The URL can be used to link to this page

2026-06-10 Council Study Session Packet Edmonds City Council Agenda June 10, 2026 Posted: 6/8/2026 10:26 AM Page 1 Agenda Edmonds City Council Study Session CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 121 - 5TH AVENUE N, EDMONDS, WA 98020 ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261 JUNE 10, 2026, 3:00 PM STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEND STUDY SESSIONS VIRTUALLY, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THE SAME WAY. IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CANNOT ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING WITH THEIR PERSONAL DEVICES, A MONITOR IS PROVIDED AT THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AT 121 5TH AVE N, EDMONDS WA. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. 2027-2028 Capital Facilities Plan Introduction First Reading – Public Works and Utilities (45 minutes) 2. 2026 Tree Code Updates, Project #AMD2026-0001 Fourth Reading – Planning and Development Services (15 minutes) 3. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSENT 1. Access Agreement for Edmonds Marsh Esturay Advocates and Adopt a Stream Foundation to Perform Stream Restoration Work on City Property First Reading – Public Works and Utilities (0 minutes) ADJOURNMENT For disability accommodations, materials in alternate formats, accessibility information, or language interpretation/ translation needs, please contact the City Clerk at 425-775-2525 at your earliest opportunity. Providing at least 72-hour notice will help ensure availability. City Council Agenda Item 2.1 June 10, 2026 – Study Session TITLE:2027-2028 Capital Facilities Plan Introduction (First Reading) DEPARTMENT:Public Works and Utilities PRESENTER:Andy Rheaume, Public Works and Utilities Director NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Input RECOMMENDATION:Receive presentation and provide feedback to staff about projects and process. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):All ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: As part of the 2027-2028 Biannual Budget process Council President requested earlier interaction with City Council on the Capital Investment Program (CIP). Traditionally in Edmonds the CIP comes before City Council in late September when deliberation on the operating budget is ongoing. To accommodate this request, staff made three changes to how the CIP will be presented this year. First, the initial discussion will be limited to only what will occur in 2027 and 2028. Staff will bring forward the six-year CIP as required by state law in September. Limiting the initial touch to the two budgeted years allowed staff to expedite the CIP. Second, staff are presenting the CIP with staffing constraints only, and not financial constraints. As a result the provided cost for each project in 2027 and 2028 is a rough estimate, with refined cost estimates coming in September with the six-year CIP. This also provides the community and City Council the opportunity to see what we are capable of from a staffing perspective, even though its likely more than what the City can fund. Often when funding general fund capital investments the City Council needs to make policy decisions about what will get funded and what projects get delayed. Last, the Parks capital program is currently isolated from the rest of the capital program and as such is not included in tonight's introduction. Parks will bring their capital program separately at a later time. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The City of Edmonds has infrastructure system plans that identify expansion and replacement of capital assets. Plans include the Facilities Condition Assessment, the Transportation System Plan, the Water System Plan, the General Sewer Plan, various Stormwater System Plans, and the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan. These plans are adopted by City Council and involve different levels of public engagement. All plans inform staff on the direction and what to focus on for capital investment. The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan adopt by reference the infrastructure system plans and includes a Capital Facilities Plan that lays out what the City strives to set what capital investment the city needs in the coming 20 years. To update the Capital Facilities Element requires Planning Board recommendation and a Council Public Hearing and approval. That is why City Council has traditionally not seen information on the capital program until late September. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 2/194 In late September the City Council will be presented with the six-year CIP and operating budget, with only 2027 and 2028 funded. Feedback you share with us about priorities will greatly help us know how to fund the capital program. Efforts have been made in the presentation of the projects to indicate if the project is a carry-forward from the 2025-2026 biannual budget or a reoccurring project, such as lining sewer pipes or overlays. Projects need to be carried-forward for various reasons, delays in construction or permitting are common. RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation and provide feedback to staff about projects and process. BUDGET IMPACTS: This is the first step in the process of developing the Capital Facilities Plan that will be part of the 2027- 2028 operating budget. ITEM HISTORY: None ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 2027-2028 Draft Capital Facilities Plan Item 2.1 Packet pg. 3/194 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 4/194 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION 3 5 8 15 PRESERVATION/ MAINTENANCE SAFETY/ CAPACITY ANALYSIS NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC CALMING 18 WATER 20 STORMWATER 26 31 EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY RESTORATION PERRINVILLE CREEK BASIN 34 SEWER 37 FACILITIES 43 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 51 CONTENTS 1 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 5/194 TRANSPORTATION June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 2 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 6/194 TRANSPORTATION JUNE 2026 #CFP Project 2027 2028 Total PRESERVATION/ MAINTENANCE PWT-01 Annual Street Preservation Program $2,630,000 $2,630,000 $5,260,000 PWT-104 P 76th Ave W Overlay from 220th St SW to SR-99 $150,000 $868,000 $1,018,000 SAFETY/ CAPACITY ANALYSIS PWT-10 P Hwy 99 Revitalization Project - Stage 3 $5,033,659 $1,745,000 $6,778,659 PWT-11 P Hwy 99 Revitalization Project - Stage 4 $4,549,866 $6,500,000 $11,049,866 PWT-19 P 76th Ave W @ 220th St SW Intersection Improvements $2,292,880 $1,189,000 $3,481,880 PWT-20 SR-104 Adaptive System - 236th to 226th $133,100 $0 $133,100 PWT-59 Traffic Signal Program $30,280 $30,280 $60,560 PWT-98 Citywide Lighting Improvements $560,000 $0 $560,000 NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PWT-56 Pedestrian Improvements (2027)$753,500 $0 $753,500 PWT-60 Pedestrian Safety Program $20,180 $20,180 $40,360 TRAFFIC CALMING PWT-52 Traffic Calming Program $22,000 $22,000 $44,000 EXPENSE TOTAL $16,175,465 $13,004,460 $29,179,925 Funding Source 2026 2027 Total Federal Grants $4,780,300 $4,814,889 $9,595,189 Fund 125 - REET $1,037,935 $809,000 $1,846,935 Fund 126 - REET $897,460 $881,460 $1,778,920 State Grants $5,613,854 $5,198,476 $10,812,330 Transportation Impact Fees $2,715,776 $170,635 $2,886,411 Unsecured Funding $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $2,260,000 FUNDING TOTAL $16,175,325 $13,004,460 $29,179,785 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 3 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 7/194 PRESERVATION/MAINTENANCE June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 4 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 8/194 Maintains the City's pavement infrastructure and reduces the need for larger capital investment to rebuild City streetsBenefitMaintains the City's pavement infrastructure and reduces the need for larger capital investment to rebuild City streets Description Annual pavement preservation program to maintain City streets. $2.6M per year ANNUAL STREET PRESERVATION PROGRAM PWT-01 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $130,000 $130,000Design $260,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000Construction $5,000,000 $2,630,000Expense Total $2,630,000 $5,260,000 $750,000 $750,000Fund 125 - REET $1,500,000 $750,000 $750,000Fund 126 - REET $1,500,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000Unsecured Funding $2,260,000 $2,630,000Funding Source Total $2,630,000 $5,260,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 5 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 9/194 Improve pavement condition and improve accessibility for pedestrians of all abilities (as well possibly bicycle users with bike lane additions)Benefit Improve pavement condition and improve accessibility for pedestrians of all abilities (as well possibly bicycle users with bike lane additions) Description Pavement overlay along 76th Ave from 220th St SW to SR-99 along with ADA pedestrian curb ramp upgrades. The addition of bike lanes on both sides of the stretch will be considered (following completion of parking study). The addition of bike lanes along this stretch was ranked as HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT (in 2024 Transportation Plan). $955,000 76TH AVE W OVERLAY FROM 220TH ST SW TO SR-99 PWT-104 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $150,000 $0Design $150,000 $0 $868,000Construction $868,000 $150,000Expense Total $868,000 $1,018,000 $75,000 $59,000Fund 126 - REET $134,000 $0 $750,000Federal Grants $750,000 $75,000 $59,000Fund 125 - REET $134,000 $150,000Funding Source Total $868,000 $1,018,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 6 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 10/194 SAFETY/CAPACITY ANALYSIS June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 7 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 11/194 Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience along this segment of the Hwy 99 corridor.Benefit Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience along this segment of the Hwy 99 corridor. Description The Stage 3 Highway 99 project limits are from 244th St SW to ~400 feet north of 238th St SW. The project will provide new sidewalk, landscaped planter strips, street lighting, separated bike lanes, ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps and utility improvements (including undergrounding of overhead utility lines). The project will also widen the intersection of Highway 99 and 238th St SW to provide a second northbound left turn lane and widen 238th St from Highway 99 to 84th Ave for this additional lane and bike lane addition. This project was ranked as HIGH PRIORITY in 2024 Transportation Plan. $29,500,000 HWY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT - STAGE 3 PWT-10 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $1,803,659 $610,000Design $2,413,659 $3,230,000 $1,135,000Right of Way $4,365,000 $0 $0Construction $0 $5,033,659Expense Total $1,745,000 $6,778,659 $5,033,659 $1,745,000State Grants $6,778,659 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $5,033,659Funding Source Total $1,745,000 $6,778,659 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 8 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 12/194 Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved.Benefit Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved. Description The Stage 4 Highway 99 project limits are from 224th St SW to ~800 feet north of 220th St SW. The project will provide new sidewalk, landscaped planter strips, street lighting, separated bike lanes, ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps and utility improvements (including undergrounding of overhead utility lines). The project will also widen the intersection of Highway 99 and 220th St SW to provide a second left turn lane for the northbound, southbound, and westbound movements. A multi-use path will be added on the north side of 220th St SW from Hwy 99 to the Interurban Trail. This project was ranked as HIGH PRIORITY in 2024 Transportation Plan. $38,000,000 HWY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT - STAGE 4 PWT-11 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $2,313,140 $1,170,000Design $3,483,140 $2,236,726 $5,330,000Right of Way $7,566,726 $0 $0Construction $0 $4,549,866Expense Total $6,500,000 $11,049,866 $2,376,581 $0Transportation Impact Fees $2,376,581 $2,173,145 $3,046,524Federal Grants $5,219,669 $0 $3,453,476State Grants $3,453,476 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $4,549,726Funding Source Total $6,500,000 $11,049,726 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 9 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 13/194 Reduce the intersection delay and improve the Level of Service (LOS). The projected LOS in 2044 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. Improve active transportation conditions. Benefit Reduce the intersection delay and improve the Level of Service (LOS). The projected LOS in 2044 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. Improve active transportation conditions. Description Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through/ right turn lane. Add eastbound and westbound dedicated left turn lanes with a protected-permitted phase. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. Additional improvements include wider sidewalk, bike lanes, street lighting, and various utility improvements (including conversion overhead utility lines to underground). A multi-use path will be added along 220th St SW from 76th Ave W to Hwy 99. This project was ranked as MEDIUM PRIORITY in 2024 Transportation Plan . $11,000,000 76TH AVE W @ 220TH ST SW INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PWT-19 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $257,880 $88,000Design $345,880 $2,035,000 $1,101,000Right of Way $3,136,000 $0 $0Construction $0 $2,292,880Expense Total $1,189,000 $3,481,880 $339,195 $170,635Transportation Impact Fees $509,830 $1,953,685 $1,018,365Federal Grants $2,972,050 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $2,292,880Funding Source Total $1,189,000 $3,481,880 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 10 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 14/194 Improve traffic flows along this regional corridor / principal arterial with a current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of ~ 25,000 vehicles per day.Benefit Improve traffic flows along this regional corridor / principal arterial with a current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of ~ 25,000 vehicles per day. Description The project will add a traffic signal adaptive system on a 1.25-mile segment of SR104 from 236th St to 226th St. The system will monitor and synchronize the timing of five existing signalized intersections (SR104 @ 236th St, SR104 @ 232nd St, SR104 @ 95th Pl, SR104 @ 100th Ave, SR104 @ 226th St) and improve traffic flows along SR104. This project was identified as MEDIUM PRIORITY in 2024 Transportation Plan. $4,600,000 SR-104 ADAPTIVE SYSTEM - 236TH TO 226TH PWT-20 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $133,100 $0Design $133,100 $0 $0Construction $0 $133,100Expense Total $0 $133,100 $93,470 $0Federal Grants $93,470 $39,630 $0Fund 125 - REET $39,630 $0 $0Fund 126 - REET $0 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $133,100Funding Source Total $0 $133,100 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 11 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 15/194 Improve reliability of traffic signal operation.Benefit Improve reliability of traffic signal operation. Description This program started in 2019 and provides new signal upgrades, such as vehicle detection at intersections, new vehicle/pedestrian head equipment and other signal- related upgrades. These improvements will improve the safety of the City’s transportation system. $30,280 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM PWT-59 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $1,000 $1,000Design $2,000 $29,280 $29,280Construction $58,560 $30,280Expense Total $30,280 $60,560 $30,280 $30,280Fund 126 - REET $60,560 $30,280Funding Source Total $30,280 $60,560 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 12 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 16/194 Improve night-time intersection safety of all users.Benefit Improve night-time intersection safety of all users. Description Install new light poles at key intersections where serious injury collisions have occurred recently. The intersections include 76th Ave W @ Interurban Trail, 8th Ave S @ 14th St SW, 76th Ave W @ 200th St SW, SR-524 @ 9th Ave N, 84th Ave W @ 236th St SW, and Dayton St. between Railroad Tracks and SR-104. $700,000 CITYWIDE LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS PWT-98 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $560,000 $0Construction $560,000 $560,000Expense Total $0 $560,000 $560,000 $0Federal Grants $560,000 $560,000Funding Source Total $0 $560,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 13 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 17/194 NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 14 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 18/194 Improve active transportation safety.Benefit Improve active transportation safety. Description The project consists of installing ADA compliant curb ramps throughout the City along Bowdoin Ave from Yost Park to Five Corners, 3rd Ave. N @ Giltner, and 76th Ave. W @ 236th St. SW. $891,733 PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS (2027) PWT-56 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $753,500 $0Construction $753,500 $753,500Expense Total $0 $753,500 $173,305 $0Fund 125 - REET $173,305 $580,195 $0State Grants $580,195 $753,500Funding Source Total $0 $753,500 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 15 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 19/194 Improve active transportation safety at pedestrian crossings. Safety improvements at such locations will increase the number of active transportation users on our streets (since this will feel more comfortable using the existing facilities). Benefit Improve active transportation safety at pedestrian crossings. Safety improvements at such locations will increase the number of active transportation users on our streets (since this will feel more comfortable using the existing facilities). Description This program started in 2019 and will provide pedestrian safety improvements, such as additional signage / striping, flashing LED’s around stop signs, or other improvements. These improvements will improve the safety of the City’s transportation system. $20,180 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROGRAM PWT-60 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $1,000 $1,000Design $2,000 $19,180 $19,180Construction $38,360 $20,180Expense Total $20,180 $40,360 $20,180 $20,180Fund 126 - REET $40,360 $20,180Funding Source Total $20,180 $40,360 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 16 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 20/194 TRAFFIC CALMING June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 17 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 21/194 Reduce vehicle speeds on City streets that qualify under the City's Traffic Calming Policy.Benefit Reduce vehicle speeds on City streets that qualify under the City's Traffic Calming Policy. Description Install traffic calming devices along selected stretches throughout the City with speeding issues (through completion of detailed evaluation). This ongoing annual program started in 2015 and is included in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). $62,650 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM PWT-52 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $2,000 $2,000Design $4,000 $20,000 $20,000Construction $40,000 $22,000Expense Total $22,000 $44,000 $22,000 $22,000Fund 126 - REET $44,000 $22,000Funding Source Total $22,000 $44,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 18 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 22/194 WATER June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 19 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 23/194 WATER JUNE 2026 #CFP Project 2027 2028 Total PWW-02 2027 Water Comprehensive Plan Update $582,000 $0 $582,000 PWW-05 Phase 16 Water Replacement Program (2028)$54,000 $7,859,000 $7,913,000 PWW-06 Phase 17 Water Replacement Program (2029)$0 $616,000 $616,000 PWW-11 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs & Upgrades $4,125,000 $0 $4,125,000 EXPENSE TOTAL $4,761,000 $8,475,000 $13,236,000 Funding Source 2027 2028 Total Fund 421 - Water Utility $4,761,000 $8,475,000 $13,236,000 FUNDING TOTAL $4,761,000 $8,475,000 $13,236,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 20 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 24/194 Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and leakage, improve fire fighting flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Benefit Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and leakage, improve fire fighting flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description The existing water comprehensive plan was last updated in 2017 and is required to be updated by the State Dept of Health (DOH) every 10 years. This project would be a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s drinking water system, its replacement program, and operations. It will include recommendations for improvements or adjustments with recommended priorities for selecting future capital maintenance projects. $732,000 2027 WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PWW-02 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - WATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $582,000 $0Design $582,000 $582,000Expense Total $0 $582,000 $582,000 $0Fund 421 - Water Utility $582,000 $582,000Funding Source Total $0 $582,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 21 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 25/194 Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Benefit Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace/maintain pipe and related appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or pressure, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. $8,500,000 PHASE 16 WATER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (2028) PWW-05 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - WATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $54,000 $0Design $54,000 $0 $7,859,000Construction $7,859,000 $54,000Expense Total $7,859,000 $7,913,000 $54,000 $7,859,000Fund 421 - Water Utility $7,913,000 $54,000Funding Source Total $7,859,000 $7,913,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 22 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 26/194 Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Benefit Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace/maintain pipe and related appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or pressure, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. $4,905,000 PHASE 17 WATER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (2029) PWW-06 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - WATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $0 $616,000Design $616,000 $0 $0Construction $0 $0Expense Total $616,000 $616,000 $0 $616,000Fund 421 - Water Utility $616,000 $0Funding Source Total $616,000 $616,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 23 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 27/194 Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of leakage, retrofit structures so that they meet current structural codes to improve their resiliency during earthquakes, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Benefit Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of leakage, retrofit structures so that they meet current structural codes to improve their resiliency during earthquakes, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description This work is being done to provide structural upgrades, repair leakages, and upgrades to our two underground potable water storage reservoirs. Preliminary findings completed in early 2023 were used to determine order of magnitude/preliminary costs and next steps for the now planned repairs and upgrades project. The Yost Reservoir report shows that it will need a major structural and seismic retrofit, plus repairs to address leakage from the reservoir. The report for the Seaview Reservoir shows similar issues as the Yost Reservoir, with a less serious leakage issue. $8,900,000 YOST & SEAVIEW RESERVOIR REPAIRS & UPGRADES PWW-11 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - WATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $0 $0Design $0 $4,125,000 $0Construction $4,125,000 $4,125,000Expense Total $0 $4,125,000 $4,125,000 $0Fund 421 - Water Utility $4,125,000 $4,125,000Funding Source Total $0 $4,125,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 24 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 28/194 STORMWATER June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 25 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 29/194 STORMWATER JUNE 2026 #CFP Project 2027 2028 Total PWD-14 Phase 7 Storm Maintenance Project (2028)$130,000 $1,898,000 $2,028,000 PWD-15 Phase 8 Storm Maintenance Project (2029)$0 $380,000 $380,000 PWD-28 Edmonds Marsh Preliminary Design $825,640 $0 $825,640 PWD-01 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements (Phase 1)$342,228 $0 $342,228 PWD-05 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements (Phase 2)$367,140 $0 $367,140 PWD-03 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects $112,000 $116,000 $228,000 PWD-04 Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration Project $2,122,500 $0 $2,122,500 PWD-23 Perrinville Creek Basin Analysis Update $112,000 $0 $112,000 EXPENSE TOTAL $4,011,508 $2,394,000 $6,405,508 Funding Source 2027 2028 Total Federal Grants $677,400 $0 $677,400 Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $1,498,793 $2,394,000 $3,892,793 Marsh Preservation Fund $98,240 $0 $98,240 Private Citizen Cash Donation $50,000 $0 $50,000 Secured Grants $95,200 $0 $95,200 Unsecured Grants $1,591,875 $0 $1,591,875 FUNDING TOTAL $4,011,508 $2,394,000 $6,405,508 EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY RESTORATION PERRINVILLE CREEK BASIN 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 26 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 30/194 Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.Benefit Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Annual storm drain replacement project for 2028 construction. Project proposes to replace or rehab storm drain infrastructure in several locations throughout the City. Location of work identified by City crews via first had knowledge or video inspection results. Much of Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is past its lifespan and requires routine replacement or repair in order to preserve the function of the storm drain system. Failure to conduct annual maintenance projects will increase chances of a storm drain system failure. $2,176,000 PHASE 7 STORM MAINTENANCE PROJECT (2028) PWD-14 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $130,000 $0Design $130,000 $0 $0Right of Way $0 $0 $1,898,000Construction $1,898,000 $130,000Expense Total $1,898,000 $2,028,000 $130,000 $1,898,000Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $2,028,000 $0 $0Secured Grants $0 $0 $0Unsecured Grants $0 $130,000Funding Source Total $1,898,000 $2,028,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 27 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 31/194 Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.Benefit Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Annual storm drain replacement project for 2029 construction. Project proposes to replace or rehab storm drain infrastructure in several locations throughout the City. Location of work identified by City crews via first had knowledge or video inspection results. Much of Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is past its lifespan and requires routine replacement or repair in order to preserve the function of the storm drain system. Failure to conduct annual maintenance projects will increase chances of a storm drain system failure. $2,263,000 PHASE 8 STORM MAINTENANCE PROJECT (2029) PWD-15 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $0 $380,000Design $380,000 $0 $0Construction $0 $0Expense Total $380,000 $380,000 $0 $380,000Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $380,000 $0Funding Source Total $380,000 $380,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 28 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 32/194 Aid for future planning of Marsh Restoration.Benefit Aid for future planning of Marsh