this goal include:
• 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.
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 156
• Adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the
PROS Plan.
• Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas.
• Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
• Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs.
Mr. Lien referred to the draft Tree Code (Attachment 3). He explained that, currently, the tree regulations are in Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45 (Public Works), and staff is proposing to move the bulk of these regulations c
to a new chapter ECDC 23.10 (Natural Resources). This new chapter would address exemptions, permit processes, 0
definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement and violations. A new section would also be added to ECDC a
20.75 (Subdivisions) titled, "Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility." The new section would use the low -impact
development principles as a way to retain more trees with development. Lastly, a new chapter would be added in Edmonds
City Code (ECC) 3.95 (Funding) that would establish the Tree Fund.
0
Mr. Lien said the Tree Code is scheduled for review at every Planning Board meeting through the end of 2021. A public V
hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. His goal is for the Board to focus on two or three sections of the code at i
each of the meetings.
Board Member Monroe asked if the intent of the code is to effect only new development or to address how people manage
trees on their own property. He suggested there should be a distinction between a developer who wants to clear cut a parcel
versus a private property owner wanting to cut down a tree he/she doesn't like. Mr. Lien said one of the main purposes of the
Tree Code is to address tree retention associated with development activity. The code would apply to new subdivisions,
multi -family development, new single-family development on large lots, and tree removal on developed sites that are not
specifically exempted. The intent of the code is to retain more trees when development occurs.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled an issue that came up years ago with the Architectural Design Board. A property owner
on Olympic View Drive wished to harvest a forested property that she owned, and there was nothing in the code to prevent
that from occurring. Eventually, the entire property was developed, but no plans were in place when the property was clear
cut. She asked if the draft Tree Code would address situations of this type. Mr. Lien said forest practices are allowed by the
State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. However, you do not typically see forest management in the City of
Edmonds. Provisions in both the current code and proposed code would prohibit clearing of a site for the sake of sale or
future development.
Board Member Cheung asked how the public would be informed about the potential changes prior to the public hearing. Mr.
Lien said staff would work with the City's new Public Information Officer to get the news out. The issue could also be raised
at Mayor Nelson's upcoming neighborhood meetings. Board Member Cheung suggested that the City Council should be
advised that the Planning Board will be working on the Tree Code in coming weeks. Mr. Lien said he made a presentation to
the City Council on the broad update and mentioned that the issue would be on the Planning Board's agendas through the end
of the year.
Mr. Chave noted the extensive amount of material that was provided to the Board. He suggested the Board Members could
forward comments and questions they want addressed at the next meeting to staff via individual emails to Ms. Martin and Mr.
Lien.
Chair Robles asked if the Board's discussions should follow the matrix of high-level issues that was provided by staff or the
start by reviewing the highlights and changes to the code. Mr. Lien said the matrix he presented at the Board's September 9fl'
meeting identifies the broad topics that are included in the Tree Code. Moving forward, he would rather focus on the actual
draft code language. Chair Robles suggested that the Board should review the draft code language and be prepared to start
discussions at their next meeting. Mr. Lien commented that the Board's October 28' meeting will include a public hearing
on the CFP and CIP, so their work on the Tree Code will be limited. However, their November meeting would focus solely
on the Tree Code. He noted that November I I' is Veteran's Day, so it is likely that the Board would need to hold a special
meeting on November 18'k'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 91h
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 157
7.A.e
Mr. Lien said the City Council is anxious to start their review of the Tree Code. The December 9' public hearing could be an
opportunity to solicit initial comments and ideas from the public, and the Board may want to have another hearing before
making a recommendation to the City Council in early 2021. Chair Robles said he anticipates a great deal of public
participation at the hearings, and he is concerned that there won't be enough time to disseminate the draft code to the public
prior to the hearing. He asked if staff anticipates a lot of opposition from the public. Mr. Lien said he tried to draft a
balanced Tree Code that implements the goals and policies in the UFMP. He was present at the public hearing for the
previous draft Tree Code and heard the comments and concerns that were presented by the public. He suggested that the first
public hearing in December could focus on the concepts in the Tree Code to make sure the Board is heading in the right
direction.
Board Member Cheung suggested that staff prepare a summary of the topics and potential changes that are discussed at each
of the Board's study sessions. This would provide helpful information for the public to review prior to the public hearings.
Given that the public hearings will be virtual, he suggested that publishing summaries of the proposed language and the
Board's discussions and soliciting written comments from the public before the hearings would be appropriate.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, suggested that the City publish articles in the local newspapers to introduce the UFMP goals and
polices and the long-term vision the Board will be working on. The next step could be to publish summaries of the Board's
discussions as they study the issue and prepare for the public hearing. This approach would essentially warm the community
up to the subject, with a big focus on the goals and objectives.
Chair Robles commented that having an adopted UFMP with clear goals and policies in place will be a significant benefit as
the process moves forward. All of the controversial issues that were raised regarding the previous draft Tree Code have been
settled by the UFMP. The only argument that remains is the issue of view versus forest. He supports Mr. Lien's
recommendation to break the discussion into sections. Mr. Lien agreed to meet with the Chair and Vice Chair to establish a
schedule for the upcoming discussions.
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the public hearing on the previous draft Tree Code was very productive.
The outpouring of concern was made very clear to the Planning Board. The community was listened to, and the Planning
Board learned a lot. The UFMP, which was eventually adopted by the City Council, took form from that engagement. Chair
Robles agreed that the UFMP was the correct outcome of the previous public process.
Mr. Lien noted that the UFMP was included in the Board's October 141h meeting packet and he doesn't plan to attach it to
future packets. The actual code language will be the focus of discussions going forward. Chair Robles encouraged the Board
Members to download the UFMP to their files for future reference as the process continues.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles reviewed that the extended agenda for the remainder of the year will focus on the Tree Code. However, a
public hearing on the draft CIP/CFP is scheduled for October 28th. The Board agreed to reschedule their November 11`h
meeting to November 18'.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Pence voiced concern with what happened with the Planning Board recommendations on the Comprehensive
Plan amendments related to properties on 9th Avenue North and in Perrinville. The Planning Board went through a thorough
process and made recommendations that were different from the staff recommendations, and he assumed that staff would
present the Planning Board's recommendations to the City Council. Subsequent to the staff's presentation to the City
Council, a letter to the editor was published in My Edmonds News on October 31 pertaining to the proposed amendments.
There were numerous comments, several of which took the City to task for only presenting the staff s recommendation to the
City Council. The Planning Board recommendations were downplayed or not discussed at all. He reviewed the agenda
c
0
:r
M
M
aM
d
d
0
c�
m
d
L
H
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 158
7.A.f
Board Member Monroe summarized that, as per staffs response, he shouldn't be concerned that the $17 million cost of the
project has been allocated to the stormwater fund. Staff will spread the cost out to include regional funding rather than relying
primarily on the stormwater rate payers to foot the bill. Mr. English clarified that it is not the intent that the project be funded
solely by the stormwater fund. While it is a stormwater project, the CFP notes there is unsecured revenue for the project. This
unsecured revenue will come from grant sources, and the project will be funded by multiple sources.
Board Member Rubenkonig concurred with Board Member Monroe's concern about adding burden to the stormwater fees that
the citizens of Edmonds pay for. Board Member Monroe is the point person on the Board when it comes to looking for budget y
items for capital projects. She hopes the City Council will consider his comments and particularly look at the burden that is c
being placed on the citizens via their stormwater management fees. She understands the staff s point of view, and she trusts
the City staff will continue to pursue grants. But Board Member Monroe's point is well taken and should be carefully 5
tM
considered. She recalled that the City Council has considered funding options for this project in years past, including whether
or not to float a bond issue.
d
Board Member Cheung asked staff to respond to the comment letter that was submitted by Mr. Phipps, a representative of Save U
Our Marsh. Mr. English said one of the suggestions was to move the project from the stormwater fund to the park funds. The
other comment was to stop work on the project until the ownership issue is resolved. He explained that the two projects
scheduled for 2021 are small, and there is no proposal to move the design forward in 2021 other than potentially looking at
another alternative alignment. There has been a lot of input from the community about the alternatives that have been Q-
considered in the past and that perhaps a hybrid alternative would be a better fit. Ms. Feser added that the Marina Beach Park x
and Daylighting of Willow Creek Projects support the marsh restoration project. It will definitely be beneficial for improving w
the water quality and restoring the ability for saltwater to come back into the marsh. She would hesitate to pause the project
when they are at 30% design and have secured a $500,000 grant with the possibility of another $500,000 grant. The Marina
Beach Project can progress independently of the marsh project. c
Vice Chair Rosen said his understanding is the original concept for the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor extended from Main Street
to 3rd Avenue. However, it now terminates at Daley Street. He asked why this was changed. He said he would prefer that the
corridor terminate at 3rd Avenue. Ms. Feser suggested there might be some misinformation. She believes the project will
extend to 3rd Avenue, but there was some conversation at the City Council level that it should go further. She agreed to provide
the Board with background information about the project by the end of the week.
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 CHEUNG SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Chair Robles commented that the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is brilliant in its ability to glean input from the
citizens, the limitations and constraints of staff, and where the City wants to go. It does exactly what the Board was hoping it
would, which is to provide guidance for the Tree Code. He said Mr. Lien did a great job synthesizing the information in the
UFMP into the draft Tree Code.
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 permitting process and penalties. The update also clarifies a number of definitions. 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. The draft regulations are
intended to accomplish this goal.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 159
7.A.f
Goal LB — Adopt a policy of o net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according
to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft regulations do not specifically adopt that policy,
but it was taken into consideration when they were written.
Goal 1. C — 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.
This goal specifically notes to include tree penalties in the code.
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been c
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. o
There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree M
fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). M
a�
d
Mr. Lien advised that there is some urgency associated with the Tree Code. A development moratorium for subdivisions and
short plats was proposed to be placed on the City Council's October 27t' agenda, but it was postponed to their first meeting in o
November. The proposal would place a moratorium on subdivisions until the Tree Code is done. He reviewed the schedule V
for the Board's work on the draft Tree Code, which will involve two work session on October 28t' and November 18t'', and a d
public hearing on December 9th. He is also scheduled to present the draft Tree code to the Tree Board the first week of H
November, and the City's Tree Team will continue to review the draft and provide input, as well.
• ECDC 23.10.000 — Intent and Purpose.
Mr. Lien explained that he reviewed tree codes from a number of jurisdictions and picked pieces of each one that he felt would
fit with the City of Edmonds and then tweaked them as needed. He noted that Items E and F in this section are in the current
tree regulations. He expressed his belief that the 9 items in the section outline the purpose and intent of the Tree Code and
match up with the goals in the UFMP. They focus on:
• Retaining trees with development, preserving the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate.
• Promoting site planning and building development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and
vegetation.
• Avoiding unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural environment.
• Providing landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas.
• Encouraging tree retention by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements.
• Retaining as many viable trees as possible.
• Mitigating 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 throughout the City.
• Implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Implementing the goals and objectives of the UFMP.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she will submit some edits to staff. In addition, she suggested that the term "aesthetic character
of the City," which is used in Item A, should be defined. She referred to the term, "realization of a reasonable enjoyment of
property," which is used in Item F. While this is likely a legal phrase that the City and developers would use to allow room for
flexibility, she felt it should be clarified.
Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to send their comments related to topographical errors to him so they can be incorporated
into future versions of the Tree Code. He said he would provide underline/strike out versions to illustrate where changes were
made.
Mr. Lien reminded them that the Intent and Purpose Section is intended to explain the philosophy behind the regulations and
the definition section primarily focuses on the regulated terms that are within the code. He suggested that it might be difficult
to define "aesthetic character of the City."
Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, because the intent of the Tree Code is to avoid loss of canopy and, in the best of all worlds,
the canopy would be enhanced, it would be appropriate to add "enhance" to the list provided in the opening sentence of ECDC
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 160
7.A.f
20.10.000. This would reinforce that the goal is more than just maintaining the current tree canopy. Also, because Item A
talks about the advantages of trees, it might be worth adding the words "biodiversity" and "environmental health" after the
word "safety."
Vice Chair Rosen asked where the draft provisions address trees that impact neighbors. If they are addressed, he suggested it
might be worthwhile to weave the concept into the Intent and Purpose Section, as well. He understands that view is an important
topic and a leading cause of many neighborhood conflicts. He also asked where this issue is addressed in the draft code. Mr.
Lien answered that none of the provisions in the draft code specifically address neighbor impact and views. These are private y
property issues that are difficult to regulate. Some people love trees, but others do not. Some people think trees block views, c
and others consider the trees to be the view. Regulating neighbor impact and views is not a role he would suggest the City be
involved in. Public views are mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Comprehensive Plan, but the City doesn't M
tM
have any regulations that specifically deal with views. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's position, but he
suggested that it might be worthwhile to find a place to state this position somewhere in the draft Tree Code.
Board Member Rubenkonig requested that a definition should be provided for "aesthetic consequences," which is used in Item U
G. She also suggested that Items H and I should be moved to the beginning of the list. She said she would prefer that
implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP are listed first.
Board Member Cheung suggested that Item E could be changed to also promote planting of new trees on developing sites. Mr.
Lien referred to Item G, which talks about mitigating the consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site
and off -site tree replacement to help achieve the goal of no net loss. Board Member Cheung said he is suggesting going beyond
tree replacement for trees that are removed by providing some incentive for developers to plant additional trees beyond what
is required.
Board Member Cloutier reminded them of the City's goals to reduce CO2 emissions and have all operations be carbon free.
While trees remove CO2, they could also hinder the City's goals. He referred to the concept of "solar easement" where a
property owner establishes a solar array and enters into an agreement with neighbors that their access to light will not be blocked
so they can continue to produce power. He asked if the draft Tree Code addresses this issue. Mr. Lien answered that it is not
addressed in the Tree Code or elsewhere in the ECDC. Board Member Cloutier referred to a concept the Board discussed
earlier that trees are good, but they must be planted in the right place. Mr. Lien said "right tree in the right place" is mentioned
in the UFMP, but not everything in the UFMP will be implemented via regulations. Some aspects of the plan will be addressed
via education and outreach. Board Member Cloutier concluded that it is important than none of the provisions in the draft Tree
Code hinder the ability to have solar easements, since this would interfere with the City's ability to generate power, etc.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that the draft provisions exempt a number of things, such as routine maintenance and the
removal of trees on unimproved single-family lots. He suggested that these issues should be addressed in the Intent and Purpose
Section. The more they can define the document in the opening statement, the better. Mr. Lien suggested that these issues are
addressed in Item F that speaks to the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property, which may require the removal of
certain trees and ground cover. The draft provisions do not prohibit tree cutting on private property, and a number of
exemptions are included. Again, Board Member Monroe suggested that this should be stated upfront in plain language.
• ECDC 23.10.020 — Definitions
Mr. Lien said it is important to make it clear when a tree is large enough to be subject to the Tree Code. As proposed:
A. Significant Tree. A "significant tree" is one that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at
4.5 feet from the ground.
K. Protected Tree. A "protected tree" is one that is identified for retention and protection on an approved tree
replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an
easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations.
M. Specimen Tree. A "specimen tree" is a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by
the City's Tree Protection Professional.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 161
7.A.f
Mr. Lien explained that, currently, the City defines "tree" as a "living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk
and many branches having a caliper of 6 inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown."
In this definition, the word "caliper" is used in the wrong place. The term is typical used to identify the diameter at breast
height (DBH). Currently, the new definition does not include the part about a multi -stemmed trunk system, but it is something
the City's Tree Team and Tree Protection Professional will work to include. The issue is about how big a tree must be before
it is regulated. Redmond might drop it down to 4 inches if it is determined to be a significant tree. Kirkland, Lynnwood and
Issaquah all start at 6 inches, but Issaquah bumps it up to 8 inches for Alder and Cottonwood trees. Lynnwood specifically
lists nonsignificant species that are not subject to their tree regulations. Shoreline has an 8-inch DBH requirement for conifers
and 12-inch for non -conifers. The 6-inch caliper at DBH is consistent with the City's current code and with what most other
jurisdictions do. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback about when a tree is significant enough to be subject to
the regulations.
Board Member Cheung asked if staff collect information from other Snohomish County cities such as Marysville and Everett.
Mr. Lien said Everett does not define a significant tree. Instead, they rely on the subdivision code. Snohomish County doesn't
define the term, either.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Lynnwood is a bit more progressive by providing a list of nonsignificant trees
that are exempted from their tree regulations. Her interpretation is that there would be no tree replacement requirement for the
nonsignificant trees that are removed. In effect, they are trying to get rid of them. Mr. Lien clarified that Lynnwood defines
nonsignificant trees that are unsuitable for urban or formal settings. Board Member Rubenkonig said it appears the intent is to
encourage the removal of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien said he placed Alder and Cottonwood trees lower on the priority list
of trees that should be retained. While they serve an ecological function, they probably are not desirable in residential settings.
Board Member Rubenkonig added that these trees are more suited to critical environment areas rather than residential yards.
Chair Robles asked why the code uses "diameter" instead of "circumference" to measure the size of a tree. Mr. Lien answered
that DBH is the standard way to measure.
Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate to provide definitions for "tree topping" and "tree pruning." These
distinctions could matter to some people. It would also make sense to provide a definition for "tree retention plan." Mr. Lien
responded that anything that is mentioned in the code in a regulatory sense should be defined. He agreed that these three
definitions should be added. He also invited the Board Members to identify additional terms that need to be defined.
• ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits.
Vice Chair Rosen referred to Item A and suggested the term "excessively prune" is too vague and subjective. Mr. Lien said
cities frequently reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when it comes to tree maintenance.
However, he agreed that a definition for "maintenance" needs to be added to ECDC 23.10.020, and maintenance does not
generally include topping.
• ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions
Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new
multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions
would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas).
B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.).
C. Routine maintenance. A definition is needed, as discussed earlier.
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 than one additional lot, except for that portion of the property containing a critical
area or its associated buffer. This is an exemption in the current code, as well.
E. Removal of nuisance and hazardous trees with supporting documentation. A permit would not be required but
documentation would be required. This exemption for nuisance trees is not in the current code, but staff is
recommending it be included.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 162
7.A.f
Board Member Monroe referred to Item A and suggested the phrase "any other means" should be changed to "this code." Mr.
Lien agreed to consider this change.
Chair Robles asked if the City has a map of its critical areas, and Mr. Lien referred to the City's website
(www.maps.edmondswa.gov) that provides a variety of information such as zoning, planning, locations of utilities, critical
areas, etc. However, he cautioned that the map does not show the exact location of all critical areas within the City. It provides
a rough idea of where the critical areas are, and when development is proposed in those areas, the City does a site visit to y
determine the exact location of the critical area. r_
0
:r
M
Board Member Cheung requested clarification of Item D. Mr. Lien explained that an erosion hazard (15% to 40% slope) is M
tM
considered a critical area. He used the 25% slope that is mentioned in the current tree code, since that is when slopes start to
get steep enough that the exemption would no longer be appropriate. The language is similar to a provision in the SMP.
Board Member Monroe suggested that the list in Item B should include WIFI. Mr. Lien suggested that WIFI would be covered 0
as a communication line. Board Member Monroe suggested they could keep the language vague to say that any franchise
utility could do what is necessary to maintain their facilities. They don't need to be listed out. Mr. Lien said he prefers to list
them. If they want to include maintenance for cell towers, the language could be changed from "communication lines" to
"communication facilities." Q-
Ms. Feser also referred to Item B and asked if it would be more appropriate to say "city -owned properties" instead of "city -
owned rights -of -way." This would make it clear that the exemption includes maintenance in parks, as well. Mr. Lien said the
exemption was written specifically for utility purposes and not necessarily a park exemption. However, a park exemption
could be added.
ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited.
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree removal would be prohibited for the following:
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 in
ECDC 23.10.040(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees). This is similar to a provision in the existing code.
