Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2022-09-14 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, September 14, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
1.
2.
A.
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062. Passcode: 598700
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Phyiscal Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at
the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open
public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting
the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220
Railroad Avenue.
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.
Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
Approval of Minutes
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6763)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve August 10th meeting minutes
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 91912022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 14, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB220810d (PDF)
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6804)
Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
6. Public Hearings
7. Unfinished Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6803)
Tree Code Amendments
Background/History
The most recent amendments to Edmonds' tree code, Chapter 23.10 ECDC, adopted in 2021,
focus on tree retention related to development (Attachment 1). At the June 21 City Council and
the July 13, 2022 Planning Board meetings, staff received direction to further amend the code
to limit property owner tree removals, previously referred to as the "Phase 2" tree code
amendments (Attachments 2 and 3, respectively). Staff was also directed to expand the project
scope to include minor amendments to the existing code that:
• Further clarify, simplify and provide greater code consistency.
• Streamline the development review or tree removal request process.
• Align with industry standards, including the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) Standards, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for arboricultural by the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the ISA/TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment
Qualification) method relating to hazard tree removal.
• Address situations that have required a code interpretation, when the code is difficult or
unclear in its application, or as trends in code enforcement merit code clarification.
The City Council and Planning Board have provided general feedback for improvements to the
current tree code. Staff then developed a comprehensive list of Preliminary Tree Code
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 91912022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 14, 2022
Amendments (Attachment 4). The list shows policy level impacts and justification for each
proposed code change.
The Tree Board studied how the current code works by examining four mock development
scenarios (Attachment 5) at its August 4, 2022, meeting, concluding that simplifying and
streamlining the existing code should be a primary objective of tree code amendments. The
Tree Board observed that the code requirements are not equitable when applied to heavily
wooded sites and that the code may not be achieving its intended tree retention and replanting
objectives (Attachment 6).
Staff Recommendation
Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting. Confirm that the general direction and text of
Chapter 23.10 ECDC amendments for items with low levels of policy implications is appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1—ECDC 23.10 (PDF)
• Attachment 2_06212022 CC Meeting Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 3_07132022 PB Meeting Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 4_Tree Code Amend List (PDF)
• Attachment 5—Mock Dev Scenarios (PDF)
• Attachment 6_08042022 TB Draft Meeting Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 7—Draft No Level ECDC 23.10 (PDF)
• Attachment 8—ECDC 23.10 Amend Project Outline(PDF)
B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6806)
Cliamte Action Plan Update
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Edmonds CAP Brochure (PDF)
• Workshop Posters and CAP Strategies & Actions (PDF)
• Edmonds CAP Engagement Workshop 2 Summary(PDF)
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 91912022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 14, 2022
8. New Business
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
13. Generic Agenda Items
Planning Board Page 4 Printed 91912022
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve August 10th meeting minutes
Narrative
August 10th draft minutes attached
Attachments:
PB220810d
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
August 10, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Campbell read the Land Acknowledgement.
Board Members Present
Alicia Crank, Chair
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Kernen Lien, Planning Division Manager
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DULY 27, 2022 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Greg Brewer expressed concern about the erosion of the business base in the BD2 zone as a result of changes
to the permitted use tables which would allow 100% residential buildings. He urged the Planning Board to
protect all of the BD2 zone.
Michelle Dutch commented that the BD2 designation is defined as downtown mixed commercial. She reviewed
how the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Element discuss downtown mixed commercial. She urged the
Planning Board to preserve commercial in the BD2 zone.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2022 Pagel of 6
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
JOINT MEETING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
A. BD Designated Street Front
Economic Development Commission Members Present: Darrol Haug, Keith Hamilton, Jay Hoag, Vice Chair
Kevin Harris, Kevin Smith, Chair Nicole Hughes, David Kaufer, David Coffer, Councilmember Susan Paine
Introductions were made. Senior Planner Clugston introduced the topic and made a brief presentation regarding
the BD Designated Street Front. He reviewed:
Language from the Downtown Mixed Commercial and Downtown Mixed Residential sections of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Designated Street Front regulations: must be commercial within first 45 feet of designated street front;
12-foot minimum ground floor (15 feet in BD 1); different design standards
History of BD2 projects that have occurred since 2011: Post Office, 303 Edmonds Street, 117 2nd
Avenue S, 611 Main Street, 627 Dayton Street, 310 Daley. With the exception of the post office, all the
other projects were residential proposals.
Potential Recommendations:
1. No change — keep Designated Street Front as in Ordinance 3865
2. Accept interim map and use table in Ordinance 4262
3. Accept interim map and take broader look at all BD zones after Comprehensive Plan update (staff s
recommendation)
4. Require all BD2 parcels to be mixed use (to have Designated Street Front requirements)
5. Require all BD2 parcels to be mixed use and consider zoning change after Comprehensive Plan update
to facilitate two floors of residential above commercial
Mr. Clugston invited discussion regarding the topic and noted that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for
September 28.
EDC Chair Hughes explained that there is not necessarily a consensus among the EDC regarding this
topic.
EDC Commissioner Harris asked what led the staff to the recommendation they favor if the
Comprehensive Plan is the overall guiding document. Mr. Clugston replied that the timing of the project
in relation to the Comprehensive Plan update is not ideal. Staff feels that making the interim ordinance
into a permanent ordinance results in the changes that the Council wanted to see, but it doesn't take a
larger step of redrawing an entire area in the downtown area. Planning Manager Kernen Lien explained
that part of the Comprehensive Plan update process will be a visioning process where they can take a
broader look at the downtown core and where those designated street fronts should be or not.
EDC Commissioner Haug referred to first floor height requirements for BD 1 and BD2 zones. He noted
that a previous EDC looked at this extensively and made a recommendation to change BD 1 to allow
12-foot construction, the same as what BD2 is right now. The EDC was confused about why there was
a difference in first floor height requirements between the two zones. Planning Manager Lien stated that
the BD 1 height requirement had to do with the retail/display use of the ground floor. The BD2 zone had
more to do with office uses where 12 feet is the standard. He noted that the ground floor height impacts
the ability to potentially get three floors. The economic analysis in the packet shows that it is harder to
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
get three floors with the ground floor height requirement. Recommendation 5 would be to consider
some flexibility with the heights to allow potentially three floors if commercial is required on the ground
floor.
PB Chair Crank asked for clarification about the pieces that are likely to get changed anyway in the
update and visioning process so they don't spend too much time working on those things right now.
Planning Manager Lien replied they will be looking at the whole downtown area. This item has been
flagged as something that specifically needs to be looked at. He thinks they will likely be looking at
commercial use in the downtown area and housing use/availability.
EDC Commissioner Smith referred to the old post office and asked how the ground floor building
heights compare to what would otherwise be available in the BD2 zone. He asked if the preferred
recommendation #3 would allow the building without commercial or if it would require street fronts.
Mr. Clugston replied that the post office had 12-foot first floor heights. The preferred recommendation
would leave the map as it is with the interim ordinance and the few extensions that the Council approved
in June as well as the updated use table. In the future they would look at the broader view of the
downtown area after the Comprehensive Plan is updated.
EDC Commissioner Hoag noted that the 6th & Main project is removing an existing commercial
building to put in residential. He acknowledged that there is a housing crisis, but there was a good reason
that BD2 had intentional mixed use with business on the ground floor. He thinks they will regret losing
the commercial space in the BD2 zone.
PB Member Gladstone asked what the drivers are to push for this now rather than waiting for the update
°
and visioning process. Mr. Lien reviewed recent history which brought this to attention and caused
'o
Council to adopt a moratorium and interim ordinances for designated street front and design standards.
a
The ordinances are only good for six months. If they are not addressed now, the interim ordinance will
a
just revert back to what it was before it was adopted.
M
MOTION MADE BY CHAIR CRANK TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OPTION 3. THE MOTION
DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
EDC Vice Chair Harris commented he doesn't have a good understanding of the risks of letting things
go back to status quo or changing it to the City's preferred option. Mr. Lien explained the designated
street front would get contracted back down to what it was before the interim ordinance. It was extended
to protect the retail core by having commercial around the BD I zone and to identify areas where there
were commercial uses on both sides of the street and within the primary pedestrian areas downtown.
Another important part of this was the update to the use table to clarify the uses in the BD2 zone.
Recommendation 3 matches what staff is hearing from Council and what they have been hearing from
the public.
Chair Hughes commented she was leaning towards being able to support Recommendation 3.
PB Member Rosen spoke in support of protecting the area for additional business growth. He pointed
out that they are not talking about either/or but how much residential. In addition, he referred to previous
discussions about transition zones. He noted that people are responding to their experiences walking
down the street and their interaction with the buildings. He also spoke in support of Recommendation
3 to "protect the dirt" while also saying they are not done talking about this.
PB Member Gladstone asked if the interim designated street front lines reflect what is on the ground
better than the actual map. Mr. Lien explained how the expanded lines in the interim ordinance were
drawn. They reflect what is actually on the ground right now. PB Member Gladstone asked the
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2022 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
difference between making the interim designation permanent and the Recommendation 5 regarding
allowing mixed use. Mr. Lien explained Recommendation 5 would also address potential height issues.
• EDC Commissioner Smith commented that the Comprehensive Plan update is the appropriate time to
take a deeper look at this. He cautioned against getting rid of potential commercial space as they are
seeing vibrant growth in the city. He voiced support for Recommendation 4.
• PB Member Kuehn expressed concern that if they only do Recommendation 3 it allows issues to happen
in other areas. He agrees with "protecting the dirt" until they can take a broader look at this. He spoke
in support of Recommendation 4.
• PB Member Campbell spoke in support of trying to raise the building height limits in order to get to
three stories. She thinks it is going to be necessary in the long run to have this commercial space. She
spoke in support of Recommendations 4 or 5 to keep commercial space from disappearing.
• EDC Commissioner Hoag commented that this will all lead to some reevaluation of the Comprehensive
Plan. It doesn't seem feasible that the current owners of the building could adjust their current building
to match the interim standards and get it approved before they get to the Comprehensive Plan update.
He wasn't sure if anything would ever occur if they did Recommendation 3.
MOTION MADE BY PB MEMBER ROSEN TO SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDATION 4 TO
3
"PROTECT THE DIRT" AND TAKE A BROADER LOOK AT THIS WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS. MOTION SECONDED BY PB MEMBER GLADSTONE.
0
• Student Representative Distelhorst spoke to the need for more housing and spoke in support of 'o
preserving options for multifamily housing. a
• EDC Commissioner Haug asked if EDC members should participate in voting tonight. Mr. Lien noted a
that the formal recommendation by the Planning Board would be taken following the September 28 c
public hearing. He stated that they would like to hear the recommendation from the EDC. o
• EDC Commissioner Hamilton agreed that the City does need some housing in the downtown area, N
especially charming housing. He thinks that this will help the existing businesses. He also recommended a
making sure to change height requirements so that they can get three floors. He recommended
Recommendation 3 which gives the most flexibility and uses the Comprehensive Plan process.
E
• PB Member Kuehn clarified that the motion would extend the B132 zones and take a broader look at all
BD zones after the Comprehensive Plan process. It will not take away the ability to build residential
units.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDED OPTION 4 PASSED.
Mr. Lien stated that staff would bring back Recommendation 4 to the public hearing on September 28. Chair
Crank thanked the EDC for joining them tonight. EDC Chair Hughes thanked the group for the collaboration.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone
(AMD2022- 0001)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced the public hearing for the permanent standards for multifamily only
buildings in the BD2 zone as recommended by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) last week. He reviewed
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2022 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
the amended language from the ADB. He noted that if the recommendation tonight is eventually passed by the
Council these standards would be moot.
• Materials — The intent was to use preferred building materials such as stone, wood, metal, brick, and
glass. The ADB wanted to allow alternative materials if they are contributing to a cohesive design theme
for the building.
• Private AmenitySpace — The ADB suggested allowing balconies to encroach into an R-zoned property
up to 6 feet rather than 5 feet to make the balconies ADA compatible.
• Roof Treatment and Modulation — New verbiage provides a menu of options for developers to use.
They have to use at least three of them.
• Roof Top Deck — The ADB liked the roof top deck concept in addition to the private amenity space.
Vice Chair Pence asked if the stairwell penthouse structure would be allowed on the roof deck area. Mr.
Clugston replied that it would not be allowed, but an elevator penthouse would be allowed. Vice Chair Pence
did not think that made sense and that it would make the building more expensive than needed.
Board Member Campbell agreed that a stairwell penthouse should also be allowed. Mr. Clugston replied that
could be looked at as they go through the process and look at definitions of height.
Public Testimony: °
0
Michelle Dutch referred to building massing, step backs, and shadows. She suggested that a step back for the a
top floor could be an option for a rooftop amenity so it is not massing and towering over the pedestrian area. a
She stated that horizontal modulation is critical for interest in the building. She commented that the Subarea
M
Highway 99 Plan has a critical design concern related to not allowing a flat unmodulated wall next to single
�
family or less dense RM 1.5 zone, street, or alley. She also expressed concern about the lack of requirements
N
for green space.
m
Will Magnuson spoke in support of the Board's vote tonight on the BD2 zone. He also spoke in support of the
15-foot height requirement for first floor commercial because it allows for flexibility in uses by providing space
for ducting and HVAC options. Regarding roof top decks, he thinks that the stairwell should be an option also
and should be adjacent the elevator. He appreciates the roof variance design intent but noted he has seen some
really interesting buildings with flat roofs and some really horrible buildings with pitched roofs.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Campbell asked about green space requirements. Mr. Clugston reviewed requirements for open
space, noting that there is not a specific green space requirement in the downtown area. Residential areas have
setbacks which are typically green areas. Where multifamily buildings are adjacent to R-zones, landscape buffer
plantings would be required.
Chair Crank encouraged consideration of pocket parks. She agreed that stairwells should be an option for roof
top decks.
Board Member Campbell suggested having some sort of green requirement to allow surfaces to allow water
absorption. She referred to the Salmon Safe certification and how this could tie in.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Board Member Rosen asked if there is anything about this staff is concerned about. Mr. Clugston thought that
this is a good effort at providing additional guidance for these particular projects. He acknowledged that if the
designated street front line is redrawn, these design standards become moot. For now, they are a good addition.
Board Member Kuehn suggested encouraging developers to consider incorporating green space wherever
possible.
MOTION MADE BY CHAIR CRANK, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, TO
FORWARD THIS TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
Board Member Campbell stated that this is going in a good direction, but she would like to see inclusion of
green space and green building requirements.
MOTION PASSED.
The public hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m. a
c
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA M
4-
0
Staff reviewed the extended agenda. 'o
L
Q
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS a
Board Member Rosen thanked everyone who participated tonight. He also appreciated the nature of the
discussion. He especially thanked Student Representative Distelhorst for her participation.
Vice Chair Pence suggested they need to be paying attention to the community conversations related to the
visioning stage of the Comprehensive Plan process.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank thanked everyone for their participation.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2022 Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 11
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2022
Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets
Staff Lead: Suscan McLaughlin
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Director McLaughlin will give a presentation on the Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets project.
The goal of the project is to optimize existing right-of-way to create social hubs, expand connectivity,
and improve environmental outcomes. The city will explore what we learned from public spaces during
the CV19 crisis that will make a better urban future for Edmonds and how we can reallocate street space
that supports a vibrant, green and connected public space network?
Over the summer, roundtable meetings were held in five neighborhood centers (Highway 99 Gateway
District and International District, Five Corners, Perrinville, Downtown and Westgate) to discuss public
space opportunities. At the in -person neighborhood events, residents had the opportunity to talk
specifically about public space opportunities in their neighborhoods, and to share their thoughts on how
right-of-way space could be adapted to support community cohesion and economic development.
Packet Pg. 12
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2022
Tree Code Amendments
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Deb Powers
Background/History
The most recent amendments to Edmonds' tree code, Chapter 23.10 ECDC, adopted in 2021, focus on
tree retention related to development (Attachment 1). At the June 21 City Council and the July 13, 2022
Planning Board meetings, staff received direction to further amend the code to limit property owner
tree removals, previously referred to as the "Phase 2" tree code amendments (Attachments 2 and 3,
respectively). Staff was also directed to expand the project scope to include minor amendments to the
existing code that:
Further clarify, simplify and provide greater code consistency.