Restoration. Description Perform up to 30% design of the Edmonds Marsh. $825,640 EDMONDS MARSH PRELIMINARY DESIGN PWD-28 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $825,640 $0Design $825,640 $825,640Expense Total $0 $825,640 $677,400 $0Federal Grants $677,400 $98,240 $0Marsh Preservation Fund $98,240 $50,000 $0Private Citizen Cash Donation $50,000 $825,640Funding Source Total $0 $825,640 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 29 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 33/194 EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY RESTORATION June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 30 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 34/194 Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the west portions of SR-104 located near the marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh. Benefit Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the west portions of SR-104 located near the marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh. Description The project will be improving water quality of stormwater runoff by replacing existing catch basins along the west side of SR-104 funded via a DOE grant. The catch basins will be replaced with catch basins that include water filter cartridges. Staff proposes this effort in order to provide water quality mitigation for all discharges that directly enter the marsh from these locations. $492,000 EDMONDS MARSH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE 1) PWD-01 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $20,300 $0Design $20,300 $321,928 $0Construction $321,928 $342,228Expense Total $0 $342,228 $342,228 $0Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $342,228 $342,228Funding Source Total $0 $342,228 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 31 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 35/194 Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the east portions of SR-104 located near the marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh. Benefit Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the east portions of SR-104 located near the marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh. Description The project will be improving water quality of stormwater runoff by replacing existing catch basins along the east side of SR-104 via a state funded appropriation. The catch basins will be replaced with catch basins that include water filter cartridges. Staff proposes this effort in order to provide water quality mitigation for all discharges that directly enter the marsh from these locations. $504,000 EDMONDS MARSH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE 2) PWD-05 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $20,300 $0Design $20,300 $346,840 $0Construction $346,840 $367,140Expense Total $0 $367,140 $367,140 $0Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $367,140 $367,140Funding Source Total $0 $367,140 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 32 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 36/194 PERRINVILLE CREEK BASIN June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 33 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 37/194 The project will reduce peak flows in Perrinville creek, improve fish passage and decrease creek bed scour during peak flow events.Benefit The project will reduce peak flows in Perrinville creek, improve fish passage and decrease creek bed scour during peak flow events. Description Reducing scouring flows to reduce sediments load in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by urban development. The projects funded by this program are incremental steps toward recovering this stream run as adequate fish habitat. These efforts have become even more critical given recent challenges around the Perrinville Creek outfall area. This program is a fund for implementing projects within the Perrinville Creek basin to reduce scour flows in the creek. It allows staff flexibility to respond to ad-hoc opportunities such as rain garden cluster projects, or ensure matching funds are available for chasing grant applications for flow reductions projects. $108,000 PERRINVILLE CREEK FLOW MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PWD-03 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $11,200 $11,600Design $22,800 $100,800 $104,400Construction $205,200 $112,000Expense Total $116,000 $228,000 $112,000 $116,000Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $228,000 $112,000Funding Source Total $116,000 $228,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 34 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 38/194 The project will reduce City maintenance needs in the future and improve fish passage.Benefit The project will reduce City maintenance needs in the future and improve fish passage. Description The purpose of this project is to improve the environmental health of the creek necessary to support fish habitat, and to restore the storm water capacity. The project consists of the modifications to three structures that currently prevent fish passage and are undersized for the flows on the creek, (1) the culvert at the BNSF track, remove and replace with a fish-friendly culvert or bridge with adequate flow capacity, which will be led and funded by BNSF and the Tulalip Tribes using grant funds, (2) return flow to the creek between the high flow bypass structure and the BNSF culvert by blocking the structure and restoring creek capacity and (3) culvert at Talbot Road, will be removed and replaced with a fish-friendly culvert or bridge that provides adequate fish passage and storm water flow capacity. This project will increase the resiliency of the watershed by building the structures that mimic the natural channel performance necessary for fish habitat and stormwater flow capacity. The project also includes time and effort to research and apply for supplemental/additional funding sources for construction of the Edmonds portions of the work (Items 2 & 3). Due to the project complexity and number of stakeholders, the planning and design phase is estimated to be 2-years. $4,500,000 LOWER PERRINVILLE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PWD-04 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $2,122,500 $0Construction $2,122,500 $2,122,500Expense Total $0 $2,122,500 $530,625 $0Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $530,625 $1,591,875 $0Unsecured Grants $1,591,875 $2,122,500Funding Source Total $0 $2,122,500 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 35 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 39/194 Improve overall basin and stream health, by using green stormwater infrastructure methods. This will make it so that rainfall is not simply collected and conveyed downstream and instead behaves as close as possible to natural conditions. This includes infiltrating rainfall runoff as close as possible to where it fell. This will also decrease stream peak flows, which will decrease stream erosion and improve the overall stream habitat for aquatic life. Benefit Improve overall basin and stream health, by using green stormwater infrastructure methods. This will make it so that rainfall is not simply collected and conveyed downstream and instead behaves as close as possible to natural conditions. This includes infiltrating rainfall runoff as close as possible to where it fell. This will also decrease stream peak flows, which will decrease stream erosion and improve the overall stream habitat for aquatic life. Description City of Edmonds and Lynnwood joint project to supplement/update the Perrinville Creek 2015 basin analysis that determined possible locations for projects that would help decrease the peak storm flows during high rain events. Project will be updated to reflect projects completed and also determine if there are other locations within the basin to aid in the reduction of peak flows in the basin. $649,200 PERRINVILLE CREEK BASIN ANALYSIS UPDATE PWD-23 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - STORMWATER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $112,000 $0Design $112,000 $112,000Expense Total $0 $112,000 $16,800 $0Fund 422 - Stormwater Utility $16,800 $95,200 $0Secured Grants $95,200 $112,000Funding Source Total $0 $112,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 36 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 40/194 SEWER June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 37 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 41/194 SEWER JUNE 2026 #CFP Project 2027 2028 Total PWS-02 2027 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update $350,000 $0 $350,000 PWS-06 Phase 14 Sewer Replacement (2027)$2,710,000 $0 $2,710,000 PWS-07 Phase 15 Sewer Replacement (2028)$409,000 $2,740,000 $3,149,000 PWS-08 Phase 16 Sewer Replacement (2029)$0 $595,000 $595,000 EXPENSE TOTAL $3,469,000 $3,335,000 $6,804,000 Funding Source 2027 2028 Total Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $3,469,000 $3,335,000 $6,804,000 FUNDING TOTAL $3,469,000 $3,335,000 $6,804,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 38 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 42/194 Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.Benefit Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description The existing sewer comprehensive plan was last updated in 2013 and is in need of an update. This project would be a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s sewer system, its replacement program and operations, with recommendations for improvements or adjustments and recommended priorities for selecting future capital maintenance projects. $500,000 2027 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PWS-02 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $350,000 $0Design $350,000 $350,000Expense Total $0 $350,000 $350,000 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $350,000 $350,000Funding Source Total $0 $350,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 39 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 43/194 Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.Benefit Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace pipe and related appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase capacity, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. $3,203,000 PHASE 14 SEWER REPLACEMENT (2027) PWS-06 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $2,710,000 $0Construction $2,710,000 $2,710,000Expense Total $0 $2,710,000 $2,710,000 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $2,710,000 $2,710,000Funding Source Total $0 $2,710,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 40 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 44/194 Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.Benefit Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace pipe and related appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase capacity, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. $3,229,000 PHASE 15 SEWER REPLACEMENT (2028) PWS-07 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $409,000 $0Design $409,000 $0 $2,740,000Construction $2,740,000 $409,000Expense Total $2,740,000 $3,149,000 $409,000 $2,740,000Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $3,149,000 $409,000Funding Source Total $2,740,000 $3,149,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 41 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 45/194 Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.Benefit Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. Description Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace pipe and related appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase capacity, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. $2,986,000 PHASE 16 SEWER REPLACEMENT (2029) PWS-08 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $0 $595,000Design $595,000 $0 $0Construction $0 $0Expense Total $595,000 $595,000 $0 $595,000Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $595,000 $0Funding Source Total $595,000 $595,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 42 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 46/194 FACILITIES June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 43 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 47/194 FACILITIES JUNE 2026 #CFP Project 2027 2028 Total PWF-03 City Hall $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 PWF-05 Frances Anderson Center $325,000 $175,000 $500,000 PWF-11 Library $25,000 $20,000 $45,000 PWF-12 Meadowdale Club House $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 PWF-14 Parks Maintenance Building $60,000 $20,000 $80,000 PWF-15 Public Safety $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 EXPENSE TOTAL $500,000 $290,000 $790,000 Funding Source 2027 2028 Total Fund 016 (non-bond)$500,000 $290,000 $790,000 FUNDING TOTAL $500,000 $290,000 $790,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 44 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 48/194 Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Benefit Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Description City Hall was built in 1979 and was operated as a private business office center until the City purchased and renovated the building in the 1990s. The City has operated Edmonds City Hall from this location since the renovations were completed. The building is in near original condition and needs substantial repair and maintenance. Projects: All Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing systems need replacement, Seismic updates, Restroom remodels w/gender neutral consideration, Lobby remodel, Entry Awning re-glazing, Interior , ADA accessibility improvements, Roof replacement, and Air handling unit replacement or refurbishing. $20,000 (2027) CITY HALL PWF-03 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $20,000 $20,000Construction\Professional Services $40,000 $20,000Expense Total $20,000 $40,000 $20,000 $20,000Fund 016 (non-bond)$40,000 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $20,000Funding Source Total $20,000 $40,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 45 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 49/194 Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Benefit Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Description The Frances Anderson Center serves as the City’s main recreation center offering arts, athletic and cultural programing year round. Due to the age and high usage of the building there are many building systems that are in need of replacement or restoration. Projects: Replacement of Heating Boilers with Electric alternatives that will add ventilation, cooling and heating Investment grade audit approved by City Council, Window replacements, Elevator replacement, ADA accessible door closures, Plumbing drainage collector, Restroom remodels (w/ gender neutral consideration), Replacement of all plumbing fixtures, Addition of building security card readers, Building HVAC and controls to maximize efficiency, Seismic updates, Fire Sprinkler replacement, and clean building act compliance efforts will be addresses by IGA.) Hot water tank (2) replacement, aging or damaged roof replacements. $325,000 (2027) FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER PWF-05 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $325,000 $175,000Construction\Professional Services $500,000 $325,000Expense Total $175,000 $500,000 $325,000 $175,000Fund 016 (non bond)$500,000 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $325,000Funding Source Total $175,000 $500,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 46 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 50/194 Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Benefit Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Description The Edmonds Library is operated by the Sno-Isle Library system with exception of the Second floor Plaza room rental space. The library is a 19,000 square foot building built in 1982. The building hosts special event rentals and daily Library programming and community services. This is one of the City’s most heavily used buildings by the public and has significant deferred maintenance needs, including the building façade, roof and plaza deck waterproofing. Projects: Exterior façade and code updates, ADA access device upgrades or replacement, gender inclusive public restroom creation, Plaza Room restroom/changing facilities, Elevator modernization, Plaza Room A/V installation, building masonry restoration or building cladding, exterior stairway restoration, HVAC ventilation fan assessment, building breezeway remodel, roof replacement, exterior door replacements, plaza level window blinds replacement. $25,000 (2027) LIBRARY PWF-11 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $25,000 $20,000Construction\Professional Services $45,000 $25,000Expense Total $20,000 $45,000 $25,000 $20,000Fund 016 (non bond)$45,000 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $25,000Funding Source Total $20,000 $45,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 47 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 51/194 Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Benefit Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Description This 4000 square foot facility was built in 1965 as a community theater facility and later was transformed into the Meadowdale community club house. The building is currently owned and maintained by the City of Edmonds and provides a 1500 square foot rental facility. This facility while dated has been well maintained and only requires minor maintenance and repairs. Projects: minor maintenance and repairs, interior flooring and painting, and bath fixture replacement. Fire Alarm replacement code updates. $20,000 (2027) MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE PWF-12 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $20,000 $5,000Construction\Professional Services $25,000 $20,000Expense Total $5,000 $25,000 $20,000 $5,000Fund 016 (non-bond)$25,000 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $20,000Funding Source Total $5,000 $25,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 48 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 52/194 Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Benefit Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Description This facility was built in 1967 by Ed Huntley who at the time was the City Facilities supervisor. The 4800 square foot facility now houses all City Facility Operations staff(11) and all of Park and Rec Parks Maintenance Staff(12+ seasonal help) This Facility is home to the City Carpentry Shop, Key Shop, City Flower program, Parks engine repair shop and Parks and Facilities maintenance supply storage as well as Parks and Facilities Manager offices. This Facility is near end of life and is undersized to support the departmental staffing that are assigned to this facility. Projects: maintenance and repair to maintain operational capacity, ADA restroom updates, Shop/offices floor replacements,eventual remodel and existing facilities to meet operational needs, additional safety and security systems. $60,000 (2027) PARKS MAINTENANCE BUILDING PWF-14 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $60,000 $20,000Construction\Professional Services $80,000 $60,000Expense Total $20,000 $80,000 $60,000 $20,000Fund 016 (non-bond)$80,000 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $60,000Funding Source Total $20,000 $80,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 49 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 53/194 Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Benefit Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and efficient operating conditions and to assure to the protection of the asset throughout an expected lifespan. Description The Public Safety building houses Edmonds Police Department, Edmonds Municipal Court and the City Council Chambers. The building was built in 1999 encompassing 30,000 square feet of office, court and municipal government uses. The building houses one of the City emergency operations centers, large police training, simulator facilities and evidence processing and storage. The building has had minimal system updates over its life and has a significant amount of deferred maintenance and should be retrofitted with new fire sprinklers. Projects: air handler and outdoor ventilation unit replacements, parking lot reconfiguration to meet current usage, Chiller plant replacement, fire sprinkler(new)new installation, Elevator modernization, renovation and painting, sleeping room remodel and gender specific/neutral accommodations, gender inclusive public restrooms, court's flat roof replacement. Refurbishment of building VAV ventilation boxes. $50,000 (2027) PUBLIC SAFETY PWF-15 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $50,000 $50,000Construction\Professional Services $100,000 $50,000Expense Total $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000Fund 016 (non bond)$100,000 $0 $0Unsecured Funding $0 $50,000Funding Source Total $50,000 $100,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 50 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 54/194 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT June 2026 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 51 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 55/194 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT JUNE 2026 #CFP Project 2027 2028 Total PWP-01 WWTP Annual Capital Replacement In-House Projects $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $2,250,000 PWP-04 Nutrient Removal Project $650,000 $5,000,000 $5,650,000 PWP-06 Joint Sealant $60,000 $0 $60,000 PWP-08 Gasification Bypass (Class A Solids Production)$300,000 $0 $300,000 PWP-10 VFD Upgrades $250,000 $0 $250,000 PWP-11 Primary Clarifier 2 Rehab $300,000 $300,000 $600,000 PWP-13 ODS (Primary Sludge) Pump Replacement $350,000 $250,000 $600,000 PWP-14 Chlorine Contact Channel Sluice Gates Replacement $0 $375,000 $375,000 PWP-16 NPW Pumping System Improvements $75,000 $0 $75,000 PWP-18 LPA Blower 303 and 305 Rehab $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 PWP-19 600 Bldg Electrical Rehab $250,000 $0 $250,000 PWP-20 600 Bldg Air Quality Rehab/Upgrade $125,000 $0 $125,000 PWP-21 Secondary Clarifier 2 Rehab $50,000 $400,000 $450,000 PWP-22 Instrumentation Upgrades and Replacement Program $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 PWP-23 Potable Water System Repair $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 PWP-24 Plant HVAC and Odor Control Upgrades $37,500 $37,500 $75,000 PWP-25 Valve Replacement program $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 PWP-26 Electrical Improvement Project $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 PWP-27 Disinfection System Rehab $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 PWP-28 P 400 Building Electrical System Repair and Replace $250,000 $0 $250,000 PWP-29 Secondary Clarifier #1 Floor Replacement $250,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 EXPENSE TOTAL $5,172,500 $9,662,500 $14,835,000 Funding Source 2027 2028 Total Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $2,627,113 $4,907,584 $7,534,697 City of Shoreline $490,870 $916,971 $1,407,842 Mountlake Terrace $1,198,468 $2,238,801 $3,437,270 Olympic View Water Sewer District $856,049 $1,599,144 $2,455,193 FUNDING TOTAL $5,172,500 $9,662,500 $14,835,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 52 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 56/194 This project ensures that critical infrastructure is maintained and equipment is replaced in order to reduce risk to the City.Benefit This project ensures that critical infrastructure is maintained and equipment is replaced in order to reduce risk to the City. Description The WWTP Annual Capital Replacement In-House Projects is intended to maintain infrastructure and equipment to ensure that the treatment plant is well maintained. $1,000,000 (2026) WWTP ANNUAL CAPITAL REPLACEMENT IN- HOUSE PROJECTS PWP-01 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $200,000 $250,000Design $450,000 $800,000 $1,000,000Construction $1,800,000 $1,000,000Expense Total $1,250,000 $2,250,000 $507,900 $634,875Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $1,142,775 $231,700 $289,625Mountlake Terrace $521,325 $165,500 $206,875Olympic View Water/Sewer District $372,375 $94,900 $118,625City of Shoreline $213,525 $1,000,000Funding Source Total $1,250,000 $2,250,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 53 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 57/194 To meet new permit requirements and increase capacity for projected 20-year service area expansion.Benefit To meet new permit requirements and increase capacity for projected 20-year service area expansion. Description The WA Dept of Ecology has imposed the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit upon us. It is anticipated that our current process will not be able to meet these new permit requirements. This decision package will allow us to team with an engineering firm to study our current process and design a solution that will allow our plant to meet the new PSNGP requirements as well as accommodate projected service area growth over the next decade. $10,650,000 NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT PWP-04 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $650,000 $5,000,000Construction $5,650,000 $650,000Expense Total $5,000,000 $5,650,000 $330,135 $2,539,500Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $2,869,635 $150,605 $1,158,500Mountlake Terrace $1,309,105 $107,575 $827,500Olympic View Water/Sewer District $935,075 $61,685 $474,500City of Shoreline $536,185 $650,000Funding Source Total $5,000,000 $5,650,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 54 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 58/194 The project will help to maintain the infrastructure and repair several existing leaks.Benefit The project will help to maintain the infrastructure and repair several existing leaks. Description This project will be undertaken in 2027. The WWTP Annual Capital Replacement In- House Projects is intended to maintain infrastructure and equipment to ensure that the treatment plant is well maintained. Projects for 2023 will include the WWTP Primary Clarifier 1 Rehabilitation, Joint Sealant repairs and a Vacuum Filter. The 3 In-House projects are expected to be delivered for $597,453. Joint Sealant: The Treatment Plant is constructed primarily in concrete. When one concrete slab is butted up against another concrete slab, a joint is formed. The joint must be filled with joint sealant to ensure the space doesn’t fill up with debris, fill with water and either leak into a gallery or crack if the water freezes. $60,000 JOINT SEALANT PWP-06 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $60,000 $0Construction $60,000 $60,000Expense Total $0 $60,000 $30,474 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $30,474 $13,902 $0Mountlake Terrace $13,902 $9,930 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $9,930 $5,694 $0City of Shoreline $5,694 $60,000Funding Source Total $0 $60,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 55 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 59/194 Allow solids handling system redundancy and the ability to run the dryer unit independently in the event of a gasification system failure or repair. The dryer is capable of producing Class A biosolids, which would negate the need for temporary hauling and disposal of wet cake at a rate of up to $200,000/month. Benefit Allow solids handling system redundancy and the ability to run the dryer unit independently in the event of a gasification system failure or repair. The dryer is capable of producing Class A biosolids, which would negate the need for temporary hauling and disposal of wet cake at a rate of up to $200,000/month. Description This allows the ability to continue production of class A solids if/when the gasification system is shut down for repairs or preventative maintenance. The ability to produce and haul class A solids will eliminate a temporary but substantial cost increase hauling as this product is essentially the same in volume as biochar or concentrated minerals and is accepted at the local transfer station whereas if this option is not available, sludge will need to be loaded into trailers and hauled to Oregon as was done during the Carbon Recovery Project at a cost of up to $200,000 per month. This redundant solids processing mode was an option to add to the Carbon Recovery Project and was rejected by previous administration. Along with the savings in hauling costs, there will be no additional odor issues or daily sludge truck traffic in the adjacent neighborhood. $300,000 GASIFICATION BYPASS (CLASS A SOLIDS PRODUCTION) PWP-08 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $50,000 $0Design $50,000 $250,000 $0Construction $250,000 $300,000Expense Total $0 $300,000 $152,370 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $152,370 $69,510 $0Mountlake Terrace $69,510 $49,650 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $49,650 $28,470 $0City of Shoreline $28,470 $300,000Funding Source Total $0 $300,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 56 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 60/194 To keep critical equipment reliable and in working condition.Benefit To keep critical equipment reliable and in working condition. Description The WWTP has several VFD's (variable frequency drives) on various critical equipment influent pumps, effluent pumps, RAS/WAS pumps, aeration blowers, etc. These VFD's have an expected useful life of 15-20 years. Several of the VFD's here at the plant range in age between 20-30 years old. There have already been some failures and replacements made. These outdated VFD's need to be replaced to avoid a catastrophic failure event that could happen to these weakened state VFD's for any number of reasons, including abrupt starting and stopping due to power bumps/loss, switching from grid to generator power supply or just a parts failure. If multiple critical components fail simultaneously, then the plant may lose it's ability to treat wastewater that meets NPDES permit requirements resulting in pollution of our receiving waters and possible fines by our governing agency. $500,000 VFD UPGRADES PWP-10 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $50,000 $0Design $50,000 $200,000 $0Construction $200,000 $250,000Expense Total $0 $250,000 $126,975 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $126,975 $57,925 $0Mountlake Terrace $57,925 $41,375 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $41,375 $23,725 $0City of Shoreline $23,725 $250,000Funding Source Total $0 $250,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 57 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 61/194 Improve reliability of critical infrastructure as it is in a state of imminent failure. Ensure WWTP’s ability to treat wastewater up to its rated capacity and meet discharge permit requirements. Closing off dead corners will improve operational efficiency. Benefit Improve reliability of critical infrastructure as it is in a state of imminent failure. Ensure WWTP’s ability to treat wastewater up to its rated capacity and meet discharge permit requirements. Closing off dead corners will improve operational efficiency. Description Primary Clarifier #2 cage, center column, feedwell, corner sweeps, weir, counterweight, skimming device and rake arms need replacement due to severe corrosion. The steel has not been replaced since the original construction. Baffles will be installed to block-off corner dead zones to create a more circular flow pattern. The limited access will require that pieces be assembled inside the tank. The concrete structure also needs to be inspected and repaired as needed as corrosion of the concrete in spots has led to exposed rebar and may have compromised the structural integrity of the clarifier. The project was delayed in 2024 and a carryforward budget amendment will move funds to 2027-28 to complete project. $600,000 PRIMARY CLARIFIER 2 REHAB PWP-11 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $100,000 $0Design $100,000 $200,000 $300,000Construction $500,000 $300,000Expense Total $300,000 $600,000 $152,370 $152,370Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $304,740 $69,510 $69,510Mountlake Terrace $139,020 $49,650 $49,650Olympic View Water/Sewer District $99,300 $28,470 $28,470City of Shoreline $56,940 $300,000Funding Source Total $300,000 $600,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 58 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 62/194 Improve reliability, redundancy and efficiency of the primary sludge and scum pumps by replacing 30+ year old pumps and improving piping system.Benefit Improve reliability, redundancy and efficiency of the primary sludge and scum pumps by replacing 30+ year old pumps and improving piping system. Description The ODS pumps are over 30 years old and are at the end of their useful life. The maintenance, reliability and efficiency of the primary sludge pumping system would be greatly improved by replacing the current diaphragm pumps with progressive cavity pumps. During this pump replacement, piping modifications would also be done to allow pumps to support more than one clarifier, improving system redundancy along with reliability. The project was delayed in 2025 and will carry forward into 2027. $600,000 ODS (PRIMARY SLUDGE) PUMP REPLACEMENT PWP-13 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $350,000 $250,000Construction $600,000 $350,000Expense Total $250,000 $600,000 $177,765 $126,975Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $304,740 $81,095 $57,925Mountlake Terrace $139,020 $57,925 $41,375Olympic View Water/Sewer District $99,300 $33,215 $23,725City of Shoreline $56,940 $350,000Funding Source Total $250,000 $600,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 59 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 63/194 To replace problematic, yet critical valves with more reliable technology that helps to ensure disinfection system functionality and the ability to continue to meet NPDES discharge permit requirements. Benefit To replace problematic, yet critical valves with more reliable technology that helps to ensure disinfection system functionality and the ability to continue to meet NPDES discharge permit requirements. Description Replace two gate valves and actuators at the inlets of the two chlorine contact channels. These gates have repeatedly failed. Repair is often expensive and time consuming, as access is an issue, so it is necessary to rent scaffolding and other equipment to make repairs. When a gate fails, it effectively cuts the disinfection capacity of the plant in half. These are critical pieces of equipment and need to be replaced with a different technology to improve performance and reliability. $375,000 CHLORINE CONTACT CHANNEL SLUICE GATES REPLACEMENT PWP-14 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $0 $75,000Design $75,000 $0 $300,000Construction $300,000 $0Expense Total $375,000 $375,000 $0 $190,463Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $190,463 $0 $86,888Mountlake Terrace $86,888 $0 $62,063Olympic View Water/Sewer District $62,063 $0 $35,588City of Shoreline $35,588 $0Funding Source Total $375,000 $375,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 60 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 64/194 Current NPW system is non-functional as currently built. Currently, only one pump provides the needed system pressure to allow the standby generator to function. In the event of that pump failing, the standby generator (which is required as a backup power source per our NPDES permit) is not operable. This project will allow for much needed NPW redundancy. Benefit Current NPW system is non-functional as currently built. Currently, only one pump provides the needed system pressure to allow the standby generator to function. In the event of that pump failing, the standby generator (which is required as a backup power source per our NPDES permit) is not operable. This project will allow for much needed NPW redundancy. Description Relocate one NPW pump, replace one NPW pump and modify piping as needed to achieve system functionality. $75,000 NPW PUMPING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PWP-16 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $75,000 $0Construction $75,000 $75,000Expense Total $0 $75,000 $38,093 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $38,093 $17,378 $0Mountlake Terrace $17,378 $12,413 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $12,413 $7,118 $0City of Shoreline $7,118 $75,000Funding Source Total $0 $75,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 61 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 65/194 As these are our medium sized blowers, this allows for more efficient and cost-saving operation of the LPA system.Benefit As these are our medium sized blowers, this allows for more efficient and cost-saving operation of the LPA system. Description Blowers are currently running at 75% capacity, are at the end of their useful life (30,000 hrs, put in service in 2017), and due for rebuild. Extending the budget because Blower 305 must be replaced in 2027. $105,000 LPA BLOWER 303 AND 305 REHAB PWP-18 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $50,000 $50,000Construction $100,000 $50,000Expense Total $50,000 $100,000 $25,395 $25,395Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $50,790 $11,585 $11,585Mountlake Terrace $23,170 $8,275 $8,275Olympic View Water/Sewer District $16,550 $4,745 $4,745City of Shoreline $9,490 $50,000Funding Source Total $50,000 $100,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 62 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 66/194 Rehab of the 600 bldg electrical system will result in a tremendous increase in the reliability of the critical systems within the 600 bldg including sludge dewatering, primary sludge pumping, high-pressure air, chemical disinfection pumps and several others. Benefit Rehab of the 600 bldg electrical system will result in a tremendous increase in the reliability of the critical systems within the 600 bldg including sludge dewatering, primary sludge pumping, high-pressure air, chemical disinfection pumps and several others. Description Both the high and low voltage electrical systems are in a degraded state and have functionality issues during periods of high demand, often resulting in equipment failure due to MCC or breaker failures. This is a critical system and is at the end of its useful life, being well over thirty years old. Work extended into 2027. $250,000 600 BLDG ELECTRICAL REHAB PWP-19 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $250,000 $0Construction $250,000 $250,000Expense Total $0 $250,000 $126,975 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $126,975 $57,925 $0Mountlake Terrace $57,925 $41,375 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $41,375 $23,725 $0City of Shoreline $23,725 $250,000Funding Source Total $0 $250,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 63 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 67/194 Improve performance and reliability as well as lowering operational and maintenance costs for the systems mentioned above.Benefit Improve performance and reliability as well as lowering operational and maintenance costs for the systems mentioned above. Description Perform AQ system repairs and modifications from the prior years' AQ Evaluation Project to resolve the AQ issues within the 600 bldg with a focus on the lower level where H2S gas appears to be accumulating at levels that are high enough to do damage to sensitive electronic equipment such as VFD's, control boards and relay switches. These electronic failures cause shutdowns in the primary sludge pumping system, high pressure plant air system and sludge dewatering system. Work extended into 2027. $250,000 600 BLDG AIR QUALITY REHAB/UPGRADE PWP-20 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $125,000 $0Construction $125,000 $125,000Expense Total $0 $125,000 $63,488 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $63,488 $28,963 $0Mountlake Terrace $28,963 $20,688 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $20,688 $11,863 $0City of Shoreline $11,863 $125,000Funding Source Total $0 $125,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 64 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 68/194 This will increase reliability/redundancy in the secondary system and help ensure the final effluent meets NPDES discharge permit standards.Benefit This will increase reliability/redundancy in the secondary system and help ensure the final effluent meets NPDES discharge permit standards. Description Secondary Clarifier 2 has reached the end of useful life as its components are over 30 years old and need to be replaced. Clarifier drive, drive motor and steel structure have corroded and need repair or replacement. Concrete and interior roof lining need to be evaluated and repaired if necessary. This work was not completed in 2026. Work extended into 2027/28. $450,000 SECONDARY CLARIFIER 2 REHAB PWP-21 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $50,000 $0Design $50,000 $0 $400,000Construction $400,000 $50,000Expense Total $400,000 $450,000 $25,395 $203,160Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $228,555 $11,585 $92,680Mountlake Terrace $104,265 $8,275 $66,200Olympic View Water/Sewer District $74,475 $4,745 $37,960City of Shoreline $42,705 $50,000Funding Source Total $400,000 $450,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 65 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 69/194 The SCADA system has been recently upgraded, however, some of the controller locations have many unused/abandoned panel components (i.e. relays, timers, PLC systems) and wiring, making documentation and troubleshooting difficult. Existing system documentation, including panel drawings, I/O wiring drawings, network drawings, and control logic descriptions, is poor or non-existent. Lack of wire labels inside PLC cabinets is a safety issue and complicates maintenance and troubleshooting. This project includes a comprehensive SCADA masterplan that systematically and timely phases an approach to PLC replacement. Benefit The SCADA system has been recently upgraded, however, some of the controller locations have many unused/abandoned panel components (i.e. relays, timers, PLC systems) and wiring, making documentation and troubleshooting difficult. Existing system documentation, including panel drawings, I/O wiring drawings, network drawings, and control logic descriptions, is poor or non-existent. Lack of wire labels inside PLC cabinets is a safety issue and complicates maintenance and troubleshooting. This project includes a comprehensive SCADA masterplan that systematically and timely phases an approach to PLC replacement. Description The project is to improve the SCADA system for better accuracy and control. The project involves calibrating process-critical instrumentation, re-commissioning essential systems, and creating a detailed SCADA Masterplan for phased programmable logic controller (PLC) replacement. This programmatic approach will replace 7 PLCs, 26 flow meters, and 19 level sensors over the next ten years. $1,000,000 INSTRUMENTATION UPGRADES AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PWP-22 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $200,000 $200,000Construction $400,000 $200,000Expense Total $200,000 $400,000 $101,580 $101,580Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $203,160 $46,340 $46,340Mountlake Terrace $92,680 $33,100 $33,100Olympic View Water/Sewer District $66,200 $18,980 $18,980City of Shoreline $37,960 $200,000Funding Source Total $200,000 $400,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 66 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 70/194 The potable water system should not be used throughout the plant due to corrosive, particle fouled, and contaminated feed water. This directly impacts the condition (corrosion), and safe use of the safety showers and eyewash stations in the plant. There are instances where temporary hoses run potable water to areas of the plant where needed, but a more permanent solution should be implemented. This study will investigate the source of the potable water quality issues and evaluate the implementation of proposed repairs. Benefit The potable water system should not be used throughout the plant due to corrosive, particle fouled, and contaminated feed water. This directly impacts the condition (corrosion), and safe use of the safety showers and eyewash stations in the plant. There are instances where temporary hoses run potable water to areas of the plant where needed, but a more permanent solution should be implemented. This study will investigate the source of the potable water quality issues and evaluate the implementation of proposed repairs. Description A study will be completed to evaluate the deficiencies in potable water quality throughout the plant, especially in areas that affect the operation of safety showers and eyewash stations. The gasification system may need additional potable water, and this study will be performed in conjunction with long-term planning for the operation of the gasifier. The implementation of the potable water system improvements will also include the installation of all permanent safety shower and eyewash stations. No work was performed in 2026 - projected expenses carried over into 2028. $125,000 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM REPAIR PWP-23 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $25,000 $0Design $25,000 $0 $100,000Construction $100,000 $25,000Expense Total $100,000 $125,000 $12,698 $50,790Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $63,488 $5,793 $23,170Mountlake Terrace $28,963 $4,138 $16,550Olympic View Water/Sewer District $20,688 $2,373 $9,490City of Shoreline $11,863 $25,000Funding Source Total $100,000 $125,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 67 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 71/194 Copper corrosion is present on various components and systems throughout the entire plant, evaluated during a condition assessment in September 2025. This condition is indicative of the presence of gases that are corrosive to copper elements, including MCC wiring and instrumentation, that can lead to gross electrical failures. Neighbors have issued complaints of environmental odors around and from within the plant boundaries, indicative of elevated hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels. The project will include a study on balancing the exhaust and air supply systems, encapsulating and isolating H2S venting, and identifying critical areas for HVAC system refurbishment. The project will include the installation of monitoring equipment to optimize gas removal and treatment. Benefit Copper corrosion is present on various components and systems throughout the entire plant, evaluated during a condition assessment in September 2025. This condition is indicative of the presence of gases that are corrosive to copper elements, including MCC wiring and instrumentation, that can lead to gross electrical failures. Neighbors have issued complaints of environmental odors around and from within the plant boundaries, indicative of elevated hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels. The project will include a study on balancing the exhaust and air supply systems, encapsulating and isolating H2S venting, and identifying critical areas for HVAC system refurbishment. The project will include the installation of monitoring equipment to optimize gas removal and treatment. Description This project will follow the 600 Bldg Air Quality Evaluation Project (PWP-20) in 2025 and expands the study area to the remaining plant buildings in 2026. The project will install air handling flow meters to perform a flow and mass H2S balance at screening headworks, solids removal, and primary clarifiers. The existing BioAir system will be evaluated for proper operation and optimization to improve performance. Annual or seasonal treatment may include chemical addition for H2S upstream of plant interceptors. The dumpster staging area will be encapsulated with shed walls and a high-capacity exhaust system to reduce neighborhood complaints. Recommendations from the study are planned to be implemented in 2027. Budget carried over into 2028. $75,000 PLANT HVAC AND ODOR CONTROL UPGRADES PWP-24 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $37,500 $37,500Construction $75,000 $37,500Expense Total $37,500 $75,000 $19,046 $19,046Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $38,093 $8,689 $8,689Mountlake Terrace $17,378 $6,206 $6,206Olympic View Water/Sewer District $12,413 $3,559 $3,559City of Shoreline $7,118 $37,500Funding Source Total $37,500 $75,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 68 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 72/194 A comprehensive valve program will include replacing 3-10 valves per year on a rotating basis, depending on size and cost, beginning with valves installed 15 years ago or more, with the intention to continually replace valves before the end of their expected 20-year lifespan. Notably, in year 1, the condition assessment in September 2025 documented isolation gate valves at the north and south wet wells inlet are difficult to operate and risk failing in their current position and must be replaced. Benefit A comprehensive valve program will include replacing 3-10 valves per year on a rotating basis, depending on size and cost, beginning with valves installed 15 years ago or more, with the intention to continually replace valves before the end of their expected 20-year lifespan. Notably, in year 1, the condition assessment in September 2025 documented isolation gate valves at the north and south wet wells inlet are difficult to operate and risk failing in their current position and must be replaced. Description This project implements a comprehensive valve replacement program to systematically replace valves throughout the plant, beginning with valves nearing the end of their useful life. For older valves, surrounding piping that is determined to be in poor condition will be replaced with the valve. The program is proposed for the next 15 years. $3,750,0000 VALVE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PWP-25 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $250,000 $250,000Construction $500,000 $250,000Expense Total $250,000 $500,000 $126,975 $126,975Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $253,950 $57,925 $57,925Mountlake Terrace $115,850 $41,375 $41,375Olympic View Water/Sewer District $82,750 $23,725 $23,725City of Shoreline $47,450 $250,000Funding Source Total $250,000 $500,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 69 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 73/194 The MCCs in Building 100 and Building 600 have electrical components more than 30 years old and have started to fail. Many low voltage breakers are in poor condition and failure would render critical equipment non-functional. The MCCs were determined to have inadequate ventilation, contributing to high moisture levels, increased corrosion of equipment, and frequent downtime. Several MCCs have unbalanced currents when measured at the Main Feeder Lugs during a condition assessment in September 2024. The backup electrical system does not have any procedures in place and staff have not been trained in operating the emergency generator; this project will include developing a standard operating procedure and training current staff. In addition, several buckets have openings in the door with temporary cardboard used as a ‘patch’ material following the previous removal and changing of components. FME devices are needed on all doors to meet NFPA 70E standards for electrical safety. This project would be additional work related to the rehab and upgrade of the ventilation and electrical systems in Building 600 and Building 100. Benefit The MCCs in Building 100 and Building 600 have electrical components more than 30 years old and have started to fail. Many low voltage breakers are in poor condition and failure would render critical equipment non-functional. The MCCs were determined to have inadequate ventilation, contributing to high moisture levels, increased corrosion of equipment, and frequent downtime. Several MCCs have unbalanced currents when measured at the Main Feeder Lugs during a condition assessment in September 2024. The backup electrical system does not have any procedures in place and staff have not been trained in operating the emergency generator; this project will include developing a standard operating procedure and training current staff. In addition, several buckets have openings in the door with temporary cardboard used as a ‘patch’ material following the previous removal and changing of components. FME devices are needed on all doors to meet NFPA 70E standards for electrical safety. This project would be additional work related to the rehab and upgrade of the ventilation and electrical systems in Building 600 and Building 100. Description The Electrical Improvement Project aims to enhance the reliability, safety, and efficiency of the electrical systems plant-wide. This project will rehabilitate or replace the motor control centers (MCCs), replace failing breakers, add foreign material exclusion (FME) devices, and conduct essential maintenance and inspections. $600,0000 ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PWP-26 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $200,000 $200,000Construction $400,000 $200,000Expense Total $200,000 $400,000 $101,580 $101,580Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $203,160 $46,340 $46,340Mountlake Terrace $92,680 $33,100 $33,100Olympic View Water/Sewer District $66,200 $18,980 $18,980City of Shoreline $37,960 $200,000Funding Source Total $200,000 $400,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 70 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 74/194 Maintain NPDES Permit compliance and protect human and environmental health, and minimize chemical or biological risk to Puget Sound receiving waters. Improve operational reliability and resilience. Benefit Maintain NPDES Permit compliance and protect human and environmental health, and minimize chemical or biological risk to Puget Sound receiving waters. Improve operational reliability and resilience. Description The current infrastructure for the dosing of sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, followed by sodium bisulfite for dechlorination prior to release of waters into Puget Sound has degraded and become unreliable, showing significant signs of aging, and requires immediate redesign and replacement. $500K to $1M DISINFECTION SYSTEM REHAB PWP-27 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $50,000 $0Design $50,000 $450,000 $500,000Construction $950,000 $500,000Expense Total $500,000 $1,000,000 $253,950 $253,950Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $507,900 $115,850 $115,850Mountlake Terrace $231,700 $82,750 $82,750Olympic View Water/Sewer District $165,500 $47,450 $47,450City of Shoreline $94,900 $500,000Funding Source Total $500,000 $1,000,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 71 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 75/194 Assure complete electrical system safety, integrity, and reliability. Restore dependable power distribution and reduce the likelihood of unexpected failures, outages, or equipment damage from inconsistent power supply. Benefit Assure complete electrical system safety, integrity, and reliability. Restore dependable power distribution and reduce the likelihood of unexpected failures, outages, or equipment damage from inconsistent power supply. Description The 400 Building electrical system sustained significant damage during the 2022 flooding event. Emergency repairs were completed at that time to restore critical functions immediately following the incident; however, approximately 75% of electrical outlets and panels remain inoperative and require replacement. This condition presents reliability, safety, and operational concerns that affect day-to-day plant operations and maintenance activities. $250K 400 BUILDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REPAIR AND REPLACE PWP-28 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $250,000 $0I&C Replacement $250,000 $250,000Expense Total $0 $250,000 $126,975 $0Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $126,975 $57,925 $0Mountlake Terrace $57,925 $41,375 $0Olympic View Water/Sewer District $41,375 $23,725 $0City of Shoreline $23,725 $250,000Funding Source Total $0 $250,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 72 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 76/194 Replacement of the floor will extend the life of the tank, assure tank integrity, allow full rotation of the collection arm, prevent excessive stress on the drive unit and rake arms, and improve solids collection efficiency. Benefit Replacement of the floor will extend the life of the tank, assure tank integrity, allow full rotation of the collection arm, prevent excessive stress on the drive unit and rake arms, and improve solids collection efficiency. Description A large section of the tank floor in Secondary Clarifier #1 is buckling upward and created a bulge. This bulge indicates instability and a weakness in the flooring that could lead to rupture and that currently interferes with the rotational path of the clarifier rake arm that moves solids inside the tank to the collection sump. Continued operation under these conditions could result in damage to the rake arms, drive unit, and mechanical components. $1.75M SECONDARY CLARIFIER #1 FLOOR REPLACEMENT PWP-29 *Projects starting before 2027 include prior year expenditures. PUBLIC WORKS - TREATMENT PLANT Budget June 2026 Estimated Project Cost* Project Cost 2027 2028 Total $250,000 $0Design $250,000 $0 $750,000Construction $750,000 $250,000Expense Total $750,000 $1,000,000 $126,975 $380,925Fund 423 - Sewer Utility $507,900 $57,925 $173,775Mountlake Terrace $231,700 $41,375 $124,125Olympic View Water/Sewer District $165,500 $23,725 $71,175City of Shoreline $94,900 $250,000Funding Source Total $750,000 $1,000,000 2027-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM | CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 73 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 77/194 City Council Agenda Item 2.2 June 10, 2026 - Study Session TITLE:2026 Tree Code Updates, Project #AMD2026-0001 (Fourth Reading) DEPARTMENT:Planning and Development Services PRESENTER:Deb Powers NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:Receive a project update on preliminary Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.130 code amendments and review materials in advance of receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation on August 4, 2026. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):0 ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: When Edmonds’ tree code was adopted in 2021, community feedback pointed to the need for a “second phase” of code updates that would address non-development tree removals, as the adopted code allowed unlimited removals with few exceptions (such as critical areas/vacant lots). The 2026 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.130 code amendments aim to address this gap, in addition to the legal, code interpretation, and other issues that have emerged since its adoption. The project scope includes objectives to: •Establish a citywide tree canopy cover goal. •Define landmark trees and determine and appropriate regulatory approach. •Slow the loss of tree removals on private property (unrelated to development). •Consider code changes for consistency and clarity based on policy guidance, best practices, prior analysis and stakeholder feedback. Following the Planning Board project kickoff in January, an updated work plan was presented to City Council on February 24. A project status briefing on Planning Board progress was presented April 14. This agenda item includes an updated progress report and introduces materials that may be helpful to review in advance of receiving draft code, as the Planning Board finalizes its work on its recommendation to City Council. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: Due to the temporary landmark tree protection in place as code amendments are underway, board and council meetings are scheduled to align with the expiration of Ordinance No. 4433 in October 2026. Since timeline extensions could only be considered with subsequent public hearing/interim ordinance extensions, additional Planning Board meetings were added as needed, in between those initially scheduled, to avoid affecting public hearing or City Council meeting dates. A revised work plan is shown in Attachment 1. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 78/194 Planning Board General Direction Thus far, the Planning Board has provided general direction for potential code changes, including: 1.Reorganize, cross-reference and consolidate if feasible the disparate tree-related code sections, such as o ECC 3.95 - Tree Fund o ECDC 20.13 – Landscaping Requirements o ECDC 20.75.048 – Conservation Subdivision o ECDC 18.85 – Street Trees Planning Board direction: consolidate Tree Fund, Street Tree and Landscaping Requirements sections under ECDC 17.130 if feasible/legal. Street Trees and Landscaping Requirements may need to be consolidated with the 2027 unified development code project. The Conservation Subdivision section will remain under ECDC 20.75. 2.Add clear data-based metrics and performance measures to ECDC 17.130.000 Intent/Purpose. Planning Board direction: establish a 35 percent citywide tree canopy cover goal by 2045. 3.Align definitions with industry standards and add new landmark tree size criteria. Planning Board direction: update hazard tree and other definitions to align with industry standards, strike the “specimen” tree definition, consider less subjective nuisance tree criteria (or strike) and define landmark tree as any tree at least 24-inches DBH*, with possible additional species/DBH thresholds for slower-growing trees. 4.Create a new code framework for tree removals unrelated to development. Planning Board direction: consider a tree removal allowance system based on property size, per 12 months, with no permit/fees, unless certain conditions are triggered, such as landmark tree removals or hazard tree removals above the allowed removals. 5.Simplify and clarify the existing tree retention/replacement requirements associated with development. Planning Board direction: replace the current percentage retention system and the multiple replacement and fees in lieu methods with a tree density credit system that applies to both retention and replacement trees. Whether tree density credits apply to certain site improvements such as parking lots has not been determined yet. Specific development type applicability (such as single-family, multifamily, commercial, etc.) and minimum tree retention thresholds have not been determined yet. *DBH: trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Planning Board Next Steps At its June 10th meeting, the Planning Board is scheduled to finalize its general direction on the development-related code requirements above, in addition to these remaining code sections: •090 Bonding •100 Violation, Enforcement, and Penalties •110 Liability Staff will then develop draft code for Board review June 24th. The June 10th City Council study session will provide an opportunity for further review and discussion on the Planning Board’s direction thus far. City Council Background Materials Item 2.2 Packet pg. 79/194 Receiving background materials ahead of the draft code may be useful context to understand what Edmonds’ tree code currently does—and does not—regulate best practices, municipal comparisons, and key elements of effective tree regulations. Materials are being provided now so the Council may read and digest at leisure while the Planning Board wraps up its work on developing draft code recommendations to City Council. •January 28, 2026 Planning Board Regular Meeting/Agenda Item 6.1 (download pdf) staff memo includes a concise summary of how Edmonds current tree code works, and describes why certain metrics, such as canopy cover, need to serve as a basis for code intent/purpose. •The Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property is a primary resource for best practices, terminology, basic tree code frameworks, legal issues, etc. While the American Planning Association and others have published similar guides, this is the most recent, comprehensive, local study of tree codes and process guidelines developed expressly for planners and decision-makers (Attachment 2). •Appendix D to the Guide above is a table format summary comparison of 39 jurisdictions’ tree code requirements categorized by levels of code restrictiveness. •Edmonds Forecast Analysis handout outlines Edmonds’ 2024 canopy cover and tree planting projections for reaching various citywide canopy cover goals, which is relevant to codified planting requirements (Attachment 3). •From Canopy to Policy white paper published by PlanITGeo provides information on tree canopy cover assessments, why canopy is important in urban planning and how municipal policies/codes and canopy data are connected (Attachment 4). •2026 Tree Code Update Project Resources List was provided to the Planning Board at project kickoff. It includes links to publications categorized by Best Practices/General, Municipal Comparisons, Legal Issues, Benefits, and Tree Canopy Cover resources (Attachment 5). RECOMMENDATION: Receive a project update on preliminary Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.130 code amendments and review materials in advance of receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation on August 4, 2026. BUDGET IMPACTS: No fiscal impacts at this time. Most resulting actions will align with existing city programs, while some strategies may require new or dedicated resources as the policy framework advances. ITEM HISTORY: Prior policy guidance and actions related to the 2026 tree code updates are summarized below, with links to relevant policy documents: Date Policy Direction/Action July 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) adopted. Goal 1A: update codes to reduce tree removal and other development impacts. March 2021 ECDC 23.10, Tree Related Regulations adopted, meeting UFMP Goal 1A. City Council requests “Stage 2” amendments for non-development tree removal. April 2021 Interim Ordinance No. 1471 adopted, prohibiting 24-inch DBH landmark tree removal as code updates are considered for non-development scenarios (expired). June 2022 City Council receives “Phase 2” work plan for code amendments addressing tree removals unrelated to development and landmark trees (project delayed). March 2023 Edmonds 2023 Climate Action Plan adopted. Action EN-1.1: adopt a citywide tree canopy cover target. Nov 2023 2022-2023 tree code amendment project paused due to staffing and other resource Item 2.2 Packet pg. 80/194 limitations. Dec 2024 2024-2044 Comprehensive Plan adopted. Policy LU-5.2: support increased tree canopy. Goal LU-26: expand canopy cover over 20 years with a goal of “no net loss” (2024 citywide canopy cover noted as 34.6%). April 2025 Interim Ordinance No. 4389 and 2025 Work Plan adopted, prohibiting landmark tree removal for 12 months as code updates were underway (delayed to Jan 2026). Oct 2025 Minor amendments to ECDC 23.10 adopted to address certain legal and interpretation issues, later codified as ECDC 17.130. 2026 February 24 City Council receives revised work plan (scope, timeline and public engagement plan) for the 2026 tree code amendment project currently underway. February 25 Planning Board provides direction on citywide tree canopy cover goal, overall code organization and preliminary landmark tree definition. March 11 Planning Board provides general direction on six tree definitions, including landmark tree. April 21 Interim Ordinance No. 4433 adopted by City Council to extend landmark tree protection six months per RCW 23.70.795, as code updates continue. March 25, April 22 Planning Board provides general direction on tree removal allowances and replacement requirements for tree removals unrelated to development. May 13, May 27 Planning Board provides direction to replace the current percentage method for tree retention associated with development with tree density credits. Note that although minor code updates and temporary ordinances implemented in 2025 addressed certain tree code issues, more comprehensive code amendments were scheduled for 2026, when sufficient resources and expertise were available. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Work Plan 2. Guide to Developing Effective Tree Urban Tree Regulations 3. Edmonds Canopy Forecast Analysis 4. Canopy to Policy Handout 5. Tree Code Update - Resources List 6. 06.10.26 Presentation Item 2.2 Packet pg. 81/194 ATTACHMENT x 2026 TREE CODE UPDATES WORK PLAN Revised 5/28/26 Date Group Action Topic/Key Decision Points Jan 14 Planning Board (1) Project Introduction, preliminary approach N/A Jan 28 Planning Board (2) Discussion: Project scope, timeline, public engagement, ECDC 23.10 intro ECDC 23.10 Code Intent & Purpose Citywide Canopy Cover Goal Feb 12 Focus Group Project Intro & Discussion: Canopy Cover, Code Organization, Definitions Feedback to inform Feb 25 Planning Board decisions Feb 24 City Council Briefing: Project Intro (Reading 1)N/A Feb 25 Planning Board (3) Direction: Code Org, Definitions (including Landmark) Canopy Cover Goal (continued from Jan 28) General Code Organization Definitions (4-5 updates), landmark tree (new) Mar 10 Focus Group Discussion: Tree Removal Unrelated to Development (new code) Feedback to inform Mar 25 and Apr 22 Planning Board decisions Mar 11 Planning Board (4)Direction: continued from Feb 25 Definitions (continued from Feb 25) Mar 25 Planning Board (5) Direction: Tree Removal Unrelated to Development (new code) Consider code requirement options: Tree removal allowance, tree density credits, “hybrid” approach, permitting, etc. Mar 30 FOET Tree Code Subcommittee Discussion: Additional information by Planning Board request “Hybrid” tree density credit approach Landmark species/DBH recommendations Apr 14 City Council Reading File: Project Status (Reading 2) Project briefing – Planning Manager: key decision points addressed/under consideration Apr 14 City Council Public Hearing: Ordinance Extension (Reading 3) Six-month extension of Interim Landmark Tree Ordinance, effective through Oct 2026 Apr 22 Planning Board (6) Direction: Tree Removal Unrelated to Development (continued from Mar 25) Number of allowed removals per property size and frequency of removals Replacements Permit vs. notification May 1 Focus Group Discussion: Tree Retention Related to Development Feedback to inform May 13, 27 Planning Board decisions May 13 Planning Board (7) Direction: Tree Retention Related to Development, Part I Tree retention requirements Tree replacement requirements Fees in lieu of planting Tree protection measures May 27 Planning Board (8) Direction: Tree Retention Related to Development, Part II (continue items from May 13) Fee in lieu “cap” Conservation Subdivision Required Landscaping (2027 Unified Dev. Code Updates) June 1 Focus Group Discussion: “Other” Code Updates Feedback to inform June 10 Planning Board decisions Jun 10 City Council Committee Study Session: Project Status & Preliminary Background Materials (Reading 4) Project status and background prep in anticipation of receiving PB recommendation, Q/A Jun 10 Planning Board (9) Direction: “Other” Code Updates (+remaining items from May 27)Bonding/maintenance assurance Item 2.2 Packet pg. 82/194 ATTACHMENT x 2026 TREE CODE UPDATES WORK PLAN Revised 5/28/26 Date Group Action Topic/Key Decision Points Violations, liability, emergency removals, etc. Consolidate Street Trees, Tree Fund? Jun 10+Staff Draft Code ECDC 17.130 (V1) Submit to meet state requirements Submit for City Legal review SEPA Determination (Ecology) 60-Day Notice of Intent to Adopt (Commerce) Jun 24 Planning Board (10) Direction: Review Draft Code and provide direction for code changes Review Draft code (V1) Provide direction for code changes Jul 2 Tree Board Discussion/Decision: Draft Code Recommendation Review Draft Code (V1) Provide recommendation to Planning Board Jul 8 Planning Board Tentative Meeting if needed (10?)Additional direction for code changes (V2) Jul 22 Planning Board Public Hearing Hold public hearing: Draft ECDC 17.130 (V2) Provide direction for code changes (V3) Recommendation to Council (FCR) Aug 4 City Council Review and Discuss Draft ECDC 17.130 (Reading 5) Receive PB recommendation (V3) Q&A, discussion Aug 21 City Council Consolidated comments/questions due from Council (Reading 6). Council will compile any questions and forward a consolidated list to staff by August 21. Staff will prepare responses in a clear table format and include them in the September 8 agenda packet. Sept 8 City Council Public Hearing (Reading 7) Hold public hearing: Draft ECDC 17.130 (V3) Q&A, discussion Sept 22 City Council Review and Discuss: public hearing testimony. Action: approve changes to the code (Reading 8) Review Draft ECDC 17.130 (V3) + Ordinance Discuss public feedback Provide direction for code changes (V4) Oct 6 City Council Approval of Ordinance Amending ECDC 17.130 (Reading 9)Consent Agenda Item Oct 6+Staff Submit signed Ordinance, Final Code 10- Day Notice of Adoption (Commerce) Oct 15 N/A 6-month moratorium extension expires Nov+Staff Implementation Code publishing, training, public education, webpage update, social media release, etc. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 83/194 Department of Natural Resouces and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Guide to 2024 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 84/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Acknowledgments TOP ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Prepared for King County by Facet Facet (formerly DCG/Watershed) 750 Sixth Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 www.facetnw.com 425.822.5242 Kim Frappier (Project Manager) Senior Urban Forester | Environmental Planner Devin Melville, Environmental Planner | Arborist Deb Powers, Senior Arborist Project ContributorsElizabeth Walker, Senior Urban Forestry Consultant Terra Firma Consulting Joanna Nelson de Flores, Urban Forestry Program Manager King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division Nicole Gaudette, Code Writer King County Department of Local Services, Permitting Division Richard Martin, Environmental Programs Managing Supervisor King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division Kimberly Miller, Graphic Designer Facet King County Urban Forestry Forum, Tree Code Subcommittee Funding PartnersFunds for this project were provided by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Urban and Community Forestry Program through Grant Agreement No. 93-105566. Department of Natural Resouces and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Cover Photo credit: FreePik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 85/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Executive Summary / i TOP Executive Summary Urban forests are complex regional, and watershed-scale natural systems located across natural areas, parks, public spaces, private residential and commercial properties, and transportation corridors. As development increases across the Puget Sound region, so does the need to protect and maintain our urban and community forests and the valuable ecosystem services they provide. King County is at the forefront of urban growth, with approximately 2.3 million people in 39 jurisdictions and an estimated population of 118,000 residing in unincorporated urban areas (UUAs). Canopy studies indicate the majority of trees that make up the urban forest in King County are located on private property, where trees are regulated on a local level.1 2 3 4 As such, tree ordinances vary by municipality. To date, very little guidance or data exists to inform the tree ordinance update process for local governments, nor is there a clear understanding of the effectiveness of tree regulations on private property. The Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property (the Guide) was developed to fill a critical need for guidance on developing and implementing private tree regulations. The Guide includes a synthesis of existing regulations in King County jurisdictions that were gathered through code research, an online survey of jurisdictional planning staff, and interviews with four municipalities that recently updated their city’s tree ordinance. The project team also looked outside of the region to identify effective and creative regulatory approaches across the country. Based on survey results, interview responses, and industry best practices – the Guide synthesizes code elements that comprise an effective ordinance as well as recommended strategies for public education and implementation by staff and permit applicants. The resources and data presented here will be utilized by the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division to develop a tree code toolkit for King County and local jurisdictions seeking to update existing regulations or implement new regulations for trees on private property.Photo credit: Zac Gudakov Item 2.2 Packet pg. 86/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Table of Contents / ii TOP Acknowledgments Executive Summary ...............................................................i 1. Introduction .........................................................................02 1.1: Project Background ......................................................03 1.2: What defines a model tree ordinance framework? .........05 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulation in King County .......................06 2.1: Approach and Methods .................................................07 Code Evaluation .............................................................07 County-wide Survey ......................................................07 In-depth Local Interviews ..............................................07 2.2: Results: Tree Codes in King County ..............................08 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research ...................................10 3.1: Approach and Methods ................................................11 3.2: Results: Nationwide Case Studies ................................11 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements ...........................................15 4.1: Element 1: Purpose and Intent ......................................17 4.2: Element 2: Regulated Tree Definitions ..........................17 Significant Trees.............................................................17 Nuisance Trees ...............................................................19 Hazard Trees ..................................................................19 Landmark or Exceptional Trees .....................................20 Heritage Trees................................................................21 4.3: Element 3: Tree Retention and Replacement .................22 Methods for Quantifying Tree Retention ......................22 Tree Retention Priorities ................................................29 Tree Protection During Development ...........................29 Replacement Tree Quantities and Standards ...............29 4.4: Element 4: Property Owner Tree Removals Without Development ..................................................32 Jurisdictional Trends ......................................................32 4.5: Element 5: Permitting Requirements ............................34 Site Plans ........................................................................34 Arborist Report ..............................................................34 4.6: Additional Considerations ............................................35 Staffing and Resource Considerations ..........................35 Maintenance Requirements ...........................................35 Incentives .......................................................................35 Enforcement ..................................................................36 Maintenance and Monitoring .........................................36 Equity and Economic Burden .........................................37 Table of Contents Item 2.2 Packet pg. 87/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Table of Contents / iii TOP 5. Ordinance Update Process ....................................................38 6. Measuring Success ................................................................43 7.Implementation ....................................................................45 7.1: Staff Training and Administration .................................46 7.2: Providing Technical Assistance and Resources ..............46 7.3: Public Outreach and Education .....................................46 7.4: Evaluation and Adaptation ...........................................47 8. Comprehensive Plans & State Policy Considerations .............48 8.1: New Comprehensive Plan Climate Element ..................49 8.2: New Housing Bills......................................................... 49 8.3: Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code ..................50 8.4: Culturally Modified Trees .............................................51 9.Conclusion ............................................................................52 Appendices ..............................................................................54 Appendix A. List of Terms ....................................................55 Appendix B. Data Synthesis Report .....................................59 Appendix C. King County Jurisdictional Tree Code Matrix ...59 Appendix D. King County Jurisdictional Tree Code Summary Spreadsheet ....................................59 Appendix E. National Tree Code Research Spreadsheet .......59 Appendix F. Sample Documents and Online Resources .........60 Appendix G. Tree Lists ........................................................62 Endnotes ...............................................................................63 Photo credit: Tomoko Uji Item 2.2 Packet pg. 88/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 1. Introduction / 01 TOP I. Introduction 1.1: Project background ..............................................................03 1.2: What defines a model tree ordinance framework? .............05 Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 89/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 1. Introduction / 02 TOP 1. Introduction King County, located in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, is home to almost 30 percent of Washington residents and contains the highest population density in the state. The County is comprised of 39 jurisdictions that range in size from larger cities like Seattle with a population of 733,919, to smaller towns like Beaux Arts Village with a population of 311. It also includes urban unincorporated areas (UUAs), such as Skyway, which are geographically defined regions that have been identified as centers of future population growth and urban development outside of incorporated cities. The population of King County increased by 50 percent between 1990 and 2020 and is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate. Many areas within the county, including UUAs, are heavily developed with existing infrastructure, and redevelopment of properties is frequently occurring. Developed land cover within King County cities increased from 61 percent in 1992 to 67 percent in 2016, while UUAs saw a seven percent increase during that same period. 6 The amount of tree canopy cover is directly correlated to developed land cover and the distribution of this growth. A POLICY articulates long-range objectives, such as the community’s vision expressed as policy goals in a Comprehensive Plan. Intended to guide day-to-day actions and decisions, policies may be achieved through ordinances, programs, public education, etc. Although comprehensive plan policies are mandated by the state and enacted by a local legislative process, they cannot be violated or enforced upon. An ORDINANCE is a law that is created by a local legislative body (e.g., county, town, or city council) and is also the mechanism for which it is adopted or passed. An ordinance regulates or prohibits conduct or actions and therefore can be violated and enforced. CODE refers to a collective group of standards, ordinances, or rules. For example, “Tree code” may refer to different sections within a jurisdiction’s municipal code. REGULATIONS, or rules (when used in a regulatory sense), establish procedures required by ordinances, however the term is commonly used interchangeably with code and ordinance or as a verb to regulate, meaning enforce or as a “regulatory approach.” What is the difference between a policy, ordinance, code, and regulation? Photo credit: Brandon Jarlais Item 2.2 Packet pg. 90/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 1. Introduction / 03 TOP Urban forest is defined by its proximity to human populations and includes all trees within urban lands including those on public property such as streetscapes, rights-of-way, parks, municipal facilities, and open spaces as well as privately owned and Tribal lands.7 The importance of urban forests has been quantified and well documented on a site scale (individual trees) and landscape scale (groves or forests) through research conducted by agencies like the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR), organizations like American Forests and the Arbor Day Foundation, universities, and others. Some benefits of urban trees include improved quality of life8 9, wildlife habitat, green stormwater infrastructure 10 11, increased property values , energy savings, reduction of urban heat island effects 13 14, pollutant removal 15, noise buffering 16, and carbon sequestration. 17 There is a lack of research, however, around effective tree ordinances and the adoption and implementation of such, which is an essential strategy for preserving urban forests. According to the King County 30-Year Forest Plan, canopy cover in King County cities ranges from 16 percent to more than 50 percent, while UUAs range from 45 percent canopy cover near rural areas to 21 percent in areas closer to cities.18 Given that the vast majority of the urban forest canopy resides on private property in low-density residential zones,19 trees within these areas are under substantial development pressures and are seeing an increase in impervious surfaces and subsequently, the highest loss of canopy cover. Further, the UUAs contain some of the remaining patches of contiguous forest stands and are similarly under high development pressures. 