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. Critical Areas. In critical areas, critical area buffers and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapter 23.40
Board Member Monroe referred to Item B and asked if using the term "prior to" would be difficult to enforce. It can mean
different things to different people. Mr. Lien reviewed that the current code states that, "There shall be no clearing a site for
the sake of preparing the site for sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pursuant to a clearing permit, which
has been approved by the City." He expressed his belief that the new language in Item D is intended to accomplish the same
thing, and he doesn't foresee an enforcement problem. He explained that the Tree Code is not intended to address forest
practice applications, which isn't something that typically occurs in Edmonds anyway. As proposed, the code would prohibit
someone from clearing a vacant property unless the trees were deemed hazardous or nuisances.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there is a minimum lot size requirement for tree harvesting permits from the State of
Washington. She pointed that developers can assemble properties to create larger areas for development and then take down
trees years before submitting a development proposal. She suggested that Item B be changed by replacing "vacant lot" with
"vacant parcel." If the parcel is of a certain size, it could require a state permit for harvesting timber. This would meet her
concern that clear cutting be addressed. Mr. Lien explained that Item B is intended to prevent vacant properties from being
clear cut, but he could look into including language specifically related to forest practices. He explained that the other sections
of the code provide definitions for both "lot" and "parcel," and they are used interchangeably throughout the code. The
definition could be added to this section of code, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said she tends to think of "parcel" when
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 163
7.A.f
she thinks of clear cutting because they are looking at creating lots out of the parcel. She would prefer the word "parcel,"
because it extends the image of what they are looking at. Because the two terms are interchangeable, the exception in Item B
could also apply to a lot. Mr. Lien said he prefers "lot" because "parcel" refers to a tax parcel. He advised that the County will
draw tax parcel lines anywhere, and it doesn't necessarily mean a developable lot.
Vice Chair Rosen referred to the last sentence in Item C, which states that replacement trees may be required. He commented
that when a very large tree is removed, the replacement tree does not contribute at the same level. If the overall objective is
to be neutral or even enhance the canopy, it is important to recognize there will be a gap. To address this gap, he suggested the
y
City create a tree credit program that requires applicants to close the gap by supporting the tree fund, which would be used to
c
replace the canopy in other ways. This concept could advance and fund the objective of making sure the canopy is maintained
and even enhanced. Mr. Lien said they will discuss this idea further when they talk about the proposed language related
S
specifically to tree replacement and a tree fund.
tM
Student Representative Bryan voiced concern with Item B. The idea of allowing the Director to decide what is reasonably
c
needed to conduct demolition activities allows too much wiggle room. He suggested that "Director" should be changed to
CU
"qualified arborist." Mr. Lien explained that the Director may require documentation from a certified arborist to justify the
removal, but it would still be the Director's responsibility to approve any tree removal associated with a demolition permit.
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it would be the Development Services Director, and not the developer, who would
make the decision as to what tree removal is reasonable needed. She suggested the language should be amended to provide
Q-
this clarification.
• ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity.
Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all new single-
family, short plats, subdivisions or multifamily developments. He noted that Item C requires that for new single family, short
plat or subdivision development, at least 30% of all significant trees on a developable site must be retained. "Developable site"
is defined and does not include such things as critical areas. This is consistent with a provision in the Critical Area Ordinance
that development in RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with steep slopes, streams or wetlands must have a 30% native
vegetation area. He reduced the number to 25% for multifamily development because it is a denser type of development.
Mr. Lien advised that, as per Item CA, if a certain retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant would be required to
pay a certain amount into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that,
in addition to requiring applicants to retain 30% of the significant trees on the developable site, the City should also require
applicants to pay a certain amount into the tree fund equal to 100% or even 110% of the total number of trees that were removed
from the site. The intent is to enhance the tree canopy. Board Member Monroe suggested they go even further and require a
2:1 replacement ratio.
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the 30% retention requirement is likely lower than what most other
jurisdictions require, and it sure doesn't help the City maintain its tree canopy. It equates to a 70% reduction in tree canopy.
She said she also believes the 1:1 replacement requirement is low compared to surrounding jurisdictions. This replacement
ratio won't help the City maintain its tree canopy, either.
Board Member Monroe said he can understand the intent of the 25% and 30% retention requirement because they need to allow
developers enough area to build projects. Requiring 100% retention would be unreasonable. However, developers should be
required to plant a certain number of trees elsewhere in the City for each significant tree that is removed. Vice Chair Rosen
said this would be consistent with his recommendation that developers be required to pay a certain amount into a tree fund for
each significant tree that is removed. This would give the power to the City to decide how to replenish the canopy. The
replacement requirement should be equal to the value of the significant trees that are removed. Ms. Feser reminded the Board
that the tree fund would be used to plant trees on City properties, primarily in the parks. She voiced concern about leaving it
up to a landowner to decide where and what types of tree would be planted. She would prefer that developers be required to
pay into a tree fund. That way, the City would have the ability to plant the right trees in the right places.
Board Member Monroe said he works for Sound Transit. For their projects in Federal Way and Kent, they have removed
15,000 to 20,000 trees and will be required to replant 45,000 more trees, and they are required to purchase property to plant the
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 14
Packet Pg. 164
7.A.f
trees on. They would prefer to pay into a fund, since that is the easiest solution. However, they have found ways to accomplish
the more stringent requirement. The City should ask no less of developers than is being asked of Sound Transit.
Board Member Rubenkonig said there are options for accomplishing a greater tree retention requirement than 1:1 while still
allowing for development. The best way to meet the requirement should be left to the person creating the landscape plan. If
the requirement is too onerous, a developer could approach the City with a request for mitigation. If mitigation cannot be
adequately addressed, and applicant could pay into tree fund. However, the tree fund should be the last option. Applicant's
should be encouraged to do what they can to replace the trees on -site. y
c
0
Board Member Rubenkonig said that cities often have a minimum height requirement for replacement trees, which results in
more mature trees. Vice Chair Rosen said he is concerned about the gap (value and loss) between a mature tree and an immature M
tM
replacement tree. The City's code should require applicants to cover this gap. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that
there are methods for getting more mature replacement trees, but the replacements would not be equal in value to larger
significant trees. She suggested the Board should look in-depth at how other cities regulate tree replacement. Again, she said c
allowing applicants to pay into a tree fund should be the last resort. Vice Chair Rosen commented that there needs to be a V
variety of options in the toolbox. The end goal should be to require developers to make the City whole when a significant tree
is taken down. This can be done via replacement and/or funding. The funding could be used to offer grants to residents to
encourage tree planting elsewhere.
a.1
Mr. Lien suggested that rather than the minimum tree retention requirement in the current draft, another option would be to
base the requirement on zone. A 30% requirement in an RS-6 zone could be very different than the same requirement in an
RS-20 zone.
Board Member Cheung suggested that if they make the requirement so onerous, developers will simply decide to pay into the
tree fund and build the cost into the price of the homes. This could have an impact on the cost of housing in the community.
Board Member Monroe agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that the preferred option would tree retention, followed by
planting replacement trees on site. The last option should be paying into a tree fund. Rather than putting all of the replacement
trees in parks, the trees should be replaced in zones that are similar to where trees were removed or at least equitably distributed
throughout the City.
Mr. Lien said the Tree Board has discussed taking a more global approach. If there isn't space to plant more trees in the parks
and open spaces, the City could partner with other organizations, such as the Mountain to Sound Greenway, to use the tree
funds to purchase additional open space in other areas. Also, he suggested that if the tree fund requires a high dollar value for
each tree that is removed, developers will be encouraged to consider options for either retaining more trees or planting the
replacement trees on site. However, at this time, he doesn't have a suggestion as to what the dollar value should be.
Board Member Monroe asked how the proposed 25% and 30% tree retention requirement compares to neighboring cities. Mr.
Lien said only one other jurisdiction he reviewed used a percentage requirement. However, he would conduct further research
and report back with additional information.
Board Member Cheung referred to Vice Chair Rosen's point that some trees are more valuable than others. There is nothing
in the 30% requirement that differentiates between the different sizes of significant trees. Mr. Lien reviewed that the tree
retention provisions are broken out based on priority. Priority trees to focus on for retention include specimen trees, significant
trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and
their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. The intent of prioritization is
to make sure developers try to save the more significant trees. Board Member Cheung asked if the priorities are
recommendations or if developers are required to follow the priorities. Mr. Lien said there is some flexibility. If the only 60-
foot tall tree happens to be right in the middle of the only buildable site on the lot, the City can't require a developer to retain
it.
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement.
Mr. Lien summarized that, as currently proposed, a developer would be required to retain at least 30% of the significant trees,
and replacement trees would be required for those that are removed at a ratio of 1:1. If the trees cannot be replaced on site, a
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 15
Packet Pg. 165
7.A.f
developer could pay a certain amount per tree into the tree fund. At the next meeting, staff will be prepared to have a discussion
with the Board about what the appropriate tree replacement might be. It could be based on tree size, requiring a higher
replacement ratio when larger trees are removed. He reminded the Board that the last time a draft Tree Code was presented
for public hearing, there was a lot of controversy regarding the idea of basing the replacement requirement on the type of zone
(density). He said he would research what other jurisdictions are doing in preparation for the Board's more in-depth discussion.
Board Member Rubenkonig thanked Mr. Lien for creating the topic matrix, which helped her organize her thoughts. She felt
it helps ensure the Board addresses all of the items. Mr. Lien encouraged the Board Members to submit their comments, y
suggestions and typographical corrections to him via email. c
.r
M
• ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility. a�
d
Mr. Lien explained shared an example of a subdivision to illustrate why trees are often clear cut. Although there might be a
d
number of substantial trees on the site, once all of the development standards (access requirements, utility easements, setbacks, c
etc.) were applied, only a few trees were left intact. The remaining trees might be exposed and spindly and not necessarily the V
trees that you want to retain. At the next meeting, the Board will discuss how to provide flexibility within Development Code
that allows houses to be grouped to one side a bit so more trees can be saved.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Q' L
d
c.i
Chair Robles announced that, due to Veteran's Day, the Board's November 11 th meeting was rescheduled to a special meeting w
on November 181. The agenda for that meeting will focus solely on the draft Tree Code. A public hearing on the draft Tree �
Code amendments is tentatively scheduled for December 913
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Pence observed that this has been a very different kind of year for the Planning Board. Due to the pandemic,
the Board missed a number of meetings prior to starting the Zoom format. The Chair and Vice Chair haven't had an opportunity
to put their stamp on the Board's activities like previous leaders have. It occurred to him that they should re-elected them both
for another year. Chair Robles said they have been able to put a pretty big stamp down, and he believes that Board Member
Rosen will carry forward quite effectively as the chair next year. Board Member Pence commented that he didn't mean to
diminish their efforts, just note that they could have shined even brighter with a regular routine.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 16
Packet Pg. 166
7.A.g
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 18tk'. 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. c
0
:r
AUDIENCE COMMENTS M
M
an
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, V
current residents stay, and visitors spend money in the City. Adding verbiage in the Tree Code to protect water views is m
important because trees have the potential to block those cherished views. She is hoping the City can work with the citizens L
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 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 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 with the community on the best way to maintain that piece of the City as it continues to thrive and grow. Board
Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. West is suggesting that the City consider options for protecting private views.
Mr. Chave suggested the Board consider this request as they review the draft Tree Code later on the agenda.
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.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
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. 167
7.A.g
• 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.
• Goal 1. C — 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 28t''. Following tonight's work, the
Board will continue its discussion at a special meeting on November 18t''. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is
tentatively scheduled for December 91. He advised that the draft proposal will be updated to incorporate the Planning
Board's feedback following the special meeting on November 181.
• 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
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 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 he sent to the Board prior to the meeting, outlining the results of his research that focused specifically on
what other jurisdictions require for tree retention with development. Some of the jurisdictions have general density
requirements, which isn't something 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
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 168
7.A.g
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.
Mr. Lien commented that, while Medina's dollar values might be too much, he likes the way their program is structured. c
He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board discussed that larger trees should be valued greater than small trees. He
0
:r
suggested that Edmonds could consider a similar approach, but lower the dollar value. Chair Robles agreed that
a
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.
0
Board Member Rubenkonig said the principle found in Issaquah's code stands out to her as a clear approach. It requires
a)
L
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
a
examples to be as clear. Mr. Lien noted that Shoreline also requires replacement if the retention standard is not met.
`m
The current proposal simply requires a 1:1 replacement, but it could be changed to incorporate this concept.
k
w
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
M
Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be an acceptable approach, but she still wants language that makes the intended
principle clear.
M
0
M
Board Member Monroe asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting the best thing to do is retain the existing trees,
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
c
Rubenkonig agreed that the best approach is to require tree retention as a first priority. Board Member Monroe agreed,
g
as well. He said replacement should be an option, but it should be the second choice. Replacement should be more
a
difficult than retention, and it should be more costly still to pay an in -lieu fee. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that
N
the first option should be retention, followed by replacement, recognizing there is a lot of innovation available when it
N
comes to planting trees. She also supports having a tree bank or fee -in -lieu program in place.
c�P
T
Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the Board's direction, the tree retention should remain at 30% and 25%, and
L
M
replacement would be required if the retention requirement is not met. He will consider options for what the appropriate
E
replacement ratio should be. As the tree gets larger, the replacement ratio should increase, too. The Board indicated
o
support for these changes.
z
Chair Robles suggested they consider the scenario of a tree that is blocking the view of the sound. If the tree is cut
r�
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
z
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
Q
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
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 169
7.A.g
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.
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
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 development that tied into a regional stormwater system. The water flowed a certain way, and the individual
yards were designed to assist with the flow. However, the homeowners landscaped their yards in a way that interfered
with the programmed flow. She summarized that, oftentimes, plans look good on paper, but they need to consider what
the City needs to do to make sure that the plans are maintained and enforced.
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.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 170
7.A.g
• 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 all proposed improvements, the accurate location of significant trees, and the location of tree
c
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
M
must be identified, as well as the proposed locations of any supplemental replacement trees as needed.
'a�
d
Board Member Rubenkonig said it isn't clear as to which professionals can do each part of the Tree Retention Plan. Mr.
-a)
Lien responded that, as proposed, a qualified tree professional may be required to prepare certain components of the tree
V
plan. For example, an arborist will need to make a determination on the health of the trees, but a surveyor will identify
m
the location of trees. Like with all development applications, a team of consultants will put together the plan. Board
L
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. a
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, 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 that the proposed language is not intended to be a tree plan. Instead, it provides regulations
that deal with trees that are associated with development. The Urban Forest Management Plan is a tree plan that talks
about canopy assessment, coverage, tree inventories, etc. However, this information is outside of the tree code, itself.
Mr. Lien advised that the tree retention plan must also include an arborist report that provides a complete description of
each tree's health, condition and viability, a description of the methods used to determine the limits of disturbance, etc.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that some trees may not be viable for retention because they are in the way of the
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
Monroe voiced concern that, as proposed, an applicant would be required to provide an arborist report to support this
claim. He suggested that staff review the language and decide if clarification is needed.
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.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 171
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 9'. He reminded them that they
will also need to elect new officers for 2021 at their December 9' meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
0
:r
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. M
a�
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
d
Board Member Crank announced that she was elected to serve as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission, just V
in time for the big project the Commission has been assigned, which is the Airport Master Plan. Landrum & Brown has been m
hired as the consultant for this project, and a special virtual meeting is scheduled for November 19' at 6 p.m. She invited L
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. 172
7.A.h
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
November 18, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Barbara Chase, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Tree Board, and was present to follow the Board's work on the Tree
Code.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he is also a member of the Tree Board. He said he submitted written comments to the Board just
prior to the meeting regarding the Tree Code Regulations. Vice Chair Rosen confirmed that the Board received the letter.
The Board confirmed that they also received a letter from Duane Farman regarding the Tree Code Regulations.
Packet Pg. 173
7.A.h
Vice Chair Rosen asked staff to respond to the question that was posed by Board Member Pence about why the Planning Board
did not review the street vacation application that was recently approved by the City Council, even though it involved trees.
Mr. Chave explained that street map amendments are a Planning Board legislative recommendation to the City Council, but
street vacations are decided only by the City Council, without Planning Board involvement. Occasionally, a street map
amendment is also a street vacation. In these situations, the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a
recommendation to the City Council on the street map amendment, but it still does not make a recommendation on the street
vacation application, itself.
Board Member Pence asked how they could change the code to include the Planning Board in street vacation applications. N
This seems equally as important as some of the other issues the Board deals with, including the street map changes. Mr. Chave c
explained that the street map is a planning document, and street vacations are technical documents dealing with public works
and rights -of -way. Street vacations are covered in Title 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), and the City Council
has never chosen to have these standards come under the purview of the Planning Board.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
0
V
Chair Robles referred to the Staff Report, which notes a number of goals and actions in the Urban Forest Management Plan a)
(UFMP) related to tree retention. He asked that Mr. Lien identify when a proposed Tree Code amendment meets one or more
of those goals. Mr. Lien agreed to circle back to the UFMP goals and actions as part of his presentation.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board and members of the public that the City has created a website for the Tree Code update
(www.treecode.edmonds.wa.gov) that provides links to all of the Planning Board's agendas, videos and minutes. It also
provides a link to the latest version of the draft Tree Code.
Mr. Lien reported that written comments been received since the last Planning Board meeting on November 12t1' were included
in the Planning Board's packets. Those that were received today will be included in the next Planning Board packet. All of
the written comments will be attached to the packet that is prepared for the Public Hearing on December 9'
Mr. Lien advised that the official notice for the December 9' public hearing will be published on the website. The hearing will
also be published in THE EVERETT HERALD and posted at the Public Safety Building, City Hall, and the Library. In addition,
he will write a press release prior to the public hearing. To raise awareness of the Tree Code update, staff presented the concepts
table at a City Council meeting that was broadcast on the local television. Staff also issued a press release for the new website
that was published in My Edmonds News and announced on the City's website. The Tree Code update has been mentioned
twice in the City's news bulletin that goes out every other week, as well. He acknowledged that public involvement has been
more difficult due to the pandemic, and the City has had to rely on technology to allow people to participate. In addition to
participating via Zoom, citizens can use their phones to listen to and speak at the meetings. He summarized that staff is doing
the best it can with technology given the current situation.
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 1— Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage.
• 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. The draft code currently
before the Board addresses all of these topics.
• 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. The draft code does not adopt this policy. However, the
Planning Board recommended that language should be added to the "Purpose" section. This additional language will
be inserted prior to the public hearing.
• Goal 1.C—Ensureprotection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The Tree Code does not explicitly
accomplish this goal. However, the City's Critical Area Code, which is referenced in a number of places throughout
the draft Tree Code, addresses this goal.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 174
7.A.h
• Goal 1.D — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs. The Board will be reviewing the draft language
related to the tree fund during their upcoming discussion.
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).
• ECDC 23.10.070 — Tree Protection Measures During Development
0
Mr. Lien explained that this section outlines the requirements for protecting the trees that have been identified for retention.
0
As proposed, prior to initiating development activity or tree removal on a site, trees to be preserved must be protected from
potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards:
d
A. Placing materials near trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree V
designated to remain, including parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building materials, and dumping d
concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to a tree that is
designated for protection.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City would address violations to this standard. Mr. Lien said that,
rather than fines, violations would be picked up during inspection and developers would be required to comply.
He reminded them that a pre -application meeting with the developer would be required as part of the Tree
Retention Plan process. At that meeting, staff would review the proposal to ensure that the tree protection
measures are in place before any construction activity begins on the site. Board Member Rubenkonig said she
was particularly concerned about the last sentence. For example, would attaching a chain to a protected tree result
in a violation. Mr. Lien said the language is more about ensuring compliance with development.
B. Protective barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling, or any land alteration, applicants must:
1. Erect and maintain temporary protective fencing (6-foot, chain -link) along the limits of the disturbance.
2. Install highly -visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence.
The signs must be approved by the Director and state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area,
Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violators. If a
protected tree is damaged to the extent that a tree dies, replacement would be required.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers.
However, the Director may allow activities that are approved and supervised by a qualified professional
who is retained and paid for by the applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the Director authorizes
removal.
5. Ensure any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers
is accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. 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 the depth of at least 6 inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar
materials to protect the roots and soil from damage.
7. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot deep trench at the edge of the critical root zone to
cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred the roots with heavy equipment.
8. Do corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building
activity.
9. Maintain trees throughout construction by watering and fertilizing.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that, as proposed, developers would be fined or required to replace any protected
trees that don't survive. He questioned if this section is overly prescriptive. Couldn't they just require a Tree Retention
Plan. If it doesn't work, regardless of the reason why, the developer would be required to remedy the situation. What
if someone follows all of the prescribed steps and the tree still dies? Mr. Lien recommended that the code should be
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 175
7.A.h
prescriptive as far as tree protection measures. He explained that sometimes things happen and trees are damaged
during development. When this occurs, developers who haven't met the retention requirement would have to replace
the tree. Board Member Monroe agreed that the requirements should be prescriptive, but language should make it
clear that tree retention would be measured at the end of the project and not during the project. Mr. Lien agreed to
adjust the language in ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Requirements) to make this clear.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if a new tree fails, nurseries will often replace them. She also
commented that the proposed language in this section appears very similar to what is required in other jurisdictions
her company has worked in.