Streamline the development review or tree removal request process.
Align with industry standards, including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Standards, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for arboricultural by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) and the ISA/TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualification) method relating to
hazard tree removal.
Address situations that have required a code interpretation, when the code is difficult or unclear
in its application, or as trends in code enforcement merit code clarification.
The City Council and Planning Board have provided general feedback for improvements to the current
tree code. Staff then developed a comprehensive list of Preliminary Tree Code Amendments
(Attachment 4). The list shows policy level impacts and justification for each proposed code change.
The Tree Board studied how the current code works by examining four mock development scenarios
(Attachment 5) at its August 4, 2022, meeting, concluding that simplifying and streamlining the existing
code should be a primary objective of tree code amendments. The Tree Board observed that the code
requirements are not equitable when applied to heavily wooded sites and that the code may not be
achieving its intended tree retention and replanting objectives (Attachment 6).
Staff Recommendation
Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting. Confirm that the general direction and text of Chapter
23.10 ECDC amendments for items with low levels of policy implications is appropriate.
Narrative
Staff suggests that addressing the non -controversial tree code amendments with no policy level changes
would make sense in project sequencing, prior to tackling the more complex and controversial code
changes. The emphasis of this memo is to confirm that the draft low-level code amendments are
acceptable to the Planning Board so that at subsequent meetings on October 12 (joint meeting with the
Packet Pg. 13
7.A
Tree Board) and November 9, 2022, the focus could be on the minor to moderate draft code changes
using a basic draft code framework. Note that "policy levels" are designated according to the scope and
impact of code modifications:
No/none - amendments that do not change the meaning of the code. They clarify/simplify or
further define something already in the code, address redundancies, address typos or result in
simple reformatting or removal of outdated references.
Minor - amendments resulting from updates to Best Available Science, Best Management
Practices, industry standards, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in
requirements.
Moderate - relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any of the above that
result in new, increased or eliminated requirements.
Major - amendments adding a substantial prohibition/ban on something currently allowed, or
substantial new requirements. This category would include any amendments that result in
significant changes to existing procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants,
and/or change the intent of the code.
The draft code revisions incorporating the no/none policy level preliminary tree code amendments
highlighted in yellow in Attachment 4 are shown as markups and strikeouts in Attachment 7. Staff is
seeking confirmation from the Planning Board that the general direction and preliminary code text is
appropriate for these no/none policy impact amendments. Staff is expecting that a modest number of
additional code amendments will be identified at subsequent Planning Board, Tree Board, City Council,
and stakeholder meetings and from public feedback.
Next Steps
At the September 14 Planning Board meeting, staff would appreciate feedback on the following:
Staff acknowledges the low-level policy code amendments may need additional refinement.
Does the Planning Board agree with the general text and direction of the low-level tree code
updates?
Does the Planning Board have additional code amendments or related issues that may warrant a
code amendment, procedural change, incentive or public education?
Does the draft ECDC 23.10 Code Amendment Project Outline (Attachment 8) encompass key
milestones?
Aside from the data needs identified in Attachment 8, is there any other information the
Planning Board needs to review future ECDC 23.10 code amendments?
Attachments:
Attachment 1—ECDC 23.10
Attachment 2_06212022
CC Meeting Minutes
Attachment 3_07132022
PB Meeting Minutes
Attachment 4 Tree Code Amend List
Attachment 5
Mock Dev Scenarios
Attachment 6_08042022
TB Draft Meeting Minutes
Attachment 7_Draft
No Level ECDC 23.10
Attachment 8—ECDC
23.10 Amend Project Outline
Packet Pg. 14
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1/12
Chapter 23.10
TREE RELATED REGULATIONS
Sections:
23.10.000
Intent and purpose.
23.10.010
Administration authority.
23.10.020
Definitions.
23.10.030
Permits.
23.10.040
Exemptions.
23.10.050
Tree removal prohibited.
23.10.060
Tree retention associated with development activity.
23.10.070
Tree protection measures during development.
23.10.080
Tree replacement.
23.10.085
Protected trees — Notice on title.
23.10.090
Bonding.
23.10.100
Violation, enforcement and penalties.
23.10.110
Liability.
23.10.000 Intent and purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection,
enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan;
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan;
C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan;
D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of
Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve 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;
F. 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;
G. 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;
H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements;
I. 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 development;
J. 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; and
K. 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.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 15
7.A.a
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2/12
L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts
on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new
mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any
remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 §
1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1
(Att. A), 2021].
23.10.020 Definitions.
A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock.
Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including four -
inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top.
N
c
d
C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for
every one inch of tree DBH.
E
D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half
0
feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)."
m
d
L
F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
0
G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be
N
achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving
V
infeasibility is placed on the applicant.
V
H. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective as determined by a
w
qualified tree professional.
I. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
d
t
J. "Improved lot" means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further
Q
subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road,
c
E
driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property.
c�
L. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the Q
allowable site disturbance.
M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to
our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that
are considered native trees.
N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/or
infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway,
parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection
plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant
restriction.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 16
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3/12
P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two 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 TRAQ (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 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.
E
R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four
and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be
E
the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the
Q
average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the
'aa
size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump.
�j
S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's
m
a)
qualified tree professional.
..
0
T. "Tree" means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple
ri
trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries.
N
V
U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
loll
V. "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.
W. "Tree topping" means 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.
X. "Viable tree" means 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A),
2021].
23.10.030 Permits.
A. Applicability. No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this
chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in ECDC 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
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 17
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4/12
consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1
(Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 nonsignificant 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 nonmotorized 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, provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for
public safety or tree health.
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections (A) through (E) of this section may be removed with
supporting documentation:
1. 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.
2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant's 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). [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited.
A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), 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 shall be required for
removed trees.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 18
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 5/12
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 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A),
2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the city requires
approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications:
1. Short subdivision;
2. Subdivision;
3. New multifamily development;
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family house;
and
c
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
d
E
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention
c
d
E
and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific
Q
tree retention and protection 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.
�j
B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan.
m
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection (A) of this section must submit a tree retention and
protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain
ai
components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense.
V
2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the
V
w
following information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
E
i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on
trees);
Q
ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter;
m
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
c�
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.);
Q
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, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision
or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been
established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection
(3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the
canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed
locations may be required);
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 19
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 6/12
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 required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees
required to be planted in accordance with subsection (C)(5) of this section. Where replacement trees
are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site
and written approval from the property owner must be provided.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
d
ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone,
E
root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
d
E
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
Q
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing,
-a)
monitoring, and aftercare);
C
U
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health,
a)
high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of
~
species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning,
c
cabling, etc.);
v. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a
p
grove;
loll
3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection 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 and protection plan that addresses the current phase of
development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
ii. A new tree retention and protection 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.
1. General Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment,
except as substituted under subsection (17)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows:
Table 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short
30% of all significant trees in the
subdivision, or subdivision
developable site
Multifamily development,
25% of all significant trees in the
unit lot short subdivision, or
developable site
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 20
ATTACHMENT 1
Development Retention Required
unit lot subdivision
Page 7/12
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 provided for in 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 through 23.90 ECDC), or the shoreline
master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority.
4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant tree that is
removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
5. For developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant
trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be d
significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. E
c
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order E
of priority: Q
d
1. Priority One. C
U
a. Specimen trees;
H
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; o
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 60 feet in height or greater than 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.
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees
that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause
power outages or other damage.
F. Tree Retention Procedures.
1. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the
tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 21
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 8/12
a. Maximize the retention of higher priority trees; and
b. Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection (C) of this section.
2. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section must be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that
actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the proposed development infeasible. In
documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing
conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048.
3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of
the tree retention and protection plan, existing priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said
improvements must be retained at least to the number of trees required by subsection (C) of this section, except
for hazard trees and nuisance trees.
4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy subsection (C) of this
section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows:
N
a. Planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in
.r
c
E
combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (C) of this section; and
c
d
b. If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of trees, the
E
applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection.
Q
d
G. If a development retains 50 percent of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC
�j
23.10.080(E) do not apply. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A),
2021].
i
H
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
N
preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant
V
to the following standards:
V
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a
w
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:
d
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 tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines.
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.
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.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 22
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 9/12
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.
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. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar
materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone.
N
7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
.r
c
d
E
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 inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar
E
material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment.
Q
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a two -foot -deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to
d
c
U
cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment.
d
L
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building
~
activity.
c
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
ri
r;
D. 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 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.
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.
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.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 23
7.A.a
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 10/12
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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 §
1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required.
2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are
required.
3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement
trees are required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of
regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development.
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.
4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area.
E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to development services that all replacement
options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a
fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 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.
2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development
permit.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 24
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 11/12
3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on 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 shall be required.
4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area.
[Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211.
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 and protection 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att.
A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
23.10.090 Bonding.
N
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of
c
replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans.
d
E
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.
E
Q
C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to
d
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or
U
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 percent of the performance bond or
estimate in subsection (B) of this section.
c
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing
N
violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att.
Q
A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
U
23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties.
A. Noncompliance with any 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.
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) of this section.
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);
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 25
7.A.a
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 12/12
c. Removal of existing 12-inch 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 inches in diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12 inches 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;
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 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);
i If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist
develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or 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, the approximate 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Aft. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]
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 23.10.030 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 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. [Ord.
4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment 2
7.A.b
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2022, Pages 21-23
(PREVIOUS) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis declared a 5 minute break at 9:29 p.m.
5. TREE CODE AMENDMENTS
Acting Planning Manager Kernen Lien recalled in 2021, the council spent a significant amount
of time developing a new tree code which was adopted for the final time in July 2021. At that
time, there were discussions about stage 2 of the tree code update, but that has been delayed due
to the director retiring and advertising for an urban forest planner. Now that a new director and
an urban forest planner have been hired, phase 2 of the tree code is beginning.
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers reviewed the Tree Code Update Phase II:
• Context (public benefits of trees illustration)
• Tree code update scope
o ECC Chapter 23.10 Tree Related Regulations
• Project Scope
o Objectives
■ Follow council prior direction
■ Develop draft code that allow:
■ Certain number of tree removals at a time
■ Time period between allowed removals
■ Limited landmark tree removals
■ Consider minor changes to current code
■ Council prior direction related to regulating property owner tree
removals
■ Simplify!
■ Minor code updates — don't change intent of code
o BMPs, industry standards
o Interpretation issues/challenges
■ Reflect canopy data findings
o Landmark trees
o Forest patches
■ Continue to implement UFMP goals
■ Council minutes reflect concern with how goals in UFMP would
be implemented in relation to phase 2 code amendments
■ 12 UFMP goals have been achieved since UFMP was published in
2019
o Estimated project timeline
■ June 2022-June 2023 - Monthly Planning Board Meetings
■ June 2022: Project Scoping
■ July 2022: Tree Board Retreat
■ Aug 2022 - Jan 2023 Public Engagement
Packet Pg. 27
7.A.b
Attachment 2
■ September 2022: Joint Tree Board -Planning Board Retreat
■ November 2022: Council check -in
■ Jan 2023: Joint Tree Board -Planning Board Retreat
■ April 2023: Council Check -in
■ June 2023: Final Code Adoption
o Planning Division Work Plan — OF Efforts
■ Development permit review (ongoing)
■ Property owner tree removals (ongoing)
■ Code enforcement (ongoing)
■ Tree Code Amendments
■ Street Tree Plan — Parks, Public Works, Planning
■ Review UFMP goal implementation (2024)
Ms. Powers advised staff is not seeking council action; council direction is welcome.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed during the past year one citizen, Linda Ferkingstad, has
provided comment to the council on a weekly basis regarding property where she wanted to
develop three homes. She encouraged staff to include Ms. Ferkingstad in the community
engagement because she is very upset and concerned and anything staff can do to communicate
with her would be a step in the right direction. Ms. Powers advised a stakeholder list is being
developed and Ms. Ferkingstad would be a great stakeholder.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was not on council during the last deliberation. He liked the idea
of limiting the number trees that can be removed at one time and establishing a period of time
before others can be removed. He did not see a recommendation in the materials regarding
replacing trees. For example, someone may remove a very large native tree and replace it with
two fruit trees. A requirement to replace with native trees may be appropriate. With regard to
limiting the number of trees that can be removed, he recalled talking with a neighbor about
diseased trees in another neighbor's yard. He suggested the City would not want to limit the
removal of diseased trees, but there should be an expectation for replacement.
Councilmember Tibbott said his house was built in the 1960s so at one point all the trees were
cleared except for one very large, well placed tree that he did not expect to ever remove. Another
neighbor also has a very large, perfectly placed native tree. Replacing trees with better placed
trees on the lot is preferable to just removing trees. Ms. Powers said options 5 and 6 provided to
council and included in the memo address tree replacement. Councilmember Tibbott asked if
there was a recommendation related to the size of a replacement tree. Ms. Power said that will be
considered. There is currently 1:1 which may not be sufficient when a very large or landmark
tree is removed and replaced with a new 2" tree. There can also be replacement requirements
based on the size of the tree, for example the trunk diameter of the tree removed equals a certain
number of replacement trees.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to recommendations, but was not opposed to a 1:1
replacement as long as the replacement tree was larger. It was his understanding that larger trees
with larger root balls grow more quickly. Ms. Powers said larger trees also provide more
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.b
Attachment 2
benefits. The development code replacement requirements are related to the size of tree that is
removed. She suggested starting there.
Councilmember Paine commented review of the tree code last year was a lot of work and a lot of
changes were made from dais so she was certain there were some repetition in the existing code.
She strongly encouraged consideration of permitting for all tree removal. It could be a low cost
permit; tracking permits will allow the City to track loss of canopy and degradation of the
environment. She commented on the importance of concentrating on canopy preservation. The
preserved canopy and developing the canopy more fully conveys a lot of benefits to the greater
community. She was glad Ms. Powers had been hired and was also pleased with the development
code changes, moving away from the destruction of every blade of grass to preserving some tree
canopy. She looked forward to more discussion.
Councilmember Chen said he was not on the council for the last round of tree code discussions.
Protecting the environment is of utmost importance for the community and he thanked staff for
their hard work in that regard. He recalled while campaigning, having conversations with
homeowners who were concerned with the City implementing a tree code and sacrificing their
private property to retain trees. He encouraged staff to look at options such as establishing a tree
fund to compensate property owners who have problems with their trees such as diseased trees or
trees on property they are planning to develop. He suggested looking at ways to give them the
freedom to the replace trees so they can realize their dreams while protecting the trees and the
environment. Ms. Powers said with the adoption of the tree code for development last year, a tree
fund was established as a result of trees mitigation. For example, if trees were required to be
planted for development and the site was too small or other reasons, the applicant can pay fees in
lieu of planting. There are very specific expenditures from the tree fund that are outlined in the
code. The fund also includes penalties and fees from unauthorized removal. Councilmember
Chen emphasized the need to inform homeowners about those resources via social media or
other methods.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis said she was on tree board for five years. Last year, everything was
handled very disjointedly late at night so the code needs to be simplified. She offered to provide
Ms. Powers information from last year instead of her reviewing all the minutes. She
recommended looking at the design standards which were blindly passed and did not address
20.48.075, conservation subdivision design standards. She agreed with Councilmember Paine
about a low cost permit process for tree removal because people are still removing trees. She also
was interested in a heritage tree program. The tree board was not supportive of a heritage tree
program because it could eventually get diseased. The tree board wanted other ways to
incentivize or recognize trees.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE
VOTING NO.
Councilmember K. Johnson said a lot had been done with codes and penalties and suggested
thinking about a carrot approach. For example, a program where a homeowner is given $1000 to
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.b
Attachment 2
preserve a landmark tree or maintain a tree on their property. She anticipated more trees could be
saved that way. With the existing tree code, people are cutting down trees because they don't
want to be charged to remove them as evidenced by a lot of logging occurring in her
neighborhood. She encouraged staff to look at what other communities are doing or incentives to
protect trees from removal. Ms. Power agreed there are many tools for preserving healthy,
sustainable urban forest and codes and a regulatory approach is one of the tools.
Within the scope of implementing the goals of the UFMP, a lot of the incentives for a heritage
tree program already exist and it is simply a matter of implementing them as resources allow.