1.1: Project BackgroundIn 2021, the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP), Water and Land Resources Division Forestry Program (County), identified the need to maintain and increase urban tree canopy in the King County 30-Year Forest Plan.20 This collaborative effort involved input from stakeholders such as county staff, Tribes, nonprofits, municipalities, forestland owners, managers, and community members. Among the plan’s seven priorities is a focus on urban forests, with goals and strategies to increase tree canopy and urban forest health. In response to stakeholder input, King County initiated the Urban Forestry Forum in 2022, bringing together cities countywide with a shared interest in urban forestry. Surveys among participants emphasized the significance of tree regulations to support urban canopy retention and growth, identifying King County as a key player in synthesizing information and showcasing best practices. Photo credit: Tom Wheatley Item 2.2 Packet pg. 91/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 1. Introduction / 04 TOP To address an identified need for comprehensive and effective tree retention regulations, King County obtained funding through the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Urban and Community Forestry Program grant and launched an analysis of urban tree protection regulations in King County. This project is structured into two major tasks: 1. Conduct data collection and evaluation of existing tree codes for all King County municipalities and urban unincorporated areas of King County. 2. Develop a guide containing insights, best practices, and recommendations for King County and municipalities to consider when crafting effective tree regulations and facilitating tree ordinance adoption. Conducting an extensive analysis of regulations for both public and private trees was not feasible due to constraints in budget and timeline. Therefore, acknowledging the unique challenges faced by urban trees on private lands, the County identified tree regulation on private property as the focus of this initial research. Public trees include those located within public rights-of-way, city or county-owned and managed parks, natural areas, and other public facilities. While public trees play a distinct role in urban forests, trees in these areas are regulated by a variety of plans and legal documents, including franchise agreements for utilities within the right-of-way. In many jurisdictions, maintenance of right-of-way trees is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. Public tree management is tied to public safety and the responsibilities associated with providing utilities, access, and park amenities to and for the benefit of the public. For ease of reference, public tree code sections are noted in the code spreadsheet (Appendix D) but not included in this evaluation. This Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations for Private Property (the Guide) is grounded in the information gathered from the two tasks stated above as well as current best practices for arboriculture science and urban forestry management.21 The project team evaluated key components of successful tree protection and retention regulations to develop a model tree ordinance and regulation elements specific to the management of trees on private lands. Project Background continued...Photo credit: Xinly Item 2.2 Packet pg. 92/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 1. Introduction / 05 TOP 1.2: What defines a model tree ordinance framework?Urban forests are complex regional and watershed-scale natural systems that are governed independently across local municipalities. Tree protection ordinances are established at the local level and are not regulated by the Growth Management Act like critical areas ordinances. Additionally, the structure and location of related local codes (for example, development, construction, landscaping, and land use) varies by municipality. As a result, there are diverse approaches to regulating trees within urban settings. Along with community values and priorities, staffing and financial resources greatly influence the structure, elements, and administration of tree regulations. Therefore, how do you define a “model tree ordinance?” For purposes of this project, the term model tree ordinance is broadly defined as an ordinance that does the following: • Provides clear and effective code language for ease of administration by staff and stakeholders; • Is grounded in best arboriculture science and management practices; • Balances growth and development while providing protections for existing trees; and • Helps meet the jurisdiction stated vision, purpose, and objectives of the code and related policies (for example, urban forest management plans and goals, comprehensive plans, climate action strategies, etc.). Another challenge to defining a model tree ordinance is the lack of metrics or an assessment process for measuring regulatory efficacy, which is necessary to determine whether an ordinance is successful in furthering canopy cover and related urban forestry, climate action, and/or sustainability goals. To date, there has not been a comprehensive study that conclusively links specific regulatory elements to canopy cover outcomes. In the absence of statistically significant data, the Guide presents trends seen in King County jurisdictions with tree regulations in place, as well as case studies from select jurisdictions outside the county. The project team also included a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of specific regulations as they pertain to implementation and administration. It is important to note that tree regulations are one strategy used to protect and enhance tree canopy cover and will only be successful when combined with other policy and programmatic approaches, such as urban forest management plan goals, ongoing monitoring and assessment, planting programs, public education and engagement, and investments in staffing and program implementation.Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 93/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulations in King County / 06 TOP 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulations in King County 2.1: Approach and Methods ............................................07 Code Evaluation ..................................................07 County-wide Survey ...........................................07 In-depth Local Interviews ...................................07 2.2: Results: Tree Regulations in King County .................08 Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 94/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulations in King County / 07 TOP 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulations in King County 2.1: Approach and MethodsThe first objective of this project was to evaluate existing tree codes across all King County municipalities and urban unincorporated areas of King County and document the process that select municipalities followed with recent code updates. This was accomplished through code research and conducting surveys and interviews. The combined datasets helped inform the recommendations provided in this Guide and will be referenced throughout. A complete discussion of the methods from this first phase of research is summarized in the Data Synthesis Report found in Appendix B. Code EvaluationTree codes from all 39 King County municipalities as well as urban unincorporated areas were researched and uniformly synthesized into a code matrix (Appendix C) and a code summary spreadsheet (Appendix D). Once synthesized, key code concepts were identified, cross-referenced, and compared. Each jurisdiction’s code was then categorized into one of four regulatory levels based on elements in the existing private tree code. The regulatory levels are indicated on the summary spreadsheet in addition to the city population, the date of the last code update, and specific code requirements. Levels of regulation do not imply a rating of code quality or effectiveness but are rather a reflection of many factors, including the community’s vision, its purpose and intent of regulating trees, desire for greater code simplicity, or for taking a more comprehensive approach. Decision-makers also carefully consider levels of code regulation in other contexts, such as resources needed for code administration and enforcement, when adopting codes. The code matrix and summary spreadsheet were designed for use by planners, urban foresters, and decision-makers to reference how trees are commonly regulated throughout King County towns, cities and UUAs. These tools may help jurisdictions identify gaps and consider ways to improve the effectiveness of their tree ordinances. County-wide SurveyTo better understand the policy drivers and nuances of administering tree codes on private property, survey questions were developed to engage directly with individuals involved in the implementation of tree codes. Using Survey Monkey software, the project team developed 18 multiple-choice, rated, and open-ended questions to ask who administers the code, how easy or challenging the code is to apply/enforce, and how cities are tracking code effectiveness. The survey was released to planning staff in all 39 municipalities in the County. Questions included: • What are the drivers or reasons for adopting your private tree code? • How are you measuring the effectiveness of the code in meeting those goals? • On sites where no development activity is proposed, what tree removals are allowed? In-depth Local InterviewsIn 2022 and 2023, eleven King County jurisdictions updated their tree code regulations to some degree. Of those, four cities, Burien, Issaquah, Kirkland, and Seattle, were selected and engaged through in-depth interviews because of the complexity of their recent efforts to evaluate, update, and adopt new tree code ordinances. Staff were interviewed on their experience with the code amendment process, timeline, lessons learned, public engagement efforts, and the rationale for implementing the code amendments. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 95/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulations in King County / 08 TOP 2.2: Results: Tree Regulations in King CountyThe project team found local tree codes to vary widely in quality, clarity, terminology, consistency with industry standards, and levels of restrictiveness. Survey participation was very good, with 34 out of 39 municipalities submitting partial or full survey responses. Beyond critical area tree removal restrictions, some jurisdictions (9) had little to no tree regulations, while the greatest single number of jurisdictions (15) were found to have comprehensive codes that both regulate tree retention with development and limit tree removal on private property. Through the data collection and analysis of local jurisdictions’ tree codes during the first phase of this effort, the project team found many examples of effective language and processes to consider when crafting effective ordinances. Based on the categorization of the jurisdictions evaluated - including King County - 25 of the 40 have moderate to comprehensive levels of tree regulations (Level III and IV, see page 09). The complete results of this research are described in the Data Synthesis Report (Appendix B) and woven throughout this Guide to demonstrate and highlight specific code elements and provide model language. Photo credit: Seattle DOT Item 2.2 Packet pg. 96/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 2. Jurisdictional Tree Regulations in King County / 09 TOP LEVEL I • Limited Regulations Level I codes have little or no limitations to tree removal on private property aside from tree removal and replacements in critical areas. May require review of trees as part of a landscape plan review for informational purposes. Algona | Carnation | Clyde Hill | Des Moines | Enumclaw ×òõðäñçü Ùäõî ÙäæìĤæ Üîüîòðìöë Üñòôøäïðìè LEVEL II • Minimal Regulations Level II codes are primarily limited to required landscaping areas, which do not apply to new single-family residential development. No removal thresholds or replacement standards to meet a minimum density are set, which precludes all other standard requirements of replacement, protection, and mitigation. Ôìñê Ìòøñ÷ü Êøåøõñ Ëïäæî Íìäðòñç Öìï÷òñ ÜèäÝäæ Ýøîúìïä LEVEL III • Moderate Regulations Level III codes include tree density requirements for retention and replacement on development with standard protection, maintenance, and mitigation, but may not apply to non-residential development. Most lack removal thresholds or requirements for developed sites and non-development related activity. Bothell | Federal Way | Kenmore | Kent | Maple Valley Medina | Mercer Island | Newcastle | North Bend | Woodinville LEVEL IV • Comprehensive These jurisdictions have comprehensive private tree codes that pertain to both development and non-development related tree removals. They have tree density retention and replacement requirements, and, priority locations, alternative compliance, incentives, protection, maintenance, enforcement with penalties, and where appropriate, a dedicated tree fund account. Beaux Arts Village | Bellevue | Burien | Covington | Duvall Ñøñ÷ö Ùòìñ÷ Òööäôøäë Ôìõîïäñç Õäîè Ïòõèö÷ Ùäõî Ûèçðòñç Ûèñ÷òñ Üäððäðìöë Üèä÷÷ïè Üëòõèïìñè âäõõòú Ùòìñ÷ Levels of Code Regulation The private tree regulations of King County and each municipality were categorized into one of four levels, based on the code elements and extent of provisions and restrictions. LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III LEVEL IV Item 2.2 Packet pg. 97/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research / 10 TOPTOP 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research 3.1: Approach and Methods ............................................11 3.2: Results: Nationwide Case Studies ............................11 Case Study: City of Decatur, Georgia .......................12 Case Study: City of Olympia, Washington ................13 Project Spotlight: Chicago Region Trees Initiative ...14 Photo credit: Meric Dagli Item 2.2 Packet pg. 98/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research / 11 TOPTOP 3.1: Approach and MethodsThe second phase of research included a search of nationwide tree codes to identify unique approaches to tree protection from a regulatory standpoint. To conduct a nationwide search for model tree ordinances, the project team reviewed case studies from professional conferences and webinar agendas, published research papers, and relevant articles. Sources include the Journal of Environmental Management, the Urban and Community Forestry Society (formerly the Society of Municipal Arborists), Vibrant Cities Lab, Arbor Day Foundation, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Urban and Community Forestry. States with growth management policies were considered for the cities’ similarities in balancing regulatory levels with environmental protection. From there, jurisdictions comparable in size to those in King County were considered and further narrowed down to cities that face similar development pressures, have existing mature tree canopy, and may have received some recognition for their regulatory approach to tree protection. In all, seven nationwide jurisdictions were selected by range in population from under 10,000 to about 965,000 residents. Aside from Austin, Texas, the project team selected half the jurisdictions with under 40,000 residents and the remaining half over 40,000, up to about 75,000 residents, noting that the average population size of most King County jurisdictions is approximately 40,000 residents. Each of the selected cities has tree codes that both protect existing trees and allow for development (Appendix E). State urban foresters were asked to recommend jurisdictions within their state that fit these criteria. Other jurisdictions that were recommended included Palo Alto (California), Reno (Nevada), Miami-Dade County (Florida), Atlanta (Georgia), Decatur (Georgia), Amelia Island/Nassau County (Florida), Whitefish (Montana), and the Town of Mt. Pleasant (New York). Ordinances for these recommended jurisdictions were reviewed for unique components and effectiveness; and compared using elements of tree ordinance topics established during the earlier research phase of the project and discussed in the Data Synthesis Report (See Appendix B). The project team also reviewed Portland and Olympia’s tree codes based on suggestions that those codes may fit the same criteria we were seeking nationwide. Two cities, Decatur and Olympia had elements of their tree ordinances that stood out as effective or unique and could serve as an example to local jurisdictions. These tree codes were further evaluated by analyzing the ordinances in-depth, reviewing educational materials available on each city’s website, and contacting each jurisdiction for brief interviews using the general outline of questions from the local interviews. These case studies are presented in Section IV of this report. Additionally, the Chicago Region Tree Initiative (CRTI) was identified as an innovative organization leading the way for developing tree ordinance frameworks and is also featured as a project spotlight. 3.2 Results: Nationwide Case StudiesIt is not uncommon for municipalities outside of King County, and across other regions of the country, to base tree retention regulations on factors such as development type, minimum canopy cover requirements, and tree density standards. These approaches are aimed at preserving and enhancing urban tree canopy cover, promoting environmental sustainability, and maintaining the aesthetic and ecological benefits that trees provide to communities. The following case studies provide approaches from communities outside of King County with unique code elements that are not seen in local ordinances and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the tree regulations. 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research Item 2.2 Packet pg. 99/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research / 12 TOPTOP Case Study: City of Decatur, GeorgiaThe City of Decatur, a suburb northeast of Atlanta, is home to an estimated 23,000 residents and contains an abundance of mature trees. Decatur is a developed city with an existing tree canopy of 57 percent. It is similar to larger jurisdictions in King County in that much of the City has been previously developed and the majority of impacts to tree canopy comes from the redevelopment of existing residential lots. This is evident through their tree removal permit applications, which the City tracks through a permitting software called Community Core. On average last year, Decatur received 13 tree removal permit applications associated with commercial properties and 120 residential tree removal permit applications. TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE AND CANOPY ANALYSIS In 2019, the City initiated the tree ordinance update process, which was previously amended in 2014. Public input was solicited from stakeholders, the City’s Environmental Sustainability Board, and the community via several open house events held at a public park and other outreach efforts. As part of the effort, the City commissioned a tree canopy study using i-Tree that revealed the city’s total canopy cover remained consistent between 2009 and 2019 at 57 percent, with low-density residential zoning containing more than 70 percent of the city’s canopy cover. Notably, redevelopment within this single-family zoning was identified as the primary driver of canopy loss. In 2021, the Decatur Environmental Sustainability Board conducted site visits throughout the city to verify the canopy study’s findings. While certain areas of the city experienced tree canopy loss during that timeframe, others experienced tree canopy gain that overall supports the study’s finding that the City achieved and maintained its 50 percent canopy cover goal. After a three-year effort, the revised ordinance was adopted in 2022, known as the Tree Canopy Conservation Ordinance. The result is a clear, well-written ordinance that provides the following: • Strong protections for existing tree canopy, replacement tree plantings, and still allows for development opportunities. • The tree canopy and replacement requirements are established by zone, with the highest canopy retention (75 percent) required in single-family residential zoning. • The intent section ensures that the effectiveness of the ordinance can be evaluated periodically by requiring a tree canopy cover study every five years using a similar methodology to the 2021 canopy assessment. • Requires the City Arborist to publish a quarterly report summarizing tree removal and replacement activities and requires an annual public information meeting to be held. Based on the information provided in the canopy study and guidance from the Arbor Day Foundation, the City increased its tree canopy cover goal from 50 percent to 65 percent, which is reflected in their updated ordinance. UNIQUE ELEMENTS OF THE DECATUR, GA TREE CODE • Requires 75 percent of a lot’s existing healthy canopy cover to be retained; • Offers an Administrative Tree Variance that allows applicants to apply for a variance to the zoning setback regulations to preserve an existing protected tree; • Implements a Canopy Loss Fee for situations where tree retention requirements are met but an applicant wants to remove other healthy protected trees. Funds are distributed by the City to establish, maintain, improve, and expand the canopy; • Requires a Boundary Tree Agreement for land disturbance that impacts more than 20 percent of a critical root zone of a boundary tree straddling two properties; and • Requires that trees retained or planted to meet tree canopy requirements be maintained in perpetuity through tree maintenance agreements and bonds. The City acknowledges that education is a key component to the success of its code. The city’s website includes an informative collection of educational materials.23 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 100/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research / 13 TOPTOP Case Study: City of Olympia, WashingtonOlympia, the state capital of Washington, is located 60 miles southwest of Seattle in Thurston County, with a population of nearly 56,000—slightly larger than the City of Bothell in King County. Encompassing 20 square miles, Olympia was assessed in 2022 to have an overall tree canopy cover of 42 percent, with the greatest canopy cover percentage located in low-density residential areas. According to Olympia’s Urban Forest Program Manager, the City plans to provide greater policy support for its tree code by establishing data-driven tree canopy cover goals through Comprehensive Plan updates and Urban Forest Management Plan development. Olympia’s tree code, Municipal Code Chapter 16.60, was initially adopted in 2016 and underwent minor updates in 2021. Separate code sections address required landscaping related to zoning/buffers, clearing and grading, and landmark trees. While not seeing all requirements under one code section may be frustrating to some, the overall length and complexity of Olympia’s tree code is minimized with references to the City’s Urban Forest Manual (Manual), which outlines permitting standards and procedural requirements.24 Because issues with code length and clarity emerged during the research phase of this project, the team sought examples of strategies that resulted in succinct, understandable code language. While Olympia’s tree code was found to be as comprehensive as Kirkland’s Level IV of regulations, Olympia’s approachable code language and unique code elements were found to be a model for this project. UNIQUE ELEMENTS OF THE OLYMPIA, WA TREE CODE • Overall code language is clear, user-friendly, and aligns with industry standards without overuse of jargon. • The Urban Forest Manual is written for a broad audience in narrative format; it explains requirements, provides checklists, includes tables and diagrams, and gives examples of code use. • Checklists in the Manual outline what information needs to be submitted with tree removal permit applications and provide instructions for how to measure a tree, calculate tree density, etc. • Depending on the jurisdiction’s code amendment schedules, updates to the industry standards, tree lists, procedural checklists, etc. in the Manual may occur more frequently than would normally be feasible through a legislative process.25 • Tree retention requirements include soil preservation. For example, single-family development requires that a Soil and Vegetation Protection Plan show soil remediation and understory vegetation replanting, in addition to meeting a minimum of 30 tree units per acre with existing and/or replacement trees. • The code includes a tree removal mechanism for larger, heavily wooded undeveloped properties to allow up to 30 percent removal by volume every ten years, much like traditional forest stand management. Based on the community engagement related to other projects, the Urban Forest Program Manager believes the community is generally accepting of trees being regulated and that trees are of value to Olympians, possibly an outcome of the community’s tree code being so approachable. Photo credit: Peter Robbins Item 2.2 Packet pg. 101/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 3. Nationwide Tree Regulation Research / 14 TOPTOP TABLE 1. Ìëìæäêò Ûèêìòñ Ýõèè Òñì÷ìä÷ìùè ¡ Ýõèè Ìòçè Ùõèöèõùä÷ìòñ Ïõäðèúòõî Øõçìñäñæè Õèùèï Code Elements Bronze • Regulates public trees. • Statement of purpose • Definitions • Tree care and protection • Legacy tree protections • Tree removal and replacement • Tree preservation and/or removal plan • Permit procedures! • Enforcement and compliance • Nuisance trees • Invasive species control • Sets goals to help move toward a silver-level ordinance Silver • Builds upon elements of the bronze-level ordinance • Requires a community forest management plan Gold • Builds upon elements of the silver-level ordinance • Preserves and protects trees in the community by regulating both public and private trees PROJECT SPOTLIGHT Chicago Region Trees Initiative The Chicago Region Trees Initiative, or CRTI, is an Illinois-based partnership dedicated to developing and implementing strategies for a healthy, diverse, and equitable urban forest. CRTI provides resources on grant funding related to urban forestry and environmental initiatives, ordinance development, carbon credits, invasive species, and hiring a qualified arborist. CRTI also maintains interactive maps and data sets of the Chicago region that include layers like tree canopy cover, surface temperatures, flood risk, air quality, and vulnerable populations.26 Notably, CRTI guides jurisdictions seeking to implement tree preservation ordinances through their ordinance builder program. Spearheaded by Lydia Scott, Zach Wirtz, et al., over ten years ago, the program today features examples of tree preservation ordinance templates categorized as bronze, silver, and gold frameworks, for jurisdictions to utilize and model tree ordinances after (See Table 1).27 To incentivize jurisdictions to adopt and maintain a tree preservation ordinance, the program requires a minimum bronze-status tree preservation ordinance to receive funding through the Urban and Community Forest Grant. The bronze and silver ordinance templates only address public trees; however, the gold template includes protections for both public trees and trees on private property. Photo credit: Sawyer Begston Item 2.2 Packet pg. 102/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 15 TOP 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements 4.1: Element 1. Purpose and Intent .............................................................17 4.2: Element 2. Regulated Tree Definitions ..................................................17 4.3: Element 3. Tree Retention and Replacement ........................................22 4.4: Element 4. Property Owner Tree Removals Without Development ....32 4.5: Element 5. Permitting Requirements ....................................................34 4.6: Additional Considerations .....................................................................35 Photo credit: Angelica Sabina Item 2.2 Packet pg. 103/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 16 TOP Across King County, certain code elements became evident within a regulatory framework as the codes were compiled and analyzed. The following section outlines elements of tree ordinances that the project team found to be integral components of a model tree ordinance and that highlight best practices. There are varying levels of complexity found in tree regulations across King County jurisdictions, as well as nationwide. As noted in the previous section, some jurisdictions may want to incorporate fewer tree ordinance elements than listed below, while others may prefer more robust tree regulations that contain some variation of all elements. The appropriate level of regulation is often related to a city’s size, environmental policies, departmental makeup, funding, and in-house staff expertise. Further, the distribution of tree regulation elements may be in a variety of code locations, including zoning and development, land use, clearing and grading, or required landscaping codes. In other cases, tree regulation elements can be found under a standalone ordinance. The Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) provides guidance on ordinance drafting and adoption for Washington cities and counties.28 The description of each tree code element below includes its purpose, jurisdictional trends found during the research phase of the project, and recommended approaches or strategies: TABLE 2. Tree Regulation Elements Element Description 1. Purpose and Intent • Function of clearly stated purpose. 