N
c
C. Grade. This section deals with grading that might occur around a protected tree. As proposed:
1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of a protected tree without the
Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The Director may
m
allow coverage of up to '/z inch of the critical root zone with light soils to the minimum depth necessary
to carry out grading or landscaping plans if it will not imperil the trees survival. "Critical root zone" is
defined as the area surrounding the tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to 1 foot for every
0
inch of trunk diameter.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode the tree's critical root
zone, it must be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained
d
without the Director's authorization. The Director may require construction methods and/or use of
aeration devices to ensure a tree's survival and minimize potential root -induced damage.
4. To the greatest extent possible, utility trenches must be located outside of the critical root zone of
13
protected trees. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained
M
if the trenching would significantly reduce the chances of a tree's survival.
CO
5. 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
where feasible.
a-
D. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage of trees designated for retention.
E. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forest
industry practices.
Board Member Monroe asked if Item C.1 is intended to limit the power of the Director. If a better opportunity presents
itself, and a qualified professional supports it, the Director should be allowed to approve it. Mr. Lien answered that a
balancing act is required when determining the level of flexibility that should be allowed. The goal was to be
consistent with the intent of the code, which isn't always black and white when it comes to flexibility.
Board Member Monroe suggested that Item C.2 should be amended to clarify who would determine if a rootzone has
been permanently stabilized, such as a qualified professional. He also suggested that the last sentence in Item C.5
should be replaced with a reference to the City's existing erosion control standards. Sometimes shrubs, ground cover
and stumps are not the best way to control erosion. Mr. Lien said the existing erosion control standards typically
address temporary stormwater situations, and Item C.2 is intended to be more long-term. If you don't have to disturb
the shrubs and ground cover, they should be maintained to help prevent future erosion. Erosion control wouldn't be
needed if the shrubs and ground cover are left intact.
Board Member Monroe asked if it would make sense to add some examples to Item E. As written, applicants are left
to guess what the Director might give them latitude to do. Mr. Lien responded that this provision was intended to be
general because it isn't possible to consider all of the site -specific options. Board Member Monroe asked if it would
be possible to cite a specific urban forest industry practices document. He is concerned that applicants will present
crazy ideas that the Director will have to study and make a decision on. Mr. Lien explained that if the City doesn't
have the expertise to evaluate an applicant's idea, it would be sent out for peer review. The Director will consult with
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 176
7.A.h
the City's arborist, as well. Mr. Chave suggested they could add language in this provision that requires the approval
of the City's arborist. Mr. Lien cautioned against this since the arborist's current job description does not include
project review.
Chair Robles commented that anyone who is developing land with any kind of complexity would be wise to hire their
own consultant. He asked if the City would provide a checklist of things a consultant should review when advising
an applicant. Mr. Lien said the required Tree Plan, which must be prepared by a qualified professional and arborist,
would cover all of the items that must be included in a development application. Item C is intended to outline the
actual implementation of the Tree Plan.
• ECDC 23.10.090 — Bonding.
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City currently requires bonding for development that requires native vegetation or landscape
plans, and they are typically done before the City issues final approval on a project. However, the City also requires 2-year
maintenance bonds, which are 15% of the bond amount. At the end of 2 years, the City does an inspection and the bond
won't be released until any vegetation that didn't survive is replanted. The proposed language was copied from the
landscape chapter of the code.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item C, noting that there is no mention of a 2-year timeframe for the maintenance
bond. She reviewed that the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy happens before the trees have really established
themselves. Mr. Lien agreed to adjust the language to add the 2-year timeframe.
• ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits.
Mr. Lien recalled that when the last Tree Code update was presented to the Board, the permit requirement drew a lot of
attention. The existing code has two types of tree -cutting permits. For single-family properties that do not fall under the
exemptions, tree cutting requires a Type II Permit, which is a staff decision with notice. The application fee is $1,000 for
every tree that is cut down, and permits take about 2 to 3 months to process. For multifamily properties, tree cutting
requires a Type I Permit, which is also a staff decision with no notice. The application fee is $305 for every tree that is
cut down. These permits are reviewed to make sure that the proposed tree removal is consistent with the landscape plan
that was approved for the development.
Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same
permit process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial
and multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040
would be processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would
be a procedural exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use
approval to be reviewed with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit.
Although not included in the proposed draft, Mr. Lien said some people have suggested, and other cities have implemented,
a requirement that private property owners must seek permission to cut down a tree. If the goal is to track tree removal
across the City as a basis for measuring the no -net -loss requirement, there must be a way to track trees that are cut down.
Some jurisdictions allow a certain number of trees to be removed in a given time period. No permit is required, but
documentation must be submitted. This would be similar to how the City addresses hazardous trees; no permit is required,
but documentation is. Staff has voiced concern that it would require additional staff time to review and track each
application, and they question what benefit would be gained other than giving people pause when considering tree removal.
Chair Robles said this potential provision would be a way to regulate tree cutting on private properties. Mr. Lien explained
that the Tree Code would generally apply to new development activity: short subdivision applications, subdivision
applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code,
some exemptions would apply. For the Commission's information, he briefly reviewed the exemptions found in ECDC
23.10.040. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas).
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 177
B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). (Note: The
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director has also requested an exemption for tree maintenance in parks)
C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain health of cultivated plants and to contain noxious weeks,
remedy potential fire hazards and other threats and 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 than one additional lot, except that portion of the lot contained in the critical area
or associated buffer and excepting erosion hazards on slopes less than 25%. (Note: Based on the recent
moratorium on subdivisions, staff is suggesting that the phrase, "which is capable of being divided into not more
than one additional lot" should be deleted. Otherwise, the exemption would allow someone to cut down trees
before applying for a subdivision.)
E. Nuisance and hazardous trees that do not meet the above exemptions may be removed with supporting
documentation.
Mr. Lien also reviewed ECDC 23.10.050, which identifies tree removal that is prohibited:
A. Protected Trees: Protected trees cannot be removed unless they are determined to be hazardous.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited unless they are
determined to be hazardous.
C. Demolition: Tree removal as part of a permitted demolition is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct
demolition activities subject to approval of the Director.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that Exemption D will be what private, single-family property owners will be most
interested in. He suggested that this exemption should be moved to the top of the list. Chair Robles agreed that the
exemption should be at the top of the list and clearly visible to members of the public who attend and comment at the
public hearing. Board Member Monroe also suggested that language be added to the "Intent and Purpose" section to make
it even clearer that it is not the City's intent to control private property owners' ability to maintain their trees.
Board Member Monroe asked if the City tracks the planting of trees. Mr. Lien answered only those that are required as
part of development. The City doesn't keep a running log of how many trees are planted with development, as this would
require a lot of staff time. Board Member Monroe said he understands the purpose of requiring private property owners
to register their tree removals with the City and limit the number of trees that can be removed per year. But if the City
isn't tracking the number of trees that are replanted, the information would be incomplete and not provide an accurate
indication of the number of trees in the City.
For future regulations addressing existing residential lots, Board Member Rubenkonig advised similar parallel language
to the single-family/multifamily approach in the draft Tree Code. With that approach in mind, she said she favors starting
with a tree credit balance and an arborist tree survey. This would be similar to the City of Kirkland's tree credit system,
without the density requirement. This approach would reinforce the main underlying objective of retention. Many
homeowners have maintained a healthy tree canopy, and this benefit to Edmonds needs to be rewarded and incentivized
for others to do the same. Property owners who have a tree credit balance would not have to pay for a tree permit because
they already have as many trees as they need to provide on their property. She summarized that she would like the City to
implement a system that rewards those homeowners who have planted trees and incentivize others to continue to plant
more trees. The goal is to increase the tree canopy. Chair Robles added that property owners should also be rewarded for
leaving existing trees in place. He said there have been some suggestions of managing this type of program by using
certain newer technologies. While they can't get to that point with the current proposal, the idea of a credit system sounds
promising. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions accept satellite images of tree canopy to establish
the tree coverage on a single lot. While the technology is certainly available, she said she can't speak to the amount of
staff time that would be required to administer the program.
Mr. Lien said the program described by Board Member Rubenkonig would be a type of density requirement for all
properties in the City. If the City establishes a density requirement, it would also need to create a program to review all
tree removal within the City. He recalled that the previous draft Tree Code included a density requirement, as well as a
review for any tree removal. Even if the permit was free, a property owner would have to submit a site plan for staffs
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 178
7.A.h
review. Staff would then determine if the application would meet the density requirement. If not, replacement trees would
be required. He reminded them that this approach created a lot of community concern. Rather than the term "density
requirement," Board Member Rubenkonig said she would prefer to use the phrase "benchmark figure for retention of
mature trees on a lot." She doesn't want to go as far as the City of Kirkland has, but she would like to consider a tree credit
program for residential sites. This would affirm the City's goal of tree retention and increasing the tree canopy.
Mr. Lien said the proposed Tree Code includes a tree retention requirement associated with new development, but it would
not apply outside of the development review process. Whatever the concept is called, it has not been proposed to apply
citywide. If it was, the permit process would need to be expanded to include all tree removal.
• ECDC 23.10.110 —Liability.
Mr. Lien said this section makes it clear that property owners would still be liable for any adverse impacts, damages or
injury resulting from work performed with any permit issued by the City. There is similar language on nearly all of the
City's permit applications that indemnify the City. It makes it clear the property owners assume any liability associated
with the permit.
• ECDC 23.10.100 — Violations.
Mr. Lien explained that, in the existing code, violations are split up based on tree diameter. Trees that are 1 to 3 inches in
diameter can be fined $1,000 to $3,000 per tree, depending on whether it is within a right-of-way or critical area. Trees
that are greater than 3 inches in diameter can be fined $3,000 to $9,000 per tree. The proposed code has multiple ways to
assess the fine. He specifically reviewed the following sections:
A. Penalties.
1. Aiding and Abetting. Not only would property owners be responsible if a tree is cut in violation, but
the company that does the tree cutting would also be held responsible.
2. Civil Penalties. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following:
a. An amount reasonable determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the
City to investigate and administer the infraction.
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (measured by the greater of
the resulting increase in market value of the property, etc.). This provision addresses situations
like the Point Edwards clear cut of the slopes prior to development.
c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal using the trunk
formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. This is similar to a
house appraisal. A tree has a value based on where it is, how important it is to the neighborhood,
etc. Rather than having a fixed fee for larger trees, the proposed code would require a tree
appraisal to establish the fine.
d. For smaller trees (less than 12-inches in diameter), the penalty would be $1,500 per tree.
e. Tree topping is considered an illegal tree cutting. Particularly for tall Douglas Firs and Cedars,
it can do significant damage to a tree and can create a hazardous situation. If an illegal tree
topping has occurred, the property owners will be required to have a certified arborist develop
and implement a 5-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree
replacement.
f. Penalties will be paid into the City's tree fund.
Board Member Monroe asked if "illegal tree topping" is defined in the code. Mr. Lien responded that if a permit would
have otherwise been required to cut a tree, topping the tree would be considered illegal. He said he could add a definition
or "tree topping." He explained that topping trees that are exempt from the Tree Code would not be considered illegal, but
it still wouldn't be considered good practice.
Student Representative Bryan asked who would be responsible for actually doing the pruning labor for the next five years.
Mr. Lien answered that the property owner would have this responsibility. Student Representative Bryan asked what
penalties would be applied if the 5-year pruning schedule is ignored. Mr. Lien said that, similar to critical area mitigation
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 179
7.A.h
plans, the City could require monitoring reports throughout the 5-year period. However, he is concerned about how the
City would inspect the tree each year to ensure that proper pruning has been done. Because of safety and liability issues,
it would behoove a property owner to comply.
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that failure to enforce tree plans and landscape plans after the 2-year
performance bond is released is a chronic issue in most all jurisdictions. There isn't enough staff to accomplish this task,
so most cities rely on citizen complaints to address these situations. She would prefer an approach that requires monitoring
reports, which would at least require some accountability. Mr. Lien questioned where the tickler would be put in the City
system to make sure a monitoring report is submitted every 5 years.
N
c
Board Member Crank pointed out that the draft Tree Code is being created as if the pandemic doesn't exist and everything
is normal. That isn't the case, and they don't know when things will get back to normal. She asked if qualifying language
would be provided at the beginning of the Tree Code to recognize that some of the timelines and penalties might need to
be softer if the pandemic is still a reality in two years. If that is the case, it may not be possible to comply with some of
the code requirements, such as regular monitoring. At this time, they don't know how the pandemic will alter timelines
going forward. Mr. Lien explained that an emergency proclamation related to the pandemic was issued by Mayor Nelson.
C
V
It acknowledges the extraordinary times and gives the Director flexibility to not apply the strict standards of the code that
a)
would otherwise be required. He cautioned against including a disclaimer in the ordinance stating that the code was
developed under the pandemic and may be reviewed again in a few years. Board Member Crank said she is not suggesting
a disclaimer or that the code should be reviewed again in two years, but the language should at least recognize that there
d
may need to be some flexibility due to the pandemic.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her focus has been on the fact that most of the work related to trees is done outdoors, and
most of the plans can be submitted electronically. There hasn't been a big shift in terms of how the work is being done,
unless Governor Inslee shuts down any type of outside work. If that happens, it would be a temporary measure. While
she agreed the City needs to be mindful that the process could be compromised due to the pandemic, she is comfortable
with the fact that the Mayor has issued an emergency ordinance that allows flexibility as appropriate.
Board Member Cheung commented that as Item C.1 currently reads, both the homeowner and the person cutting the tree
could be fined separately for each violation. Mr. Lien clarified that the fine would be established per code and split between
the responsible parties. Board Member Cheung suggested the language needs to be clarified. He also questioned why the
person cutting down the tree would be responsible if it is done at the homeowner's insistence. Mr. Lien said that, for the
most part, the work is done by tree -removal companies, and they typically contact the City prior to removing a tree to find
out whether or not a permit is required. Some companies are more scrupulous than others, and if one company declines
to cut down the tree without a permit, a property owner can usually find another that will. For that reason, he felt that both
parties should be held responsible. Mr. Chave said it is important to also have the party that cuts the trees down potentially
liable because it is in their interest to make sure they understand and follow the rules.
Board Member Cheung asked if a handyman or friend (not a tree removal company) would be held liable if he/she was
hired to cut down a tree and the property owner fails to obtain the proper permit. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as written, the
provision doesn't say who would be responsible to pay the penalty, but the notice of violation and penalty would be
addressed to both parties and there would only be one fine. It would be up to the two parties to figure out how the penalty
would be paid.
Board Member Pence said that, if he were offering advice to a tree removal company, he would suggest they include in
their agreement with clients that they assume responsibility for any permits that are required. Then it would become a
legal issue between the tree removal company and the homeowner, with the tree removal company trying to push the
liability onto the homeowner. Chair Robles said that, if he were to hire a tree consultant, he would want to know the best,
safest and legal way to cut down the tree. He felt the onus should be on the tree removal company to understand the laws
where they operate.
Board Member Monroe asked how the triple damages called for under civil penalties would be applied. Mr. Lien said
that, as per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.12, which is referenced in Item C.2, trespassing onto someone else's
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 180
7.A.h
property could result in triple damages. That means the damages could be triple if trespassing occurs in any of the situations
listed.
Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a bad situation that occurred on her first day on the job in Maryland.
After she parked her car, she approached a man who was cutting down trees in the parking lot, asking if her car would be
safe. She was informed that it would. However, later in the day she learned that a tree was dropped next to her car and
had bounced up and landed on her car. The person cutting the tree was neither bonded nor licensed, and getting the
corporation that hired him to cut the trees to pay for the damage to her car was very difficult. Not only did the person
cutting the trees lie to her by saying her car was safe, he didn't take responsibility when the accident occurred, and neither N
did the corporation. She doesn't want Edmonds residents to encounter a similar situation. o
Board Member Rubenkonig also shared an example of a sad situation. Although the people in her neighborhood once
prized trees, that is no longer the case for some. Recently, she was awakened to the sound of tree cutting. The hired tree
service was going over a fence to cut back the limbs of a tree on a neighboring property right at the trunk. She approached
him and informed him that what he was doing was illegal. She asked him to halt the cutting, but he refused and advised
her to take up the issue with the property owner. He said he assumed the property owner had contacted the neighbors, but C
V
she had not. When she called the City, she was told that because the tree service didn't operate in the City more than a a)
certain number of times per year, it was not subject to the City's licensing requirements. She concluded that this is a
troublesome area of enforcement concerning tree cutting, and it needs to be given quite a bit of attention.
Mr. Lien responded that both of these situations would be civil matters. A business license is required of anyone doing
business in the Edmonds, regardless of how much. Board Member Rubenkonig again said she was advised by the Planning
Division staff that the tree service was below the threshold of having to be licensed and was, therefore, not subject to the
City's purview. Mr. Lien said that, regardless of whether or not the tree service was licensed, the City responds when
illegal tree cutting occurs. Whether or not the person doing the cutting is licensed and bonded is outside of the Planning
Division's purview. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is a troublesome area, for her and for others,
and having good relations with neighbors concerning their priority of retaining trees is important. Whatever they can do
to address this, she welcomes further language that can help homeowners who are in such situations.
• ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund
Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received
under the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area)
would also go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council.
There was a request that Item D in ECDC 3.95.020 (sale of seedlings by the City) be removed. As proposed, the funds
could be used:
1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees. However, the vouchers cannot be used to
purchase trees required as part of a development or for replacement under the conditions of a violation. There
have been some questions about how the City would run the voucher program. It could be spelled out in this Tree
Code, or it could be addressed as a policy after the Tree Code is adopted. He expects the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department would be responsible for the voucher program.
2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional.
3. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City.
4. To purchase supplies and materials for the City's observance of Arbor Day.
5. For other purposes relating to trees as determined by the City.
Mr. Lien said it has been suggested that additional items be added to this list: paying for services that support urban forest
management and health and as specified for any grant -funded projects.
Vice Chair Rosen suggested that Item 4 be changed to a broader definition of educational purposes. This would give the City
more leeway to do things that may or may not include Arbor Day observance or purchasing supplies. He assumes the intent is
education. Mr. Lien agreed to add "or other educational purposes."
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 181
7.A.h
• ECDC 23.10.XXX — Tree Replacement
Mr. Lien said he has heard the comment that planting a small tree will not replace a large tree that is cut down, and he
agreed that it takes time for a tree to grow. However, professional arborists, wetland specialists and biologists who do
mitigation plans say that larger trees do not establish as well as smaller trees. Professionals have explained that if you
plant a 1-inch caliper deciduous trees, its roots establish faster and it grows faster than a larger tree would. The requirement
of 2.5-inch caliper deciduous trees and 6-foot-tall evergreens is pretty standard and consistent with other areas of the City's
code. Vice Chair Rosen acknowledged that smaller trees establish better and grow faster than larger trees. However, if
the City's goal is to be made whole, they must make up this gap through money.
Board Member Monroe suggested the City could require a 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratio. Mr. Lien recalled that the Planning
Board discussed this and provided direction regarding the replacement ratio at their last meeting. The updated version for
the public hearing will require a greater replacement ratio for large trees. He is thinking of using the City of Shoreline's
model, which starts at 1:1 for the smaller trees (6 to 8 inches). For every 3-inch increase in diameter, the replacement ratio
would increase by one. Shoreline tops out at 3 replacement trees for the larger trees.
Board Member Monroe requested more information about how the Tree Code would be applied. Mr. Lien responded that
for short subdivisions, subdivisions, new multifamily, new single-family on vacant lots, or development that doesn't fall
underneath any of the exemptions, applicants would be required to retain 30% of all significant trees on the site. The
decision regarding which trees to retain would be based on the priorities outlined in the code:
1. Specimen trees, significant trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%,
significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or
greater than 18 inches in DBH.
2. Healthy tree groupings associated with undergrowth, trees that have a screening function and other significant
native and non-native evergreen and deciduous trees.
3. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are able to
be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetland or creek buffers.