The conservation subdivision, which is within the framework of a regulatory approach, is an r
incentive for developers to retain more trees, and that has worked. This project will focus on the
E
regulatory side since it is a code update, but consideration will also be given to other incentives
3
in the code, public education, the work the tree board does, etc. along with the tree code update.
E
a
6. PRESENTATION OF 76TH AVE. W (a), 220TH ST. SW INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT UPDATE
a�
a�
L
Packet Pg. 30
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022, Page 7 of 9
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Clugston said staff would look at the extended agenda to see when they could bring this
back.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Phase II Tree Code Amendments.
The City's new Urban Forest Planner, Deb Powers, made a presentation regarding the Phase II
c
Tree Code Amendments. She briefly reviewed the benefits of trees which is the basis of the tree
codes. The City of Edmonds' Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is the guidance document
which has a goal (Goal IA) of updating tree regulations "to reduce clearcutting or other E
development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements
and penalties for code violations." This was accomplished last year with the adoption of the o
current Tree Code. At that time the Council indicated they wanted to consider codes that limit
property owner tree removal with what is known as the Phase II Code Amendments. Council's
preferred options for property owner tree removals was to limit the number of tree removals,
have a certain waiting period between removals, and consider limiting landmark tree removals
without a permit or fees.
Questions related to this are:
a�
a�
• What should trigger a permit or fees?
• Should there be a minimum number of existing trees? a
• What about replacements?
There is now consideration of expansion of the Phase II Code Amendments. The expanded scope
would be to limit property owner tree removal, consider minor changes to the current code (both
development and property owners) and continue UFMP implementation. Minor code
amendments relate to simplifying the code, align with Best Management Practices (BMPs),
streamline the review process, address code interpretation issues, and address canopy study
findings. Attachment 2 is a list of the preliminary code amendments with justification and pros
and cons of the proposed amendments. Ms. Powers solicited Board feedback about the scope of
the project and the general approach.
Comments/Questions:
Board Member Cloutier spoke in support of the scope and acknowledged the challenge of
balancing tree preservation with personal freedoms.
Board Member Rosen also agreed with the scope and welcomed Ms. Powers to Edmonds.
Vice Chair Pence asked about the community engagement process. Ms. Powers replied that tree
codes are complex and controversial. She stated that there will be a robust public engagement
process. The Planning Board will be hearing Director McLaughlin's presentation about the
equitable engagement framework which will be used for the outreach. Some methods of
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.c
ATTACHMENT 3
collecting public feedback include: a community survey, events like the farmers market, possible
open houses, and developing stakeholder lists by groups.
Vice Chair Pence asked about the possibility of ending up with a code that is acceptable to all
stakeholder groups. Ms. Powers replied that would be ideal but acknowledged there are very
polarizing points of view with regulating trees on private property. The goal is not necessarily to
please everybody.
Board Member Gladstone acknowledged the difficult task of developing this code. She hopes the
public feedback that they receive will include what types of solutions people have and not just
their likes and dislikes. Ms. Powers agreed that this will be important and what they hope to
draw out of people. She discussed the challenges of balancing growth with a livable city and E
environmental quality.
E
Vice Chair Pence suggested focusing on incentives rather than penalties. He suggested fewer a
as
"sticks" and more "carrots". Ms. Powers agreed and noted that the UFMP is a toolbox that c
includes both "carrots" and "sticks".
a�
L
Board Member Cheung pointed out the importance of protecting the interests of people who ~
might be impacted by this but don't know it yet. a
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA WE
Mr. Lien reviewed and facilitated discussion regarding the extended agenda and pending items
for future
Packet Pg. 32
ATTACHMENT 4
PRELIMINARI Tree Code Amendment List
7.A.d
Applies to
ECDC 23.10...
Development or
Current Code Summary
Description of Code Modification
Policy Impact'
Property Owner?
6/21/22 - City Council: follow prior (2021) direction to limit number of property owner tree removals within a specific timeframe. Don't require
030-050
Property Owner
Not in current code
permit/fees, but track removals over time using a notification process that can check for conditions like critical areas. Allow limited Landmark
Major
tree removal, with notification. Additional feedback: consider replanting standards for replacement of tree removals, consider no/low-cost
permits for all property owner tree removals.
6/21/22 — City Council: include minor changes to the current code related to development: simplify, update for consistency with
060, 080 &
Development
Pertains to all development -related tree
BMPs/industry standards, adjust the code to reflect recent canopy cover data, and address code interpretation issues that have arisen since
Minor
20.75.048
codes
its adoption. Consider changes to the Conservation Subdivision design standards, ECDC 20.75.048 [i.e., require a minimum tree retention
threshold, move to ECDC 23.10 so it's more visible].
All
Both
General code -writing approach, code
Reorganize disparate sections, use charts in place of narrative code language where appropriate, use "allowance" instead of "exemptions."
Moderate
organization & formatting
Justification: consider a broader diversity of code users, ensure greater compliance, streamline review process.
"Developable site" definition, especially
Revise definition/language for consistency throughout Chapter, versus "non -developable areas," "outside the improved areas," etc. Consider
020.D
Development
when considering sites with critical
prioritizing tree retention by location, defined as "outside the building envelope" or "within setbacks."
Moderate
areas
Justification: Clarify, simplify code, streamline review process.
020.H
Both
Hazard tree definition
Add "target" language and specify TRAQ `High' or `Extreme' overall tree risk rating.
None
Justification: Update for consistency with industry standards, streamline review process.
Add "viable" or define by condition based on industry standards. Define grove tree locations on a development site (see "developable site"
Definition: Minor
020.1
Development
Grove definition
under Current Code Summary). Consider groves as high retention value/high priority trees.
Applied:
Justification: Slow loss of "forest patches" with development in response to canopy study findings, protect ecological functions.
Moderate -Major
Not in current code: define Landmark
Define Landmark trees (>24" DBH) for removal limitations per Council direction. Do not define by location or condition, that's only applicable
020
Both
tree
on development sites for retention/removal criteria.
Major
Justification: Slow the loss of canopy cover due to large tree removal with development and by limiting property owner large tree removals.
Use TPZ (Tree Protection Zone) throughout Chapter.
020.L
Development
Limits of Disturbance definition
Justification: Update for consistency with industry standards, clarify that tree protection fence locations mark the limits of disturbance on
None
development sites.
020.N
Property Owner
Nuisance tree definition
Define "causing significant" physical damage (add "obvious in photo"?)
None
Justification: clarify code, establish nuisance criteria versus a perceived nuisance.
020.Q
Both
Qualified professional definition
Add Board Certified Master Arborist
None
Justification: Update for consistency with industry standards.
020.X
Development
Viable tree definition
Add "subject to City review/approval." Consider defining tree condition for trees retained with development (see 23.10.060 D and F).
"downgrading'
Minor
Justification: clarify development review process. Eliminate the practice of tree condition to avoid mitigating removed trees.
030
Development
Doesn't list all scenarios where tree
Add "D" to address MF/COMM and all related permits, i.e., grading, demolition, etc. Should be consistent with new language in 060.A.
Moderate
plan review occurs
Justification: clarify code and streamline review process, versus regulate by omission of clear language.
030
Property Owner
Attempts to address when a permit is
Add "E" to clarify scenarios where a Type 1/landscape modification permit is currently required. Address HOA scenarios?
Moderate
required for property owner removals
Justification: clarify code and streamline review process, versus regulate by omission of clear language
Exemptions/exceptions, other double
Replace "exemptions" with "allowances" to define what IS allowed, versus what's NOT. Eliminate double negative language: "exceptions to
030.B
Both
negatives
exemptions... trees that do not meet the exemptions may be..." and "not specifically exempted in 040..." (does that mean A through E?).
Minor
Justification: Simplify/clarify to avoid confusion, increase compliance and result in a more streamlined review.
Tree removal not associated with
See above regarding allowances. Clarify requirements for Type 1 permit/Landscape Modification, what's allowed on vacant/subdividable
040.A
Property Owner
development
lots, for MF/COMM development, etc.
Minor
Justification: Clarify code and streamline review process, versus regulate by omission of clear language.
Consider requiring a permit for tree removal in critical areas, for trees that meet hazard/nuisance criteria to address code enforcement
040 & 050
Property Owner
Tree removal in critical areas
issues and lack of penalty fine collection. Consider whether Type 1 "tree cutting permits" are equitable/fair. Consider appeals process. For
Major
23.10.04.13, reference <6" DBH brush removal (23.40?). Consider if applicant could opt to pay fees in lieu of replanting 2:1 in critical areas.
c
a�
E
c
a�
E
Q
a�
0
U
a�
a�
Mn
J
c
W
E
Q
W
0
U
a�
a�
L
c
W
Q
r
c
a�
a
Revised 919122
Packet Pg. 33
ATTACHMENT 4
PRELIMINARY Tree Code Amendment List
7.A.d
Applies to
ECDC 23.10...
Development or
Current Code Summary
Description of Code Modification
Policy Impact'
Property Owner?
Justification: Simplify/clarify to avoid confusion, increase compliance and result in a more streamlined review. Protect and avoid negative
impacts to critical areas. Slow the loss of canopy cover due to large tree removal in critical areas and loss of "forest patches" in response to
canopy study findings, protect ecological functions.
040.C.2
Property Owner
Emergency tree removal
Clarify process, state purpose.
None
Justification: this has been used out of context to avoid submitting a permit or sidestep City review of tree removals.
What "may" be removed with
Clarify — does "may be removed" negate 040.A.1? Specify if nuisance criteria apply in critical areas. Clarify that hazard/nuisance does not
"rectify" "remedy"
040.F
Property Owner
documentation
apply to vacant lots (unless targeting adjacent property structures). Strike and replace with or other.
Moderate
Justification: Simplify/clarify to avoid confusion, increase compliance and result in a more streamlined review.
30%, 25% tree retention thresholds
Examine how these are working. Is emphasis placed on "meeting a quota" instead of retaining trees of merit (quantitative vs qualitative)?
060
Development
and "priorities/procedures for retention"
Revise "priorities/procedures so retention focus is on high -value viable trees located in setbacks or other defined non -buildable areas.
Moderate
Justification: Simplify/clarify to avoid confusion, increase compliance and result in a more streamlined review
Clearly identify related development permits that require tree retention plans (demolition, clearing/grading, etc.) and tie to new language in
060.A
Development
"...in conjunction with..."
030 for consistency.
None
Justification: Revise for consistency and to clarify code.
Consider striking... is tree retention even feasible with MF development, considering typical lot coverage, parking, fire lane requirements,
060.A.3
Development
MF/COMM development tree retention
etc.? How often are existing trees retained within required buffers with MF developments? Could MF/COMM landscaping requirements and
Moderate
requirements
required buffers be formatted in a chart for streamlined review?
Justification: Simplify/clarify to avoid confusion, increase compliance and result in a more streamlined review
060.A, last
"...establish tree retention priorities,
Clearly identify in the code using consistent/uniform terms (example: Conservation Subdivision is an incentive). Consider referring to
sentence
Development
incentives, and variations to
incentives in UFMP.
Minor
development standards..."
Justification: Revise for consistency and to simplify/clarify code.
20.75.048 &
Move to 23.10? Identify it as an incentive and an alternative to phased review. Establish specific (high) minimum retention requirements.
060,
Development
Conservation Subdivision
See phased review below.
Moderate -Major
060. F.2
Justification: Revise for consistency and to simplify/clarify code.
060.A.2
Development
Tree Retention Plan requirements
Add "viable" where needed alongside "significant" so that dead trees don't count to meet thresholds.
None
(report, site plan, etc.)
Justification: Simplify/clarify to avoid unintended code interpretations.
060.A.5
Development
"...any tree removal on developed sites
Clarify and/or add examples. Consider restating as what IS allowed versus what's not. Tie into new language in 030 for consistency.
Minor
not exempted...
Justification: Revise for consistency and to simplify/clarify code, streamline review process.
Plan tree retention as early as possible in the design phase with short plats/subdivisions. Disincentivize phased review which results in
060.B.3.a
Development
"Phased" Development
excessive tree removal (and unsuccessful retention). Allow developers to remove trees at one time. Avoid public perception of greater tree
"Integrated
Minor
retention. Make Development Plans" (IDP) and/or Conservation Subdivision the norm versus phased development review.
Justification: Increase successful tree retention on development sites.
060.B.2.b.iv
Development
Tree protection fence locations may
crisscross or duplicate other limits of
Allow silt fence per TESC requirements satisfy tree protection fence if locations are the same, vs duplicate fencing
None
disturbance/fence boundaries.
Justification: Encourage accurate and complete tree retention plan submittal, resulting in a streamlined review process.
Clarify what's meant by "except as substituted under subsection F(3)" — is that a typo? Is it referring to hazard trees? F3 refers to 30%
060.C.1
Development
Typo?
threshold and retention priorities...
Unclear
Justification: clarify/simplify code
060.C.1
Development
30% or 25% retention requirements
Round up or down?
Justification: clarify code
Moderate
Examine tree retention effectiveness versus time spent in review. If MF zoning allows max build -out and greater impervious surface areas
060.C.1
Development
25% retention requirement for MF, unit
for fire lanes, parking, other structures, (and tree planting is required per MF landscaping requirements/buffers anyway), is 25% retention
Major
lot subdivision, etc.
attainable? If not, could fees in lieu be considered a takings challenge? (Note that COMM/industrial zoning allows 100 /o lot coverage). See
RCW 82.02.020.
a
Revised 919122
Packet Pg. 34
ATTACHMENT 4
PRELIMINARI Tree Code Amendment List
7.A.d
Applies to
ECDC 23.10...
Development or
Current Code Summary
Description of Code Modification
Policy Impact'
Property Owner?
Justification: Simplify code and streamline review process, account for tree planting on MF sites through buffer/landscaping requirements.
060.C.2
Development
Typo?
" ...except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E..." (should be F)
Unclear
Justification: Clarify code
Reformat to chart form and adjust priorities. Priority One is too subjective — replace with specific criteria for qualitative tree retention. Strike
"over 60 feet in height" and replace with (new) Landmark definition. Move "trees within required yard setbacks," groves and critical areas to
060.D, F
Development
Tree Retention "Priority and
Priority One!
`meeting
Moderate
Procedures"
Justification: Simplify code. Ensure trees worthy of retention are as (or more) important than a quota." Streamline review process
Slow the loss of canopy cover due to large tree removal in critical areas and loss of "forest patches" in response to canopy study findings,
protect ecological functions.
0605.3
Development
Typo?
Strike "must," replace with shall. Consider clarifying language on viable trees vs. using "except for hazard/nuisance trees" ...
None
Justification: Code clarity/consistency.
Clarify "outside of the improved area of the site..." use setbacks, building envelope or other defined location of high retention value trees.
0605.4
Development
If 30% retention cannot be met...
Address code interpretation issues that arise if entire site is encumbered by critical area.
Moderate
Justification: Code clarity/consistency
Typo? How to make up deficiencies
"...planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080..." doesn't make sense. 080 refers to replacements by the
060.F.4.a
Development
meeting 30% retention requirement
size of what's removed, which duplicates 060.C.4 requirements. Should it be # of trees to meet 30%?
Minor
Justification: Code clarity/consistency
060.F.4.b
Development
If 30% retention cannot be met...
Clarify so that "to achieve the required number of trees" relates to meeting 30% retention threshold.
Minor
Justification: Code clarity/consistency
060.F.4.b - $2,500ofor each tree not
Examine use/effectiveness of each. Reformat under one "mitigation" section. Consider striking to simplify code, since the $2 per square foot
060.F.4.b &
080.4.
Development
planted
planted to meet 30%
080.E1 - meet for each replacement
0
"cap" and 50 /o retention incentive are used instead. Combine with 060.F.4.b as "mitigation"?
Moderate
tree required for each removed tree
Justification: Simplify code, streamline review process, provide greater code clarity
060.G
Development
50% retention incentive
State that it's an incentive. Add "viable" to the word "significant" so dead trees don't count towards 50%
None
Justification: Simplify code, address code interpretation issues.
070.A
Development
Pre -construction fence inspections
Strike. This is a procedure dependent on resources, not a code.