2. Regulated Tree Dinfinitions • Significant • Landmark • Heritage 3. Tree Retention and Replacement • Methods for Quantifying Tree Retention • Tree Retention Priorities • Tree Protection during Development • Replacement Tree Standards 4. Property Owner Removals Without Development • Removal thresholds • Replacement ratios 5. Permitting Requirements • Site plans • Arborist report 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 104/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 17 TOP 4.1: Element 1: Purpose and IntentKnowing the purpose behind an ordinance gives users the ability to understand and interpret it with more insight and accuracy. For that reason, ordinances should have a clearly stated purpose that justifies the need for the code or regulation and a clear statement of intent that describes what the code or regulation seeks to accomplish. Within the purpose and intent, code language can be included to reinforce jurisdictional values that would be achieved through the implementation of tree regulations. Values are often articulated in long-range policy goals, such as a commitment to maintaining canopy cover, support of climate action and urban forestry, and other goals, like sustainability. The intent of an ordinance is also an essential element of many judicial decisions, which may be important with appeals or legal challenges. A clearly stated intent and purpose behind the ordinance can also guide evaluating the efficacy of the code and identify needed code interpretation and future code updates. 4.2: Element 2: Regulated Tree DefinitionsThe use of these definitions and terminology varies across jurisdictions. Surveyed and interviewed municipalities touched on the importance of code clarity; and the nationwide study of tree ordinances showed that clear, concise code language is more unique than common. This section offers guidance for jurisdictions to consider when crafting or revising definitions related to regulated tree criteria. Significant TreesA significant tree refers to a tree’s minimum size threshold that is subject to a city’s tree regulations. The significant tree threshold is intended to promote a sustainable succession, or diverse range of tree ages within an urban forest, maximizing the many ecosystem-service benefits it provides to the community. Because it can take decades for a tree to reach maturity, and the rate of maturity varies by tree species and growing conditions, municipalities should establish a regulated size threshold that reflects established trees that are just beginning to contribute to the municipality’s tree canopy. Size thresholds are typically defined by the trunk diameter measured at breast height (DBH), also sometimes referred to as the diameter at standard height (DSH). Although King County municipalities have established significant tree diameter thresholds between 4 and 18 inches, the most typical significant tree size is 6 inches DBH. Setting lower-sized thresholds captures a greater number of existing trees in the urban landscape and would potentially capture more recently planted trees resulting from development requirements within the past 5 to 10 years. In turn, this will result in more regulated trees. Many King County jurisdictions include a description or criteria for tree condition in the “significant” tree size definition, achieving greater code simplicity. However, because all regulated trees may not be required to meet condition criteria (trees in critical areas, NGPAs, etc.), defining tree conditions separately from the minimum size threshold may help avoid code interpretation conflicts. Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 105/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 18 TOP MEASURING TREE DIAMETER The standard method for measuring trees is by trunk diameter, known by the acronym DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) or DSH (Diameter at Standard Height). Trees are measured 4.5 feet above the ground, on the uphill side of the tree. Due to the many tree form variations (for example., multiple trunks, trunks that fork below 4.5 feet, trunk swelling, etc.), see standards outlining proper measuring techniques in the Guide for Plant Appraisal and ANSI A300 for Tree Care, 2023, Planting and Transplanting Standards. Caliper also refers to the trunk diameter taken at a standard height, typically used in specifying nursery stock with smaller trunks, measured above grade 4 to 12 inches, depending on the trunk diameter. TREE HEALTH AND VIABILITY Not all trees are candidates for successful retention, which is why accurately assessing a tree’s health and viability is an important factor in developing tree retention plans. “Viable” for retention may be defined as a tree’s current condition while “viability” may refer to long-term prognosis after sustaining impacts from construction. Either way, specifying that a significant tree must be healthy or viable in a clear definition is one way to ensure successful tree retention. Retained trees initially in poor condition, generally do not survive more than a few years following impacts from construction. The City of Kirkland defines a “viable” tree in the present and potential context: it must fit tree condition ratings based on industry standards (KZC 95.30). Photo credit: Freepik.com Photo credit: Freepik.com Photo credit: Jamie Taylor Item 2.2 Packet pg. 106/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 19 TOP Nuisance TreesA nuisance tree is a tree that meets certain criteria and cannot be corrected by reasonable practices such as pruning, bracing, or cabling. Criteria for nuisance trees vary by jurisdiction and typically include: • Is causing obvious physical damage to private or public structures, including sidewalks, curbs, roads, driveways, parking lots, building foundations, or roofs; or • Has sustained damage from past maintenance practices or naturally occurring events such as wind, ice, or snow-loading. Hazard TreesA hazard tree (or tree part) is assessed by a qualified professional and is typically defined by a certain overall risk rating using the ISA Tree Risk Assessment method in its most current form.29 Many jurisdictions determine that “extreme” or “high” is an appropriate risk rating threshold to differentiate hazard trees from those that may be remediated by practices such as pruning or monitoring, versus removal. Hazard trees are often exempt from tree removal permitting requirements; however, many jurisdictions require some form of documentation prepared by a Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborist before removal activities. Often, tree removal in critical areas is limited to hazardous trees only. Under a development scenario, hazard trees should be removed and should not count toward the lot’s retention requirements. Element 2: Regulated Tree Definitions continued... Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 107/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 20 TOP Landmark or Exceptional TreesLandmark trees - sometimes used interchangeably with exceptional trees - are larger, healthy mature specimens considered worthy of long-term retention. The removal of landmark trees results in an immediate loss of wildlife habitat and quantifiable benefits such as heat, stormwater, and air quality mitigation. Preservation of landmark trees is important to maintain multi-aged, resilient urban forests. Most of the jurisdictions in King County define Landmark or Exceptional trees using 24-inch DBH size criteria, although as low as 18 inches was found (Tukwila), to as large as 50 inches DBH (Medina). Options for defining landmark trees include establishing a diameter threshold, providing a table organized by species, or a combination of both. For example, the City of Burien regulates any tree 30 inches or greater as an exceptional tree but also has an Exceptional Tree Table with smaller threshold sizes for common tree species of the Pacific Northwest whose maximum size at maturity is smaller or are slow-growing, such as Arbutus menziesii (Pacific madrone) and Quercus garryana (Garry oak).30 The Cities of Lake Forest Park 31 also provides diameter thresholds for landmark/exceptional trees by species. Jurisdictions can tailor landmark size and species requirements to be specific to local landscape and tree characteristics. Table 3 provides an example list adapted from the City of Burien. When developing a landmark tree list, it is important to consider the following: • Consider the local native forest composition. In areas that were logged more recently than the turn of the 19th century, there may be no old-growth trees, so establishing a 55-inch landmark tree provision may not be effective in protecting the largest trees in the jurisdiction, if the predominant size of mature trees is under 24-inches DBH. • Account for the size of a species at maturity to protect high-value trees that do not typically reach 24-inch DBH or greater (for example, Arbutus menziesii). Element 2: Regulated Tree Definitions continued... Photo credit: Kim Frappier Item 2.2 Packet pg. 108/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 21 TOP • Exclude tree species on the King County Noxious Weed List or are noted as a weed of concern.32 • Exclude fast-growing ‘early successional’ species, such as red alder (Alnus rubra), which are short-lived and have weedy characteristics. • Exclude trees known to have significant infrastructure conflicts and are not suitable for long-term retention on a densely developed urban lot, such as black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). In some jurisdictions, the removal of landmark trees is only allowed under limited circumstances and generally requires a demonstration of need. This is the case in the cities of Seattle, Kirkland, Issaquah, Renton, and Burien. Higher levels of protection for landmark trees could include establishing landmark trees as a high retention priority prohibiting removal with certain exceptions, and/or offering incentives for retention of landmark trees (See Additional Considerations, page 35). Exceptions that grant the removal of landmark trees could include the following scenarios: • The tree is determined by a qualified tree professional to meet the criteria of a hazard tree or nuisance tree; • The tree is unhealthy before development, as determined by a qualified professional; • Retention of the tree will prohibit reasonable development. If approved for removal, conifer species such as Douglas fir, western redcedar, and western hemlock should be replaced in-kind and on-site, if feasible. Further, an increased replacement requirement to offset the ecological loss should be required, such as a 3:1 or 2:1 replacement ratio. Currently, there are five King County jurisdictions requiring increased replacement ratios for landmark tree removals. Heritage TreesThe purpose of heritage tree code provisions is to recognize and protect trees with unique or historical attributes of significance to the community, such as size, relation to a historical event, special site location, and unusual or exemplary species. Heritage trees may include grove trees and can be on public or private property. TABLE 3. Example Landmark/Exceptional tree table with threshold diameters by species* Common Name Üæìèñ÷ìĤæ ×äðè DBH Grand fir Abies grandis 24 inches Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 24 inchesPacific madrone Arbutus menziesii 8 inches Port Orford cedar Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 24 inches Cascara Frangula purshiana 8 inchesSitka spruce Picea sitchensis 24 inches Lodgepole or shore pine Pinus contorta 12 inches Western white pine Pinus monticola 24 inchesDouglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 inches Pacific yew Taxus brevifolia 8 inches Garry oak Quercus garryana 12 inchesWestern redcedar Thuja plicata 24 inches Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 24 inches Tree not listed in this table Not applicable 24 inches or greater *Adapted from City of Burien Exceptional Tree List. Element 2: Regulated Tree Definitions continued...Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 109/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 22 TOP Most jurisdictions’ heritage trees are nominated by a Tree Board, city staff, or, as with Seattle, a non-profit partnering organization. Trees must be nominated with written consent from the property owner. Once approved, heritage trees are typically listed in a Heritage Tree registry. Similar to the nomination process, removal of a heritage tree must also go through an approval hearing, although most codes do not explicitly include removal processes for heritage trees. Ten King County jurisdictions and King County define heritage tree criteria within their municipal code and most require increased levels of protection compared to other significant trees. Of these, the cities of Covington, Issaquah, and Sammamish establish minimum trunk diameter thresholds for heritage trees within their code. Burien’s heritage tree criteria apply broadly to cultural, aesthetic, ethnic, archeological, historic, political, and economic significance. Sammamish offers incentives to permanently preserve heritage trees by awarding greater retention credits with development. Of the select nationwide jurisdictions, two include heritage trees directly within their tree ordinance, and two incorporate landmark tree regulations that are more along the lines of the heritage tree process seen on a local level in King County. 4.3: Element 3: Tree Retention and Replacement The need to provide retention and replacement regulations for trees on private property is two-fold: 1) The majority of the urban forest is located on private property and 2) Private properties are experiencing the highest rates of development, driven in part by the regional need for additional housing. To preserve existing canopy cover and allow for development, tree codes should include retention thresholds, protections for existing trees, and replacement standards. It is also important that tree retention and replacement be measured and tracked over time. Quantifying on-site trees alone is not enough to ensure trees providing high ecological value are preserved or that retained trees survive long-term after construction is completed. Therefore, the quantification of trees should be paired with retention priorities and tree protection standards during development. Important components of Tree Retention and Replacement include: • Methods for Quantifying Tree Retention • Tree Retention Priorities • Tree Protection during Development • Replacement Tree Standards Methods for Quantifying Tree RetentionTo determine the level of tree retention and replacement requirements, different methodologies are utilized on a local level throughout the County and vary nationwide. Commonly used methods for quantifying tree retention and replacement include: • Canopy cover • Count or percent of total trees • Tree density credit Within these methodologies, there is variation in application and implementation based on other development and landscaping codes, community priorities, and programmatic and staffing resources. Each method has cost implications to both the jurisdiction and the applicant, which vary based on the level of in-house permit project review and/or urban forestry expertise of the staff. Having qualified professionals involved in tree retention efforts is critical, much like having wetland specialists involved in administering critical areas ordinances is necessary. The following discussion describes the commonly used methods and some of the advantages and disadvantages of each. With all methods, development triggers the need for a site to be brought into compliance with tree retention requirements. The development threshold should be specified by the municipality. If a lot doesn’t contain enough existing trees to meet tree retention requirements before development activities, then supplemental tree plantings should be required. Element 2: Regulated Tree Definitions continued... Item 2.2 Packet pg. 110/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 23 TOP THE CANOPY COVER One methodology used to set minimum tree retention and replacement standards is the “canopy-based approach.” Using this approach, tree canopy is determined by measuring the canopy cover provided by existing trees to be retained on the site and the anticipated canopy rating of replacement trees at a 20-year or 30-year mark. Canopy cover goals, or requirements, can be established by lot size and/or by land use zone and development type (for example, single-family, multi-family, commercial, and industrial) and are typically stated as a percent area that ranges anywhere from 28 percent on smaller lots in Lake Forest Park to 68 percent for lots in the Tibbets Creek Valley subarea in Issaquah. Jurisdictions using this approach utilize various tools for calculating a lot’s canopy cover, such as city GIS data or applications like iTree.33 It is important to note that while canopy cover is calculated using the gross lot area, it does not include canopies from off-site trees, trees in public rights-of-way, or invasive species unless otherwise specified. Jurisdictional TrendsThe canopy-based approach is currently used by a limited number of King County jurisdictions, including Issaquah, Lake Forest Park, and Maple Valley. These cities allow canopy cover requirements to be met through a combination of canopy cover provided by existing trees and the projected canopy cover of replacement trees. The City of Lake Forest Park provides a replacement tree species list that includes the projected canopy area of various tree species at 30 years of maturity. Nationally, the City of Decatur has been using a canopy-based approach since at least 2014. Under Decatur’s tree ordinance, trees are assigned to a canopy size category—very small, small, medium, and large—based on the square footage and crown diameter of the tree’s canopy upon maturity. Canopy cover requirements can only be met through the retention of existing trees on-site. In the event a site does not contain the minimum required tree canopy prior to development activities, supplemental plantings must be used to meet the lot’s required canopy percentage. New trees receive a partial credit at the time of planting based on the “canopy cover potential” for the species at maturity. TABLE 4. Êçùäñ÷äêèö äñç Íìöäçùäñ÷äêèö ÷ò ĐÝëè Ìäñòóü Ìòùèõđ Êóóõòäæë Advantages Disadvantages Canopy can be assessed in a desktop exercise using aerial imagery or field assessment Uncertainty in aerial imagery of projected canopy cover Reliance on GIS toolsCanopy cover potential for replacement trees is a future projection based on tree size or species that may or may not be the reality based on environmental and site factors It can be cost-effective for heavily treed sites Subjectivity of canopies from off-site sources (such as trees located near property lines and public rights-of-way) and invasive tree species Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 111/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 24 TOP Gross site area = 12,500 SFZoning = Single-family residential Required Canopy Cover Percentage = 39% Quantifying On-Site Tree Canopy using the Canopy Cover Method SCENARIO IN LAKE FOREST PARK: The landowner of a 12,500 square foot (SF) undeveloped lot in a single-family residential zone would like to build a new home. The required canopy cover for a lot undergoing development that is between 10,000 – 15,000 SF in a single-family residential zone is 39%. Therefore, for the 12,500 SF lot, the canopy cover required is 4,875 SF. Steps to calculate required tree retention and replacement: 1. To calculate existing canopy, measure canopy radius (r) for each tree to be retained and calculate existing canopy area using πr2. 2. Divide the sum of the tree canopy areas by the gross site area to get the percent of existing canopy coverage: (1963+707+452+79+79+79) / 12,500 SF) = .27 or 27%. RESULTS: • The site currently has 27% canopy cover or 3,375 square feet of existing tree canopy cover. • Therefore, the site needs an additional 12 percent of canopy cover to meet the required minimum. "%đ !"đ !%đ%đ %đ %đ 0’ 5’ 10’ 25’ Item 2.2 Packet pg. 112/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 25 TOP Using Projected Tree Canopy to Meet Canopy Cover Requirements SCENARIO IN LAKE FOREST PARK: • The Lake Forest Park site needs an additional 12% or 1,500 square feet of canopy to meet the required canopy cover of 39% for lots between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. • Using the Tree List provided by the City, the applicant must select tree species that together will provide 1,500 SF of canopy area. As an example, this could be achieved by planting one (1) black hawthorn, three (3) flowering crabapples, and one (1) Incense cedar, for a total of 1,552 SF of additional canopy cover. The required canopy cover is achieved through both tree retention and replacement totaling 4,927 SF or 39% canopy cover. Üóèæìèö Quantity Canopy area (at 30 years maturity) Black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii)1 314 SF Flowering crabapple (Malus spp.)3 177 SF Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens)1 707 SF Quantifying On-Site Tree Canopy using the Canopy Cover Method continued... Photo credit: Tomoko Uji Item 2.2 Packet pg. 113/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 26 TOP COUNT OR PERCENT OF TOTAL TREES Some jurisdictions set retention requirements using a count or percentage of total significant trees on a site. These methods alone are generally less effective at retaining existing tree canopies because they do not account for individual tree sizes, such as diameter or canopy radius unless other retention requirements are specified elsewhere in the code. For example, a six-inch maple is given the same weight and “value” as a 24-inch Douglas fir tree. Jurisdictional TrendsThe municipalities of Black Diamond, Carnation, Redmond, Sammamish, Mercer Island, Renton, and Shoreline are examples in which retention is calculated by the total number or percentage of individual significant trees in the developable area of a site. Tree retention in King County UUAs is regulated using the percentage of total trees or number of trees per acre and further divided by separate interior and perimeter requirements. TABLE 5. Advantages and Disadvantages to ‘Count or Percent òé Ýò÷äï Ýõèèöđ Êóóõòäæë Advantages Disadvantages Simplicity of calculation Does not account for individual trees of different sizes. Does not provide greater protections or value to larger-diameter trees TREE DENSITY CREDIT METHOD A commonly used approach is the “tree density credit” method, which regulates tree retention based on the diameter of individual trees and assigns more credit when larger trees are retained. Tree density consists of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination of both. Tree Density Credit models are similar to a timber stocking level that quantifies density based on the trunk diameter (DBH) of existing trees. This is considered a general indicator of tree size and canopy cover over time. Parcels within the city or specific land use zones will then have specific minimum tree density credits that must be met. During the permit review, the existing tree credits are calculated based on trees proposed for retention versus those proposed for removal. Tree density credit methods are commonly used due to the ease of data collection regardless of expertise. In addition, tree diameter by species can be used as a correlation for canopy, age, and ultimate size when assessing retention values for specific species. A challenge of using a tree credit system is that without clear instructions or a “user guide,” code language can be difficult to interpret and understand for the layperson, whether that individual is a member of city staff or an applicant. Instructions for implementing this method and how it applies to permit review should be provided to planning staff and published on the city website. Jurisdictional TrendsNine King County jurisdictions use some variation of this method, including Burien, Kirkland, Kenmore, Kent, Medina, North Bend, Renton, Woodinville, and Yarrow Point. Of the jurisdictions researched outside of King County, Amelia Island, and Olympia utilize a tree credit method. A less frequently used method for quantifying tree retention is the percent of total diameter inches. This method allows the permit applicant to measure the diameter of each tree and then retain a percentage of the sum of all diameter inches. The City of Bothell regulates tree retention using a percent of the total diameter inches on a site. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 114/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 27 TOP Ýõèè ÍËÑ &¡! Ĕ Õäõêèõ ÷ëäñ ! Ĕ äñç øó ÷ò !$Ĕ Õäõêèõ ÷ëäñ !$Ĕ äñç øó ÷ò !(Ĕ Õäõêèõ ÷ëäñ !(Ĕ äñç øó ÷ò ""Ĕ Õäõêèõ ÷ëäñ ""Ĕ äñç øó ÷ò "&Ĕ Õäõêèõ ÷ëäñ "&Ĕ äñç øó ÷ò # Ĕ Õäõêèõ ÷ëäñ # Ĕ or greater and all exceptional trees Ìõèçì÷ Ùèõ Ýõèè 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 Burien (BMC 19.26) requires a minimum tree density credit to be maintained on each lot regardless of development status. The construction of new structures or additions greater than 500 square feet triggers the requirement for the lot to be brought into compliance with the required minimum tree credits. For single-family and multi-family developments, one tree credit per 1,000 square feet of developable area is required, while 0.15 tree credits per 1,000 square feet are required for commercial, industrial, or non-residential lots. The code also includes a provision that requires tree credits to first be met through the retention of existing trees and secondly using replacement trees. TABLE 6. Advantages and Disadvantages of the ĐÍèñöì÷ü Ìõèçì÷đ Êóóõòäæë Advantages Disadvantages Does not require access to up-to-date aerial imagery Code language can be difficult to interpret for staff and applicantsTrunk size is easily quantifiable DBH measurement is correlated to canopy, age, and size Requires additional guidance and educational materialsMany jurisdictions have tree credit systems in place Quantifying On-Site Trees using the Tree Density Credit Method SCENARIO IN BURIEN: The landowner of a 6,600 square foot (SF) lot is proposing to construct a new single-family residence. The required minimum tree credits for single-family development is one (1) credit per 1,000 square feet of developable area. Steps to calculate required tree retention and replacement: 1. Calculate developable (or buildable) area, as defined by the jurisdiction. In Burien, this means taking the gross lot size and subtracting the square footage of on-site critical areas and associated buffers, public streets and trails, shared driveways, and private PUD streets. The developable area of the sample lot is 6,600 SF. 2. Calculate minimum tree credits. This is done by taking the developable area and dividing it by 1,000: (6,600 SF / 1,000 SF = 6.6 credits, rounded up to 7. 3. Calculate existing tree credits using the tree credit table (BMC 19.26, Table 19.26.050-2 Tree Credits). EXISTING TREE CREDITS Tree Density Credit Method continued... Item 2.2 Packet pg. 115/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 28 TOP RESULTS: • The site has six (6) existing tree credits from the three trees on-site and is required to retain these trees to meet the minimum credits. • Therefore, one (1) supplemental tree is required to meet the minimum seven (7) tree credits. • The applicant can plant one 2” caliper deciduous tree worth one (1) tree credit or one 6-foot-tall evergreen tree worth two (2) tree credits, which would exceed the minimum required credits. Quantifying On-Site Trees using the Tree Density Credit Method !&Ĕ # æõèçì÷ö&Ĕ ! æõèçì÷ !"