Mr. Lien explained that, as currently drafted, tree replacement would be required for every tree that is cut. However, at
their last meeting, the Planning Board indicated support for only requiring replacement for trees that are removed beyond
the retention standard. He explained that, if there is a cost associated with tree removal, developers will make every effort
to retain as many trees as possible. One approach could be to require developers to replace all trees that are taken down,
regardless of the tree retention requirement, to meet the no -net -loss goal. The replacement ratio would be based on the
size of the trees that are cut down. If there isn't room on the site to plant that many trees, developers could pay into the
Tree Fund for each tree that cannot be planted on the site. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at their last meeting, the
Board indicated support for a 3-step process: 1) retain; 2) if you can't retain, replace; 3) if you can't replace, you have to
pay.
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that, by allowing flexibility in development design, retention becomes
more possible and the City can secure a higher retention rate. Mr. Lien agreed that is the intent of the design flexibility
provision for subdivisions.
Mr. Lien said he will rewrite ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity) to reiterate the
Planning Board's direction. He summarized that the basic retention requirement would be the minimum. Replacement
trees would be required to meet the 30% retention requirement, and the replacement ratio would be based on the size of
the trees that are removed. If you the required replacement trees cannot be planted on site, applicants would be required
to pay into the tree fund. Board Member Rubenkonig reiterated that the 30% retention requirement is comparable to what
other jurisdictions in the area already require.
Chair Robles voiced concern that, as proposed, a person who has 25 legacy trees on his/her property and wants to cut down
an 8-inch plum tree that is clogging gutters would be required to replace the plum tree at the same ratio as someone who
is cutting down the last tree on his/her property. He suggested that the replacement requirement should take into
consideration the number of trees a property owner is actively cultivating on site. Mr. Lien emphasized that the retention
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 182
7.A.h
requirement would only apply to new development or properties that do not fall under the exemptions. Existing single-
family property owners would not be required to obtain a permit to cut down a tree.
Chair Robles said he understands this distinction, but he suspects that people who are seeking to protect the tree canopy
will be concerned that the Tree Code would not apply to existing developed single-family lots where 93% of the City's
tree canopy is located. Mr. Lien agreed that some people will be unhappy. However, his charge, when drafting the Tree
Code, was to address the largest complaint, which is clear cutting sites with development. The way the code is currently
drafted, the exemptions, including single-family development, would still apply. The City could require a permit and limit
tree removal on single-family properties to a certain number during a 3-year period. However, this approach would likely
receive a lot of pushback from the community.
N
c
Board Member Cheung clarified that, as proposed, a homeowner is allowed to cut down an unlimited number of
nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien agreed, provided there are no critical areas on the site. Board Member Cheung asked if this
would include the smaller replacement trees that are planted as part of development. Mr. Lien answered that the required
replacement trees would be considered "protected" trees, which cannot be removed. Board Member Cheung asked if the
replacement trees would remain protected trees in perpetuity. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. That mean that a permit
C
V
would be required, and they could only be removed if they are determined to be hazardous or a nuisance. Board Member
a)
Cheung asked how a property owner would know that a tree has to be protected. Mr. Lien explained that for short
subdivisions and new subdivisions, the protected trees can be recorded on the face of the plat. For new multifamily
development, the landscape plan would be on file and tracked. However, protected trees associated with new single-family
d
development on vacant lots would be difficult to track because it wouldn't be recorded anywhere.
Board Member Cheung voiced concern that when properties change hands, the new homeowners would have no way of
knowing that a tree is protected. He is concerned about having something built into the code that requires subsequent
property owners to know which trees are protected. However, he doesn't have a recommended solution. Mr. Lien advised
that the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) was recently updated to require a notice on title when a property has a critical area
or is adjacent to a critical area. When someone purchases the property, the title report will flag that information. A similar
concept could be used to address protected trees, but there would be a fee associated with recording the information as a
notice to title.
Chair Robles suggested that the City could provide some incentive for property owners to voluntarily provide the City
with an inventory of the trees on their properties. The information could be submitted electronically at no cost to the
property owner. Perhaps the incentive could be a reduction in the cost of a permit that is proportional to the number of
trees on a property. This type of approach would make the rules the same for everyone, and it wouldn't be costly to
implement. While it might be too late to incorporate it into the current draft Tree Code, he felt the idea should be pursued
at some point in the future. He suggested that the Tree Code could be reviewed every two to four years. As they implement
the code and collect feedback, they can consider changes to address future needs and problems.
Mr. Lien agreed that the City should offer other incentives to encourage tree preservation, but there isn't time to incorporate
the concept into the current draft. He suggested the City can continue to pursue incentive programs, but the current
proposal is a development regulation as opposed to an incentive program. Again, he said his charge was to draft a Tree
Code that addresses the biggest complaint the City receives, which is trees being removed with development. There is
currently a moratorium in place, and it is critical that the City Council adopts code language that addresses tree removal
with development as soon as possible. The next step could include a discussion about incentives.
Mr. Lien advised that he is preparing a press release that will be published prior to the public hearing to address upfront some
of the issues that might raise concerns. Chair Robles said he wants the public hearing to be successful, which means everyone
needs to feel they have been listened to.
Board Member Cheung suggested that any type of action or penalties that are restrictive will probably be viewed unfavorably
by a significant portion of people in attendance at the hearing. However, he doesn't believe most people would be opposed to
an incentive program that encourages tree retention and tree planting. Providing incentives will be seen as a positive thing as
opposed to penalizing people who cut down trees. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as proposed, Tree Fund dollars can be used to
offer tree vouchers for people to plant trees. Board Member Cheung concluded that the more the City can promote tree retention
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 183
7.A.h
and tree canopy through incentives as opposed to penalties, it will be accepted better by the community. Chair Robles
concurred.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that, in addition to inviting the public to the hearing, she would also like to hear from
professionals who will have to work with the code. Mr. Lien said he invited two developers to comment on the code, but
neither have responded to date. He recently invited another developer to comment, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig
suggested that practicing professionals in the area should be specifically invited to attend the hearing and provide feedback.
Mr. Lien responded that the City has hired The Watershed Company to work with the Tree Board to establish the Tree City
USA application. Their arborist reviewed the Tree Code and indicated support. She particularly noted that the Tree Code
clearly spells out what is required for a Tree Plan associated with a development proposal. The City's tree group, which has
representation from all departments, has also reviewed the draft Tree Code, as has the City's arborist. Board Member
Rubenkonig requested that the City issue a pertinent invitation to professionals who will be working with the Tree Code,
requesting their feedback either in writing or at the public hearing.
Mr. Lien announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for December 9`h, and notice will be published
next week. A revised version of the Tree Code will be prepared based on the Planning Board's discussions.
Board Member Pence said he supports Board Member Rubenkonig's suggestion that the City's outreach for the public hearing
be enhanced to include the affected professional communities. In addition, he suggested that when money is paid into the Tree
Fund in lieu of a tree obligation that cannot be met on site, the City has an obligation to use those funds to plant trees so that
the net tree canopy can be achieved. As proposed, the Tree Fund can be used to support a number of soft projects that will not
directly yield more trees. He would rather the funds be used to plant trees in City parks, greenbelts, planting strips, etc. where
they can contribute to the City's overall tree canopy, which is the ultimate goal of the Tree Code. Mr. Lien agreed that is
possible. When money comes in for the Tree Fund, different numbers could be used to identify what the funds could be used
for. Mr. Chave said there could be a problem with the amount of available public land where trees can be planted.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Board would have an opportunity to review the Tree Code a year or two after it is
adopted by the City Council. Knowing that the Board would have an opportunity at some point in the future to make appropriate
adjustments would help her move forward with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Chave responded that, with any
recommendation, the Planning Board can make a request that it be reviewed down the road. However, it is not something that
should be adopted as part of the code.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles announced that the Board's next meeting will be December 9th, at which time the Planning Board will conduct a
public hearing on the draft Tree Code.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles thanked staff for their support. They have so many conflicting projects, and he appreciates their hard work.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 184
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Student Representative Bryan said he was a bit surprised, when he opened the Planning Board's website to prepare for the
meeting, to learn that the Board had a special meeting on November 12'. He apologized for missing the meeting. He asked
that he be added to the email list so he can receive future notifications. Mr. Chave agreed to follow up on the request.
Board Member Monroe asked if the Board would elect 2021 Officers on December 9'. Mr. Chave said the election would be
added to the December 9' agenda.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City could revisit limiting the height of privacy hedges. At one time, their height was
c
to be the same as fences. Mr. Chave said that is a topic the City Council would have to refer to the Board. There was a rather
lengthy, time-consuming discussion at the City Council. The gist of the discussion was that hedges are growing things, and it
is difficult to regulate the height of something that grows. The City Council ultimately decided not to regulate hedges. Board
Member Pence agreed that hedges are growing things, but by their nature, they are in most cases designed to be trimmed into
a shape of some kind. They shouldn't be planted and forgotten. He felt the City could find a way to deal with them in an
appropriate manner.
C
V
Board Member Pence also praised staff. He appreciated having all of the comment letters attached to the Staff Report, but
d
forwarded separately to each of the Board Members via their City email accounts, as well. He suggested this should be a
standard procedure anytime a letter is received that deals with a Planning Board issue. d
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 185
7.A.i
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
December 9, 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.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no general audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
Packet Pg. 186
7.A.i
PUBLIC HEARING ON TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on the Tree Code in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was
presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board
recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the
Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation
includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the
downtown.
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.
• Goal 1. C — 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.
• Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds.
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
(exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, and violations). 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 a new
chapter Edmonds City Code (ECC 3.95). He reviewed each section.
• ECDC 23.10.020 -- Definitions
Mr. Lien advised that the following definitions were added and/or amended.
A. Significant Tree. A tree that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the
ground.
D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.
K. Protected Tree. A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection
plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant
restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations.
• ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all short
subdivisions (up to 4 lots), subdivisions (5 or more lots), new multifamily development, and new single-family development
on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-family house. A tree plan would also be required for tree removal on
developed sites that are not exempted by ECDC 223.10.040.
• ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions
Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new
multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions
would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 187
7.A.i
o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means.
o Removal of trees for utility maintenance.
o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park Department.
o Routine landscaping and maintenance.
o Routine re -topping of trees to a previously -topped level.
Mr. Lien explained that the removal of hazard and nuisance trees would not require a permit, but supporting document would
be required. An example of a nuisance tree would be a healthy tree that is buckling a driveway or continually plugging the
sewer line. c
0
• ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited
3
a�
m
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, the following would be prohibited:
m
o Removal of protected trees unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees. 0
o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance
trees. L
o Removal of trees during permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition ~
activity. m
o Removal of trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in ECDC 23.40 — 23.90.
• ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements
Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed tree retention requirement for proposed development would be 30% of all significant trees
for new single-family, short plats and subdivisions. The retention requirement for new multifamily and unit -lot subdivisions
would be 25%. He reminded them that the focus of the tree code update is to retain more trees with development, and the
Planning Board has considered the following priorities:
o Priority 1 — Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas and trees
over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH.
o Priority 2 — Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function and
other significant native and non-native trees.
o Priority 3 — Alders and Cottonwoods.
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed, and the number
of required replacement trees would be based on the diameter of the trees removed. One replacement tree would be required
to replace trees that are 6 to 10 inches DBH; two replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are 10.1 to 14 inches
DBH; and three replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are above 14 inches DBH.
• ECDC 23.10.080(E) — Tree Replacement Fee -in -Lieu
Mr. Lien explained that if all of the required replacement trees cannot be planted on a project site, the current proposal would
require $1,000 per tree not planted to be paid into the City's Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund would have to be used
to purchase trees to be planted elsewhere within the City limits.
• ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title
Mr. Lien recalled that questions were raised at a previous meeting about how a subsequent property owner would know that a
tree on his/her property is protected. This provision was added to require that protected trees be recorded as Notice on Title.
When someone purchases the property, they will see the notice when reviewing the title. The language was copied from the
Critical Area Ordinance, which also requires Notice on Title.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 188
7.A.i
• ECDC 20.75 — Conservation Subdivision Design
Mr. Lien 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 the lot layout of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact
development. The priority of tree retention, as noted earlier in the presentation, 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 could be reduced to no less than 15 feet for street setbacks, 10 feet for rear setbacks and 5 feet for side
setbacks.
c
2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone.
3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not
2
3
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.
0
t�
• ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund
m
m
L
Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under
the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also
go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. As proposed,
the funds could be used:
1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds.
2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional.
3. To pay for services that support urban forest management and health.
4. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City.
5. To purchase supplies and materials for Arbor Day and other education purposes.
• ECDC 23.10.030 -- Permits
Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit
process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and
multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be
processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural
exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed
with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit.
• ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
Mr. Lien explained that, as per the proposed code, civil penalties would 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.
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, etc.).
c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal of the tree value by the City's tree
protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. using
the 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 the code.
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" DBH and the appraised value of trees
12" DBH or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the City's Tree Fund.
e. Violators will be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the
Director.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 189
7.A.i
Mr. Lien added that a new section "Aiding and Abetting" would make the tree cutter equally as liable as the property owner.
• Examples Illustrating How the Proposed Tree Code Provisions Would Be Applied
Mr. Lien shared examples to illustrate how the proposed tree retention, tree replacement and tree fund provisions would be
applied to new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. He also provided examples of
how the conservation subdivision design provisions would be applied. For each example, he pointed out the number of existing
trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number
c
of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments.
+,
Mr. Lien explained that, in addition to the Tree Code, there are a number of other provisions that apply to new development
3
such as access easements, landscaping, setbacks, utility easements, etc. These other code requirements also have a significant
impact on a developer's ability to save existing trees. Using the conservation subdivision design concept, the houses could be
clustered closer together in order to retain more trees. In the example he provided, the lot widths, access easement and setbacks
V
were reduced. Using the flexible design concept, the developer would be able to save 62 existing trees as opposed to just 15.
Because more trees could be retained on site, the Tree Fund payment would be reduced from $315,000 to $202,000.
L
H
Mr. Lien said he is concerned that the required Tree Fund payments are too high. He referred to the example he provided
earlier of the 4-lot subdivision, noting that although the developer could retain 40% of the existing trees, the required Tree
Fund payment would still be substantial. Using Park and Traffic Impact Fees for comparison, the 4-lot subdivision example
would require a $58,000 Tree Fund payment compared to a combined payment of about $27,000 for Park and Traffic Impact
Fees. He proposed the following alternatives to reduce the required Tree Fund payment:
o Reduce the replacement ratios to 1 replacement tree for trees that are 6 to 14 inches DBH, 2 replacement trees for
trees that are 14.1 to 24 inches DBH, and 3 replacement trees for trees that are greater than 24 inches DBH.
o Reduce the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500.
o Place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund.
Mr. Lien reviewed each of the examples again to illustrate how they would be impacted by the alternative language. He pointed
out that, in most cases, the Tree Fund payments would be substantially less than the required Park/Traffic Impact Fees.
However, with the conservation Subdivision Design, the Tree Fund payments would still be substantially greater than the
Park/Traffic Impact Fees.
Mr. Lien reiterated that the proposed Tree Code was primarily focused on how to retain trees with development. The Tree
Code, in and of itself, will not help the City meet its no -net -loss requirement. Additional work on potential incentives to
encourage property owners to retain trees on their sites will follow. In addition to the voucher program to encourage people to
plant trees, the City is working to update the Street Tree Plan. There are many things the City can do to retain trees, including
educating the public about their importance. The City is currently working on a Heritage Tree Program, which will be a
voluntary program to recognize special trees on private properties.
Board Member Monroe asked if staff is suggesting that they retain the 30% retention ratio and $1,000 per tree fee. Mr. Lien
responded that a fee of $1,000 per replacement tree resulted in some very high replacement costs. He suggested that the Board
consider the alternatives he recommended: reducing the replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu amount and/or placing a
cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund.
Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing.
Anna West, Edmonds, said she spoke before the Board a few weeks ago about the need to address the protection of water
views in the Tree Code. Trees have potential to block views. She said she lives in the Edmonds Bowl, and tree topping comes
up in a lot of discussions because it helps to maintain water views. She is concerned with the phrase "illegal tree topping" and
its associated penalties. She is also concerned about the definition for tree topping, which is "the significant cutting back of
the leader stem or major branches resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. " She expressed her belief that
there should be an exception for when tree topping is used to maintain a water view. She noted that the draft Tree Code includes
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 190
7.A.i
a lot of exceptions for pruning canopy growth to protect utilities. Knowing how important the water is to Edmonds, she
suggested the code should also include exceptions for when trees impact water views. From a physical perspective, residents
with water views pay more in taxes, which is valuable to help the City thrive in a variety of ways. She said she is prepared to
ask for a tax reduction if the revised Tree Code impacts her water views, which seems like a lose/lose for everyone. She said
she reviewed the archives and watched the video recording of the Planning Board's May 27, 2015 public hearing on the Tree
Code where some residents requested that the code provide more balance, addressing both trees and water views. However,
the current draft does not take this into account. She summarized that, in her opinion, not including view protection in the Tree
Code highlights a disconnect in how valuable the Puget Sound is to Edmonds residents and visitors. The current draft has the
potential to penalize residents who are trying to maintain their water views, and she believes it will backfire on the City in the
c
long run. She asked that the Board consider verbiage regarding water view protection, or at the very least, remove the tree
topping penalty clause altogether.
3
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code update represents a great start. The provisions that would
a�
W
apply to new development are better than he expected, but he is concerned that they are already considering modifications that
would weaken them. He said he is not in favor of the alternative replacement criteria suggested by Mr. Lien. It is important
V
to plant multiple replacement trees for every three that is lost. Following adoption of the proposed update, he suggested it will
be time to address tree loss on land that is already developed, which is where most of the City's tree canopy is located. He
noted that most cities limit the number of trees that can be removed in a given period of time. He urged the Board to finish the
--
job of writing a thorough and meaningful tree code. He asked the Board to consider the thoughts he shared in a letter he
m
submitted to the Board prior to the meeting.
3
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, agreed that it is important to protect the existing tree canopy, but the effort must be addressed on a
more global level in order for it to succeed. He noted that about 98% of the property in Edmonds is already developed, and a
small percentage is undevelopable. He questioned the fairness of passing the entire cost of protecting the tree canopy to new
property owners when the overall society will benefit. He suggested they consider other ways to accomplish the overall goal.
For example, they could raise the fees for cutting down trees on developed properties or providing incentives for people to
plant additional trees on their lots. These approaches would result in more trees. While there is a lot of friction coming from
the general public, equal participation from all citizens is important when it comes to meeting the needs of the community. He
expressed his belief that the net effect of the Tree Code, as applied to new development, would be negligible, and the costs
would be high. They need to come up with a code that is more equitable for all citizens of the community. If proposed properly,
the City's residents might be more willing to save trees on their own properties. He pointed out that clear cutting has happened
on developed property, as well, specifically about twenty-four 10-inch trees were taken down recently at 527 12' Avenue North
with just one permit. The danger of losing trees is as great on developed land as it is on undeveloped land.
Chris Yockey, Edmonds, said that from a developer standpoint, the proposed Tree Fund payments seem awfully high. He
voiced concern that the payments will significantly increase the cost of each unit, making it more difficult to address the need
for affordable housing in the City. While he understands that topping can kill a tree, he asked if the proposed Tree Code would
allow him to take care of the limbs from trees on adjacent properties that hang over into his yard by 30 feet.
Louise Favier, Edmonds, commented that the access given to street and sidewalk seating for her business has made a massive
difference in her life. She appreciates the work the City puts into creating a good plan for the businesses in Edmonds, in
particular the restaurants and bars to be able to continue to use the rights -of -way during these challenging times. They would
like to continue to have street and/or ongoing sidewalk seating for another year or two so the businesses can have an opportunity
to recover. She said she loves the City's tree retention efforts and appreciates the existing tree canopy.
Larry Vogel, Edmonds, said he was present to cover the public hearing for MYEDMONDS NEWS. He requested a copy of
Mr. Lien's PowerPoint presentation, and Mr. Lien agreed to send it along.
Lora Hein, Edmonds, asked the Board to weigh their recommendation based on the broad -scale impacts. She recognized that
the current culture prioritizes monetization of business and financial gain over preservation and conservation of natural systems,
which are more challenging to assign a dollar value. One indication is how many people express being tired of the impacts
endured in the face of multiple crisis in 2020 and wish to return to normal. However, 2020 has presented an essential
opportunity. The challenges they are facing are the culmination of gross mismanagement of the planetary ecosystem. Until
and unless they take a serious look at combined effects of colonization and monetization mindset, they will be looking down
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 191
7.A.i
the barrel of 2020-like years and worse for decades to come. On the other hand, if they take time to stop, listen and look both
ways, back as well as forward, they may yet have a chance to halt the juggernaut of climate destruction that is becoming
increasingly out of control.