Moderate -Major
Justification: address fence inspection issues/process according to available resources
Requires payment of appraised value
Revise to require tree planting 1 s', before assessing fees in lieu. Do not base fees on appraised value — either provide a simple formula or
080.E.3
Both?
of trees >24" DBH removed with
calculation (appraised value is too onerous, subjective, logistically problematic with phased development, etc.). Legal doesn't like flat rate.
Moderate
development.
Justification: Simplify code, streamline review process.
080.E.4
Development
Fee in lieu "cap" at $2 per square foot
Examine. Does the "cap" inadvertently result in no replanting and/or no fees in lieu of trees >24" DBH removed with development?
Moderate
Justification: Simplify code, streamline review process, allow mitigation via planting before assessing fees in lieu
080.A.1-3
Development
Tree replacement requirements
Reformat to chart form. Consider adjusting range of tree sizes to include 24" tree removal replacements by planting 3 or more trees.
Minor
Justification: Simplify code, streamline review process, allow mitigation via planting before assessing fees in lieu.
The current code uses 4 different mitigation methods. Consider using one methodology/calculation to determine the minimum number of
060.C.5,
Development,
trees to be replanted. For example: x number of trees per area (or square feet), or x number of trunk diameter inches per area (also known
0605,
Both
Tree replacement requirements
as minimum required tree density). Examine if replacement requirements on heavily treed/larger treed lots are equitable with replacement
Moderate
080.A.1-3
requirements on properties with few/no trees.
Justification: Simplify code, streamline review process, use equitable tree replacement methodology
Typo? Might need separate
080.A
Development
replacement requirements to meet
Does not correlate to 060.F.4.a (30% retention threshold) since 080 replacements relate to # trees removed.
Moderate
30% and for new property owner tree
Justification: Clarify and address code inconsistencies
removal allowances
a
Revised 919122
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
PRELIMINARI Tree Code Amendment List
Applies to
ECDC 23.10...
Development or
Current Code Summary
Description of Code Modification
Policy Impact'
Property Owner?
Situations when tree replacements are
Use "viable" throughout ECDC 23.10 where appropriate. (Apparently "dead, diseased, injured, declining condition" is too subjective). Define
080.13.1
Development
not required
tree condition?
Minor
Justification: Simplify/clarify code, streamline review process.
080.E
Both?
Unclear
What does "including arborist's reports mean?"
Minor
Justification: Code clarification.
080.E
Development
Typo
Replace "developer" with "applicant" and use term "City" vs "development services"
None
Justification: Code clarification and consistency.
Does "for each replacement tree required but not replaced" refer to the number of trees needed to meet 30% threshold? Or does it apply to
080.E
Both?
Tree replacement fees in lieu
the number of trees removed per ECDC 23.10.060.F.4?
Minor
Justification: Code clarification and consistency
080.E
Both
Fees -in -lieu paid into Tree Fund
Provide code reference/link to ECDC 3.95 (Tree Fund) throughout 23.10
Minor
Justification: code clarification and consistency
080.E.1
Both?
$1,000 per tree fees in lieu
Examine effectiveness. Does that apply to >24" DBH trees too? Consider striking in favor of a single mitigation system/formula.
Moderate
Justification: Code clarification and consistency, simplify code.
Clarify that appraisals are to be submitted by applicant, subject to City review. Or consider emphasis on mitigation through planting first,
Tree appraisals for >24" DBH trees
before assessing fees in lieu. Consider fees in lieu based on a codified formula (versus appraised values).
080.E.3
Both?
removed
Justification: appraisals are too subjective, hinder a streamlined review process and cannot be done if trees have been removed during a
Moderate
phased development. Note that removed trees >24" DBH are not mitigated through replanting, especially on larger, heavily wooded sites
where applicant opts for $2 per square foot "cap".
Examine effectiveness of code and related procedures regarding protected/newly planted trees. Why would SF lots "be exempt from"
Performance and maintenance bonds
protected/new tree maintenance? Consider emphasizing maintenance in the Protected Tree Notice on Title or replace with a 3-5 Year
090.A-D
Both?
for protected and new trees
Maintenance Agreement. Consider bonds for commercial landscapes (MF) only.
Moderate
Justification: decrease post -development tree mortality. Increase awareness of post -development tree maintenance responsibilities. Clarify
and simplify code and streamline review process and related procedures, documents, etc.
New
?
Not in code, not in UFMP
Consider regulating tree height (like structures and fences). Examine case law, see MRSC resources on regulating tree height.
Major
Justification: should City codes address or resolve view issues between property owners?
Consider a program that compensates property owners for retention of large trees with development (Transfer of Development Rights
New
Development
Not in code, not in UFMP
program). Uses funds collected from fees in lieu of replanting or through a new account [Check with Finance]. See state law for TDR. City
Major
INCENTIVE
Legal to draft covenant template, property owner required to submit with site plan, (+maintenance plan?), recorded on title of property.
Justification: Trees/groves that meet certain criteria are protected in perpetuity. Preserve canopy cover and protect ecological functions.
New
Property Owner
Not in code, not in UFMP
Voluntary Tree Conservation Easement (Covenant?). City Legal to draft covenant template.
Major
INCENTIVE
Justification: Trees/groves that meet certain criteria are protected in perpetuity. Preserve canopy cover and protect ecological functions.
'POLICY IMPACT
None
Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated
references.
Minor
Amendments include updates to Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, industry standards, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate
Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any of the above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major
Add a substantial prohibition/ban on something currently allowed, or extensive new requirements. Includes amendments that result in significant changes to existing procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or
change the intent of the code.
r
a
Revised 919122
Packet Pg. 36
ATTACHMENT 5
7.A.e
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1
10,000 square foot lot, 10 healthy trees >24" DBH. Can only retain 5 trees.
How many trees are required to be planted?
Are fees in lieu required?
----- ---------------------I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
— — — ------------I
c
a�
E
c
as
E
Q
m
0
U
m
L
Packet Pg. 37
ATTACHMENT 5
7.A.e
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2
10,000 square foot lot, 10 healthy trees >24" DBH. Can only retain 3 trees.
How many trees are required to be planted?
Are fees in lieu required?
--- — -- ---------------------
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Packet Pg. 38
ATTACHMENT 5
7.A.e
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3
16,000 square foot lot, 10 healthy trees: 5 are 12" DBH, 5 are >30" DBH. Retaining one of each size.
How many trees are required to be planted?
Are fees in lieu requi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.e
ATTACHMENT 5
4
DEVELOPMENT
16,000 square foot lot in RS-8 zone, subdivided into a 2-lot short plat
10 healthy trees: 5 are 12" DBH, 5 are >30" DBH
How many trees are required to be planted?
Are fees in lieu required?
Packet Pg. 40
ATTACHMENT 6
7.A.f
CITY OF EDMONDS
TREE BOARD
Summary Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 4, 2022
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Bill Phipps called the Tree Board meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Board Members Present
Bill Phipps, Vice Chair
Chris Eck
Bill Grant
Andy Lyon
Ross Dimmick (Alternate)
Board Members Absent
Wendy Kliment (excused)
Janelle Cass, Chair (excused)
Crane Stavig
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT — ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Phipps read the Land Acknowledgement.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
MINUTES:
l . Approval of July 7, 2022 Tree Board Minutes
Staff Present
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
Other:
Laura Johnson, Edmonds City Council Representative
(excused)
The July 7, 2022 Tree Board minutes were approved as presented.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Chair Phipps asked to discuss a note he received about ongoing tree plantings at Edmonds Elementary
School under New Business.
The agenda was approved as amended.
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
August 4, 2022
Pagel of 3
Packet Pg. 41
ATTACHMENT 6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Annual/Ongoing Events
Report out: Garden Tour — Ms. Powers reported on the garden tour. The tree ID signage was a big hit
as an educational tool. There was some discussion about where to store the signs and whether or not to
remove the stakes from the laminated portion. Vice Chair Phipps will contact the Council Assistant to
see if they can be stored in the Council office.
to
r
Update on Summer Farmer's Market Booth — Vice Chair Phipps reported that they cashed the check so
the booth is confirmed for October 1. He has planted about 30 conifers from his brother-in-law in gallon- E
size containers to be given away at the Farmer's Market booth. They still need some trees that are small
to medium size when mature (about 30 of each size) for giveaways. Board Member Lyon and Vice Q
Chair Phipps will look at Sky Nursery for two trees to raffle off. More brochures need to be printed. -°'a
Vice Chair Phipps will need help transporting the trees. Board members will be needed to staff the v
booth. Board Member Eck volunteered to help with transport and with staffing the booth. Board a
Member Lyon offered his truck to transport trees. Vice Chair Phipps asked if anyone else is interested
in helping to contact him prior to the next meeting. Y?
2. Special Events/Projects
Sierra Park interpretive sign project update — Board Member Grant reported on a Zoom meeting he and
Vice Chair Phipps had with Parks Director Angie Feser regarding Sierra Park. There is a new chair for
the Lion's Club who has met with Director Feser to discuss their involvement the park. Director Feser
will be attending a board meeting at the Lion's Club on August 17 to discuss how they want to proceed.
He would like to work on getting more tree labels up in the park. Board Member Lyon suggested the
Tree Board purchase signs even if the Lion's Club doesn't do that. The Lion's Club used to maintain
the park, but that hasn't been done lately. Board Member Grant will provide a list of trees that need
signs to Board Member Lyon to review and confirm.
Tree Walk at City Park — There was interest in the event but consensus to table the discussion for the
next meeting when Member Kliment would be present.
Tree code mock scenario "pop quiz," discuss proposed code amendments list — Ms. Powers discussed
issues with code complexity, that it should be easy for all users. Board members discussed various code
interpretations relating to different mock scenarios and possible code amendments/clarifications.
Questions and answers followed. There appeared to be concern about the code's effectiveness with tree
retention and replanting on development sites and collection of fees -in -lieu for tree replanting
elsewhere. There was concern that the requirements are not equitable when applied to the heavily treed
lots, versus less heavily tree lots. Vice Chair Phipps brought up the concept of net ecological gain and
stated that any tree that is removed should be replanted. Ms. Powers agreed, said critical area
requirements are an example of how that can be achieved. Ms. Powers said code should emphasize tree
retention, then replanting, then fees in lieu to replant elsewhere in the city in order of priority.
• Planning Board Tree Code update briefing report out —The new date for the joint meeting with the
Planning Board is October 12. This gives the tree board two more meetings to delve into this topic.
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
August 4, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 42
ATTACHMENT 6
NEW BUSINESS
1. ECDC 1.05.0101 — Ms. Powers reviewed rules related to absences and reminded members to let the
Chair know if they can't make it to a meeting.
2. Mission statement — Ms. Powers explained that Chair Cass feels that the Board needs to have a clear
mission statement. This item was continued to the next meeting when Chair Cass would be present.
TREE BOARD CHAIR, MEMBER COMMENTS
E
Vice Chair Phipps commented on the Board's desired level of involvement with the tree code amendment
project and the complexity of the issues. Ms. Powers commented that the Board has an advisory role with the
E
Council and has committed to making a written recommendation to Council. Members discussed their comfort
a
level with looking at and commenting on a pre -written draft code and advocating for the community.
0
ADJOURNMENT
a�
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Next meeting: September 1, 2020
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
August 4, 2022
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 43
ATTACHMENT 7
Chapter 23.10
TREE RELATED REGULATIONS
Page 1/13
Sections:
23.10.000 Intent and purpose.
23.10.010 Administration authority.
23.10.020 Definitions.
23.10.030 Permits.
23.10.040 Exemptions.
23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited.
23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity.
23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development.
23.10.080 Tree replacement.
23.10.085 Protected trees — Notice on title.
aD
23.10.090 Bonding.
E
23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties.
23.10.110 Liability.
a�
o
U
23.10.000 Intent and purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection,
enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following:
0
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan;
< >
N
U
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan;
V
w
C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan;
Z
a�
D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
_J
0
z
E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of
Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve 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;
y
c
a�
F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds
E
urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
R
G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and
Q
vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer
the effects of built and paved areas;
m
E
H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements;
t
r
w
Q
I. 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 development;
J. 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; and
K. 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.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 44
7.A.g
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 2/13
L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts
on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new
mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any
remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 §
1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1
(Att. A), 2021].
23.10.020 Definitions.
A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock.
Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including
four -inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top.
C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for
every one inch of tree DBH.
D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half
feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)."
F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be
achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving
infeasibility is placed on the applicant.
H. "Hazard tree" means a tree/tree part as having an Extreme or High overall risk rating using the ISA Tree Risk
Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) method in its most current form that meets the following criteria: tha4 is dead,
dying, diseased, damaged, or- stmetwally defeetive as detefmined by a qualified (fee professional.
1. A tree with a combination of structural defects and/or disease which makes it subject to a high probability
of failure;
2. Is in proximity to moderate to high -frequency occupied targets, persons or property
3. The hazard condition cannot be lessoned with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices nor can the
target be moved.
I. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
J. "Improved lot" means 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.
K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road,
driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property.
L.`
allowable site disb ..banee. (see Tree Protection Zone)
M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to
our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that
are considered native trees.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 45
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 3/13
N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage that is obvious in a photograph to a
private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. The problems associated with a nuisance
tree must be such that they cannot be corrected by reasonable practices, including, but not limited to: pruning of the
crown or roots of the tree, bracin , cabling abling to reconstruct a healthy crown.
O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection
plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant
restriction.
P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban c
forestry, having two or more of the following credentials: E
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; E
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 0
0
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; U
a�
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; �
5. Board Certified Master Arborist.
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above
credentials, a minimum of three 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.
R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four
and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be
the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the
average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the
size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump.
S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's
qualified tree professional.
T. "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.
U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
x. "Tree Protection Zone" (TPZ) is a defined area as determined by a aualified professional aDDlicable to individual
of tree trunks, roots and soil. TPZ is measured in feet from the face of the trunk and may be determined using
critical root zone, dripline, exploratory root excavations or other methodologies. The TPZ is variable depending
on species. age and health of the tree. soil conditions and Droposed construction. TPZ denotes the location of tree
rotection fencin
V. "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.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 46
7.A.g
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 4/13
W. "Tree topping" means 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.
X. "Viable tree" means 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A),
2021].
23.10.030 Permits.
A. Applicability. No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this
chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in ECDC 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1
(Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
23.10.040 Exemptions Tree Removal Activities.
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
x. Emergency Tree Removal. Any tree that poses an imminent threat to life or property may be removed. The City
must be notified within seven days after the emergency tree removal with evidence of the threat for removing the
tree to be considered exempt from this chapter. If the Planning Official determines that the emergency tree removal
was not warranted or if the removed tree was required to be retained or planted pursuant to a development permit,
then the removal will be subject to code enforcement, including fines and restoration. The Planning Official may
require that the party obtain a tree removal 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 nonsignificant 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 nonmotorized 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, provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for
public safety or tree health.
r
c
a�
E
c
aD
E
Q
a�
0
U
a�
H
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 47
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 5/13
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections (A) through (E) of this section may be removed with
supporting documentation:
1. 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.
2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant's 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). [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited.
A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), 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 shall 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 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A),
2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the city requires
approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications:
1. Short subdivision;
2. Subdivision;
3. New multifamily development;
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family house;
a*d
X. Related clearing and grading (cut/fill) permits; 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
and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific
tree retention and protection 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 and Protection Plan.
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection (A) of this section must submit a tree retention and
protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain
components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense.
c
a�
E
c
aD
E
Q
a�
0
U
a�
a�
L
H
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 48
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 6/13
2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection 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);
ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter;
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.); N
r
v. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following: r_
aD
E
i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable Q
setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision -0
or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been U
established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection
(3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the
canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed N
locations may be required);
U
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; w
iv. Location of tree protection measufesfence at the proposed TPZs, with distances from the face of
trunks to fence noted on the site plan, drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site _J
disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities. Silt fence per TESC Z
requirements may satisfytprotection fence requirements if TPZs are observed to avoid duplicate
fencing;
ti
E
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an "X" or by ghosting out;
R
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees
Q
required to be planted in accordance with subsection (C)(5) of this section. Where replacement trees
are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site
d
and written approval from the property owner must be provided.
t
�a
c. An arborist report containing the following:
Q
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);
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 49
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 7/13
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 (windfirmness), or unsuitability of
species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning,
cabling, etc.);
v. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a
grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection 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
N
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the
applicant may submit a tree retention and protection plan that addresses the current phase of
0
development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
aD
ii. A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as
Q
more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the
requirements in this section.
o
U
C. Tree Retention Requirements.
y
1. General Tree Retention Requirements. Significant viable trees on lots proposed for development or
LL
r
redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows:
o
Table 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
cri
N
r I
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short
30% of all significant viable trees in
subdivision, or subdivision
the developable site
Multifamily development,
25% of all significant viable trees in
unit lot short subdivision, or
the developable site
unit lot subdivision
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 provided for in 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 through 23.90 ECDC), or the shoreline
master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority.