Ĕ " æõèçì÷ö Item 2.2 Packet pg. 116/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 29 TOP Tree Retention PrioritiesIn addition to quantitative and qualitative tree retention requirements, priorities should also be established to ensure that mature, ecologically significant trees are retained, and the loss of mature canopy is prevented whenever possible. Although it is important to retain significant trees wherever feasible on-site for long-term health and viability, codes that include specific retention priorities provide an opportunity to protect those tree(s) that contribute a diverse canopy assemblage and ecosystem service benefits. Both larger-diameter trees and grove trees provide more ecological benefits to the urban forest than a single, smaller-sized tree. Eighteen King County jurisdictions set retention priorities for existing significant trees. Of the jurisdictions reviewed nationwide, retention priorities are included less frequently but are outlined in Olympia’s tree code. High retention priorities often include the following: • Grove trees • Large diameter or special designation trees (for example, Landmark, Exceptional, and Heritage) • Native conifer species • Location (for example, yard setbacks or perimeters landscaping, and critical areas) Establishing retention priorities requires providing clear definitions for landmark trees, grove trees, and native conifer species within the tree protection ordinance. Tree Protection During DevelopmentRetained trees must be adequately protected from construction impacts to ensure long-term survival. Impacts can include root loss, damage to branches, roots, and trunks, soil contamination, or compaction, which reduces oxygen and water availability. Evidence of any injury is often not visible for several years; affected trees may gradually decline and eventually fail as a result of impacts. 34 Because root growth is often asymmetric and varies by site conditions, code requirements for prescriptive root protection may be insufficient in providing adequate tree protection on restricted space development sites. Traditionally, the methods for determining the extent of tree protection included the critical root zone (CRZ) formula, dripline, on-site root excavations, etc., determined by a qualified professional 35. Recently, the standards and best practices for establishing tree protection boundaries have been revised, rendering the familiar CRZ and limits of disturbance (LOD) terms obsolete, although many cities have codified these terms and methods. Ultimately, the jurisdiction will need to ensure the proposed tree protection zone (TPZ) is adequate during permit review. Ideally, best management practices would follow American National Standards (ANSI) for the management of trees and shrubs during development. 36 This could include the requirement for alternative construction methods to be employed, such as cantilevering over TPZs, air spading to detect the presence of large structural roots, and tunneling below structural roots, to prevent damage to significant trees being retained. Tree protection measures should include tree protection fencing and signage around the TPZ, as well as the prohibition of certain activities within the CRZ of the tree, such as materials storage, clearing and grading, and construction access. Replacement Tree Quantities and StandardsIn the interest of establishing future tree canopy and mitigating the loss of removed trees, tree replacement should be required. Almost all jurisdictions within King County that have tree regulations in place require some sort of tree replacement standards. This is also the case for nationwide cities. The approach to tree replacement standards is driven by tree retention requirements and is generally triggered when a site under development does not meet the minimum required tree credits, percent canopy cover, or other tree retention standards. Some jurisdictions require a standard 1:1 ratio, meaning one supplemental tree is required to be planted on-site Item 2.2 Packet pg. 117/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 30 TOP for every tree removed. Two nationwide cities, Rocklin (California) and Decatur (Georgia) collect mitigation and canopy loss fees for healthy significant trees removed beyond the minimum retention requirements. This practice discourages applicants from simply meeting minimum requirements and removing other healthy trees that provide valuable canopy cover. Ideally, tree retention and replacement standards would be structured based on the size (DBH) and species of the trees removed rather than simply a 1:1 ratio. As mentioned previously, the removal of a landmark tree should be required to have additional replacement ratios and species requirements. For example, a 24-inch diameter western redcedar that is removed would ideally not be replaced on a one-to-one ratio with a deciduous dwarf ornamental cherry. At maturity, the cherry would not replace the ecological values provided by the conifer. Jurisdictions such as Issaquah and Kirkland require a 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratio for landmark tree removal. To ensure that the trees being removed, and long-term canopy benefits are adequately replaced, several important factors should be incorporated into tree replacement standards, including size, species, and location. These factors are discussed in detail below. REPLACEMENT TREE SPECIES Growing healthy full-sized canopy trees in the built environment requires careful consideration of optimal growing conditions by species, proper planting practices, and protection of infrastructure (for example, buildings, utilities, driveways, sidewalks, and fences). Whenever feasible, the retention of native conifer species, such as Douglas fir, western redcedar, and western hemlock should be prioritized, and their removal should ideally be replaced in-kind. Although deciduous trees, small ornamental trees, and fruit trees do provide some valuable canopy cover, they do not offer the same level of year-round ecosystem service benefits that conifers provide in Western Washington. Additionally, species selection and recommendations should be informed by current trends in the region’s changing climate. The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group predicts that Western Washington will likely see increasingly drier conditions and higher temperatures during the summer months, with potential increases in precipitation during the winter months. 37 This increases stressors on urban trees such as drought, insect, and tree disease outbreaks. APPROVED TREES The more guidance a jurisdiction can provide to applicants, the easier the implementation and review process will be. A thorough tree protection ordinance will refer to approved and prohibited tree lists and have supplemental materials available online. Several King County jurisdictions have approved tree lists. Examples of these are included in Appendix G. Providing a list of replacement tree species can help alleviate confusion and ensure trees are planted utilizing the ‘right tree, right place’ approach. For those jurisdictions with a Landmark tree element in their regulations, a separate landmark tree mitigation list is ideal to ensure the loss of mature native conifer tree canopy is adequately compensated. See Appendix G to see an example of this from the City of Kirkland. PROHIBITED TREES Additionally, providing a prohibited tree list that includes trees known to be weedy or invasive such as the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and English holly (Ilex aquifolium), or trees that may be undesirable in urban settings, such as red alder and black cottonwood, would provide further guidance. While useful, tree lists are subject to change and will need to be routinely reviewed and updated to ensure they are using the best available science, climate adaptation recommendations, and updated noxious weed classifications. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 118/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 31 TOP Replacement standards should further include provisions prohibiting trees planted to form a hedge and Thuja/Arborvitae species (or other slow-growing conifers) from counting toward replacement or tree density standards. Not explicitly prohibiting hedges from counting toward these standards has led to an excess of Thuja/Arborvitae hedges being planted as replacement trees in several jurisdictions. These species do not provide habitat functions or significant ecosystem benefits equivalent to mature native trees. REPLACEMENT TREE SIZE Most jurisdictions include minimum size standards for replacement trees, including Kirkland, Issaquah, Sammamish, Enumclaw, Redmond, and Burien. Nationwide, most jurisdictions reviewed also included minimum size requirements for replacement trees. The common minimum replacement size for deciduous trees is a 1 to 2-inch caliper and 6 to 8 feet in height for conifer trees. Replacement size specifications are typically based on the latest standards outlined in the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60. 1-2014). 38 A tree protection ordinance should specify minimum size requirements to be met to count as a replacement tree and/or toward tree credits or canopy requirements. LOCATION Ideally, replacement trees are planted on-site to maintain tree canopy within that land use area. To ensure that the intent of replacement trees is met, best practices would include establishing a priority list of on-site replanting locations. Priorities for on-site tree planting typically include: • Perimeter areas, setbacks, or transition zones; • Areas adjacent to existing tree groves; and • Areas adjacent to or within critical area buffers. In the event on-site planting is not feasible, some jurisdictions include an option for off-site planting locations. However, replacement standards include little to no information about applicability and site selection rationale and there are many hurdles when it comes to implementation of this practice. These include but are not limited to 1) the time and cost associated with tracking replacement tree plantings in off-site locations and 2) the challenges of maintenance and monitoring of the new plantings. FEE-IN-LIEU An alternative to on-site and off-site planting is fee-in-lieu, usually exercised when the first two options have been exhausted. Fee-in- lieu would ideally only be offered in scenarios where replacement trees cannot be planted on-site due to inadequate spacing, existing conditions, or other extenuating circumstances. The option should be prefaced with a statement that specifies the priority for on- site replacement trees to prevent applicants from excessively and unnecessarily “buying” tree credits rather than replanting. Typically, funds collected go toward a city tree account generated for planting trees at designated sites within the city or toward other urban forestry-related expenses. Jurisdictional TrendsNineteen King County jurisdictions offer a fee-in-lieu option for replacement trees, including Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Redmond, Renton, Des Moines, Kirkland, Seattle, Tukwila, and Woodinville to name a few. Most of the jurisdictions researched nationally offer a fee-in-lieu option. Fixed fee prices factor in the cost per tree (using a tree appraisal system), market rate installation costs, maintenance, and fund administration. Ultimately, the jurisdiction will need to set a price per tree credit and allocate what the collected funds will go toward. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 119/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 32 TOP 4.4: Element 4: Property Owner Tree Removals Without Development Regulating tree removal activity where no development activity is proposed presents several distinct issues. One challenge is balancing the rights of individual property owners with the community benefits that trees provide. Banning tree removal outright would constitute taking or denying the right to reasonable use of one’s property. The ability of a jurisdiction to administer and enforce limitations to property owner tree removal will largely depend on the funding and staff resources of that jurisdiction and the community’s commitment to protecting tree canopy cover on private property. Public education on code and permitting requirements is crucial to ensure that residents understand their responsibilities and rights when it comes to tree removal on private property. Jurisdictional TrendsOf the jurisdictions that regulate trees on private property, the requirement for a tree removal permit varies, both locally and nationwide. Non-development scenarios that are typically exempt from permit requirements include annual removal allowances, standalone tree removal, emergency/hazard tree removal, and nuisance tree removal. Few jurisdictions have definitions and processes established in their code for nuisance tree removals. Clear definitions of what constitutes a hazard tree and a nuisance tree should be established, as well as appropriate levels of documentation. Most jurisdictions allow for some significant tree removal when the proposed removal is not associated with development activity. Sixteen jurisdictions have tree removal allowances in their codes, where a predetermined number of trees can be removed without a permit in a given timeframe. For example, the City of Burien allows one tree to be removed per calendar year, while the City of Covington allows up to three trees to be removed on lots less than 7,200 square feet, up to a maximum of six trees for larger lot sizes within 36 months. Note that exempt tree removal allowances vary greatly and may depend on several factors, such as the number of trees allowed to be removed per lot size and frequency of removal requests. The majority of King County municipalities surveyed reported that they process approximately 25 non-development tree removal requests annually, however, each removal incident could equate to multiple trees, depending on the allowance rate. Regardless of the permit or notification process, the advantages of establishing tree removal limitations are: • Municipalities can track tree removal activity, where otherwise periodic tree canopy analysis would be the only manner to monitor canopy gains or loss. • Even if property owners can eventually remove every tree on the lot under an allowance process, limited tree removals effectively slow the loss of canopy cover over time. • Replacement requirements ensure removals are mitigated, especially if removal thresholds are exceeded. • Promote forest conservation practices on larger, significantly wooded lots with forest stewardship plan options for forest thinning and replanting, like traditional stand management. Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 120/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 33 TOP 1. Permit Application 2. Arborist Report 3. Site Plan »Location of all proposed improvements and existing improvements within the project area. »Location of proposed utilities. »Surveyed location of existing regulated trees on-site, with labels corresponding to the inventory provided in the Arborist Report. »Approximate trunk location of off-site trees with CRZs extending onto the subject property. »CRZ of existing trees on-site. 4. Tree Retention or Tree Protection Plan »Inventory of existing regulated trees on-site and any regulated trees on adjacent properties with CRZs extending onto the subject property. »DBH of existing trees. »CRZ drawn to scale for all existing regulated trees. »TPZ (location of tree protection fencing). »Proposed tree removals. »Location, size, and species of replacement tree plantings. »Mitigation measures or alternative methods proposed to protect existing trees. Common Permit Requirements Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 121/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 34 TOP 4.5: Element 5: Permitting RequirementsTree removals associated with development are generally reviewed by municipalities as part of the development permit application itself; however, some jurisdictions like Medina require a separate tree removal permit application in addition to a development permit. Permit requirements vary greatly across local jurisdictions. Explicitly identifying components to be included with each submittal will ensure consistency and assist with ease of review for staff. Site PlansSeventy-one percent of King County jurisdictions require site plans or tree protection and replacement plans with tree removal permit applications. With any plan submitted for review, significant trees should be identified according to surveyed locations, with canopies drawn to scale. Trees to be retained and removed should be marked, and any landmark or grove trees on-site should be identified consistent with definitions. Plans should also include the CRZ of all significant trees, which can be estimated by using the dripline but often extends beyond that. In addition to the CRZ, the LOD and TPZ should be shown and clearly distinguished from the CRZ given that they are often not the same. Tree protection measures such as fencing and signage locations, application of mulch or wood chips, a requirement for project arborist monitoring during construction, and/or other alternative methods should also be incorporated into site plans and tree retention plans. Arborist ReportRequiring an arborist report prepared by a qualified professional to accompany permit applications is a trend seen in jurisdictions with recently updated tree regulations. The report should include components such as a tree inventory, tree protection plan, and tree replacement plan, a timeline for implementing protection and/or replacement, and discuss any impacts to significant trees. Several QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL One example from Burien’s recent tree preservation code update (BMC 19.10.432) reads as follows: “Qualified Tree Professional”: A qualified tree professional is: An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) and one of the following credentials: I. ISA Certified Arborist;II. ISA Certified Arborist Municipal Specialist; III. ISA Board Certified Master Arborist; IV. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA); V. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for forest management plans. A qualified arborist must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. Any provision in this title referring to using an arborist or qualified arborist or tree professional or qualified professional shall be interpreted to require using a qualified tree professional. jurisdictions have added more detailed requirements for the arborists conducting tree inventories, evaluating tree health and risk, and developing tree protection plans. Example requirements can be found in the City of Mercer Island City Code MICC 19.16.010 or the City of Burien BMC 19.10.432. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 122/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 35 TOP 4.6: Additional ConsiderationsStaffing and Resource Considerations A jurisdiction’s staff capacity and resources to administer the tree regulations will impact code effectiveness and ultimately, whether the code achieves its intent and purpose. Depending on the code complexity and permitting requirements, review for development permits may include tree retention and protection plans, civil plans, landscape plans, and arborist reports. How municipal urban forestry programs are organized and how they staff their programs varies greatly.39 Ideally, the staff that is evaluating urban forestry-related permit applications should have some background in arboriculture or horticulture, understand the impacts of construction activities (excavation, trenching, etc.) on tree roots and tree health, and determine if tree protection and replacement trees are suitable to the proposed location. The ability to understand and interpret site plans is critical, especially as they pertain to the construction impacts on retained trees. However, not all municipalities have the funding for such a position and rely on land use planners to evaluate tree requirements. It is even more important for those without in-house arboriculture expertise to require a sound Arborist Report prepared by a qualified professional that provides accurate information and an overall assessment of the trees. This in turn will reduce the burden placed on Planning staff during reviews. Maintenance requirementsTwenty-five local jurisdictions include maintenance requirements for trees planted as part of the permit process. Of the jurisdictions reviewed in the nationwide research, most jurisdictions explicitly require maintenance of replacement tree plantings in the code ranging from one year to the lifetime of the project, while three cities require a performance bond or recorded covenant as a condition of permit issuance. Eleven King County jurisdictions require a security assurance or performance bond. While maintenance requirements can pose an enforcement and monitoring challenge, it is an important aspect that is often overlooked. Requiring replacement trees to be maintained for the lifetime of the project is ideal to encourage applicants to care for the trees and ensure that canopy cover and ecological value are being adequately replaced. Incentives Offering incentives to retain significant trees can encourage applicants to consider trees at the early stages of the design process and to retain large, mature trees or groves of trees. Incentives can include deviations from zoning requirements, such as parking regulations, setbacks, or height allowances, and could also include reduced or waived permit fees and expedited review times. Of the King County municipalities with tree regulations, 51 percent offer incentives or some form of ‘alternative design option’ to encourage the retention of significant trees. Five out of the seven national jurisdictions reviewed offered incentives. Incentives will be specific to the jurisdiction and will likely depend on requirements outlined in other code sections, as well as community input. For example, the City of Burien underwent a major code update in 2022, which included incentives to preserve exceptional trees. Examples include: • An increased building coverage by 20 percent; • Up to a 10-foot reduction of the front setback; • Additional 10 feet in height for uses other than single-family residential; and • Parking reductions. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 123/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 36 TOP However, the City noted during their interview that the incentives are not used by applicants. A further investigation across municipalities with incentives would help determine if incentives are an effective component of tree regulations and mature canopy preservation. An alternative to offering departures from development code provisions include: • Assigning additional credit to larger trees that are retained; • Reducing permitting fees; and • Expediting permit reviews. The City of Amelia Island (Florida) assigns tree preservation credits for trees to be retained based on diameter at breast height. For example, trees with a DBH between 24.1 and 38 inches receive a 125 percent preservation credit, which in turn is used to reduce overall tree replacement requirements. The City of Rocklin (California) offers expedited review times and deferred mitigation and capital facility fees for up to 12 months for projects saving a percentage of native oak trees. EnforcementEnforcement generally covers penalties for unpermitted tree removal activities and violations of tree regulations, as well as ensuring compliance with approved plans. Penalties often include civil fines and required mitigation planting. Sixty-seven percent of King County jurisdictions require some form of mitigation, while 49 percent have civil penalties for tree removal violations. While equity must play a factor in enforcement measures, the penalties for removing significant trees without a permit should be high enough to discourage the practice of knowingly removing trees and paying fines. Enforcement should be tracked and repeat offenders should have increased penalties. Maintenance and MonitoringTo ensure applicants are retaining and replanting trees according to approved site or landscape plans, pre- and post-construction monitoring is recommended. Tree maintenance and post-construction monitoring is an area that is often lacking in tree regulations and ultimately makes it difficult to measure the effectiveness of an ordinance. Costs to fund these activities are often a limiting factor. Some jurisdictions require pre-construction inspections to ensure tree protection measures are in place for retained trees and that trees have been removed and/or retained according to approved plans. Permit issuance can be contingent upon passing such an inspection. The City of Kirkland is an example of a jurisdiction that implements this practice. 4.6: Additional Considerations continued... Photo credit: David Wirzba Item 2.2 Packet pg. 124/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 4. Model Tree Regulation Elements / 37 TOP Equity and Economic BurdenAddressing equity concerns related to tree removal regulations is essential to ensure that all residents have equal access to the benefits and opportunities provided by urban and community forests. For example, it is important to consider that the cost of assessing and removing a hazardous tree disproportionately burdens residents with fixed or low incomes. While assessing equity in urban forest policies and regulations was not included in the scope of this project King County and the Urban Forestry Forum are exploring avenues to provide incentives and financial and technical assistance to help address this issue. To promote equity, municipalities may consider implementing the following strategies, recognizing that certain approaches may be more feasible for those with heavier resources. • Fee Waivers or Assistance Programs. Establish fee waivers or financial assistance programs to help lower-income residents cover the costs associated with hiring qualified professionals for tree assessments and removals. These programs can help alleviate the financial burden and support equitable access to tree management services. • Subsidized Services. Partner with local arborist companies or non-profit organizations to offer subsidized tree assessment, maintenance, hazard tree removal, and replacement services for residents in need. Subsidies can help reduce the overall cost of tree maintenance and make it more affordable for disadvantaged households. • Equity Assessments. Conduct equity assessments of tree removal regulations and associated policies to identify any disproportionate impacts on vulnerable or marginalized communities. Use the findings to inform policy adjustments and ensure that regulatory frameworks are fair and inclusive. • Community Engagement and Input. Engage directly with impacted communities to understand their unique needs and concerns related to tree management. Solicit feedback and input from residents when developing or revising tree removal regulations to ensure that policies reflect community priorities and values. By implementing these strategies, jurisdictions can work towards reducing the economic burden of tree regulations on lower-income households and promoting equity in urban forestry management. 4.6: Additional Considerations continued... Photo credit: Tomoko Uji Item 2.2 Packet pg. 125/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 5. Ordinance Update Process / 38 TOP 5. Ordinance Update Process Photo credit: Greg Rosenke Item 2.2 Packet pg. 126/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 5. Ordinance Update Process / 39 TOP Washington State gives jurisdictions the statutory authority to address complex urban problems of local concern through its municipal codes. 