Ms. Hein commented that forging ahead without a plan only compounds the current dilemma. A flawed result is not better
than none, it is worse because it gives the impression that something has been done. She proposed that the City adopt a
moratorium on removing any trees in any development until a functional tree ordinance can be crafted. Such a moratorium
needs to be accompanied not only by hefty fines, but a halt to any construction that continues in violation of a moratorium.
They need to end, or at least pause, business as usual, take a deep breath of the air provided courtesy of the arboreal neighbors
c
and decide how they will manage to pay back the dept that is owned to the living forest they have inherited from the first
inhabitants recognized in words at the beginning of each City Council meeting. She observed that before the Salish-speaking
tribes took up residence on these shores, other inhabitants as deserving of our honor, not only in word, but in deed, made their
lives and ours possible.
m
Ms. Hein emphasized that without more stringent replacement and enhancement requirements, incentives and penalties, they
G
will continue down the path of ever decreasing quality of the natural support system. They need more widespread
understanding of the essential benefits trees provide in saving energy, not to mention sequestering carbon, our only current
hope to prevent global catastrophe from climate transformation. Goals for trees on single-family residential lots in non -critical
--
areas, which are the majority of land resources in the City, are woefully inadequate. The City must go far beyond asking for
m
voluntary public participation. Instead, they should ask how much the air we breath is worth. Trees are more than pretty
3
individuals. They require a network of supporting species to remain viable. The same can be said of humans, as a species.
c
Without trees and the communities that support them, we too are doomed to years far worse than what we have experienced in
2020.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, said she was disappointed to hear the proposed reduction in Tree Fund payments. With minimal
fees, the City will lose the motivation to protect the trees. She said she submitted a letter prior to the meeting emphasizing her
points of concern. She is concerned that there is too much emphasis on exemptions to the proposed regulations. There is also
too much focus on replacement rather than retention, which is far more valuable. What is missing is scientific evidence to
determine the goals of the Tree Code and the effects of the exemptions. Lack of environmental analysis, measurable goals and
baseline data limits the value of the code. She said she hopes the Board will continue to adjust the Tree Code to achieve the
goal of retaining trees in Edmonds.
Richard Bologna, Edmonds, asked how an illegal tree removal fee would be enforced and collected and who the City would
retain to assess the health of trees. He also asked if anyone has ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual
tree and how much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council.
Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he is speaking as a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for six years, as
well as chair of the citizen's group called TreePAC. He commended the City for pursuing with the proposed Tree Code update.
He said the City of Seattle has been working to update its tree ordinance for 11 years, and it appears that the City of Edmonds
will be adopting a number of steps that have been recommended for Seattle but haven't yet been put in place. He said Portland
is an example of a City that has taken steps to preserve trees, including a tree fund, and a few years ago they raised about $1.5
million to help plant new trees within their City. Portland just recently updated its tree ordinance to address trees with new
development. They changed the replacement requirement to apply to trees over 20 inches, and it had previously been 36 inches.
They have been charging $450 per inch for trees that are 12 to 20 inches DBH, and they are now proposing $1,800 per tree
removed. When considering replacement requirements, it is critical to take the approach that the larger the tree that is removed,
the greater the replacement requirement. He suggested that an additional category be added for trees over 30 or 36 inches. The
priority should be to preserve existing trees, as it takes decades for trees to reach their ultimate size. Existing trees provide
immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by smaller, younger replacement trees. Replacement trees also need
more maintenance, and not all of them will survive. He suggested that the Tree Code specifically require that the replacement
trees must be maintained for a certain number of years. He summarized that the proposed Tree Code is a great first step to
protect the urban forest and the benefits that trees provide to the City's citizens.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, commented that no trees have ever been retained in her neighborhood when new development has
occurred, and she is happy to see that the City will be requiring tree retention. She said she would like the City to have a goal
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 192
7.A.i
to increase the tree canopy. She is worried about the impacts of climate change in the future. They will need every tree they
can get to provide shade, cooling, etc. She said she is interested in the emphasis on education. She has been running the
Edmonds Wildlife Habitat and Native Plant Demonstration Garden at the fish hatchery for the past 10 years, and they have
done a lot of education. She said she is looking forward to sponsoring some tree planting workshops and teaching people how
they can plant trees. She will work with the Snohomish County Conservation District on this effort. They have a lot of good
materials, and they sell trees and native plants at a low cost. She said she appreciates that the Tree Code indicates a preference
for native plants and trees, but she would prefer Alders to non-native trees. She said she misses the trees that have been lost
over the years.
Chair Robles closed the public portion of the hearing.
Board Member Crank voiced concern that developers would lean towards tree replacement rather than tree retention, and she
doesn't see how this would result in increased tree canopy. She said she would not support decreasing the fee -in -lieu payments
because developers tend to be okay with paying in -lieu fees, especially if they are in areas where the housing market prices are
high. Mr. Lien explained that the UFMP did not adopt a goal to increase the tree canopy. The UFMP adopted goals of no net
loss of the overall canopy and continuing to enhance the tree canopy in parks as per the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
(PROS) Plan. The current proposal is a Development Code update that is specifically focused on retaining trees with
development and was not intended to achieve all of the goals spelled out in the UFMP. If the City's Council chooses to address
trees in a more holistic way, other actions will be needed and could include incentives, a heritage tree program, more education,
planting trees with vouchers from the Tree Fund, etc.
Board Member Crank asked if any thought has been given to establishing a cap on how much of the replacement requirement
can be satisfied with the in -lieu payment. Again, she voiced concern that developers will take full advantage of the fee -in -lieu
opportunity. Without a cap, it will be difficult for the City to achieve no net loss when development occurs. Mr. Lien explained
that when he prepared the examples, he felt that the replacement costs were too high. He applied the alternatives (reducing
replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500 and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be
paid into the Tree Fund) to show how the replacement costs would be impacted in each scenario. He felt this information
would be informative to the Planning Board's discussion. He pointed out that, in some situations, the replacement costs could
be excessively high for a development impact fee.
Mr. Lien responded to the following questions raised by Mr. Bologna during the public comment period.
• How would an illegal tree removal fee be enforced and collected? Mr. Lien explained that the City's code includes Notice
of Violation Procedures. The City investigates reports of illegal tree cutting. If it is determined that a tree has been cut
illegally, a Notice of Violation will be issued to the property owner and fines will be assessed depending on the situation.
The process is clearly spelled out in the code.
• Who would the City retain to assess the health of trees? For hazardous tree removal, Mr. Lien advised that the City would
require that the tree be assessed by a certified arborist, and the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Assessment
Form must be filled out. If the assessment comes back as high or extreme, the tree would be classified as a hazardous tree
that could be removed.
• Has anyone ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree? Mr. Lien said there are a variety of
tools to calculate the value of a tree. While some early drafts of the UFMP identified values based on the ecological
services that trees provide, some questions were raised about how accurate they were and the section was removed.
• How much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council? Mr. Lien said this provision was
included as just one of the ways that funds could be placed into the Tree Fund, but there was no specific dollar amount
associated with it.
Vice Chair Rosen thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work preparing the update, and for his quick responses to the comments and
questions raised by the Board to date. He also thanked the citizens who provided both oral and written comments. He found
them to be very thoughtful, and they absolutely influenced his thinking. He asked if the City considers wildlife corridors as
critical areas. Mr. Lien answered that the Critical Area Ordinance recognizes the Priority Habitat Species Layer, which is
maintained by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are a few wildlife corridors identified in the City,
and one of the main ones is Shell Creek from Yost Park down. While habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, there
are no specific regulations or setback requirements associated with them. Most of them are associated with stream channels.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 193
7.A.i
There are forested areas in the northern portion of the City, and there is a 30% native vegetation requirement for development
in these areas. He summarized that habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, but they don't have any specific regulations
that apply to them because there aren't any species of local importance.
Vice Chair Rosen observed that the City's tree canopy is currently at 30%, and the maximum potential is 57%. The City is
nearly built out and the current proposal will not achieve even no net loss. If the City is serious about no net loss, they need to
be more aggressive. They must either change what they are doing or change the goal. He said he understands staff s sensitivity
when it comes to applying the tree replacement requirement to larger developments, but he felt the City should be agnostic to
the use of the land. Loss of trees and loss of land has an impact. Whether it is for a few units or 30 units, there is an economy
of scale and profit that comes with that. While he appreciates that staff offered the alternatives, he encouraged the Board to
follow the original proposal.
Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's historic position when it comes to protecting views, but it is important to
acknowledge that views are both financially and emotionally valuable and cherished in the community. Passions run high
when it comes to views. To address this, he suggested that the following language could be added to the Intent and Purpose
Section:
"The City of Edmonds recognizes and celebrates the value of our proximity to and views of Puget Sound and the
mountains. While the City does not enforce tree limits for views, except as expressly stated in this code, property
owners are encouraged to consider mature heights when planting to avoid planting things that will block views down
the road and to allow windowing, drop crotch and other pruning methods that won't damage the tree at the
beneficiary's expense when asked. "
Vice Chair Rosen also suggested that the Board send a parallel recommendation to the City Council that they consider, through
the Board if they prefer, addressing vegetation that is used as fence. While there are reasons why a hedge is desirable to a
property owner, neighbors, the community, etc., that is not always true. He recommended the following language be added:
"Vegetation used as a fence be restricted to the maximum height allowed for fencing if there is a demonstrated cause
by someone negatively affected by the greater height and for those that already exist at the expense of the person who
would benefit. "
Vice Chair Rosen explained that the language could be very narrowly defined to address situations where hedges block solar
panels, result in the inability of a neighboring property owner to grow plants due to shading, block light from entering into a
home, or reduce safety. This issue has been out there for a while and could be addressed as part of the proposed update.
Board Member Monroe recalled the citizen comment/question regarding tree topping. He said his understanding is that there
would be no penalty associated with a private property owner topping trees on his/her property. The penalty would come if
you top a tree on someone else's property. Mr. Lien explained that tree topping is considered tree cutting and would be
prohibited on properties that are not exempt from the Tree Code. Trees on properties that are exempt from the Tree Code, such
as developed single-family properties with no critical areas, can be topped without a fine. However, topping is bad
arboriculture practice and opens trees to rot and damage. On properties that are not exempt, a property owner could apply for
a permit to remove a tree that is blocking view and then plant a tree that is more appropriate for the location.
Board Member Pence asked about the cost associated with planting trees off site using money in the Tree Fund. He suggested
that perhaps the per -tree fee should be attached to the actual cost of planting new trees elsewhere. Mr. Lien said he doesn't
know the cost associated with purchasing and planting trees, but he could ask the Parks Department to respond. If the planting
cost is reasonable, Board Member Pence observed that the City could plant more than one tree for each of the trees that are
removed. Mr. Lien reminded them that, based on the proposed replacement ratio, more than one replacement tree would be
required for most of the trees that are removed. He said that in some jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu programs are based on the
cost for planting and maintaining a tree. When the concept was initially introduced to the Planning Board, the feedback was
that developers would be more likely to find ways to retain and/or plant more trees on site if the dollar value is a little higher.
Board Member Cloutier summarized that, as proposed, someone who has been topping a tree to protect a view would be allowed
to continue to top the tree. However, new trees that are planted and eventually grow to block a view could not be cut down
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 194
7.A.i
without a penalty. Mr. Lien referred to the last sentence of ECDC 23.10.040.E, (routine maintenance exemptions), which states
that, "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these
trees alone. " He explained that if a tree has been previously topped, a property owner could continue to do so back to the
previously topped level. Whether or not a new tree that grows to block view would require a permit would depend on whether
or not the property falls under any of the other exemptions. On developed single-family properties with no critical areas, trees
could be topped without a permit, but it would still be considered poor arboricultural practice. On developed single-family
properties with critical areas, a tree cutting permit would be required to replace the tree.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that critical areas include steep slopes, properties near watersheds, etc. That is not the case c
in most of the City's neighborhoods. Mr. Lien noted the steep slopes on properties in the bowl area and explained that critical
areas include erosion hazard areas (slopes between 15% and 40%). However, in the proposed code, the exemption was
modified to exclude trees on properties with a slope of 25% or more. Developed single-family properties with slopes of less
than 25% would be exempt from the tree code.
m
Chair Robles asked if the Board is ready to send the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval or if more V
work is needed before that can happen. Mr. Chave said that is something the Board will have to decide. The Board can either
make a recommendation at the end of the meeting or identify specific issues they would like staff to work on further.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, based on her own review of the proposal, as well as the written and oral public
testimony, she found that, whereas the general nature of the code rewrite is acceptable, it is time for the Planning Board to
support a more robust approach to retaining existing tree canopy and its habitat. Upon hearing from the citizens of Edmonds,
she believes the current proposal falls short because it is limited to retaining only 30% of the existing tree inventory of the
original lot. If there is little inventory, there would be no gain for additional tree canopy. Instead, the City should encourage
retention and even increasing available tree canopy, which includes shrubs and ground cover, by proposing that subdivisions
provide 30% coverage of the lot to be tree canopy, typical of the Pacific Northwest forests, include retaining, which can count
towards the 30% of the significant trees and the understory shrubs and ground cover. This approach would be similar to the
Snohomish County regulations, which seemingly provide more coverage for tree canopy, understory and ground cover, along
with flexibility for site design to meet the requirements. She expressed her belief that this approach would be a workable
solution that would honor the goal of the UFMP towards zero net loss of the tree canopy and would provide developers with
flexibility. Increasing tree canopy habitat, which would be more than what exists in the current code, along with site design
flexibility, which the proposed update already addresses, would be a workable solution for Edmonds. She summarized that
she would be interested in having Snohomish County's approach being considered as part of the proposal. At the very least,
she would like it to be included as an item that deserves further attention if the Board decides to forward a recommendation on
the proposed Tree Code to the City Council. She would also like the City Council to give attention to the proposed replacement
schedule, as well as Vice Chair Rosen's suggestion that language be included to address private view sheds.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many of the citizens who provided comments stressed the importance of tree
retention. They are not as interested in replacement. She would rather have an approach that hinges on retention as opposed
to replacement.
Board Member Monroe summarized that Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting there is a preference for having a final
result of density on the property at the end of the day. If there is a limited number of trees, a developer would be required to
plant more trees than are there right now. To that extent, he suggested that the retention requirement be increased to 40% or
50% or 30% total density, whichever is greater. This would challenge the developers to figure out how to make that work and
size the houses right to fit on the lots. He suggested that the Board ask staff to evaluate this option's impact on the cost of
development. While the numbers might be high for an entire development, the per home cost would be consistent with what
is happening in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Chave commented that Mr. Lien's analysis had less to do with the number of homes and more to do with how many trees
were on the property. The most expensive example was on a property that was being subdivided into four lots. The cost
associated with the 10-lot example was far less. Board Member Monroe said his approach would raise the price of the 10-lot
subdivision because a developer would no longer be allowed to take advantage of open grassland. It would force a minimum
of 30% density when the project is completed. He noted that is the benchmark the City is trying to achieve.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 195
7.A.i
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that when she uses the words "tree coverage," she is looking at the site plan and wants to
see where the trees have been maintained. Significant trees that are retained could go towards the count, but it would be evident
on the site plan how much the site would create towards the City's total tree canopy. She said she is not as comfortable with
the word "density" when applying it to Board Member Monroe's recommendation because the public better understands the
coverage that is needed for the lot. Board Member Monroe said he understands her concern, but the UFMP specifically states
that the City's current canopy is 30%. That same mathematical equation should be applied to properties that are being
developed. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed. She pointed out that Snohomish County requires 30% coverage, and it is up
to the developer to determine how that 30% will be provided on the site. This approach is more direct and emphasizes retention,
which is what the citizens seem to prefer.
c
0
Board Member Cheung recalled that, at the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Lien mentioned that the current proposal is only
intended to address one topic of the UFMP. The Board could have a separate discussion on trees that are on private properties.
Mr. Lien responded that the current proposal is focused on retaining trees with development. At this time, he can't say that
W
another update will follow to address trees on developed properties. However, other steps will need to be taken to reach the
goal of no net loss of overall tree canopy. These steps include educating property owners on the importance of retaining trees,
o
providing vouchers for private property owners to plant trees, reviewing opportunities to plant more trees in city parks, updating
the Street Tree Plan and creating incentive programs to encourage tree retention. Again, he said the primary focus of the current
update is how to retain trees with development.
--
Mr. Lien said he would need more information to create language to implement the concept put forward by Board Member
Rubenkonig. Is she suggesting that 30% of the lot must have trees on it as canopy coverage, or would one very large big -leaf
maple tree meet the requirement? While counting the existing trees and applying the replacement ratio would be easy to do, a
30% lot coverage requirement would be significantly more complicated to apply.
Board Member Cheung said a number of citizens voiced concern that the proposed update doesn't do more to protect trees on
private property, which is where the majority of the existing trees in the City are located. It would ease their concern if they
knew that the City would be considering other actions at a later date. He noted that the issue of view would be better addressed
by private property tree regulations. Mr. Lien said the update would only regulate trees on private property as part of
development. They could add a provision in ECDC 23.10.030 (Permits) that would limit the number of trees a developed
single-family property could remove during a set period of time. However, this would require the City to establish a tracking
system and additional code enforcement would be necessary.
Board Member Cheung recalled that, when the last Tree Code update was presented for a public hearing in 2015, there was
significant opposition to the idea of regulating trees on developed single-family properties. He suggested the Commission
focus on solving the immediate problem at hand, which is tree retention and replacement requirements associated with
development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the current proposal addresses a concern that staff hears most frequently, which is
clearcutting on properties that are being developed. However, the City Council may direct the staff and Planning Board to
address trees on developed properties at a later time. Board Member Cheung said it is important that the public understand that
this is the first step, and additional steps can be taken in the future that might address their other concerns.
Board Member Rubenkonig explained that the beauty of Snohomish County's approach is that they give credit for the canopy
size of any retained tree. This credit goes towards the total tree canopy that must be provided on the site. They also give credit
towards species that are planted that will provide a healthy canopy within so many years. Snohomish County's approach
appears to be creating mini Pacific Northwest forests around the County, which is healthy. Their approach appears to practice
retention of the tree canopy and its understory shrubs and ground cover, which create the necessary habitat. She would like the
City's code to focus on retention versus replacement, as well.
Board Member Robles reminded the Board that the proposal before them relates strictly to tree retention and replacement as
part of development. Any comments related to trees on private properties that are already developed are mute in this discussion.
At this time, the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council with some caveats, or they could decide that the
proposal needs more work and the recommendation could be postponed to a future meeting.
Board Member Cloutier commented that, while the Snohomish County code emphasizes retention, it also has the exact same
replacement consideration outlined in the draft proposal. If the trees are located where a structure needs to go, they cannot be
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 1 I
Packet Pg. 196
retained. The 30% requirement is only applicable to one specific kind of lot. The requirement for a single-family home is
20%, and it goes down as low as 15% in urban areas. As Mr. Lien pointed out the goal of the Development Code should be no
net loss, and increasing the tree canopy can be addressed by implementing the goals and policies outlined in the UFMP. As
proposed, the trees could be shift from one side of the property to the other, new trees can be planted, or money can be paid
into the Tree Fund for trees to be planted somewhere else. It is not the objective of this code to create new forests in the City.
If they want to change the objective of the code, they will need to start all over. He expressed his belief that the proposed Tree
Code adequately accomplishes what it is intended to: no net loss and requiring developers to pay for the offset.
In terms of the best approach to meet the goals of the UFMP, Board Member Rubenkonig said she sees both options as equal. c
Option 1 would be to recommend the approach presented by Mr. Lien and Option 2 would be to consider Snohomish County's
approach of requiring 30% retention. She cautioned that they need to be very mindful that development will either take away
or add to the tree canopy. Although she always respects Board Member Cloutier's approach to make sure they are on fur
ground and focused on what they are being tasked to do, she would have a hard time seeing the option outlined by Mr. Lien as
being any different than the option she is recommending. Both options would meet the same objective.