4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant viable tree
that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
5. For developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant
trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be
significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements. Significant viable trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One.
a. Specimen trees;
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 50
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 8/13
b. Significant viable trees which form a continuous canopy;
c. Significant viable trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant viable trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant viable trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 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;
r
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development;
E
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees. Q
a�
3. Priority Three. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for U
retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers.
a�
L
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees
that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause o
power outages or other damage. ri
N
F. Tree Retention Procedures. V
1. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the
tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to:
a. Maximize the retention of higher priority trees; and
b. Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection (C) of this section.
2. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section must be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that
actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the proposed development infeasible. In
documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing
conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048.
3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of
the tree retention and protection plan, existing priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said
improvements shallmust be retained at least to the number of viable trees required by subsection (C) of this
section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees.
4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy subsection (C) of this
section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows:
a. Planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in
combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (C) of this section; and
b. If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of trees, the
applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection.
G. Tree Retention Incentive. If a development retains at least 50 percent of the significant viable trees on a site, the
fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A),
2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 51
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 9/13
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 in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) 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 tags on trees to be retained; and
a�
4. Property lines.
c
aD
B. Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree
E
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
o
construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection.
U
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall:
a�
a�
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
< >
N
protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange
U
polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
U
w
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
4)
Area, Entrance Prohibited," and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations.
J
Z
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
r
removal.
E
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. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar
materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone.
7. 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 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 two -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.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 52
ATTACHMENT 7
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
Page 10/13
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 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.
E
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
o
determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival.
U
a�
a�
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
c
time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual
lots, where feasible. N
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.
F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with
accepted urban forestry industry practices. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 §
1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 viable tree to
be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required.
2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are
required.
3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement
trees are required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of
regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development.
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with
the standards in this section.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 53
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 11/13
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
p pmP
N
�
planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section.
E
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
E
4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area.
Q
E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to the Citydevelopment sen lees that all
a�
V
replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the
a�
gpplicantdeyeleper shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced.
L
H
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 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.
N
2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development
p
permit.
w
3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on 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 shall be required.
Z
w
4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area.
L
[Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 and protection 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att.
A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
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 percent of the performance bond or
estimate in subsection (B) of this section.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 54
7.A.g
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 12/13
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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att.
A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties.
A. Noncompliance with any 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.
1. Aiding or Abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in
N
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
0
penalties imposed under subsection (C)(2) of this section.
aD
2. Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction
Q
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
o
be determined according to one or more of the following:
U
a�
a�
a. An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to
investigate and administer the infraction;
c
7
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the
N
resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of
U
construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter);
CU
w
c. Removal of existing 12-inch 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
J
of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed
C
existing trees in violation of this chapter;
Z
w
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12 inches in diameter and the
M
a
appraised value of trees 12 inches 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; 4)
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 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-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or 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, the approximate 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. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 55
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 13/13
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 23.10.030 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 property or under his control in such
E
condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance.
c
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is
aD
Q
associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result
-0
of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. [Ord.
o
4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
U
a�
a�
LL
r
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4262, passed May 24, 2022.
Packet Pg. 56
7.A.h
ATTACHMENT 8
ECDC Chapter 23.10 Tree Code Amendments/Phase II
PROJECT OUTLINE
Done?
TASKS
Estimated
Dates
Establish project scope, objectives, and acceptable levels of policy impacts
V
Compile relevant background information and prior City Council direction. Assess project
June 2022
resources (staffing, consultant services, etc.).
Develop preliminary list of amendments
July 2022
Check prior Council direction, assemble staff feedback on administering the current code.
Develop preliminary project timeline
• Schedule early scoping discussions and estimate future public meeting/hearing dates.
• Identify mandated deadlines for public noticing, SEPA review (addendum?), etc.
July 2022
• Factor turnaround time for board/Council review & feedback, including final TB, PB
recommendations to City Council.
• Tentatively schedule public hearings x2 (PB, CC)
Commence early discussions with City Council, Planning Board, Tree Board
Jul 2022
y
Finalize scope, objectives. Discuss public engagement and project timeline.
Conduct mock scenario exercise to review how current code works
Aug -Sept
*/
• Tree Board
2022
• Planning Board (Tree Board report -out at joint meeting)
Develop robust Public Engagement Plan
• Identify capacity/resources for public engagement and seek funding if necessary
• Follow Equitable Engagement Framework model (available late August 2022)
• Schedule public outreach events and any related deadlines, consider concurrent public
engagement efforts
• Identify and list internal/external stakeholders, special interest groups and parties of
Aug -Sept
interest/parties of record.
2022
• Identify appropriate engagement methods: community survey, facilitated stakeholder
meetings, special events (i.e., open house, Farmer's Market, workshops, "town hall,"
neighborhood meetings), etc.
• Identify responsibilities for managing web content news releases, social media, project
listserv, mailings, etc.
• Revise tentatively scheduled public hearings?
Establish draft code framework
• Show strikeouts/markups for no/none policy level impacts to determine public meeting
Sept 2022
dates to address increasingly higher levels of policy impact proposed code amendments
Identify needs for data/analysis related to project
• Identify canopy assessment findings related to potential code changes.
• Compile cases and analyze current code efficacy and trends concerning:
Sept -Oct
o Tree retention with development
2022
o Tree mitigation: planting vs. fee in lieu payments
o Current property owner tree removals
o Current tree code violations/enforcement
Finalize project tasks and timeline
• Assign formal file case number.
• Specify # public meetings for each decision -making body. Include ample time for PB/TB
Oct 2022
draft code review and their draft recommendations to City Council
• Complete Public Engagement Plan —specify dates, methods, and resources
• Data/analysis needs and approved resources to complete analysis
c
m
E
c
a�
E
Q
m
0
U
m
m
L
Packet Pg. 57
7.A.h
ATTACHMENT 8
ECDC Chapter 23.10 Tree Code Amendments/Phase II
PROJECT OUTLINE
Jan -May
Conduct public engagement per Plan
2023
Develop draft code
Apr -June
• Develop a working draft code that addresses moderate to major code amendments with
2023
heavy stakeholder discussion
Code review, approval, and adoption
• Develop initial draft code for SEPA review/DOC noticing
• Specify PB/TB review/feedback meeting dates to refine draft code language
June -July
• PB/TB develop official recommendations to Council
2023
• City Council review/adoption.
• SEPA review
• Coordinate with Legal/City Clerk, Code Publishing
Code implementation
Jul Au
Y- g
Includes internal training and public education on new codes: workshops, handouts,
2023
webpage content, etc.
c
m
E
c
a�
E
Q
m
0
U
m
m
L
d
r.+
O
ci
d
.O
L
a.
E
Q
0
r
M
N
U
0
U
W
00
I
C
d
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
C
N
E
t
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 58
7.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/14/2022
Cliamte Action Plan Update
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Over the last couple of years the City has been working on an update to its Climate Action Plan.
Edmonds adopted its first Climate Action Plan in 2010. That plan set goals that seemed ambitious but
achievable: reduce emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012 (per the Kyoto Protocol), 25% below
1990 levels by 2035, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (per Washington State GHG goals in place at
the time). As a part of this current update, the City conducted another inventory of GHG emissions in
2017.
The 2017 inventory found that Edmonds had reduced GHG emissions in some sectors but had
increased emissions in others. The largest driver of these increases is emissions from on -road
transportation, which increased 27% between 2000 and 2017. In addition, natural gas consumption in
buildings increased by 25%2. The Inventory concluded that, 12 years after setting plans to begin
reducing GHG emissions, per capita emissions in Edmonds have remained essentially the same since
2000. However, recent state legislation and changes in market conditions suggest Edmonds can make
progress in the years ahead.
The Climate Action Plan identifies actions that the City and community can take to remain on target
through 2035. Beyond 2035, even assuming widespread adoption of electric vehicles, fossil fuels are
likely to remain in use for heating and other purposes unless state energy regulations governing those
fuels change. The Climate Action Plan update focuses on the most important steps Edmonds can take to
address climate change. The plan lays out a set of strategies for addressing climate change, along with
specifics for how those strategies will be pursued. Sections on Buildings and Energy, Transportation and
Land Use, and Lifestyle and Consumption primarily focus on mitigation -ways the City will work to reduce
GHG emissions.
The Section on Environment adds strategies to ensure the City is prepared to adapt to climate change.
Attached is an Executive Summary Brochure that identifies the top actions for each of the sections. Two
Packet Pg. 59
7.B
workshops on the draft strategies and actions items where held on July 28th and August 11th this year.
The posters from these workshops which identifies all the strategies and draft actions are attached
along with the summary of the comments received at these workshops. Staff and the consultant are
working on incorporating these comments into the draft CAP which will released for further review and
comment.
At this Planning Board meeting staff will provide a presentation on the CAP update and next steps.
Attachments:
Edmonds CAP Brochure
Workshop Posters and CAP Strategies & Actions
Edmonds CAP Engagement Workshop 2 Summary
Packet Pg. 60
7.B.a
CITY OF
EDMONDS
OV ED_
O
`qc. 199"
CLIMATE
ACTION
PLAN
2022
a�
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BROCHURE
a
c
m
For over a decade, Edmonds has been committed to preventing the hart a
from climate change. From sea level rise that causes erosion and floodir o
to drought and higher land temperatures that will destroy crops and fore a
and rising ocean temperatures and acidity that will affect marine species r
which much of the web of life depends, Edmonds recognizes that it be; E
responsibility to take action as citizens of the world and stewards
our environment.
L
In 2010, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to substantially reds u
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Starting in 2018, local consultants wE 0
hired to prepare a new GHG inventory and to advise the City on updating Q
CAP. This plan focuses on the most important steps Edmonds can take U
address climate change.
0
.................................................. E
Global climate change is already harming the Pacific Northwest, and w
expected to grow worse and become irreversible unless human-generat a
GHG emissions can be eliminated. To achieve a future Edmonds commur �
with a high quality of life that is sustainable and equitable for all resider coo
eliminating GHG emissions is critical. Q
The most important finding of this update to Edmonds' CAP is that t
Edmonds community has not kept pace with its goals to reduce G1
emissions. To avert the worst harm from global climate change, we mi
achieve an even more ambitious rate of emissions reduction.
The City adopted Resolution 1453, which commits Edmonds to a scienc
based target of 1.5°C global temperature rise. To meet that target mee
the community must be carbon neutral by 2050. We have a long way to c
but we have reason to hope we can get there.
This Plan provides a roadmap and a few indicator metrics that will help t
community know how we are doing. It is a call to action. The tools to addr(
the climate crisis have never been better and they are improving steadily...
will take effort on the part of the City, state and federal governments and
individuals to make use of those tools. It is time to get tow Packet Pg. 61
6M Equity
C
Frontline communities, those most
likely to be affected by climate
change, are often more resource
efficient than the general population,
with lifestyles that help achieve the
community's climate action goals.
They often live in higher density
housing, consume less energy per
capita, and rely on public transit.
However, intersecting vulnerabilities
and socioeconomic determinants,
such as preexisting health
conditions, physical location, historic
marginalization, social context, and
income stability, can make these
communities more susceptible to
threats of climate change.
Climate equity ensures a fair
distribution of the benefits of
climate action and resilience efforts
as the community transitions to a low
carbon future, reducing disparities.
Edmonds' 2017 GHG emissions were
estimated to be about 750,000 MT
CO2e, including both "local" emissions
that occur within the city limits, and
"imported" emissions generated
outside of Edmonds to produce the
goods, food, and services consumed
in Edmonds. Total local and imported
emissions in 2017 were approximately
17.2 MT CO2e per capita. For
comparison, in 2017 the global per
capita average was 6.4 MT CO2e and
the US average was 17.3 MT CO2e2.
Other key observations include:
• Residential buildings have more
than double the impact of
commercial buildings
2017 Community GH(
Emissions (MTCO2e)
750,000
500,000
250,000
• 75% of natural gas was consumed by the
residential sector, and nearly 25% by the
commercial sector
Local + Imported
Emissions
40 Buildings
Transportatio
40 Refrigerant
Waste
• Passenger transport, primarily in cars, is the
leading source of transportation -related local emissions
Strategies and Top Actions
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one indicates how important it
GHG
Degre(
is in reducing or preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates how
Reduction
of City
much influence the City has over the outcome.
Potential
Contro
Replace-. in Buildings with Renewable
BE-1.1: Adopt appropriate zoning allowances to facilitate installation of
renewable energy projects and energy efficient equipment.
Medium
��
High
A
BE-1.2: Provide financial -assistance programs for solar energy projects
and energy efficient equipment.
Medium
�1�
High
Improve. Infrastructure
BE-2.1: Support legislation requiring gas supply systems statewide to be
High
carbon -neutral by 2045.
�,�
BE-2.2: Create and implement a green building incentive program.
Low
High
BE-3: Require the Design and Construction of New and Remodeled Buildings
Building Standards
BE-3.1: Adopt regulations to require new multi -family and commercial
to Meet
411111111111111,
Green
buildings to be 100% electric by 2023.
Medium
High
BE-3.2: Require that all new multi -family residential and commercial
buildings and any major commercial remodeling projects meet LEED
A Medium
High
or similar built green standards: LEED Gold for Commercial and LEED
�1�
Silver for multifamily, to implement Resolution 1168.
Packet Pg. 62
a�
Q.
c
�a
a
c
r
a
a�
E
U
a�
L
V
0
L
m
a
a
U
N
c
0
E
w
c
m
E
t
.r
a
GHG
Reduction
Strategies and Top Actions
Potential
Control
Reduce-. Sustainable Land Use
TR-1.1: Adopt a multimodal level of service to enable complete streets
4W
outcomes.
Medium
't�
High
4
TR-1.2: Develop code, guidelines, and zoning supporting mixed -use
transit development in
1 ,� High
�� High
and -oriented neighborhood commercial centers.
ReduceImproving-
TR-2.1: Coordinate transit agencies to increase service and improve
convenience to access new light rail connections.
Medium
Med
(A)
A
TR-2.2: Promote Sounder commuter rail stop in Edmonds.
Medium
if
Low
TR-2.3: Invest in transit stop amenities to improve transit ridership
11111ft Medium
Low
experience (e.g. shelter, bench, lighting).
��
''^
TR-3: Reduce VMT by Committing to a Complete Street Approach
TR-3.1: Commit to installing one bike rack per block in neighborhood
61 Low
'—'r' High
districts.
-aa
TR-3.2: Establish a complete streets process and steering committee for
A
Medium
0.
High
capital projects.
"''
TR-3.3: Develop a pedestrian priority investment network and triple
Medium
4 High 0
funding in the Capital Improvements Plan.
W
ReduceQ
TR-4.1: Explore bike and scooter share programs within the City of
0
Edmonds.
Medium
Med
E
TR-4.2: Formalize hybrid work options for City employees.
TR-4.3: Explore opportunities to develop car share facilities with ferry system.
�� Medium
L
Med
U
• - -.
.. ..
'a
TR-5.1: Adopt standards for the placement of charging stations in public
,� High
4High Q
rights -of -way.
%
V
TR-5.2: Convert City fleet to electric vehicles.
A
110 Medium
y
4High
0
TR-5.3: Add charging stations to all city owned facilities including parks.
o Medium
E
4High W
c
eu
GHG
Degree z
Reduction
of City M
Strategies and Top Actions
Potential
Contro Q
IncreaseEN-1: Maintain or Carbon Sequestration -Areas
EN-1.1: Adopt a canopy coverage target for the city.
to Low
High
EN-1.2: Identify pockets of woodlands and marsh land that the City
Low
60
High
4
could purchase to add to our parks system.
EN-1.3: Identify City parks and open spaces where carbon sequestration
be increased.
Low
61
High
4-
could
EN-2: ExploreOther MethodsOffsetting
EN-2.1: Develop a periodic calculation of the gap between Edmonds'
Low
J%jj
High
4
targeted GHG emissions reductions and actual.
EN 2.2: Engage in a regional conversation about offsetting GHGs.
EN-2.3: Include a calculation of the social and mortality costs of carbon
that would result from each Comprehensive Plan update
J,,, Low
�,� High,
Packet Pg. 63
GHG
7.B.a
Reduction
of City
Strategies and Top Actions
Potential
Control
Prepare for the Impacts
EN-3.1: When planning for climate change adaptations, assess which
N/A
High
communities would be most affected and who would benefit most.
.Y'
EN-3.2: Develop a plan for adapting to sea level rise in Edmonds.
N/A
4 High
EN-3.3: Evaluate risks to stormwater infrastructure from higher intensity
N/A
High
storms, and develop plans to upgrade system and development codes.
"r
GHG
Degref
Reduction
of City
Strategies and Top Actions
Potential
Contro
ReduceDepletion
LC-1.1: Reduce barriers to achieving Edmonds' zero -waste goal.
A
Medium
„r
_� High
LC-1.2: Increase recycling bins in partnership with local businesses.
A Medium
M
4High CL
LC-1.3: Require recycled products for City -produced printed materials.
J�j Low
c
a
4HighLC-2:
Increase Local Food Production
c
0
LC-2.1: Educate people in smaller households on ways to reduce food
h
A a
waste.
Hi
�I�' g
Med
�' d
—` M
LC-2.2: Educate consumers on the GHG and health benefits of
N/A
pow E
consuming less pre -packaged food.
V
LC-2.3: Involve community in identifying City parks and other property,
L
both City -owned and private, as potential sites for neighborhood public
Low
6
�, High s
"P-Patches."
o
m
a
2035 050 U
To address W
-.Monitoring- '0
the reduction Is Savings `o
gap identified
in the tool BE -I* Number of new residential and commercial solz w
PV systems installed
replacing 3,157 6,253 Percent of residential and commercial area retrc m
fossil -fuel BE-2 417 417
based gas, Savings from 2017 improvements to wastewateJ
treatment plant
carbon- BE-3 3,272 7,870 Percent of new, LEED-Certified residential and a
commercial development
neutral T 4,781 5,737 Number of multi -family units built in activity cen
refrigerants, TR-2 3,792 4,807 Percent of commuters using publictransportatic
carbon 880 21177 Percent of commuters walking or biking to work
sequestration, Percent of commuters carpooling and/or utilizin
and other TR-4 8,700 9,229 an alternate work week
measures 50,73 er of electric vehicles
are needed EN-1 131 262 Number of trees planted
to meet 3,257 4,343 Tonnage of solid waste qenerated
our GHG 79,121 122,141 Total Reduction (MT CO e)
64,745 188,918 1.5°C Scenario Target Reduction (MT CO e)
emissions-14,376 66,778 Reduction still Needed to Reach Target (MT CO.
targets for 122% 65% Percent of Target Achieved
2050. *Although this metric will not help reduce GHG after the electric grid is carbon neutra
2030, prior to that date, cumulatively it will produce enough electricity to reduce GH(
by approximately 12,000 MTCO2e.
Contact: climateaction@edmondswa.gov
Website: edmondsclimat Packet Pg. 64
CITY OF
EDMONDS
7.B.b
OV ED 4r
d
nC:0
� ACT
ON
v
rv* IPLAN
For over a decade, The City of Edmonds has
committed to preventing the harms from climate
change. From sea level rise that causes erosion and
flooding, to drought and higher land temperatures
that will destroy crops and forests, and rising
ocean temperatures and acidity that will affect
marine species, Edmonds recognizes that it bears
responsibility to take action as citizens of the world
and stewards of our environment.
In 2010, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan
(CAP)to substantially reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Starting in 2018, local consultants were
hired to prepare a new GHG inventory and to advise
the City on updating its CAP.This plan focuses on the
most important steps Edmonds can take to address
climate change.
Spread the Word
• March: Community Workshop
• April: Community Feedback Survey
• June: Community Feedback Survey Summary
lie
Dec'20 - Feb'21 Feb - Aug '21 'A Aug '21 -June `22
A6 - 'A 0 A
Material Development
• Project material development &
website launch
• February: Online Open House
•
2FOR
Write the CAP
• Refine and revise
strategies and actions
The community -wide GHG inventory was completed in early 2019 based on data for
2017, and emissions were estimated to be about 750,000 IVIT CO2e, including both
"local" (emissions that occur within the city limits) and "imported" (emissions are
generated outside of Edmonds to produce the goods, food, and services consumed in
Edmonds, or by the people of Edmonds while traveling outside of the city).
Total local and imported emissions in 2017 were approximately 17.2
capita. For comparison, in 2017 the global per capita average was 6.4
the US average was 17.3 IVIT CO2e.
a
c
0
U
Q
M
U
Launch the CAP!
a
• Share out the climate0
Action Plan for the
City of Edmonds
'Al (LI
IL
0.
0
U)
L
0
2017 Community GHG
Emissions (MTCO2e)
750,000
w
5001000 .............
0
0-
MT CO2e per
IVIT CO2e and 250,000 ...---
Emissions from operating buildings and transportation continue to be the two sectors
with the largest local emissions sectors. Other key observations from the new inventory
include:
• Residential buildings in Edmonds have more than double the impact of
commercial buildings.
• In 2017, 75% of natural gas was consumed by the residential sector, nearly 25% by
the commercial sector, and less than 1 % was consumed by the industrial sector.
• Passenger transport, primarily in cars, is the leading source of transportation -
related local GHG emissions.
0
Local + Imported
Emissions
10 Buildings
0 Transportation
Refrigerant
Waste
a
Packet Pg. 65
!1�X a 1111F6,110 10 [ " !J ! 10 1 " !
7.B.b
As part of this CAP Update, our consultants
prepared a tracking tool that focuses on a key metric
for each of 10 strategies. This will allow the City to
estimate progress in reducing local emissions on an
annual basis, without having to do a complete new
inventory.
The tracking tool includes assumptions built
off existing information about GHG emissions,
population and employment growth, commuting
patterns, and other factors, as well as uses 2017
a baseline. The baseline is projected based on
population and employment growth, as a "business -
as -usual" baseline through 2050, assuming behavior
and technology remained the same.
Based on the tracking tool, replacing fossil -fuel
based gas, carbon -neutral refrigerants, carbon
sequestration, and other measures are needed to
meet our GHG emissions targets for 2050.
Key metrics tracking progress of the CAP
BE-1: Replace Fossil Fuels used in
Buildings with Renewable Energy
Resources*
BE-2: Improve Energy Efficiency of
Existing Buildings and Infrastructure
BE-3: Require the Design and
Construction of New and Remodeled
Buildings to Meet Green Building
Standards
TR-1: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) through Sustainable Land Use
TR-2: Reduce VMT by Improving
Transit Systems
TR-3: Reduce VMT by Committing to
a Complete Street Approach
TR-4: Reduce VMT through
Vehicle Sharing and Flexible Work
Requirements
TR-5: Promote Low -Carbon Vehicles
and Other Methods of Reducing
Emissions from Vehicles
EN-1: Maintain or Increase Carbon
Sequestration in Trees and Natural
Areas
LC-1: Reduce Material Consumption,
Waste Generation, and Resource
Depletion
3,1157
3,272
4,781
3,792
8,700
50,734
131
3,257
*Although this metric will not help 79,121
reduce GHG after the electric grid 64,745
is carbon neutral in 2030 , prior to
that date, cumulatively it will produce-14,376
enough electricity to reduce GHGs by
approximately 12,000 MTCO2e. 122%
C]
Number of new residential and commercia
solar photovoltaic systems installed
6,253 Percent of existing residential
and commercial area retrofitted
417 I Savings from 2017 improvements to
wastewater treatment plant
1 Percent of new residential and commercial
7,870 development LEED-Certified or meeting
net -zero carbon emissions
5,737 Residential units developed in centers
4,807 1 Percent of workforce commuting by transit
21177 Percent of workforce commuting on foot or
by bicycle
Percent of workers carpooling; Percent of
9,229 workers with alternate work week or work
at home
Number of electric vehicles registered
81,046 in Edmonds; Number of public charging
stations or kilowatt hours of charging by
stations
262 1 Number of trees planted
4,343 1 Tonnage of solid waste generated
122,141
188,918
Total Reduction (MT CO 2 e)
1.5°C Scenario Target Reduction (MT CO 2 e)
66,778 Reduction still Needed to Reach Target
(MT CO2 e)
65% FPercent of Target Achieved
Packet Pg. 66
7.B.b
ctrategies and Action:
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one
indicates how important it is in reducing or
preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates
how much influence the City has over the outcome.
3E-'I HP-niarp- Fc�ssi llPlS imp-ri in F
BE-1.1: Adopt appropriate zoning allowances to
facilitate installation of renewable energy projects and
energy efficient equipment, such as height and side
setback exceptions for heat pumps.
BE-1.2: Provide financial assistance programs such
as low interest loans or grants for installation of solar
energy projects and energy efficient equipment for
affordable housing projects, including residences
and community facilities.
GHG
Reduction
Potential
4WO
%if
BE-1.3: Promote electrification of heating and hot 1WNq
water for all small business spaces by 2035. 1 %if
BE-1.4: Promote electrification of all businesses, 04
including heating, hot water, and cooking, by 2050. %if
BE-1.4: Educate the homeowners, renters,
apartment managers, and businesses on the energy
efficiency and cost effectiveness of electric heat
pump heating and hot water systems.
BE-1.6: Restrict or prohibit the use of fossil fuels for
outdoor heating.
BE-2.1 Support legislation to require gas supply
systems statewide to be carbon -neutral by 2045.
BE-2.d., Create and implement a green building
incentive program.
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Degree
of City
Control
4 High
4 High
Low
$%,I Low High
4%11 Low High
High Low
%if Low
Continue to improve energy efficiency of the Low
City's wastewater treatment plant. 1%11
SE-3: Kenuire the Design and Cc
•I I t•] r ►"I [=
BE-' Adopt regulations to require new multi -family
and commercial buildings to be 100% electric by
2023.
BE-3.2: Require that all new multi -family residential
and commercial buildings and any major
commercial remodeling projects meet LEED
or similar built green standards: LEED Gold for
Commercial and LEED Silver for multifamily, to
implement Resolution 1168.
BE-3.3: Support changes to state building code
to achieve net -zero energy consumption in new
buildings by 2030.
BE-3.4: Convert all City facilities to electric heat and
hot water by 2035.
BE-3.5: Prohibit the use of fossil fuels for outdoor
heating at commercial facilities.
i ■ :T
4WW
%if
Medium
Medium
�1) High
0 High
High
At -VIP
4 High
4 High
Low
OVOID High
High
—4
Level of Support
oVA -- --,
•
Packet Pg. 67
•1A
1w
Stratpqic
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one
indicates how important it is in reducing or
preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates
how much influence the City has over the outcome.
,.
TR-J,+' Adopt a multimodal level of service to enable
complete streets outcomes.
TR.' Develop code and guidelines and zoning
that support mixed -use and transit oriented
(Highway 99 and downtown) development in
neighborhood commercial centers to encourage
close -to -home local shopping and employment
opportunities.
TR-1.3: Provide tax or other incentives for low
income or affordable housing projects in the City's
activity centers.
GHG
Reduction
Potential
1 Medium
�V) High
A
%if
Medium
TR 1.4: Encourage more businesses to locate
in Edmonds, such as by increasing commercial
capacity by allowing commercial uses in more Medium
locations, by permitting more intensive uses, or
reducing parking requirements in areas well served
by transit.
0
Degree
of City
Control
noll High
4 High
4 High
4 High
`�-2.1: Coordinate transit agencies to increase 41W A
service and improve convenience to access new %if Medium �
light rail connections.
rc-2.21 Promote Sounder commuter rail stop in Medium
Edmonds. t�%n
i rc-2.3: Invest in transit stop amenities to improve 4w*
transit ridership experience (e.g. shelter, bench, �, Mediumt*n
lighting).
T" Commit to installing one bike rack per block
within neighborhood districts. 14�1
TR-3.2: Establish a complete streets process for A
capital projects and a complete streets steering
committee to sign off on compete streets
recommendation or exemptions.
Z-3.3, Develop a pedestrian priority investment
network and triple funding in the Capital
Improvements Plan.
A
%if
R-3.4: Continue and expand "Walkable Weekends"
to promote walking as a community activity that also 141411
supports local businesses.
TR-3.5: Require bike parking and e-bike charging in
new commercial and multifamily. lt�f.
Medium
Low
Low
Low eeoj� High
Medium
Medium
High
AM*)
4 High
Low1 4High
Low High
Level of Support
Packet Pg. 68
�trateg' end ' tionc
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one
indicates how important it is in reducing or
preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates
how much influence the City has over the outcome.
11
GHG
Reduction
Potential
T''-� '' -Explore bike and scooter share programs A
within the City of Edmonds.
TR-d 11• Formalize hybrid work options for City
employees. 4�11
3: Explore opportunities to develop car share
facilities with ferry system.
TR-4.4* Increase utilization of the city commute trip
reduction program for employees.
c7J
TR-5.1. Adopt standards for the placement of charging
stations in public rights -of -way.
TR-5.2: Convert City fleet to electric vehicles.
T'R-';.3: Add charging stations at all City -owned
facilities including parks.
Medium
Low
Degree
of City
Control
A
A
Medium
Ovol'i High
1 Medium ;t Medium
4T�j Low t4A _ Low
High High
%I Medium ��� High
f%i
Medium
High
TR-5.4: Adopt a policy to limit vehicle idling, I I
including the posting of appropriate signs at
businesses and holding areas, such as school and Medium Low
ferry areas. This action would include evaluating how %if t—
to equip City trucks with auxiliary electrical systems
for illumination and warning signs.
TR-' Support the long-term plan for electrifying the Medium LoW
Washington State ferry fleet. %if
'OW
t—
Level
of Support
Packet Pg. 69
!10
�i ate��• ^tins
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one
indicates how important it is in reducing or
preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates
how much influence the City has over the outcome.
1411= "1:
EN-11.11: Adopt a canopy coverage target for the city.
EN-1.2: Identify pockets of woodlands and marsh
land that the City could purchase to add to our
parks system.
EN-1.3: Identify City parks and open spaces where
carbon sequestration could be increased.
E F" '' For fee -in -lieu mitigation sites, prioritize
sites that sequester carbon.
GHG
Reduction
Potential
%if Lon
Degree
of City
Control
me High
i%lf Low High
Low High
Low High
EN-1.5 Update the City Street Tree Plan to prioritize
increasing tree cover in appropriate places along Low High
the city's street rights -of -way, especially in areas of
low canopy coverage.
EN-1.6.- Explore application of biochar from
the wastewater treatment plant to sequester Low Low
carbon and improve soils in parks and residential
developments.
EN-1 - Assess the health of and changing stress on �
Edmonds' urban forest and develop strategies to �� Low � Medium
prevent loss of trees to heat, drought, and insects.
V. Other-MethodsFtor Offse dmonds'GHG Emissions
iN-2-OOV.xplore tting-E
W - .0" -
cN-2 Develop a periodic calculation of the
gap between Edmondstargeted and actual GHG � Low High
emissions reductions, for the metrics in this plan.
EN 2.2o, Engage in a regional conversation about Low � High
offsetting GHGs. 14�1 —,
EN-2-3: Include a calculation of the social and
mortality costs of carbon that would result from i%lf
Low High
each Comprehensive Plan update.
EN-2 For any emissions that are not offset per
metrics the tracking tool, prepare a calculation of � Low High
the social and mortality cost on an annual basis.
EN-2.5 Explore purchase of GHG offsets.
Im
N - 3M When planning for any climate change
adaptations, include an assessment of which parts
of the community would be most affected and who
would benefit most from the measures proposed.
%if
EN-? 2. Develop a plan for adapting to sea level rise in Edmonds. 1:1�1
EN-3.3: Evaluate the risks to stormwater
infrastructure from higher intensity storms, and
develop plans for upgrades to the system and
development codes, if necessary.