0
Board Member Crank commented that, if the Board decides to recommend approval of the proposal as currently drafted, she
remains firmly opposed to the alternatives put forward by Mr. Lien that would reduce the replacement ratios, reduce the fee -
in -lieu for each tree planted or place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Edmonds is a fairly expensive --
real estate area, and she doesn't foresee developers choosing to retain trees rather than paying into the Tree Fund regardless of m
the amount. Vice Chair Rosen concurred.
Board Member Monroe commented that, after hearing from Board Members Rubenkonig and Cloutier, he is comfortable
withdrawing his suggestion that they increase the retention requirement to 40% or 50%. However, he felt that Board Member
Rubenkonig's suggestion is worth further exploration. He agreed with Mr. Lien that the replacement cost might be too high,
and there needs to be a balance of property rights, community rights, views and the environment.
Vice Chair Rosen asked if any of the Board Members would object to adding additional language to the Intent and Purpose
Section to address views. Mr. Lien pointed out that, without specific regulations that protect views within the code, it wouldn't
make sense to have it in the Intent and Purpose Section. He sees this issue being addressed via education. For example, they
could educate property owners about planting the right trees in the right places. The Tree Board has been working on a tree
list that can be used as an education piece. Mr. Chave agreed that codes are not a good vehicle for messaging. Codes are
generally used to tell what is allowed and not allowed. Folding the view issue into the education piece would be a better
approach. Vice Chair Rosen respectfully disagreed. While he understands staff s point of view, views are such a high interest.
The draft code addresses trimming and maintenance, and views should be part of the equation.
Board Member Cloutier summarized that Vice Chair Rosen is suggesting that the City should be mindful of property rights and
people's desire to have a view and should make regulations that are aligned with that. However, he said he doesn't believe the
issue should be addressed in this particular development code. There is nothing in the proposed update that would change the
rules related to view, and there is nothing in the current code that addresses retaining and/or maintaining views. The proposed
update would not grant any special rights or place any limitations based on view. He voiced concern that adding language
stating that view is important would imply that properties with views would get special treatment, which is not the case.
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that they can use their meeting minutes to share their concerns with the City
Council. For example, the minutes could reflect that the Board is interested in reviewing regulations related to private view
sheds. The minutes could also reflect that the Board is interested in regulating the height of hedges and bushes the same as a
fence if used for privacy purposes on a lot's perimeter boundary. While the issues would not be addressed as part of their
recommendation on the Tree Code, they could emphasize the issues as warranting further consideration in the future. Vice
Chair Rosen agreed that would be an appropriate approach.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THEIR
INTEREST IN REVIEWING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE VIEW SHEDS AND PRIVACY
SCREENS SUCH AS HEDGES AND BUSHES. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 197
Board Member Cloutier asked if Mr. Lien's alternatives for the tree replacement fee were incorporated into the language that
is currently before the Board. Mr. Lien said they alternatives have not been incorporated into the draft code language. He
suggested the Board specifically look at the replacement ratios, which is directly tied to the high fees in the examples he
provided. He suggested that the replacement ratio he recommended in his presentation would be more appropriate. The larger
trees (greater than 24 inches) would still be replaced at a ratio of 3:1. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Snohomish
County code doesn't use ratios. Developments are simply required to provide 30% tree coverage. He suggested the City's
measure of tree retention is better. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that would only be true if there are few trees on a
property to retain. Board Member Cloutier observed that the current proposal would not require a developer to plant more trees
than are currently located on the property, while the Snohomish County code would require a developer to plant additional c
trees to a minimum of 30% coverage.
3
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the current proposal would base tree replacement on the inventory of the
current trees on a lot. But if there are no trees, there would be no retention requirement or requirement to provide additional W
trees. This is a big negative for that approach. She noted that the public is tired of the number of trees that are being cut down
for new subdivisions. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern about how the Snohomish County concept would be applied on V
a commercial lot in downtown Edmonds. It wouldn't make sense to require that 30% of the lot be covered with trees. Retaining
the existing tree coverage would make more sense. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that requiring 30% tree
coverage would be a proactive approach, recognizing that such things as utility easements, rights -of -way, etc. would be taken --
away from that. m
Mr. Lien advised the Board that they are not required to make a recommendation on the Tree Code tonight. He said he would
like more time to review the Snohomish County code to provide helpful feedback to the Board, and he is still a little confused
about how the current proposal is different than the proposal recommended by Board Member Rubenkonig. There are other
minor tweaks he would like to make before the document is forwarded to the City Council. He summarized that it appears the
majority of the Board wants to retain the $1,000 fee for each tree not planted, but they still need to provide feedback on the
replacement ratio.
Board Member Cheung asked staff to provide calculations of what the fee would be based on $1,000 per tree but with different
replacement ratios.
The Board agreed to carry their deliberations over to the January 13' meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the citizen Planning Board has benefited from each and every Board Member who
has given of their time, experience and hopes for the City of Edmonds. The Chair brings a unique approach to helping all
Board Members participate fully and professionally. Her recommendation of Board Member Rosen as her nomination for the
2021 Chair of the citizen Planning Board would do no less. They already know his measure and have been rewarded by his
presence and contribution. He will endeavor to lead the Board and encourage robust deliberations with fair outcomes. She
said she welcomes his support and offer him hers in his role as the 2021 Chair.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER ROSEN TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR 2021.
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN
FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER ROSEN AS THE 2021 CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
Board Member Monroe commented that the duties of Vice Chair are leadership and engagement. He has known Board Member
Crank for over five years and has found that she has these leadership capabilities. She is a member of a variety of community
groups, including the Snohomish County Airport Commission and Snohomish County Tomorrow. She can do a great job as
Vice Chair of the Planning Board.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CRANK TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR
2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED
IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER CRANK AS THE 2021 VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 198
7.A.i
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its deliberations on the draft Tree Code Update at their January 13'
meeting. He advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will provide an update on January 27'.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles thanked the Board Members for allowing him to chair the Board during this fascinating time. The Board set their
agenda and got some very important things done. The Board Members thanked Chair Robles for his leadership.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Rosen thanked the Board Members for their trust and kind words. He thanked Chair Robles for his leadership,
particularly for engaging him in such a meaningful way as Vice Chair. He appreciates the way he advocated for the Board.
He also appreciates his desire to engage more of the residents and increase collaboration with other boards and commissions.
Vice Chair Rosen commented that in recent years, the country has experienced and observed the impacts of dysfunctional
government organizations and individuals, and he has never observed the Board looking for either a Republican or Democratic
answer. Rather, they have worked to search for the best answers. He has never seen the group seek to blame others, but only
to accept personal and group responsibility for the job they have been given and the impacts of the decisions they make. Each
Board Member has demonstrated grace and respect, and he appreciates how they model the best of how local and national
government can and should be.
Student Representative Bryan said he appreciates the diversity of perspectives that were acknowledged amongst the Board
during the hearing. The residents voiced a lot of concerns on a huge range of topics. For the most part, the Board discussed
them well and thoughtfully. He said he is proud to be part of a board that strives to do the right thing.
Board Member Pence announced that the City Council extended the duration of the Housing Commission to the end of January.
They will be reporting their policy recommendations soon, and he expects the Planning Board will be tasked with reviewing
the recommendations to the extent they affect the code. This could be a time-consuming endeavor.
Board Member Crank thanked the Board for their vote as Vice Chair. She commented that 2020 has been an interesting year
for her from a professional, community service and personal standpoint. She attributed a lot of her success on the Snohomish
County Airport Commission to her experience on the Planning Board. She appreciates that the Board has remained functional
throughout the pandemic. Everyone has had a passion to move forward and get as much done as possible, when they had every
excuse to rest on their laurels and not get much done. This speaks a lot about each and every Board Member. She hopes the
Board can continue its momentum into 2021. She particularly voiced appreciation to staff, who has had to adapt to a new way
of doing business while still providing excellent support to the Board.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 14
Packet Pg. 199
7.A.i
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
a
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 15
Packet Pg. 200
7.A.j
From: Bill Phioos
To: Lien. Kernen
Subject: Fw: Proposed Tree Code
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 6:43:32 PM
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com>
To: citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Edmonds City Council <council@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 06:28:36 PM PDT o
Subject: Proposed Tree Code
3
Greetings Planning Board members;
A typical Tree Code has three main requirements :. o
1.) Requires a percentage of significant trees to be saved when new development is done on v
unimproved parcels.
a�
2.) Requires a limit on the number of significant trees that an existing developed property owner can cut
down per year. ..
r
3.) Requires replacement tree planting for any significant tree lost for any reason, anywhere at any time. Ci
00
The bigger the tree, the more replacement trees required to be planted. o
While looking at the proposed Tree Code submitted by staff, I clearly see the first requirement addressed
on page 6 section C. 1. 1 would encourage the City to make substantial penalties for developers who
want to opt out of requirements by paying a fee into the tree fund ( section C. 4.) Otherwise developers
will just opt out of requirements by paying fees that are insignificant in cost to them.
As for the second requirement , i don't see it addressed anywhere in the proposed Tree Code. This
needs to be addressed in any proposed tree code. What i see happening is people moving here and
buying an existing home where the property has a large number of significant conifers and the new
owners immediately clear cut all, or most, of the trees on their new property. This practice needs to be
curtailed by including restrictions in the number of trees a person can cut down per year. A typical
number is 3 significant trees may be cut per year for a 10,000 square foot lot and 6 trees per year on a
20,000 square foot lot.
As for the third requirement; i would encourage the City to require multiple replacement trees be planted
for each significant tree lost depending on the size of the tree cut. We need to realize that a sapling
replacement tree won't really be a replacement tree until decades later. An example is the loss of many
large trees due to the building of the light rail transit system through Shoreline. There they required three
replacement trees for each significant conifer lost.
Another problem for Edmonds is that our parks and public land is pretty "treed out", that is there is no
room to plant replacement trees. If you build a large house on a lot and you take out, say, 6 significant
conifers there most likely won't be room to plant replacement trees on that lot that will eventually become
quite large. A solution to this problem is the City entering into a partnership with local tree preservation
groups such as the " Mountain To Sound " tree preserve or the Million Tree program in Snohomish
County. Planting our replacement trees in these off site locations will give us the same environmental
benefits in the long run.
One last point, for now; I would encourage the City to not charge large fees to private home owners who
are applying for a permit to cut trees on their lots in excess of the code restrictions. This will really anger
our citizens. There should be no fee involved in order to get better compliance and cooperation.
The key to this whole Code should be replacement trees. We recognize that we will continue to lose
Packet Pg. 201
7.A.j
significant trees due to development. We must be forward looking by requiring multiple "of kind"
replacement trees for every significant tree lost anywhere, at any time and for any reason.
Thank you for your time and consideration;
Bill Phipps
Edmonds resident.
Packet Pg. 202
7.A.j
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.
0
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
0
flooded with letters and public comments...
a�
Concerning the tree code, it was good to hear your understanding of the issues around "replacement
v
trees"; the tree saplings planted to replace the large conifers lost to development.
L
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.
Ci
00
0
I do think you missed one key element of tree codes. Private property owners on already developed land
c
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. 203
7.A.j
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. 204
7.A.j
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. 205
7.A.j
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;
N
C
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.
o
U
2).Landowners - It is my understanding the City was to send out meeting notifications to landowners.. I
°
a�
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.
..
r
N
3).Zoom meetings. A large portion of Edmonds residents are not tech knowledgeable. Because of this
co
they are locked out of participating in virtual meetings. Please review the address code required to enter
c
the virtual meeting.
c
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. 206
7.A.j
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.
N
C
0
c�
a�
m
as
0
U
d
L
r
N
co
O
Packet Pg. 207
7.A.j
}} 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. 208
7.A.j
From: Barbara Chase
To: Lien, Kernen
Subject: Thoughts on other entities and trees
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:30:46 PM
Kernen,
Thanks for the work you have done. I know it must take a lot of patience.
As they talked about where to put trees I thought about where in the parks there is room. I
saw on one map that various parks have some (not a lot) space for trees. Perhaps Rich
Lindsay can tell you where. The Tree Board has done planting in Yost Park for one example.
0
:r
The other area is the schools. I promoted planting a small plot near the large school sign at
Edmonds Elementary. It had lots of weeds and one unhealthy apple tree which was removed.
o:
as
The area was replanted with a vine maple and other native shrubs and groundcovers. c
It took a lot to work with the school district, but there are many spots on school grounds which v
as
could be planted with trees.
Tomorrow I will be meeting with David Jackon of the Snohomish Conservation 'District. That N
is a state agency (as you no doubt know) which has a lot of experience with working with co
schools. When I find out more I will let you know about it. o
It is usually beneficial to work with various groups so they can learn about each other. The
teacher and principal at Edmonds Elementary have been very supportive. If it can be used
with their curriculum all the better.
Again, thank you. I will be sure to attend the December Public hearing.
Barbara Chase
Packet Pg. 209
7.A.j
From:
Martin, Michelle
To:
michelle.martin(dedmondwa.aov; cdfarmen(ocomcast.net
Cc:
Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen
Subject:
FW: Planning board coments
Date:
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:39:00 PM
Greetings Duane Farmen,
Your comments have been received and distributed to the board. If you should have future
comments specifically related to the Tree Code, please forward those directly to Kernen Lein.
Thank you,
0
r• �
N
N
'4icheCCe L. Martin o
U
Development Services Department- Planning Admin.
a�
Planning webnoael121 5th Avenue North 1 Edmonds, WA 98020 H
2: 425-771-0222 directl F:425-771-0221 Imichelle.martin(C)edmondswa.gov r
N
NOTICE: Email & attachments subject to Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) ap
0
CITY HALL IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Services will continue to be provided by email and phone.
Please visit www.edmondswa.gov for up-to-date information
For inspections: httgs://inspection.mvbuildinooermit.com/
For planning permit inquiries please email: olanningpermits(cDedmondswa.goov
For all other permit inquiries please email: devserv.admin(o)edmondswa.gov
From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:22 PM
To: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Planning board coments
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 recommend 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 T and D" where it
talks about development practices that work to avoid the removal or destruction of
trees.
The exemptions for single family residences needs a change. If a single family home
Packet Pg. 210
7.A.j
site has 8 or more trees per 10,000 sq ft of lot space it should not qualify for an
exemption.
A case in point. Behind my home is a 15,000 square foot lot with 35 significant
trees. The owner is building a 3,900 sq ft home with a 785 sq ft ADU. All but 7 trees
are being removed. These are all significant trees, some nearly 150 ft tall. Why
should this property be exempted?
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?
Another alternative to tree removal, which I do not subscribe to, 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.
Respectively submitted,
Duane Farmen
Seaview area homeowner
Packet Pg. 211
7.A.j
From: Bill Phim)
To: Citizens Planning Board
Cc: Lien, Kernen
Subject: Tree Code
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:07:59 AM
Greetings Planning Board ;
And Mr. Lien !....I would like all my comments to the Planning Board to be considered as comments to
you as well. For the record, thank you.
You , the Planning Board, were doing so well at the first meeting; you were asking real questions to the
real issues of replacement trees. You realized the math. If you take down 70% of the trees, for new
development, how are you going to maintain the stated goals of the UFMP; no net loss of forest canopy
?. You were talking about the necessity of multiple replacement trees for each big one cut down.
Then at the last meeting you dropped the ball. Or were you punting ? You all of a sudden dropped
replacement trees completely. Did you realize the difficulties at hand ? Did you want to do deal with it at v
all.? How was that decided? A couple nods of the head ? Whose nods ? Do you take votes?
L
No matter.
r
N
It's not too late, Buckle up and dig down and deal with this. Back up and look at the simple math. All of o
you. o
If we say we want to maintain a forest canopy of 30%; how are we going to do that without replacement
trees planted for every tree that is lost to development.?
If we say we want to maintain our forest canopy with "no net loss"; how are we going to do that without
replacement trees planted for trees lost when private property owners build mother-in-law studios on
their lots?
The math has to add up. A replacement tree has to be added for every one that is lost..
How can we create incentives for people to plant or retain trees? How about storm water bill discounts?
We can deal with the question of : where are we going to plant those future big trees. One idea is
entering into a partnership with a local Tree Bank/Preserve. We will fund local tree planting with the funds
from our Tree Fund.
You can do this .
We can do this.
Let's create a meaningful and sustainable Tree Code.
Thank you for taking your responsibilities seriously;
Bill Phipps
Packet Pg. 212
7.A.j
Q
Packet Pg. 213
7.A.j
From:
Martin, Michelle
To:
Planning Work Group
Subject:
FW: Trees and Water Views
Date:
Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:22:10 PM
Kernen, would you like this one? O
-Michelle
T
From: Ryan Boyd <rjeremyboyd@gmail.com> 0
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:19 PM M
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Trees and Water Views
d
0
c�
Hello, as
as
L
I recently purchased a home off Walnut street and am concerned about tree growth blocking ~
my views. In our case, our view was paramount to our decision to not only purchase our N
home, but move to Edmonds in the first place. o
I naively assumed there were rules in place to prevent your existing view becoming blocked
by the growth of trees. This is very troublesome to me and my family and I believe the rules
should be modified in order to prevent this from happening.
We are so happy to have joined the Edmonds community and despite the covid concerns we
have been welcomed warmly. I hope there isn't a case down the line that we come to regret
our decision because there weren't responsible codes in place that negatively impact the value
of the property we purchased.
Thank you!
Ryan Boyd
Packet Pg. 214
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.XXX Intent and Purpose
23.10.XXX Administration Authority
23.10.XXX Definitions
23.10.XXX Permits
23.10.XXX Exemptions .
23.10.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.XXX Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity .o
23.10.XXX Tree Protection Measures During Development�..�r'�d�rG�-
23.10.XXX Tree Replacement
23.10.XXX Bonding
23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties o
23.10.XXX Liability RECEIVED
aD
NOV 2 0 2020
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility ~
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES N
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund COUNTER 00
ell
23.10.XXX 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;
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
Packet Pg. 215
7.A.j
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.XXX Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
o
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
3
al
d
23.10.XXX
Definitions (Definitions currently incomplete. Will review definitions to make sure all
terms are defined.)
o
U
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.
N
B.
Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
00
c
(1) foot for every inch of trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet from grade or otherwise determined
c
by a qualified professional (example: one (1) foot radius per one (1) inch DBH).
o
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
c
E
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
c
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
�j
recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
L
G.
Grove — A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
H.
Non -significant Tree (i.e. alder)
I.
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
Q
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
J.
Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
c
E
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
U
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
a
2. 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. 216
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.
K. 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_ _ �74,1 0U 6 ,- =-, :*e , ra c?:,r
23.10.XXX 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.XXX 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.XXX 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.
B. 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. 217
7.A.j
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 0
r
3
aM
23.10.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited
m
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.XXX o
Hazard Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. v
(D
m
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for ECDC 23.10.XXX.E, hazard and nuisance trees.
N
C. Demolitions: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required c
to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement c
may be required for removed trees. o
U)
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all natural growth protection easements, tree removal is `d
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC. c
23.10.XXX 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.XXX.
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. 218
7.A.j
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.
2. 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:
i. 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;
ii. 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;
ii. 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.XXX.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
ii. 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
N
C
0
w
�a
3
d
m
M
0
U
d
m
L
N
CO
0
Packet Pg. 219
7.A.j
(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
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.
ii. 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
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.XXX Hazard 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;
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 6 of 13
21
Packet Pg. 220
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.
3. 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.
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;
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.XXX 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.
B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant
shall:
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 221
7.A.j
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 o
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. °
o:
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the Director authorizes their removal. L)
a>
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of L
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: 00
0
a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root 0
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with o
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage M
caused by heavy equipment.
W
c
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
a�
E
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
°
U
or building activity.
L
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.
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.
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.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 13
Packet Pg. 222
7.A.j
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.
5. 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.
Additional Requirements. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.XXX 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.XXX.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced by one new tree in accordance
with subsection ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 of this section. Trees that are removed which are classified as
landmark shall be replaced by three new trees in accordance with subsection RZC 21.72.080.0 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.
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.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 9 of 13
N
0
a
3
m
m
0
U
d
m
L
N
CO
0
Packet Pg. 223
7.A.j
1. 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.
2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
23.10.XXX 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.
B. 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
Ooj�S landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure
O�fl�*�) 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.
A
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.