Low nri High
Low High
Low 1 4 High
Low V High
On
Level of Support
Packet Pg. 70 1
!1*10ILTAIM Lim Efelte
atp�ie• ^tins
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one
indicates how important it is in reducing or
preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates
how much influence the City has over the outcome.
�Fe r\ � re�� r � � ran h � �►t� �t r►1 � w� �tc�
EN-3.4.- Develop a program to achieve water
conservation in existing buildings and landscaping,
with a goal of reducing per capita water use 7% by
the year 2035.
FN-3 Include measures in the City's Emergency
Management Plan to ensure local energy supply
at City operated mass care facilities, such as solar
power and battery storage, in the event of electrical
outages due to extreme weather or fires.
GHG Degree
Reduction of City
Potential Control Level of Support
1%11 Low 1 4 High
1%11 Low I in*)
High
FN-' Create a network of emergency cooling Low
centers to be available during extreme heat events. I %I$
strategies any' "ctia
Each action is accompanied by two icons: one
indicates how important it is in reducing or
preventing GHG emissions, and the other indicates
how much influence the City has over the outcome.
LC-+' ` Reduce barriers to achieving Edmonds'
zero -waste goal.
A.2,.- Increase recycling bins in partnership with
ocal businesses.
-1.3,- Require recycled products for City -
produced printed materials.
C-1.4: Educate homeowners in composting.
NoIncrease local food production
LC-2.1: Educate people in smaller households on
ways to reduce food waste.
-2.2: Educate consumers on the GHG as well as
health benefits of consuming less pre -packaged
food.
1.3: Involve community in identifying City parks
and other property, both City -owned and private, as
potential sites for neighborhood public "P-Patches."
GHG
Reduction
Potential
f�f
%if
Medium
Medium
High
—4
Degree
of City
Control
F]
High
High
Low High
Low Medium
�1) High
t�f
Medium
Low Low
Low High
Level of Support
LC-2.4: Continue to promote local farmers' markets.
Low A Medium
Packet Pg. 71
7.B.c
Edmonds CAP Engagement Open House #2 Summary
July 28, 2022 1 Waterfront Center 16:00pm to 8:00pm
August 11, 2022 1 Edmonds Lutheran Church 1 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Purpose
The purpose of the workshop was to launch the Edmonds Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Open House began with an overview of
the CAP, key sector highlights, and ended with an interactive activity for discussion. Participants rotated across four stations, with a
facilitator at each station to foster discussion. Each station was associated with a different element or sector of the CAP and included
a poster board with strategies and actions listed.
The City of Edmonds hosted two in -person Open Houses to launch the final CAP. The following tables share level of support and
comments from each event.
Links to Materials
CAP Bmchure
• Open House PowerPoint Presentation
Aqenda
Time
Topic
6:00
— 6:05 pm
Welcome participants to the space
6:05
— 6:15 pm
Introduction
6:15
— 6:30 pm
Presentation: City of Edmonds and ESA
6:30
— 6:40 pm
Brief Q&A Session
6:40
— 7:50 pm
Station Discussions
7:50
— 8:00 pm
Closing
1
Packet Pg. 72
E
U
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel of
Strategy
BUILDINGS AND ENERGY
Onpray Resource
BE-1.1: Adopt appropriate zoning
Stop using seductive semantics of "renewable energy
allowances to facilitate installation of
projects". What exactly is meant here? Solar is a poor
renewable energy projects and energy
investment for the Northwest as it produces very little
efficient equipment, such as height
exactly when we need it the most, during the winter. What
and side setback exceptions for heat
else is there? Wind turbines? Tidal power?
pumps.
BE-1.2: Provide financial assistance
If these projects cannot pay for themselves then the City
programs such as low interest loans
should not be spending taxpayer money on virtue
or grants for installation of solar
signaling. See above for comments on poor solar power
energy projects and energy efficient
for Northwest
equipment for affordable housing
projects, including residences and
community facilities.
BE-1.3: Promote electrification of
heating and hot water for all small
business spaces by 2035.
BE-1.4: Promote electrification of all
Incentives for converting gas to electric
businesses, including heating, hot
water, and cooking, by 2050.M
BE-1.5: Educate the homeowners,
Yes, please
renters, apartment managers, and
businesses on the energy efficiency
and cost effectiveness of electric heat
pump heating and hot water systems.
BE-1.6: Restrict or prohibit the use of
fossil fuels for outdoor heating.
BE-2.1: Support legislation to require
This is an underhanded means to eliminate natural gas.
gas supply systems statewide to
That is the real goal of this project so it should be stated
be carbon -neutral by 2045.
plainly. Conversations with CAP team and some residents
make it clear that natural gas is viewed badly. This is
m
w
a
D
c
a
c
0
r
L)
Q
a�
r
CU
E
U
L
E
E
Cn
N
a
0
t
N
L
0
c
m
E
m
a�
CU
c
w
a
Q
U
c
0
E
w
c
a�
t
a
Packet Pg. 73
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
Strategy
SupportLevel of
baffling as the increased use of natural gas has reduced
GHG for North America.
BE-2.2: Create and implement a
There is little evidence that green buildings do little more
green building incentive program.
than drive up costs and virtue signal. Everyone is for
energy efficiency. Don't force actions on people that don't
make sense to the person directly paying for the project.
BE-2.3: Continue to improve energy
efficiency of the City's wastewater
treatment plant
ff-3: Require the Design and Construction
of New and Remodeled Buildings to Meet Green Wping
Standards
BE-3.1: Adopt regulations to require
• All electric homes are terribly vulnerable to power outages,
new multi -family and commercial
which happen regularly here. There is a reason Costco
buildings to be 100% electric by 2023.
sells natural gas generators. Again, natural gas is
portrayed as a problem, not as a solution.
BE-3.2: Require that all new multi-
9 Another example of elite administrators dictating policies
family residential and commercial
that do not cost them anything. If LEED makes sense to a
buildings and any major commercial
builder then they'll do it on their own. There is a reason
remodeling projects meet LEED or
LEED isn't popular
similar built green standards: LEED
Gold for Commercial and LEED Silver
for multifamily, to implement
Resolution 1168.
BE-3.3: Support changes
to state building code to achieve net -
zero energy consumption in new
buildings by 2030.
BE-3.4: Convert all City facilities to
9 Focus on: big impact of GHG -> high influence for change
electric heat and hot water by 2035.
BE-3.5: Prohibit the use of fossil fuels
• When focusing on increasing use of electricity consider
for outdoor heating at commercial
the higher of when that is the only source
facilities.
0 When increasing tree cover, consider additional cost to
heat
• Talk w/ PCC + other businesses to workshop how to use
electric stoves/grills
m
w
a
c
(L
c
0
L)
Q
a)
M
E
U
L
R
E
Cn
N
a
0
t
N
L
0
c
m
E
m
a�
c
w
a
Q
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
a�
E
t
r
a
Packet Pg. 74
7.B.c
.irkshnn Outcc
d
w
CL
to
'
Biggest issues: Food, water, climate refugees.
a
•
PUD agreement w/ Edmonds for 100% renewable —
o
•
Was it not renewal for 22/23?
L)
PUD stopped this option + CETA bill
Q
Does anyone know how much LED lightning
a�
transition occurred? Short answer no
E
Susan to figure out if sheet leaps transitioned — that's
�?
a PUD question — they own 90%
National projection doesn't include Inflation
Reduction Act Climate Bill — too early to quantify
E
Tracking progress — who will do? Correctly ESA
contract
Cn
N
Tree canopy — Tree Equity Score website worth a
o
look
t
Recycling limitations — multiple providers, interlocal
L
agreements; 7 year turnover
0
Bike parking code update? All done? But not pushed
through? Voted again
Boat electrification?
E
Bus electrification — 10 yr horizon, shorter runs on -
demand dial -or -ride
Subsidized bus pass/reimbursements
w
a
Smaller/more frequent East/West routes for areas far
Q
U
from groceries, etc.
Yes! Move people not cars.
o
TR-1.1: Adopt a multimodal level of
It is very unclear what this means or how it will help. 1
0 More frequent east/west trips, buses running both
E
service to enable complete streets
looked online for a better description but couldn't find one.
directions
w
outcomes.
Please provide more detail.
0 Long-term commuter bike storage
• Smaller cars? Smaller parking? amenities etc,
°'
motorcycle parking
r
a
Packet Pg. 75
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
Strategy
R-1.2: Develop code and guidelines
of
Transit use within Edmonds, by residents to get to another
+ 100%! Support "homes for WX at state level
and zoning that support mixed -use
location within Edmonds, is almost non-existent. This isn't
and transit oriented (Highway 99 and
because there isn't enough transit, but because transit
downtown) development in
takes so long to use. No one is going to walk two or three
neighborhood commercial centers to
blocks from their house to catch a bus to go to Hwy 99 or
encourage close -to -home local
downtown.
shopping and employment
This is also in opposition to ideas of increasing Sounder
opportunities.
use. I rode the bus and then Sounder for 30 years to
Seattle or Bellevue. Sounder destroyed local Community
Transit bus routes as everyone switched. For many years I
walked seven blocks in the rain (and along muddy edges
of roads without sidewalks) to catch a CT bus to get me to
Lynnwood Transit Center. That all died with Sounder.
R-1.3: Provide tax or other
incentives for low income or
affordable housing projects in the
Cit 's activity centers.
R-1.4: Encourage more businesses
o locate in Edmonds, such as by
increasing commercial capacity by
allowing commercial uses in more
locations, by permitting more intensive
uses, or reducing parking
requirements in areas well served by
transit.
Small, more local form of transit in town. Small shuttles,
on -demand transit, etc.
R-2.1: Coordinate transit agencies too
Need more parking at transit stations or car shares to get
a Connect Link w/ bus routes
increase service and improve
to transit centers
a Express line no transfers to Light Rail
convenience to access new light rail
a People need access to get to transit centers
connections.
a The new work -from -home paradigm has significantly
reduced the need for transit to downtown work centers.
R-2.2: Promote Sounder commuter
a There is already a Sounder stop. I rode Sounder for years
a Future of Sounder when the Link arrives?
rail stop in Edmonds.
for work. Ridership was low and very expensive for
a Increase Sounder service beyond current very -limited
taxpayers as it was heavily subsidized. Ridership appears
time constraints
m
a
c
i
a
c
0
r
U
a
M
r
E
U
M
E
E
N
a
0
N
L
0
c
m
E
m
0
a�
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
c
as
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 76
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
of
Strategy
to be even lower now as the parking lot is empty during
the day when it was packed before.
R-2.3: Invest in transit stop a Amenities do not increase ridership. People ride because
amenities to improve transit ridership they have to. I used transit daily for 30 years.
experience (e.g. shelter, bench,
lighting).
R-3.1: Commit to installing one bike
a Edmonds gets a significant amount of its revenue from car
a Identify locations where bike racks (or bike lockers)
rack per block within neighborhood
sales, sales tax from car dealers on Hwy 99 — most of
are most effective/needed v. arbitrary 1/block
districts.
those cars/trucks are gasoline powered. That is "dirty
a Yes! Our complete streets code can be better
money". What can we do to pressure car dealers to
implemented
increase/incentivize electric car/truck sales
No one rides their bikes, and it is not because there are no
bike racks. About ten years ago a bike lane was built
along 76th Avenue West from Perrinville South. I drive that
every day and never see any bike riders. Parking along
one side of that street was removed for long sections, for
no purpose.
R-3.2: Establish a complete streets
I can't find enough information to comment.
process for capital projects and a
complete streets steering committee
o sign off on compete streets
recommendation or exemptions.
R-3.3: Develop a pedestrian priority
Thanks to Kernen Lien who shared the project list with me.
Walk + roll!
investment network and triple funding
I see that the many sidewalks needed are identified,
in the Capital Improvements Plan.
including the one I've been writing about for 30 years. This
is a plus. Be aware that this will not likely increase
pedestrian traffic, but it will make existing pedestrian use
safer and more pleasant
R-3.4: Continue and expand
"Walkable Weekends" to promote
walking as a community activity that
also supports local businesses.
m
a
c
i
a
c
0
U
a
r
E
U
c�
E
E
N
a
0
N
L
0
c
m
m
0
vM
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 77
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
of
Strategy
R-3.5: Require bike parking and e- Future: protected bike lanes (now people fear safety of
bike charging in new commercial and bikes on road)
multifamily.
through.
R-4.1: Explore bike and scooter
a More bike lanes
share programs within the City of
a Walkable sidewalks (add curb cuts)
Edmonds.
a Grocery in the bowl
Has there ever been a successful bike or scooter plan
anywhere? That's a serious question as I've seen a lot of
them in all sorts of cities.
R-4.2: Formalize hybrid work options
a Why is this insignificant item on this plan? The City should
or City employees.
do what's right for employees and not score points for
CAP.
R-4.3: Explore opportunities to
8 This needs much more definition. There are already many
develop car share facilities with ferry
carpool vans available so what is new here?
system.
R-4.4: Increase utilization of the city
commute trip reduction program for
em to ees.
• • •
Consider allowing more golf cart use
Better biker education + safety so bikers know how to get
• • • •
•
around safely
More accessible bike shops. Consider a small bike
shop/help station at city hall or downtown central location
Local, frequent shuttle/transit to city locations — grocery,
medical, etc. Not just the light rail
Better information sharing about safe + viable bike routes
— maps, apps, signs, etc.
People won't bike if it isn't safe. Improve bikes safety with
protect bike lanes to major destinations.
TR-5.1: Adopt standards for the
Standards are a good idea but I'm reluctant to see these
placement of charging stations in
widely dispersed throughout the city. Homeowners should
public rights -of -way.
pay for their own and renters need to talk to their
landlords.
m
a
c
c�
a
c
0
r
a
a�
r
E
U
M
E
N
Q
0
N
Y
`0
c
m
E
m
0
vm
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
c�
a
Packet Pg. 78
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
Strategy
R-5.2: Convert City fleet to electric
of
a Is this cost neutral?
vehicles.
R-5.3: Add charging stations at all
a See TR-5.1 above. Why are all taxpayers providing a free
City -owned facilities including parks.
resource to people?
R-5.4: Adopt a policy to limit vehicle
Yes! School pick up lines — save gas! Turn off
idling, including the posting of
engines when standby!
appropriate signs at businesses and
holding areas, such as school and
ferry areas. This action would include
evaluating how to equip City trucks
with auxiliary electrical systems for
illumination and warning signs.
R-5.5: Support the long-term plan for
How do we plan to implement the strategies
Parking spaces excused from property tax if
electrifying the Washington State ferry
providing solar supported parking spaces/shelter
fleet.
•
Marshlands is close to (maybe even exceeds) forests in
ability to sequester carbon -purchase Unocal property +
a Is this plan going to be presented to council as a full
package or in modules?
•
double the marsh's carbon sequestration
a How can we concentrate resources on expanding
If 87% of trees are on private property, we will eventually
tree canopy
need to do the unthinkable + protect private property trees
a What are #s behind metrics — GHG reduction/degree
too
of city control
Want high impact, high city control
a How are these metrics measured?
Educating community on impact is important
EN-1.1: Adopt a canopy coverage
0 More native plants that are drought resistant
target for the city.
a By CAP's own measure this has low potential. This is one
of the last things to be done.
EN-1.2: Identify pockets of woodlands
a Why wasn't this done for Perrinville Woods?
and marsh land that the City could
purchase to add to our parks system.
EN-1.3: Identify City parks and open
a Be more clear was "carbon sequestration" means. No
Incentivize more improved open/green space
spaces where carbon sequestration
more trees can be added without taking away from the
requirements w/ MF housing zoning!
could be increased.
m
a
c
i
a
c
0
U
a
a�
r
E
U
c�
E
E
N
a
0
N
Y
L
0
c
m
E
m
0
a�
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 79
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
Strategy
of
limited open space. As it stands it appears to be a "feel a Green/open space is zero lot line to zero lot line
good" statement. development - create in code
EN-1.4: For fee -in -lieu mitigation sites,
a Incentivized + support replacement of lawns w/ native
prioritize sites that sequester carbon.
plantings that support life- supporting insects & birds
as well as other wildlife
EN-1.5: Update the City Street Tree
a Develop something that doesn't cut down the trees
a Elementary & maintain public trees
Plan to prioritize increasing tree cover
a Focus on replacing trees that need to be cut down due to
in appropriate places along the city's
development
street rights -of -way, especially in
areas of low canopy coverage.
EN-1.6: Explore application of biochar
from the wastewater treatment plant
o sequester carbon and improve soils
in parks and residential
developments.
EN-1.7: Assess the health of and
changing stress on Edmonds' urban
forest and develop strategies to
prevent loss of trees to heat, drought,
and insects.
R.R..
EN-2.1: Develop a periodic calculation
a This is the definition of the CAP. Why include this here?
of the gap between Edmonds'
What this should say is periodically evaluate if CAP is
targeted and actual GHG emissions
doing any good.
reductions, for the metrics in this plan.
EN 2.2: Engage in a regional
a Thanks to Kernen Lien who explained how the Growth
conversation about offsetting GHGs.
Management Act is forcing Edmonds to accept more
residents by 2040. Is there similar legislation for GHG?
EN-2.3: Include a calculation of the
a In addition, a calculation of the financial, social, and
social and mortality costs of carbon
mortality costs of implementing this plan needs to be
that would result from each
done. There is no free lunch. There are significant ways
Comprehensive Plan update.
that people's lives will be degraded with these proposals.
EN-2.4: For any emissions that are
not offset per metrics the tracking tool,
m
a
c
i
a
c
0
U
a
a�
E
U
c�
E
E
N
a
0
N
Y
`0
c
m
E
m
vm
c
w
a
a
U
c
0
E
w
c
as
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 80
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
of
Strategy
prepare a calculation of the social and
mortality cost on an annual basis.
EN-2.5: Explore purchase of GHG
Carbon offset + clean energy fund for the City
offsets.
EN-3.1: When planning for any
During the CAP presentation one of the city staff spent a
100%
climate change adaptations, include
long-time extolling what she assumed to be the poorer
an assessment of which parts of the
residents as "climate champions" because they used less
community would be most affected
energy. She held them up as examples. This is ridiculous.
and who would benefit most from the
Very likely, if they had more money, they'd love to use
measures proposed.
more energy and consume more resources. Stop
moralizing.
The same speaker tried to generate woke pity for these
residents because they live in a "heat island". Thankfully
other attendees questioned this simplistic attitude. Again,
stop moralizing.
EN-3.2: Develop a plan for adapting too
Tsunami preparedness for infrastructure
sea level rise in Edmonds.
Education campaigns/public art on SLR education
What sea level rise? I have been going to Edmonds
beaches (all of them!) for over 30 years. I have not noticed
any sea level rise that has interfered with my use of the
beaches. That is in direct contradiction of the many
hysterical predictions during that time.
have seen occasional floods of the Harbor Square area
and Sounder parking lot. They have always occurred. Sea
level rise in Puget Sound is not a problem.
EN-3.3: Evaluate the risks to
Copenhagen beaches
a Re-establish rain garden program to reduce energy
stormwater infrastructure from higher
Again, I haven't seen any stormwater increases and don't
intensive lawns w/ rain absorbing filtration
intensity storms, and develop plans
expect to see any. Stop relying on broken forecasting
a Plant hundreds more trees all around Edmonds!
or upgrades to the system and
models.
development codes, if necessary.
EN-3.4: Develop a program to achieve
Missing: Focus on single family homes. Nature scaping
water conservation in existing
rather than grass lawns
buildings and landscaping, with a goal
10
Packet Pg. 81
m
a
c
c�
a
c
0
U
a
E
U
c�
E
E
0
N
Q
0
N
Y
L
0
c
m
E
m
0
a�
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
E
c�
a
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
Strategy
of reducing per capita water use 7%
of
by the year 2035.
EN-3.5: Include measures in the City's
Emergency Management Plan to
ensure local energy supply at City
operated mass care facilities, such as
solar power and battery storage, in
he event of electrical outages due to
extreme weather or fires.
EN-3.6: Create a network of
a Retrofit existing buildings with energy usage cooling
emergency cooling centers to be
efficiencies
available during extreme heat events.
• • •
Financial assistance for people
Wildland urban interface and wildfire risk
0 Retrofit existing buildings w/ low energy usage
cooling efficiencies.
•
• ' ' • '
Wildfire + wildfire smoke
0 I.e., shading structure tree canopy, shading devices
Terracycle — recycling PPE, batteries, just purchase bins
coupled w/ solar production + insulation retrofit
from them. Place these in community spaces
0 Eliminate or reduce gas -powered leaf blowers/lawn
Start with kids — mandatory course in HS
mowers — provide exchange program
Encourage HS students + college students
Convert city park use of gas -powered tools to electric
Implementation biggest challenge
a Reserve gas -powered for specific needs
How to change behavior
Education is #1
Coalition on building managers
Key to equation to improving efficiency in apartment
buildings
Carbon offset program
Financing
LC-1.1: Reduce barriers to achieving
Waste should be reduced in an optimal level. There is no
Edmonds' zero -waste goal.
evidence that zero waste, whatever that means, is ideal.
This is another slogan that doesn't mean much.
LC-1.2: Increase recycling bins in
Educate individuals about these actions
partnership with local businesses.
Increase the # of materials able to recycle
11
Packet Pg. 82
m
a
c
i
a
c
0
U
a
E
U
cU
E
E
0
N
Q
0
N
Y
`0
c
m
E
m
0
a�
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
c
as
E
c�
a
7.B.c
Workshop Outcomes
SupportLevel
Strategy
of
Missing: teaching kids about these actions
We are awash in recycling bins. We don't need any more.
LC-1.3: Require recycled products for
a Another almost zero potential item. Drop it.
a Reduce/eliminate gas -powered landscape equipment
City- produced printed materials.
(city, landscapers, and homeowners)
LC-1.4: Educate homeowners in
composting.
Interfaith climate action -> climate change conference this
a Increase compost/recycling programs
year could be a good opportunity to engage folks.
a Work w/ county
Incentivize businesses to use compostable
containers
Decrease importation of meat & dairy
Incentivize increase in plant -based opportunities
Promotes — provide examples @ city function
LC-2.1: Educate people in smaller
a Videos on recycling — what you can +why
households on ways to reduce food
Videos on compost — what and why
waste.
a Climate Fair — education people about how they can make
change
Picking up recycling + compost once a week -> more often
than every 2 weeks
More marketing & events such as this — community
surveys getting more people involved
Is this really the City's job? We have LOTS of things to do.
Is this really that important?
LC-2.2: Educate consumers on the
CAP itself says zero potential. Drop this.
GHG as well as health benefits of
consuming less pre -packaged food.
LC-2.3: Involve community in
P-Patches can be great for people. The new pickleball
Invite condos throughout the city to participate in
identifying City parks and other
courts seem to be popular.
proof -of -concept for creating rooftop herb garden.
property, both City -owned and private,
Offer the herbs free at Sat. market
as potential sites for neighborhood
public "P-Patches."
LC-2.4: Continue to promote local
Missing: vegetarian diets education
farmers' markets.
12
Packet Pg. 83
m
a
c
c�
a
c
0
U
a
a�
r
E
U
M
E
E
N
a
0
N
L
0
c
m
E
m
0
vm
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
c
as
E
c�
a
7.B.c
Additional Discussion Notes
Below are additional questions and comments that the City received throughout the two workshops. These were either provided
during the formal Q&A time period, small group discussions with City staff, or written responses before or after the event. When
applicable, we have also provided additional City responses.
General Comment and/or Question City Response, if applicable
Buildings and Energy
Participants wanted to know if the City is electrifying its use of natural gas in its
City stated that some City buildings still use natural gas,
facilities, what the details are, and the plan.
but there is an action that addresses that.
Why does BE-1 lack a quantifiable GHG reduction?
The number of solar installations is a weak metric not
directly tied to a GHG reduction. An installation could be
one panel or one hundred of varying nameplate capacity
(wattage) or productivity (watt-hours) due to technology,
placement, etc.
Why does BE-3.1 only address new development of multifamily housing and
businesses? Specifically, why is single family housing missing?
Could the City require solar feasibility studies on new developments? Or solar -
ready wiring a la the EV-ready standards already in place.
Does the City know the number of households with natural gas? Does natural gas
use generate revenue for the City in any way? Or the County?
Charging stations — what's the source of the electricity and can the city provide
solar for charging?
Use of right of way
Solar + EVSE delivered — grid
Previously Edmonds contracted 100% renewable energy from SnoPUD, but this
PUD stopped offering this option because of the demands
wasn't renewed in '22 — why?
of the CETA bill.
Does anyone know how much LED lighting has occurred in homes and
No. While it can be estimated very roughly, it is incredibly
businesses?
hard to pin down. Susan will figure out what percentage of
streetlights have transitioned. Councilwoman Paine
pointed out that's a SnoPUD question because they own
90% of them in Edmonds.
Transportation
Where is the bike parking code update? It's supposedly done, but not adopted.
Especially for long-term enclosures for safe commute storage.
Boat electrification other than the ferry and providing high voltage at the waterfront
and marina(s)
13
Packet Pg. 84
a
c
a
c
0
r
U
a
a�
E
U
7.B.c
General Comment and/or Question
City Response, if applicable
Bus electrification — Community Transit has it on a 10yr horizon. Interest in shorter,
more frequent, smaller runs for high -traffic areas with important resources like
groceries, especially east/west routes. Exploring on -demand services/dial-a-ride.
Bus pass subsidization, business co-ops for employee annual pass purchasing
i.e., a strip mall, business district, or similar banding together to buy employee
passes at a reduced cost vs. employees buying their passes individually at great
expense. $1400 vs. $45.
General interest in ensuring the Link expansion has direct or even express service
for Edmonds. C: I can't imagine this isn't already planned by Community Transit
but making sure it reflects needs accurately is important.
Purchase of EVs — what are the city's plans?
Use full life or retire to stimulate used market for low-income
What are the City's plans for continuing its fleet electrification? What is its lifecycle
The CAP states the transition timeline. The depreciation
and depreciation policy? How can this policy help provide lower -cost EVs to the
and retirement policy is a new angle that should be
community once the vehicles are retired?
considered.
What's the source of the electricity for EVSE and can the City provide solar for
Charging power comes off the grid, so same as regional
charging?
average. Solar production and EVSE can be delinked
because of the interconnection of the grid. The City's
looking at developing criteria for providing EVSE in the
ROW, plus its requirements of housing and businesses
already codified.
Environment
Is this plan going to be presented to Council as a full package or in segments?
How can we concentrate resources on expanding tree canopy?
What are the numbers behind the metrics? GHG reduction and City's degree of
control
Do the national emissions projections include the Inflation Reduction Act `climate
No, it's far too early to quantify its impacts.
bill'?
Lifestyle and Consumption
Concern over the longevity and possible health impacts from radiation of smart
meters. Not just the specific smart meter(s) chosen by the PUD, but all smart
meters.
Can the City or PUD end/refuse to renew contracts with PSE permitting the
delivery of natural gas via public infrastructure?
Why is the range of recyclables so limited?
Edmonds has 3 different solid waste providers tied up in
interlocal agreements that go up for renewal and
reconsideration every 7 years. What these contractors can
accept varies. C& Furthermore, recycling is challenging in
14
Packet Pg. 85
m
a
c
M
a
c
0
r
a
a�
E
U
c�
E
E
0
N
a
0
N
L
0
c
m
E
m
vM
c
w
a
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
E
c�
a
7.B.c
Comment and/or Question
Response,General
City applicable
general. Contaminated waste streams from people
overzealously attempting to recycle things that can't be
leads to inefficiency, waste, and costs. The "reduce,
reuse, recycle" mantra is meant to be followed in order.
General
Complaints that Snohomish County PUD is too hierarchical and top -down.
Unbalanced Discussion. It was assumed in everything presented that GHG is a
catastrophe and that we need to be taking strong action right now. The icebreaker
questions were heavily slanted to elicit anxiety. There was no acknowledgment of
the tremendous failures of past climate modeling. The forecast charts used in the
presentation did not give any background. I have glanced through the materials I
can find on the City web site and they are the same. The CAP is promoting huge
changes and only one side is being presented. CAP needs to be reviewed in a
wider light.
Threatening Legislation. Natural gas appears to be very unpopular among the
presenters and at least some of the audience. One of the consultants bemoaned
that there wasn't legislation banning natural gas so that everyone would have to be
all electric. It was a quick comment during his presentation but it was revealing. Is
this the kind of approach the City is looking for?
No Cost Transparency. What are the costs of CAP? I saw nothing presented re
costs from staff salaries and consultants. This should be front and center on the
CAP web site. (I have seen this same reluctance by Staff elsewhere. Recently I
attended a Reimagining open house in Perrinville. I asked about the cost of the
consultants that were present. The speaker said she'd tell me privately after but
persisted and when other audience participants chimed in she explained. This
speaker was also a speaker at CAP Open House.) What are the costs for
implementing these ideas? There are some direct costs in putting in new EV
charging stations and whatnot. Those are relatively small but should be identified.
Much more important, what are the costs to residents that they will be forced (and I
mean forced, see comment above) when they have to give up flexible energy
sources (eliminating natural gas), paying for LEED, etc. Staff and consultants won't
pay these costs but they get to show off their efforts as virtue signaling.
How can attendees ensure the political drive + legislation this requires?
What's the timeline for implementation?
Dashboard - Climate action
Compare w/ local cities
Do competitions general
Who will track progress toward the CAP goals? Will this progress be publicly
Currently that is ESA's role as a contracted consultant.
available?
Yes, progress tracking will be public.
15
Packet Pg. 86
m
a
c
i
a
c
0
r
U
a
a�
r
0
E
U
c�
E
E
0
N
a
0
N
L
0
c
am
E
m
0
vm
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
E
c�
a
7.B.c
General Comment and/or Question City Response, if applicable
Has the City looked at the Tree Equity Score? No but thank you for the recommendation of this tool.
How can attendees ensure the political drive and legislation required to achieve Express interest/concern to councilmembers. Council is
the goals of the CAP? What's the timeline for adoption by Council? expected to vote on the CAP's adoption this fall.
Equity and Accessibility
The participants were overwhelmingly white English-speaking seniors. Participants
were keen on increasing engagement with underrepresented communities.
Equity efforts are lip service if our frontline communities are not at the table. Who
are these communities and why were they missing?
• 11 % Asian (inc. multiracial), 8% Latino, 17% speak a language other than
English (both inclusive and exclusive of English). 15% foreign -born.
• Median age: 45. 60+ is 28% of population, but seemingly vast majority of
attendees. 56% of pop. Is 18-61 (late Boomers through Gen Z) and 35% is 15-
44 (late Gen X through Gen Z).
• Renters are 28% of households. One third of renters are housing stressed
(rent > 30% of income)
• About half of adults 26+ lack a bachelor's degree
• Poverty rate is very low, but of those in poverty, Latinos, 'some other race',
and high school dropouts are over -represented.
• Census Bureau data has its own blind spots, such as the unhoused.
• The crossover of these frontline communities needs consideration. A
participant from any one of these groups likely belongs to one or more other
groups, too.
Summarized missing frontline community participants
• Asians, Latinos, residents with lower English proficiency in general, and
foreign -born and non -citizen residents
• People under 60, especially people under 45. Youth would be even better.
• Renters, especially the housing -stressed
Potentially missed allies
• Spanish language or Asian churches, cultural centers, and community
organizations
• Tennant/renter advocacy groups, poverty and homelessness service
organizations
• High schools and community colleges
Appropriate Participant Engagement
• Using technology like smartphone surveys and QR codes were poor choices
with the senior participants, as it wasted significant time, created frustration,
and alienated them.
16
Packet Pg. 87
m
a
c
c�
a
c
0
r
U
a
a�
r
0
E
U
c�
E
E
0
N
a
0
N
Y
L
0
c
am
E
m
0
vm
c
w
IL
a
U
c
0
E
w
r
c
as
E
c�
a
7.B.c
General Comment and/or Question City Response, if applicable
• Slide graphics were illegible, especially for seniors with probable vision issues.
What works in print or online doesn't work at 20-60ft on a projector. Make
presentation -specific versions.
• Dot stickers were not utilized, probably because attendees were not instructed.
17
Packet Pg. 88
E
U