II)P_ tA (cot&VO 6�� in
23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any other section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
B. 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:
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:
An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
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 �os�tsrealr�izedy the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
�, �or Ih ' Gttvnicj�lly ��� r� cA
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 224
7.A.j
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.
d. 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 in o tha-dty-tr-e -
vv KC.-V d e
fed. 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 t Nis ���
growing conditions. 1
vvtno a� �
e. 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 5 , t- SE rcec�cx
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance Wi
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and tcaee-
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 ec�SSc
the absence of the violation(s).
r�
f. If illegal tree toy ' as occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified e i-r—
arborist develop an lement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and required tree rep ttlnc rlo+ M
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 CAae-S
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 i
necessary corrective action within a specific time. �&Y-e-
64
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as4Ygi�
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. tZVVY 1
23.10.XXX 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.XXX shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shali 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.XXX and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
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
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 225
7.A.j
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;
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:
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;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 226
7.A.j
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; a,
(D
4. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day;
m
5. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. °
c.�
d
B. Monies from the tree fund may be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the L
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. o
�--- o
SPG-G'(-i"GCk«`/ vYla,Y1 �er)ccyY ce- w,6r-V- �
W eU k Y1 o- w -Vv1 e cost-f, I T S Some es 01P
d
P Lay) �'� h , rna.i V) ECL i Y).and rL- O CLc� v� E
Glr�e� o
y
n d is ih,06 1n-eon
a CC>YnYYI � pie � ��n c�1 �a ocz� �
w�j�re +J)iS -PUv>c ��� a�+��y be tcSe�
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
E
s
lid
V n 6� ✓�� Q
In Erg J-h (2 nc v C-' w � � e
C e 5 (-S i S Y) c7 A- Ce, rz i vm (A '� YY1 evt
is Y)O �- c - v\,
Page 13 of 13
Packet Pg. 227
7.A.j
a�
Q
Packet Pg. 228
7.A.j
January 7, 2021
Mr. Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov
Dear Mr. Lien:
RE: Comments on Draft City Tree Code
These comments, submitted on behalf of the Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protec-
tion Committee (CPC), are written in support of the City's action in expeditiously
adopting the Tree Code' to implement the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Man-
agement Plan.
The CPC `s mission is to encourage action by Edmonds citizens and govern-
ment to minimize the impact of climate change through a combination of reduc-
ing Green House Gas emissions ("GHG mitigation") and preparation for the im-
pacts that are already upon us ("climate adaptation"). We do this by providing
citizen - stakeholder input to the Mayor and City staff.
While it is common knowledge that trees offer cooling shade, block cold winter
winds, attract wildlife, and add beauty to the Edmonds community, we also are
learning that trees are vital to both GHG mitigation and climate adaptation.
GHG Mitigation
As trees grow, they help stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from
the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the at-
mosphere.2 Trees help to absorb carbon and other gasses from the atmos-
phere. A single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs. of carbon a year and make
enough clean oxygen for four people to breathe fresh air annually.'
1http://www.edmondswa.90v ima es/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/
Plan-
ning Division/Codes/TreeCode Clean Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB PH Draft
12.09.20. pdf
z htt s: www.arborday.org/trees/climatechange/
3 https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation
Packet Pg. 229
7.A.j
CO2 absorption is very important because CO2 - already in the atmosphere due
to human activities such as fossil fuel production has already warmed the world
by 1 ° Celsius (° C) (as compared with pre -industrial data) and is on track to in-
crease up to +1.5° C (2.7° F) by 2030. That number will continue to rise if we
don't take immediate global action to cut emissions and reduce the GHG already
in the atmosphere.4 In addition, shading by trees in urban areas helps reduce
energy consumption when it's hot, thus reducing carbon emissions and saving on
cooling costs.
In August 2020, the Edmonds City Council took the bold step to manage climate
change by adopting 1.50 C as the City's Climate Action Planning Goal. This
means Edmonds will do its part to ensure the global heat measurement will only
rise 1.50 C by 2030 when compared to 1900. Please see the excellent summary
of "Why 1.5"by Edmonds Planning Services Department. 5
However, in September 2020 projections of GHG emissions by Climate Action
Tracker showed a substantial gap toward reaching our goal of maintaining 1.50
C. 6
Forest ecosystems are the largest terrestrial carbon (C) sink on Earth and their
management has been recognized as a cost-effective strategy for mitigating
GHG emissions.' While Edmonds Urban Forest is but a small piece of the global
forest ecosystem, it is a piece over which we as a City have some direct control.
By acting quickly today to keep our urban forest viable, we can start tipping the
balance to maintain and enhance the forest C sink in the United States and be-
yond.
Climate Adaptation
The Fourth National Climate Assessment states this about impacts of climate
change to the Northwest:
[E]xtreme events, like heavy rainfall associated with atmospheric rivers,
are also anticipated to occur more often. Along the coast, severe winter
storms are also projected to occur more often, such as occurred in 2015
during one of the strongest El Nino events on record. El Nino winter
storms contributed to storm surge, large waves, coastal erosion, and
flooding in low-lying coastal areas. 8
4 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/
s https://www.cityofedmondswa.com/post/why-1-5
6 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps/
7 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24649
8 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/24/
(citations omitted.)
Packet Pg. 230
7.A.j
Trees are an increasingly important adaption tool in that they protect against se-
vere flooding and storms by slowing the water's strength as it surges on land
and absorbing excess water in the soil which they then release as water vapor
into the air. 9
As a committee tasked to recommend on climate change issues, we unanimously
recommend the City expeditiously adopt the proposed Tree Code to implement
the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. We trust this background
will be helpful to the City staff, Mayor and City Council.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
City of Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protection Committee
By Co-chairs
T.C. Richmond and Lisa Conley
9https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation
N
c
0
M
a�
a�
0
U
a�
L
N
CO
O
Packet Pg. 231
7.A.j
From: Johnson, Kristiana
To: Hope, Shane
Cc: Lien, Kernen
Subject: Fwd: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:54:46 PM
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
0
c�
From: "Judge, Maureen" <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Date: December 8, 2020 at 2:32:59 PM PST
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> o
Subject: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance t)
m
as
L
Good Afternoon,
An Edmonds residence asked me to pass along this message to you regarding the tree
ordinance:
Patrick Sampson-Babineau and his partner Robley King would like you to consider
taking a common sense approach to the tree ordinance. They are concerned about
safety and that you incorporate safety exemptions in your decision making. The
exemptions they are most concerned about are trees falling on homes, damaging
sewer lines, and damaging roofs.
They can be reached at 206-372-0013.
Thank you!
Maureen
Packet Pg. 232
7.A.j
From: K Keefe
To: Lien. Kernen
Subject: Public Comment on 12/9 Planning Board Meeting
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:07:48 AM
Good morning Kernen,
I would like to submit public comment for tonight's Planning Board Meeting in regard to the
draft tree code. If I submit my comments here, will it be read during the "public comment"
period of the meeting? I am unable to attend the meeting via zoom this evening, but would like
to ensure that my comments are seen or heard by the board.
Please let me know if there is a different avenue I need to take to make sure that I have
properly submitted my comments, which I have included below.
Many thanks,
Killy Keefe
Please consider this my public comment on the draft tree code for
tonight's Planning Board meeting.
I support the draft tree code and would encourage it to be passed
as soon as possible. However, I wish it would include MORE
restrictions pertaining to trees on private property.
If a majority of Edmonds tree canopy exists on private property,
wouldn't it make sense to do more to protect those trees? I have
12 significant trees on my property and I would support
protections to keep those trees here, even if it was what some
would consider "an over step of the government telling me what I
can or cannot do on my property." Trees like mine are good for
the entire community, and are a community asset, even if they are
on my personal property.
Please consider passing the tree code now and continue to strive
toward further protections for trees in Edmonds on private
property in the near future.
Killy Keefe
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 233
7.A.j
Killy
wheekawheek(&gmail.com
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi
Hendrix
"Dawn is breaking everywhere. Light a candle, curse the glare." Touch of Grey, The Grateful
Dead.
"She knew how animals would act, she understood what animals
thought, but you could never be sure about people."
From "The Long Winter" by Laura Ingalls Wilder
What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would
die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the
beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
N Chief Seattle
Packet Pg. 234
7.A.j
December 12, 2020
TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
FROM; LARRY NAUGHTEN
RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS
HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER..
Packet Pg. 235
7.A.j
PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COM IISSION-TY
Q
Packet Pg. 236
7.A.j
EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS
I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful
"GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN
TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes,
but only with considerate Neighbors and a new City tree height
ordinance..
I lived in Edmonds for 50 years ... 20 of those years were spent in
public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time
Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with views and
trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and
inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, as Mayor,I always had
empathy for homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed,
when possible —to protect their views.
Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new
construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits
fences. The City should pass a new tree height ordinance limit of
25' on any new tree plantings. This would protect future view
corridor impacts. This new height ordinance would also send the
positive message that the City values the need for trees and views
to coexist and thereby maintain and improve the quality of life for
the residences of Edmonds. If you live in a view corridor a 25'
height limit,on new tree plantings, is important for your homes
f value.
'
ugh ee
Edmonds M or (1983-1991)
Packet Pg. 237
7.A.j
December 2.2020
TO: EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LARRY NAUGHTEN
RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS
HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER
Packet Pg. 238
7.A.j
EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS
I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful
"GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN
TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes,
but only with considerate Neighbors and a City tree height
ordinance..
I lived in Edmonds for 50 years...20 of those years were spent in
public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time
Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with Views and
Trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and
inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, I always had empathy for
homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed, when
possible —to protect their views.
Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new
construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits
fences. The City should pass a tree height limit of 25' on any new
tree plantings. This would protect future view impacts. This
height Ordinance would also send the positive message that the
City values the need for Trees and Views to coexist and thereby
maintain and improve the quality of life for the residences of
Edmonds.
�ughte ,'4 or (1983-1991)
Packet Pg. 239
7.A.j
From: Donna Murohv
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien. Kernen; citizens-climate (abedmonds.wa; Johnson. Laura; Buckshnis. Diane;
bebopbi I I(dya hoo. com
Subject: Tree Code discussion public comment
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:37:50 PM
Dear Planning Board Members and Mr. Lien,
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about the current proposed Tree Code. I appreciate the time and
dedication that Mr. Lein has given to researching other codes, writing and presenting the current Tree Code draft.
I would like to propose the following additional proponents to the current draft: c
1. Limit the amount of significant trees, per year, that a property owner can remove from their property, especially
C
:r
paying close attention to trees that result in the continued deforestation on private land.
M
2. Require private property owners to notify the City Arborist of which significant trees they plan to remove and if
those trees could be better managed (through education and resources to help the homeowner).
3. If a homeowner plans on building on their property, by either adding on to an existing structure or a detached
-a)
building that the trees be marked on the site plan, and any trees labeled problematic or to be removed be evaluated
C
V
during the pre -construction meeting.
4. Offer incentives to home -private property owners to keep their significant trees or plant replacement trees.
L
Incentives may include reducing storm water fees, tax breaks, tree credits and such.
Let's move towards a "no net loss" of trees and protect our urban canopies which in turn, protects our watershed.
As noted by the many larger cities' tree codes, "Our urban forest is a critical infrastructure." A plan of action is as
c
important as knowledge and resources.
c
According to the "Morton Arboretum": "Trees are the only infrastructure that increases in value with age." Clearly
—
larger trees provide larger benefits. With Edmonds being built out from developers, I have confidence that most of
N
Edmonds' private land/property owners, with education, guidance and incentives, are willing to take action to
N
protect our limited tree canopy
c
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Murphy
Sent from iPhone please excuse typos/brevity
Packet Pg. 240
7.A.j
From:
Bill Phim)
To:
Citizens Planning Board
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
tree code public comment
Date:
Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:25:34 PM
Hello Planning Board members and Mr.Lien;
Please enter the following comments, on the Tree Code, into public record and as comments to Mr. Lien.
Thank you.
I really enjoyed your last meeting on November 18, 2020. You really dug into the issues surrounding the
updated tree code. I appreciate your efforts. I liked the way you danced around the issues and each
other !
We now realize that the proposed code, as written, only addresses 5% of the private land in Edmonds.
That is the amount of un-developed land that remains.. It does not address the 95% of private land in
Edmonds that is already developed.
Is it true that Edmonds is 95% "built out".? Thus, there is only 5% of private land left that might be
developed. That's the land this code addresses, so far.
Some of us realize that this is not enough. In the Urban Forest Management Plan it was stressed that
83% of our forest canopy is on private land. It was a goal of the UFMP to update our codes in order to
control deforestation on that 83% of land in Edmonds. The code, as written, doesn't do enough to
address deforestation on private land. Not when you remember phrases like "no net loss".
So, we can look at "alike" nearby cities and see what they have done:
In Shoreline, a property owner can take out three significant trees in a three year period.
In Kirkland, a property owner can take out two significant trees at a time and may not take out the
last two
trees on the lot.
It goes on and on with permits vs notifications, fees, plans, penalties, It's complicated.
But it can be done. Most of our neighboring cities are already doing it.
You know, these are not draconian measures we're talking about. On my street in the last month, 6
significant conifers were cut down; on two different properties. Even under a strong tree code, both of
these events would have been permissible. But neither of those folks are replanting conifer saplings.!
If you're scared of the "property righters", at least institute a notification system; whereas property owners
notify the City of tree cuttings on their property. Then the City knows how many trees are being lost and
how many replacement trees to plant in our Tree Bank from proceeds from our Tree Fund. The city of
Kirkland uses such a system to track their forest canopy.
I've always thought the key to a good tree code is replacement trees. We have to realize that we are
losing tree canopy due to development and "property rights". We must commit to replacing lost trees with
new trees. We must be forward looking and play "the long game". The trees we plant today will make a
huge difference to our grandchildren and their grandchildrens' quality of life.
We must plant multiple "of kind" replacement saplings for every tree cut down. Any significant tree cut
down anyplace, any time, for any reason; must have replacement trees planted.
Once again, thank you for allowing me to sit in on your "tree code" meetings. I appreciated your nuanced
discussions about tree replacement requirements, penalties, fees -in -lieu -of, permits, and especially
incentives.
Packet Pg. 241
7.A.j
We must encourage tree plantings and incentives for property owners to retain their trees. Tree credits,
tax breaks, storm water bill discounts, tree vouchers; all are good ideas.
I hope you choose to broaden the scope of the draft tree code.
I hope you look at regulating tree removal on the already developed properties in Edmonds. This is
where our urban forest canopy is.
Let's create a meaningful tree code that we can all live with and be proud of.
Thank you for your time and consideration;
Bill Phipps
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 242
7.A.j
From: Sharon Sneddon <sksneddon@frontier.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:16 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board
Cc: Council
Subject: Tree Code
After reviewing the Urban Forest Plan as well as the existing Tree Code, I believe regulations need to be
strengthened if Edmonds is to maintain/increase our current 30.3% tree canopy.
With our climate changing, trees face increased challenges to their survival. Rainfall patterns, pests and
diseases both current and new, are already affecting our trees. With 83% of the trees in Edmonds
growing on private property, stronger regulations are needed to protect that portion of our urban forest
canopy.
Present regulations requiring new developments to retain 30% of the trees on the property should be
increased to at least 50%.
Permission to cut trees on private property needs to be more regulated with documentation by a tree
professional required to remove even potentially hazardous trees. Removing trees to increase the home
owners' view could be regulated by a clause in the buying/selling documents for that property.
I am not aware of any public engagement opportunities regarding trees in Edmonds except for the
native plant garden (Demo garden) on Pine.
I hope you will consider my suggestions.
Sharon Sneddon
Edmonds Resident
Packet Pg. 243
7.A.j
Select Homes
December 9, 2020
Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds — Planning Division
a�
Re: Draft Tree Code Review Response
0
My comments and concerns are:
Page 3, 23.10.020, MCID
N
0
Qualified professional — How many people in our local area have 2 of these credentials that o
are in business? Why not just one credential? What are they going to charge? In our 0
U)
experience these fees are very high and will contribute to an increase in housing costs.
Page 3, 23.10.202, O
City's qualified professional — who is this person? Is it someone on staff or an outside
consultant? And, what criteria do they use for specimen tree.
Page 5, 23.10.060, A
Are remodels and additions exempt?
Page 5, 23.10.060, B
The cost and time to meet all the details you are listing is going to add a lot of cost to new
homes and bring down the value of older homes that are over grown. A lot of elderly people
have stayed in their homes for extended years and have not been able or afford to take care
of their yards. When they have to sell to move to assisted living or can't care for themselves,
they are going to be penalized by this ordinance as it will make their properties less desirable.
Unless we exempt some types of landscaping like non-invasive species -- Laurel and Emerald
Green hedges, Holly Trees, even Rhododendrons and Fruit Trees. Many of them exceed 6
inches if they are old. These should not be considered in this ordinance.
16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 phone 425.742.6044 fex 425.742.5082 wtvmselectbomesiva. coil?
Paa.nca Pg. 244
7.A.j
Page 6, 23.10.060, C
What happens if you cannot save 30%? Are they going to be cases where you make some lots
unbuildable? If so is the City going to buy these lots, or just deny use.
Page 7, 23.10.060, D
Alders and Cottonwood are another example of trees that die early, rot and fall.
0
�a
Page 8, 23.10.070, B a�
a�
1. Fencing —Why not use orange construction fencing.
2. Who is the "director", who determines when you can remove fencing? v
as
as
L
Page 9, 23.10.070, C
N
3. This will make it very hard to save trees that are in the setback, close to driveways CO
and sidewalks, etc. o
4. In very few cases can you hand dig a tunnel under a tree root system to lay pipe. c
Page 10, 23.10.080
Tree Replacement— Can your replacement trees be planted on a different lot within the city
limits?
Page 11, 23.10.085
This is the worst thing in the whole proposal. No one should have to record their trees on
their title. This has the potential for a lot of misunderstanding by lenders, title companies and
future buyers. I strongly disagree with this item and hope it is removed.
Page 11, 23.10.090 Bonding
There is no way to buy a bond for this. This would have to be cash out of pocket and in some
trust account at the City. A lot of administration to manage this. Again, adding cost to the
home.
If you sell during the two years can you transfer the bond/cash payment responsibility to the
new owner?
How would it work if you planted trees on someone else's lot?
2
16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 981W plww, 425,742.6044 Ja . 425.742.5082 wrv+v.seleethomesrva. cam
Packet may. 245
7.A.j
In closing,
I'm not sure what the priority is for the City. You have been talking about affordable housing
for a long time. Easy to do with the proper zoning changes. But, this proposal will add a lot of
cost to a home. I am very concerned it will make some properties unbuildable or under-
utilized.
Edmonds has a huge shortage of lots and buildable land. We need to prioritize what is most
important. Trees are a necessary part, but they are also something that can and should be
managed. Big trees and houses don't go well together. By continuing to harvest and replant
everything seems to works better.
We hope that the City will utilize these comments and concerns as you move forward with
the tree code. We'd also like to see that lots that are currently part of subdivisions that have
been submitted be vested in the current code. These properties were purchased and the
subdivisions designed without the knowledge that they would be part of a new tree code.
The subdivision moratorium is already allowing that no new subdivisions be submitted during
this time, but those that have already been submitted should be vested in the existing code.
Lastly, while I am a business owner I am also a resident of Edmonds. 1 want the best for our
community and feel we can find a more balanced way of managing our trees.
Sincerely,
Randy Clark
President
Select Homes, Inc.
3
c
0
�a
3
aD
W
aD
0
as
aD
L
N
CO
0
16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 pb, w 425.742,6044 fay. 425,742,5082 iviviv.selecthomesiva.com
Packet Pg. 246
7.A.j
December 9, 2020
c
O
RE: Proposed Tree Ordinance
3
O1
O
O
O
V
My name is Doug Wrigley and I live at 9724 214" PI 5W, Edmonds, WA. I wanted to share my comments
regarding the proposed tree ordinance. I am a 21-year employee of Select Homes, Inc. who has
constructed 70 new homes on single lots, short plats that we have developed or regular plats
throughout the City of Edmonds since 2015. 1 wanted to share with you how the process works and who 0
benefits from this construction activity.
1. Finding the land. The majority of the land we acquire is from sellers who are moving from a
single-family home into some form of senior housing. The proceeds from the sale of the land
we believe is used to maintain or improve the citizen's standard of living. In many cases the
homes we purchase are run down, dangerous dwellings. We have been praised by many that
our action to purchase, tear down and build a new home, eliminating the eye sore, rodent
infestation, fire hazard, etc., is very much appreciated.
Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who are paid the highest price for their land based on
developable lot yield. Neighbors near the dwelling who get a safer community as a result of a
derelict home being removed from their neighborhood.
2. We make a preliminary plat application if the land will be subdivided. Sometimes during the
processing of the plat, we can allow the Seller to remain in the house for a year or more. This is
helpful to make the process of moving into senior housing a gradual change vs. an immediate
one.
Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who sometimes enjoy rent free living for up to a year.
City Staff who have sufficient work to maintain gainful employment as a result of department
reviews of our projects. Local engineers, planners, architects, surveyors, soil testing
organizations, asbestos testing organizations and asbestos remediation organizations to name a
few.
Once construction is started, we pay 10.4% in WSST for everything that goes into the home.
Included in the 10.4% is the local Edmonds portion of the sale tax rate, 3.9%. On a typical new
home, we will pay approximately $66,000 in state sales tax of which approximately $25,000 is
Packet Pg. 247
7.A.j
the Edmonds local portion. In addition, there are a host of permit fees associated with
constructing a new home ... fees that can easily exceed $30,000 with most of that collected by
the City of Edmonds. Any you can't forget the big one: the millions and millions of dollars of
value that is created by developer/builder activities that gets taxed in the form of property taxes
forever more. Hospital districts make more, school districts, etc.
Benefited parties: City of Edmonds general revenue fund. State of Washington general revenue
fund. Citizens of Edmonds. Hundreds of employees throughout the area who are paid a living
wage to form and pour foundations, frame, side the home, roof the home, wire and plumb the
home, landscape the home. School districts, hospital districts, etc.
4. Once the home is completed and the home sell and closes, we are charged Excise Tax on the
sales price of the home regardless if any money was made on the project. It's a variable rate
(new 2020) but is approximately 1.8% of the selling price or $24,930. Part of this goes to the
State and part goes to the City of Edmonds.
Benefited parties: State of Washington / City of Edmonds.
While we love building in Edmonds where a lot of us live it is fairly restrictive even without the new tree
ordinance. We have height constraints on all our homes. We have to amend the soil where landscaping
will be installed. We have to retain/manage every drop of water that hits the lot through sometimes
expensive/elaborate storm water systems. If the house is over 3000 sf then a fire suppression system is
required to be installed. We have to install underground utilities to the new home where once the
utilities were overhead. Often, we need to add sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and other public
improvements. It takes a lot of money to make sure we are doing it right. It was funny but when
purchased my lot, I had no idea that I'd spend $55,000 on Edmonds lot requirements on top of what I
paid for the land and small tear down home. That's a real number and that is what it cost me for my
storm system, soil amendments, underground utilities, improving the side sewer, etc. not to mention
approximately $8,000 to install fire suppression in my home.
Finally, I am concerned about the timing of the enhanced tree ordinance. We are in the middle of a
pandemic and we need all the sales tax revenue we can get to offset some of our shuttered businesses.
We need to focus on the health and wealth of our senior citizens, those of whom might be thinking of
selling their homes and need the proceeds from the sale to help them survive financially. We need to
think of our City employees and their livelihoods. Where would many of them be if redevelopment was
squashed in the City of Edmonds as a result of an onerous tree ordinance. I would ask the Mayor and
Council to tap the breaks on the tree ordinance implementation. It needs more thought. Stakeholders
like us should be at the table helping to draft a commonsense ordinance. What you currently have will
certainly lead to fewer applications, fewer new homes being constructed and fewer tax dollars for
Edmonds. It's just to costly, especially in these unprecedented times. The ordinance needs balance and
I am sure you will hear specifics from others.
c
0
�a
3
aD
W
aD
0
v
m
aD
N
C6
0
Packet Pg. 248
7.A.j
December 9, 2020
RE: Proposed Tree Code Update
To Whom It May Concern,
I am an Edmonds resident and an employee of Select Homes, Inc. We have been building in
Snohomish County for thirty years and in Edmonds over the last decade.
I have worked with nine cities in Snohomish and King counties while working in land
development and residential construction. I have seen how different tree ordinances impact this
process in many ways. For instance, when laying a house on a property we take many things into
consideration — privacy, yard size, views, how can we maximize daylight in the yards, etc. With
overly strict tree ordinances we have little flexibility (or it becomes overly cost prohibitive) in
making the best layout for the families that will be living in the future home.
The City of Edmonds permitting process takes weeks, if not months, longer than many of the
other jurisdictions I work with. The addition of such strict ordinances will extend this process in
many ways — finding qualified arborists is difficult and the wait times for reports can take many
weeks. When we receive comments from the City, we'll likely have to go through another wait
time for updated reports from the arborists. The longer we hold onto these properties, the more
they cost us and this ultimately adds to the price of the home. In the same way the added expense
caused by time lost adds to the price of the home, so will the added expense of arborists, tree
protection, tree replacement, etc. that will all go to driving up the price of homes.
The subdivision moratorium has already made the City of Edmonds builder unfriendly and now
this new tree ordinance will do the same. This will go for builders of all kinds and will make it
even more prohibitive for any new housing in Edmonds, including affordable housing.
We hope to see a more balanced tree ordinance. We'd like to see exemptions for plantings that
were originally done as landscaping (emerald greens, rhododendrons, fruit trees, etc.) that have
become overgrown and now exceed 6 inches and/or the Significant Tree definition increased
from 6 inches. We're very concerned with the requirements for bonding and putting the trees on
title. The requirement for bonding will be a deterrent to builders as the trees are out of their
control upon sale of the property and the title requirement will be a hinderance for home buyers.
We hope to see lots that are part of a subdivision that are already submitted to be vested to the
current code.
Thank you,
Kayla Nichols
Packet Pg. 249
7.A.j
From: Chris Walton <emailcwalton@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:56 AM
To: Lien, Kernen
Cc: Spellman, Jana; Barbara Chase
Subject: Last Night's Presentation
Hello Kernen,
Thanks to your team for the presentation last night. It was interesting. I was hoping to make a couple of
comments at the end, but to be honest I couldn't bear to go through the beginning slides a 2nd time. I
gave up. No worries. I truly understand the challenges of Zoom.
• It appears to me that in the end, it all boils down to money. Unless I am misunderstanding the
document (and that is very possible!), the concept is that developers are "encouraged" to
maintain trees, or replant trees, because if they don't there will be a price to pay. I suspect that
most developers will clear cut the lot and just consider that price as part of the expense of the
project and pass it on to the buyers.
• Cutting down huge mature trees and replanting puny replacements will have little effect on the
environment for years to come.
• The way we build now maximizes density. One large single lot can easily end up having 3 large
houses put on it. (Example: new houses on corner of Pine and 9th where there used to be
many beautiful trees). This is a people versus nature issue that I doubt we will solve. The reality
is that when houses are packed together like that, large trees will never fit.
• Hopefully we are "measuring" in some way what we are doing. In other words, 5 years from
now, did these monetary incentives work, or are we continuing to loss the canopy in significant
numbers? We'll see.
I am glad that I am a senior and won't be around much longer. What humans are doing to this planet is
disgraceful and not sustainable. I do applaud your team and the Tree Board for "trying", but I doubt
nature will win in the end.
No reply is expected. Just sharing my personal thoughts.
Respectfully,
Chris Walton
Cedar Street, Edmonds
Packet Pg. 250
7.A.j
From: Janie Worm <hello@janieworm.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:21 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board
Subject: Tree Codes
To whom it may concern,
I attended a recent Tree Board meeting, and board member Bill Phipps
recommended that I share some thoughts with you regarding tree codes.
0
First of all, I am s000... grateful that tree codes are being written &
updated to help meet the current environmental needs of our times. My
thanks to everyone who has put their time and attention into this!
0
U
I think it's great to charge a hefty fee for contractors not able or willing to
replant the desired number of trees on lots of completed construction
projects. This is a great step.
My concern, however, is that many will opt to pay the fee and move
on. Then, we have money in the bank, but money will not clean our air,
our water, and support our soils.
It feels to me like a major education campaign needs to happen.
Awareness/Education --> Appreciation; Appreciation --> Protection/
Preservation.
How can we impress upon people that trees are not like light posts that we
can tear down and reconstruct somewhere else. They take years of growth
and are the best purifiers of our environment, better than anything we can
construct from inorganic materials. Trees are unpaid employees
working silently and efficiently everyday on our behalf!
Can we offer incentives to home and land owners?
At tax time, those who have purchased hybrid vehicles get a tax break. Can
we offer tax breaks or a stipend to those planting and maintaining large
trees, since the whole community is benefiting from them?
Someone mentioned a tree at 8th & Walnut that neighbors prefer to have
removed. Can we first educate people? I recommend putting a sign near
the tree that offers facts showing how it benefits them personally, and giving
the tree a voice. (I haven't seen the tree so I'll make up an example.)
Sample of one possible educational sign.
Packet Pg. 251
7.A.j
"I am a 20 year old Blue Spruce that removes 200 lbs of carbon from the air
each year, improving air quality by 22%. I also filter 100 gallons of water
annually, and my canopy reduces surface temperatures, benefiting all
residents. I offer these gifts of service for free. "
Nature is very dear to my heart, and trees are one of the most important
keys to turning around global warming. Since my yard is full, I am willing
to plant trees on any public lands (city, state, national, global). Please let
me know how I can help increase the number of trees in this area. I have o
many friends, arborists, gardeners, plant nursery workers, teachers,
students... all ready and willing to help. After the recent wildfires, this feels
more important than ever.
There's a "must see" documentary titled, "Call of the Forest: The Ancient
Wisdom of Trees." i
Thanks so much for all you do, and for thinking about the health and well-
being of the planet, all life and future generations. Together we can
accomplish anything!
Thanks again.
Janie Worm
"Let's bring your space to life with paint. " -- Harmony Paint & Music
"Love moves like a song." -- JanieWorm.com
Packet Pg. 252
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/13/2021
Climate Goals Planning - Status Update and Discussion
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Edmonds has supported specific climate protection activities for at least a decade, as well as related
"sustainability" activities for even longer. In 2017, the Mayor signed the Mayors National Climate Action
Agenda and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1389 (attached) to achieve or exceed at the local
level the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord. The resolution contains seven sections related to
climate issues, particularly for reducing greenhouse gases.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Staff will provide an update of the City's Climate Goals project at the January 13th Planning Board
meeting.
The City of Edmonds hired a consultant, Environmental Science Associates (ESA), to help implement
Resolution No. 1389 (Attachment 1). As part of the project over the last couple of years, milestones
have included: a greenhouse gas inventory; a policy gap analysis regarding existing City policies related
to climate change; discussion on science -based targets for climate change planning; a tracking tool for
the City to use in meeting its climate goals; and a public information open house.
In 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No.1453 (Attachment 2) which established a planning
target of limiting the global average temperature increase to no more the 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-
industrial levels. Setting this target is key for guiding the update of the City's Climate Action Plan.
While development of the updated Climate Action Plan was stalled in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic,
development of the Climate Action Plan is beginning in earnest again. Cascadia has been hired to assist
with the public engagement aspect of developing the Climate Action Plan. Staff will provide the
Planning Board an overview of the timeline for Climate Action Plan Development in 2021.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 1389
Attachment 2: Resolution No. 1453
Packet Pg. 253
8.A.a
RESOLUTION NO. 1389
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMMITTING TO ACHIEVE OR EXCEED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
THE GOALS ESTABLISHED IN THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD
WHEREAS, climate change poses a grave threat to the health and well-being of this and
future generations in Edmonds and beyond; and
WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, human -caused climate change
is already killing some 150,000 people every year around the world; and
WHEREAS, people of color, immigrants, refugees, economically disadvantaged
residents, older people and children, people who are homeless, and people with existing mental
or health conditions will experience climate change disproportionately; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 EPA report, Climate Change in the United States; Benefits of
Global Action, states that global action on climate change would prevent nearly 70,000
premature American deaths annually by the end of the century while sparing the country
hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses; and
WHEREAS, Washington State has already experienced long- term warming, moretu
E
frequent nighttime heat waves, sea level rising along most of Washington's coast, increased v
coastal ocean acidity, decline in glacial area and spring snowpack and the State Department of e,
Ecology has reported that, "human caused climate change poses an immediate and urgent M
threat"; and o
z
WHEREAS, economists have concluded that Washington's families and businesses are o
likely to incur billions of dollars of annual economic costs if Washington state and other states
and nations fail to drive reductions in climate -changing greenhouse gas pollution. These
economics impacts include increased energy costs, coastal and storm damage, reduced food
production, increased wildland fire costs, and increased public health costs; and r
WHEREAS, in recognition of the immediate need to take strong and proactive action to
protect our environment, the City of Edmonds in 2006 established the Climate Protection
Committee with a core mission to:
1. Encourage Edmonds citizens to be a part of the solution
2. Encourage City staff and citizens to conserve current resources
3. Work with the City Council to implement ideas to preserve and enhance our
environment
4. Effectively address the future impacts of climate change
Packet Pg. 254
8.A.a
WHEREAS, the Climate Protection Committee has established key environmental
strategies to: 1) Reduce fossil fuels with renewable energy resources for energy supplied to
buildings, 2) Improve energy efficiency of and within buildings and 3) Require the design and
construction of new and remodeled commercial buildings to meet green building standards; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, Mayor Dave Earling signed the Mayors National Climate
Action Agenda and stated "In light of the [President's] decision to withdraw from the Paris
Accord, I feel it important for our city to emphasize our local commitment to, and continued
effort to improve our environment"; and
WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance ("SELA"), Edmonds
has committed itself to being a regional and national leader in addressing the adverse impacts of
climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels; and enacted bold policies and programs to
reduce emissions from its transportation, building energy, and waste sectors and reduced
emissions while its population has grown; and
WHEREAS, the Paris Agreement resulted in a commitment from almost every nation to
take action and enact programs to limit global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees
Celsius, with an expectation that this goal would be reduced to 1.5 degrees in the future; and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington has mandated statewide reduction of GHG
emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. H.29 on September 18, 2006 =
U
adopting the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S.
Conference of Mayors meeting; and °r,°
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1129 also requested semi-annual updates to City Council o
z
regarding the progress of the City in implementing the following program milestones: 1) r_
Conduct a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast for the City, 2) Establish a 3
greenhouse gas emission target (GHG), 3) Develop an action plan to meet the local greenhouse o
emissions target, 4) Im.plement the action plan and 5) periodically review progress and update
the plan; and r
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010 the City of Edmonds completed a Climate Change
Action Plan and within the plan it reported Edmonds buildings account for approximately one-
third of Edmond's GHG emissions for lighting, heating, cooling, and cooking; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Change Action plan states replacing fossil fuel -derived energy
with renewable energy sources for both city owned buildings and throughout our community is
critical to achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set forth in the City's Climate
Action Plan and the Compact of Mayors, to which the City is a signatory; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that energy consumers and the utilities serving them take
early action to reduce carbon emissions given the accelerating rate climate change the planet is
Packet Pg. 255
8.A.a
experiencing, and shifting to 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 is within
reach; and
WHEREAS, "renewable energy" includes energy derived from hydrogen, wind power
sited in ecologically responsible ways, solar, existing and low -impact hydroelectric, geothermal,
biogas (including biogas produced from biomass), and ocean/wave technology sources.
"Renewable energy" specifically excludes energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass
feedstocks sourced from state and federal lands, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, and
incineration of .municipal and medical waste; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has demonstrated its commitment to
environmental stewardship and the health and safety of Edmonds residents by numerous other
actions, including passing Resolution 1362 on June 28, 2016 stating its opposition to the
transport of crude oil by rail;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, THAT:
Section 1: City Council fully supports Mayor Dave Earling's June 6, 2017 endorsement
of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda.
Section 2: City Council rededicates itself to partnering with the City administration and
Edmonds citizens to identify the benefits and costs of adopting policies and programs that
promote the long-term goal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction while maximizing economic
and social benefits of such action.
Section 3: The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will report CD
annually to the City Council our current municipal and community -wide GHG inventory starting
in 2018. °
z
Section 4: The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will establish o
and recommend to City Council a GHG emissions reduction target goal for both the near terns
0
and long tern by July 1, 2018.
Section 5: The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will update
our City's Climate Change Action Plan and review the specific strategies for meeting the
possible.
emissions reduction target as well as tying mitigation with adaptation measures where poE
r
5cction 0, The City establishes the following renewable energy goals for both municipal
facilities and for the City at large:
100% renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019; and,
ii. 100% renewable energy for the City's community electricity supply by 2025.
Section 7: By November 1, 2018, the Planning Department and the Climate Protection
Committee will develop a work plan, including options, methods and financial resources needed
and an associated timeline and milestones to achieve these renewable energy goals.
Packet Pg. 256
8.A.a
RESOLVED this 27t' day of June, 2017.
APPROVED:
TOM M ESAR0S; COUNCIL PRF,. )ENT
ATTESTIAU'1'1 ;i�i 1'1CATED:
Y CLERK, 'C PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: June 28, 2017
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 27, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 1389
4
rn
00
M
O
Z
C
O
7
O
N
N
Packet Pg. 257
8.A.b
RESOLUTION NO. 1453
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SETTING A
SCIENCE BASED CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING TARGET OF
LIMITING THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE INCREASE
TO NO MORE THAN 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE PRE-
INDUSTRIAL TEMPERATURES
WHEREAS, climate change poses a grave threat to the health and well-being of this and
future generations in Edmonds and beyond; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City of Edmonds' Mayor signed the Mayors National
Climate Action Agenda and stated, "In light of the [President's] decision to withdraw
from the Paris Accord, I feel it important for our city to emphasize our local commitment
to, and continued effort to improve our environment"; and
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 1389 the Edmonds' City Council fully supported
endorsement of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda and also identified new
actions to take; and
WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance ("SELA"), Edmonds c�
has committed itself to being a regional and national leader in addressing the adverse
impacts of climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels; and enacted bold policies E
and programs to reduce emissions from its transportation, building energy, and waste v
sectors and reduced emissions while its population has grown; and
T
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010 the City of Edmonds completed a Climate Change 6
Action Plan that states replacing fossil fuel -derived energy with renewable energy c
sources for both city owned building and throughout our community is critical to °
achieving the greenhouse reduction goals set forth in the City's Climate Action Plan; and c
as
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1389 noted the City Staff and the Climate and the Climate
Protection Committee will establish and recommend to the City Council a GHG N
emissions reduction target goal for both the near term and long term; and d
WHEREAS, a science -based climate target sets a rate of climate action that is aligned
with keeping average global temperature increases below a specified level of increase
compared to pre -industrial temperatures.
WHEREAS, an advantage of adopting a science -based target is that it can remain
constant. Over time, the rate of decarbonization necessary to meet the target may go up
or down, depending on the success of the climate action plan. The science -based target is
the desired endpoint, and decarbonization rates can be adjusted as the primary means of
reaching it.
WHEREAS, the Paris Agreement resulted in a commitment from almost every nation to
1
Packet Pg. 258
8.A.b
take action and enact programs to limit global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees
Celsius, with an expectation that this goal would be reduced to 1.5 degrees in the future;
and
WHEREAS, in 2019, a science based climate target was discussed by the Climate
Protection Committee which recommended that the City pursue efforts to limit the
increase in the global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre -industrial
levels; and
WHEREAS, the City is updating the Climate Change Action Plan which will include
reviewing specific strategies for meeting the emissions reduction targets based on the
City's adopted science based climate target;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, Washington as follows:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the science based climate target of limiting the
increase in the global average temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-
industrial levels.
Section 2. While updating the City's Climate Action Plan, the City will review specific
strategies for the Edmonds' share of meeting the no more than 1.5 degrees target as well
as tying mitigation with adaption measures where possible.
RESOLVED this 18th day of August, 2020.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MOOR, MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/A[UTHENT TED:
LERK,SCOT SEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: August 14, 2020
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: August 18, 2020
RESOLUTION NO. 1453
M
In
T
O
Z
0
0
d
Packet Pg. 259
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/13/2021
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.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 260
oV
1014, Items and Dates are subject to change
PLAHMNS BOARD
Extended Agenda
January 13, 2021
Meeting Item
January, 2021
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
January 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Update
27 2. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Update Focus
Recommendations
February, 2021
February
10
February
24
1. Potential code amendment to allow unit lot subdivisions in the
Downtown Business (BD) zones (File No. AMD2020-0003)
2. Review /discussion on code update work: EV Charging
1.
Packet Pg. 261
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. 262