40 All tree codes in King County jurisdictions are found within a municipal code structure, which may be segregated further into critical areas, zoning/land use, landscaping, building/development, and clearing/grading sections. While it is not always feasible to have a consolidated tree ordinance, it is more convenient to follow (and comply with) for code users than cross-referencing multiple code sections. If possible, we recommend having dedicated tree protection regulations within the same chapter or section of the municipal code for ease of application and understanding. The code adoption or amendment process is typically defined within local municipal codes as a “Decision Type” or “Process” that may be shown under land use. Some jurisdictions, including Kirkland, have codified a streamlined roster process for minor code amendments (no substantive changes to the code), enabling the opportunity to regularly assess how the code functions, update the best available science and industry standards and achieve greater consistency with other policies and codes. Based on the information provided by survey and interview participants, the project team learned that the primary drivers behind code updates include public demand, direction from decision-makers, and challenges with administering the current code. In determining how best to adopt, amend, or write a tree ordinance, planning staff or consultants typically lead efforts in determining the scope and objectives of the code updates and facilitating public engagement. Because regulating trees on private property is a complex and often controversial topic, interviewed cities concur that developing a robust public engagement plan is essential. More and more jurisdictions have developed frameworks for equitable and inclusive public engagement that include some of the following strategies: Why:When:How:Who:What: Identify the scope and objectives of what will be achieved by the code updates. Draft a timeline with major milestones ÷ëä÷ ìñæïøçè õèôøìõèç óøåïìæ ëèäõìñêö planning commission/tree board work öèööìòñö óøåïìæ èñêäêèðèñ÷ èùèñ÷ö æì÷ü¦÷òúñ æòøñæìï ðèè÷ìñêö éòõ ìñì÷ìäï öæòóìñê óõòíèæ÷ øóçä÷èö äñç Ĥñäï äçòó÷ìòñ äñç implementation steps. Be prepared for timeline overruns due to unavoidable æëäñêèö ÷ò óøåïìæ ðèè÷ìñê äêèñçäö æäñæèïèç ðèè÷ìñêö óõòïòñêèç óøåïìæ èñêäêèðèñ÷ èģòõ÷ö çìöóäõì÷ìèö åè÷úèèñ çèæìöìòñ¡ðäîìñê åòçìèö è÷æ àëìïè ðäíòõ¡level code amendments may typically take ! ¡!" ðòñ÷ëö ÷ëè éòøõ ìñ÷èõùìèúèç æì÷ìèö reported an average code amendment duration of four years. Identify the appropriate process and methods that align with ö÷äĦñê æäóäæì÷ü¦õèöòøõæèö Consider any research/data needs and conduct a policy gap analysis to review existing policies and procedures. Identify outreach ðè÷ëòçö öøæë äö úèåöì÷è æòñ÷èñ÷ æòððøñì÷ü ðèè÷ìñêö öøõùèüö öòæìäï ðèçìä óøåïìæä÷ìòñö ðäìïèõö òóèñ ëòøöèö éäõðèõđö ðäõîè÷ö¦éèö÷ìùäïö è÷æ ÷ò õèäæë ÷ëè åõòäçèõ community and seek insights from diverse demographics and neighborhoods. Identify internal and external ö÷äîèëòïçèõö åü ìñ÷èõèö÷ ¤Üèè Ýäåïè ' òñ óäêè $!¥ éòõ æòððøñì÷ü¡çõìùèñ èôøì÷äåïè çèùèïòóðèñ÷ òé municipal tree codes with subject matter expertise and local context. Certain state agencies have a role in municipal code updates. Ýëè àäöëìñê÷òñ Íèóäõ÷ðèñ÷ òé Ìòððèõæè õèôøìõèö æì÷ìèö ÷ò follow public noticing rules and the Department of Ecology may õèôøìõè äñ èñùìõòñðèñ÷äï ìðóäæ÷ çè÷èõðìñä÷ìòñ ÷ëõòøêë ÷ëè Ü÷ä÷è Îñùìõòñðèñ÷äï Ùòïìæü Êæ÷ ¤ÜÎÙÊ¥ review process. Whether starting with a short list of potential code updates derived from code interpretation issues or information gathered from public feedback èûèõæìöèö ä÷ öòðè point potential code amendments become draft ordinances. 5. Ordinance Update Process Item 2.2 Packet pg. 127/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 5. Ordinance Update Process / 40 TOP Another primary reason for recent code updates was the need to clarify overly complex code language. Code clarity enhances its understanding, enables ease of its administration, and lowers the risk of due process challenges. The Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) publication Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties is an especially helpful resource for writing clear ordinance language.41 When writing code language, staff should internally test the proposed code for ease of use. Planning staff (or other review staff) should complete a review of application materials and ensure requirements are straightforward to verify. When establishing tree density and tree retention requirements, it can be helpful to run scenarios using sample projects from different land use zones, lot sizes, and development types to compare results. For example, when implementing the tree credit method, staff should select a variety of lot sizes from different land use zones and apply the proposed number of credits per acre (or per thousand square feet) to each. Each scenario should be assessed, and retention/canopy outcomes should be analyzed on both a neighborhood and landscape scale. Ultimately, a methodology that is easy to implement and achieves the jurisdiction’s tree retention and canopy goals is a successful one. Photo credit: Yusheng Deng Item 2.2 Packet pg. 128/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 5. Ordinance Update Process / 41 TOP TABLE 7. Òñ÷èõñäï äñç Îû÷èõñäï Ü÷äîèëòïçèõö åü Òñ÷èõèö÷ Interest Ùò÷èñ÷ìäï Ü÷äîèëòïçèõö Residents • Homeowners • Renters Residential property owners • Homeowner associations • Residential landlords (single and multi-family) • Residential property management companies • Non-resident homeowners (for example, 2nd/vacation homes) • Owners of short-term rentals (for example, Airbnb, VRBO) Commercial, industrial, and institutional property owners • Business owners and operators and their employees • Commercial landlords (warehouse, office, service, and industrial) • Commercial property management companies • Ports Residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional developers • Individual construction and development companies • Construction and developer advocates and trade organizations Professional consultants, such as landscape architects, foresters, and arborists • Companies located in the jurisdiction • Companies that serve the jurisdiction • Individual consulting companies • Industry advocates and trade organizations Tree-cutting/landscape maintenance companies • Companies located in the jurisdiction. • Companies that serve the jurisdiction • Individual tree-cutting and landscape maintenance companies • Industry advocates and trade organizations Tribes • Tribal representatives • Tribal employees • County tribal liaison Item 2.2 Packet pg. 129/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 5. Ordinance Update Process / 42 TOP TABLE 7. Òñ÷èõñäï äñç Îû÷èõñäï Ü÷äîèëòïçèõö åü Òñ÷èõèö÷ (cont.) Interest Ùò÷èñ÷ìäï Ü÷äîèëòïçèõö Environmental groups • Tree and arboricultural advocacy organizations • Wildlife groups • Land conservancies • Climate change advocacy groups • Hunting and fishing groups • Outdoor recreational advocacy groups Utility providers • Public natural gas/electric, other energy providers • Private utility providers • Water, sewer, and stormwater services Economic development groups • Jurisdiction Chamber of Commerce • Master Builders City leadership • Mayor • City Council • Planning Commission • Tree and Parks Boards City development review staff • Development services staff (planning, environmental) • Building department staff • Transportation/engineering staff City maintenance staff • Parks and Recreation Department staff • Transportation and operations department staff • Utility department staff City code enforcement staff • Police department staff • Community development department staff • Building department staff • Water resources department staff • Utility department staff Item 2.2 Packet pg. 130/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 6. Measuring Success / 43 TOP 6. Measuring Success Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 131/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 6. Measuring Success / 44 TOP To assess the effectiveness of tree regulations, metrics of some kind must be in place. This is an area often overlooked and likely accounts for the lack of data encountered when attempting to define an effective tree ordinance. Based on discussions during interviews with local city staff, implementing performance measures and tracking protocols is often challenging due to resources and funding. Yet establishing metrics to measure the effectiveness of tree regulations is critical to ensuring tree canopy goals, climate change objectives, and other policy drivers are achieving the city’s desired goals and outcomes. For example, the City of Decatur (Georgia) includes several metrics and timelines within the Intent section of their code that include periodic tree canopy studies and a quarterly report written by the City Arborist at the end of each calendar quarter summarizing tree removals, tree replacement, and additional tree plantings. The results of the subsequent actions can be used to both inform strategies for mitigation and tree planting efforts as well as needed tree regulation updates. Tracking tree retention, removal, and replacement activity with permit database systems is an efficient way to regularly analyze code outcomes. Alternatively, tracking tree code violations and other unauthorized activities such as topping may indicate trends in community cooperation or general acceptance of the code. However, without boots-on-the-ground data, it is a challenge to gauge the effectiveness of tree regulations by tree canopy cover analyses alone. This is due to the gradual tree removal and incremental growth of new plantings which cannot be detected for several years. Breaking down city-wide canopy cover goals into neighborhood or land use/zoning area scales may help in gauging code effectiveness and inform tree retention and replacement requirements on a lot-by-lot basis. TABLE 8. Ü÷õä÷èêìèö éòõ Öèäöøõìñê Üøææèöö òé Ýõèè Ûèêøïä÷ìòñö Ü÷õä÷èêü Considerations Establish clear benchmarks and timelines for assessment This will vary by the jurisdiction’s resources and staffing capacity as well as the type of assessment conducted. Benchmarks can be based on goals outlined in the urban forestry management plan or related policies. Evaluate development and/or tree removal permits Accounting of tree removals and replacement. Code enforcement audits Assessment of tree-related code violations tracking the number of incidents, outcomes, and mitigation efforts. Community surveys Online and in-person surveys to assess public interest and understanding of tree regulations and urban forestry efforts. Programmatic and staff capacity This could include an analysis of the budget and costs associated with administering the tree code as well as gathering input from planners and municipal arborists on administrative challenges to implementing the code. Periodic canopy studies Conduct a study every 5 to 10 years based on city resources to track city-scale trends in urban tree canopy. 6. Measuring Success Item 2.2 Packet pg. 132/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 7. Implementation / 45 TOP 7. Implementation 7.1: Staff Training and Administration ...............................46 7.2: Providing Technical Assistance and Resources ..........46 7.3: Public Outreach and Education ...................................46 7.4: Evaluation and Adaptation ..........................................47 Photo credit: Joel Jasmin Item 2.2 Packet pg. 133/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 7. Implementation / 46 TOP The adoption of new tree regulations can present significant challenges for jurisdictions administering the regulations effectively, as well as for its stakeholders in terms of understanding and applying the regulations. Here we discuss some of the key hurdles and potential strategies for overcoming them: 7.1: Staff Training and AdministrationThe key to any successful regulation starts at the top with administration. It can be challenging for staff to thoroughly understand new regulations, particularly those without arboriculture expertise such as planners, code enforcement, or other departmental staff conducting development reviews. Training sessions for staff and educational materials that address frequently asked questions and common scenarios may be required. New regulations may also require an update to existing processes and procedures for permitting, site plan review, and enforcement. This could involve revising application forms, checklists, and documentation requirements to align with the new regulations. 7.2: Providing Technical Assistance and Resources Property owners, developers, and arboriculture/landscape professionals may require technical assistance to comply with the new regulations. Jurisdictions can offer guidance, resources, and support to help stakeholders understand their obligations and navigate the regulatory process effectively. Ideally, educational materials would be publicly available online and provided in several languages so that all residents can have access to them. Internal staff should also be able to articulate the regulations during in-person discussions or phone calls. Jurisdictions must ensure consistency and fairness in the administration of tree regulations to avoid confusion and potential conflicts. During code development and implementation, it will be essential to establish clear guidelines, criteria, and decision-making processes to promote transparency and equity. 7.3: Public Outreach and EducationPublic outreach and education are essential to raising awareness about the new tree regulations and their importance for achieving urban forestry goals. Jurisdictions can use various outreach channels, such as websites, social media, workshops, and community meetings, to engage with residents and stakeholders. For communities with diverse ethnicities, the translation of documents and interpreters should be readily available to ensure equality. The jurisdictions interviewed indicated the importance of early collaboration with stakeholder groups, such as non-profit organizations and developers, to solicit feedback and input on proposed tree regulations. Collaborative efforts can lead to a smoother adoption process and potentially avoid conflicts. 7. Implementation Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 134/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 7. Implementation / 47 TOP 7.4: Evaluation and Adaptation: Periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulations is crucial to identify any shortcomings or areas for improvement. Metrics to measure the effectiveness of the regulations and a timeline for review should be established in the ordinance and code language. The City of Decatur’s Intent section of its code is a primary example of an ordinance that does this well. While there are currently no King County jurisdictions that provide this language, incorporating such statements would ensure data is captured and would also hold the jurisdiction accountable to the timeline. Jurisdictions should be prepared to adapt the regulations based on feedback, emerging issues, and changing circumstances over time. By addressing these challenges proactively and collaboratively, jurisdictions can successfully implement new tree regulations and achieve their objectives of protecting trees on private land and preserving city-wide canopy cover, while also balancing the competing demands of sustainable development. Through both the survey and interviews conducted for this project, jurisdictions shared their challenges, lessons learned, and educational strategies and resources developed to support both city staff and stakeholders in implementing their new tree code. These resources are found in the following appendices: • Public engagement plans. • Outreach and educational materials during code development. • Post-adoption handouts and tools for applicants. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 135/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 8. Comprehensive Plans & State Policy Considerations / 48 TOP 8. Comprehensive Plans & State Policy Considerations 8.1: New Comprehensive Plan Climate Element ..............49 8.2: New Housing Bills .......................................................49 8.3: Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code ..............50 8.4: Culturally Modified Trees ............................................51 Photo credit: Dave Hoefler Item 2.2 Packet pg. 136/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 7. Implementation / 49 TOP Washington State requires that cities and counties of a certain size accommodate future growth through the development of comprehensive plans. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA) statute, municipalities must address housing, transportation, and other growth issues and citizen participation through comprehensive plan policy goals that are supported by municipal codes, other policy documents, management plans, and programs. Many cities establish canopy cover goals, typically expressed as a percentage, within urban forest management plans, or sometimes in other guidance documents or management plans such as climate action and sustainability plans. As a reflection of community values and vision for future growth, a tree canopy cover policy goal provides greater support for municipal tree ordinances and other tree preservation efforts when located within the framework of a comprehensive plan. A canopy cover goal may be placed under any “element” or required section, such as land use, environment, or in newly mandated elements. 8.1: New Comprehensive Plan Climate ElementIn 2023, House Bill 1181 was enacted, requiring that Washington jurisdictions add a new comprehensive plan element addressing climate change and community resiliency. A climate element can take the form of a single comprehensive plan chapter or be integrated into several chapters/elements such as housing, transportation, and land use. Climate elements must maximize economic, environmental, and social co-benefits and prioritize environmental justice to avoid worsening environmental health disparities. Because comprehensive plan policies are adopted by local decision-making bodies, they can spur the community to revise tree codes, establish tree canopy cover goals, and require alignment with existing urban forest management plans and programs. The Washington Department of Commerce provides planning guidance, grants, and other resources for developing a comprehensive plan climate element. 42 8.2: New Housing BillsAlso enacted into law in 2023, several housing and land use bills address housing availability and affordability issues, affecting how local governments regulate low-density residential housing. House Bill 1110 requires that many cities revise their codes to allow duplex/triplex, townhome, cottage, etc. housing, the “missing middle” between single-family and multifamily residential housing types. Additionally, House Bill 1337 requires that cities allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), a small self-contained living unit, on existing single-family lots. In both cases, local municipalities must update their zoning/development regulations within six months following their comprehensive plan updates to include these changes. Generally, accommodating a larger (or second, albeit smaller) building footprint on single-family lots will reduce the number of existing trees that can be successfully retained, and limit space for tree replanting, which in turn, could impact climate action, urban forest management, and tree canopy cover goals. However, note that some jurisdictions such as the City of Kirkland have allowed missing middle/ADU housing types while fully regulating tree protection years ahead of the 2023 state mandates, evidence that meeting housing needs and protecting trees can be synonymous. The Washington Department of Commerce provides resources and technical assistance to local governments on housing topics.43 8. Comprehensive Plans & State Policy Considerations Item 2.2 Packet pg. 137/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 7. Implementation / 50 TOP 8.3: Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code In 2021, the State Building Code Council (SBCC) adopted amendments to the Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code (WWUIC) amendments that had originally been scheduled for implementation in 2023. The implementation timeline was delayed to March 2024 while the State Building Code Council considered several amendments during rule-making and held public hearings in November 2023 and February 2024.44 In March 2024, the SBCC announced that they would no longer be adopting the Wildland Urban Interface Code amendments as part of the current code update cycle. This was due to the passage of ESB 6120 (Engrossed Senate Bill) by the state legislature. What does ESB 6120 require? • Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required to develop a statewide wildfire hazard map and a base-level wildfire risk map for each county based on criteria established in coordination with the State Fire Marshal’s Office. • Once the maps have been completed, local jurisdictions will have an additional six months once the maps have been completed to adopt the code as adopted by the SBCC at the local level and will have the option to modify the maps based on their own assessments as long as they follow the same or similar criteria as the statewide map. • Counties and municipalities that issue residential and commercial building permits for parcels in areas identified as high hazard and very high hazard will be subject to the WUI code provisions.45 The WWUI is based on the 2021 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC). The IWUIC establishes minimum requirements for land use and the built environment in designated wildland-urban interface areas to reduce the loss of life and property due to wildfires. These requirements include specific fire-resistant materials for structures and limiting the amount and type of trees and vegetation in “defensible space” within 30 to 100 feet of structures. The WWUIC could limit the type, number, and density of trees and vegetation in the wildland-urban interface in the required “defensible space” and have an impact on a jurisdiction’s ability to regulate trees in critical areas, retain trees with development, and to support tree canopy cover goals. Although the SBC is no longer adopting the Washington Wildland Urban Interface code amendments as originally adopted during this code update session, jurisdictions still have the local authority to adopt and administer the 2018 International Wildland Urban Interface Code adopted in the state statute. Photo credit: Joe Ciciarelli Item 2.2 Packet pg. 138/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 8. Comprehensive Plans & State Policy Considerations / 51 TOP 8.4: Culturally Modified TreesCulturally Modified Trees (CMTs) are trees that were modified in some way by past or current Indigenous People. CMTs are cultural resources and non-renewable. In the Puget Sound region, these trees are often cedar and feature sections where bark was stripped for clothing, tools, baskets, and other purposes, or have bent boughs which help indicate important harvesting and hunting areas or waterways. These trees are physical evidence of the connection between native peoples and their lands, and many have survived where Tribal villages or longhouses were burned down by settlers to the region. As mature and majestic native trees in the urban landscape, CMTs contribute not only to a community’s canopy and ecosystem services but often are a part of critical native forest remnants and wildlife habitat. The cultural and ecological significance of CMTs makes it vital for them to be recognized in local jurisdictions’ comprehensive planning and climate action strategies. Currently, once identified, a CMT may be protected under state law RCW 27.53.060 which regulates the removal or alteration of any historic or prehistoric archaeological resource or site. However, most jurisdictions do not have a regulatory mechanism protecting CMTs in local tree ordinances. Some have quasi-protection for historic or culturally significant trees, which may be used to help protect CMTs within the jurisdiction. While most of these voluntary designations have not been actively pursued, there is renewed interest to revive efforts and coordinate with local Tribes to include CMTs. With that revival, it will be important to raise awareness of the fact that state protections apply to identified CMTs regardless of landowner consent to any city-sanctioned program. The Snoqualmie Tribe recently received a USDA Forest Service grant to develop a Culturally Modified Tree protection program, the first of its kind in the Pacific Northwest. The Tribe is exploring how to work with local municipalities (including the County) to include CMTs in their tree code as high-value trees, like landmark or exceptional trees, which require special consideration for retention efforts, particularly during development. Further collaboration will be needed for jurisdictions to also ensure their policies and ordinances support and comply with standing State CMT protection laws. Along with coordination among local tribes, public education, and arborist training to properly maintain these trees, the Tribe hopes to attain better preservation of CMTs throughout the Puget Sound region.Photo credit: Kim Miller Item 2.2 Packet pg. 139/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 9. Conclusion / 52 TOP 9. Conclusion Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 140/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property 9. Conclusion / 53 TOP As development pressures and the effects of climate change continue to impact the Pacific Northwest, and more specifically, King County, the preservation of the urban forest and associated benefits has become of the utmost importance. A lack of state legislation on tree regulations has led to local municipalities being solely responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing tree regulations. The project team found both local and national tree codes vary widely in clarity, terminology, consistency with industry standards, and levels of restrictiveness. Beyond critical area tree removal restrictions, nine local jurisdictions have little to no tree regulations, while fifteen were found to have comprehensive codes that both regulate tree retention with development and limit tree removal on private property without development. Of the King County survey participants, more than one-third indicated they are considering or are planning to update their tree regulations in the near future. The primary drivers for regulating trees on private property include public demand or direction from decision-makers, comprehensive plan policy goals, sustainability or climate action goals, and city-wide tree canopy targets. Developing tree regulations at the local level is not a one-size-fits-all process and is informed by community and stakeholder values, development code structure, municipal resources, staffing, and the characteristics of the land uses in the jurisdiction. Therefore, defining effective language and determining best practices for a singular model tree ordinance is not feasible. However, several fundamental foundation elements are pivotal in developing effective tree regulations. A successful tree ordinance will balance growth and development while providing protection for trees that comprise the urban tree canopy and meet city management goals. Further, an effective ordinance will also be easily understood and implemented by stakeholders and staff. Lastly, to measure the effectiveness of an ordinance and ensure canopy goals are being achieved, metrics to measure the effectiveness of the ordinance must be incorporated. Future research considerations that could supplement this body of work include an analysis of tree quantification methods and how they influence canopy cover, the effectiveness of incentives, and measuring the effectiveness of tree regulations on private property. The next step in this project is the development of the King County Tree Code Toolkit. This toolkit is intended to be a one-stop shop for municipalities seeking guidance on developing and implementing tree regulations, including ordinance frameworks, tree species lists, educational materials, and more. 9. Conclusion Photo credit: Getty Images Item 2.2 Packet pg. 141/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 54 TOP Appendices Appendix A. List of Terms ................................................................................................55 Appendix B. Data Synthesis Report .................................................................................59 Appendix C. King County Jurisdictional Tree Code Matrix .............................................59 Appendix D. King County Jurisdictional Tree Code Summary Spreadsheet ..................59 Appendix E. National Tree Code Research Spreadsheet .................................................59 Appendix F. Sample Documents and Online Resources..................................................60 Appendix G. Tree Lists .....................................................................................................62 Photo credit: Sara Dao Item 2.2 Packet pg. 142/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 55 TOP Appendix A. List of TermsTerms listed here are consistent with ANSI A300-2023 Tree Care Standards, Managing Trees During Site Development & Construction, 3rd edition; ISA Best Management Practices, Managing Trees During Site Development; Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA), Guide for Plant Appraisal and the online International Society of Arboriculture Dictionary.46 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A non-profit organization that oversees standards for products, services, processes, systems, and personnel activities in the United States. The current version of the American National Standards Institute A300 (2023) tree care standards are developed by the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA) to manage trees, shrubs, and other woody vegetation. Arbor Day Foundation A non-profit membership organization dedicated to planting trees and providing resources for tree planting, maintenance, pruning, identification, climate change, reforestation, and urban forestry. The Arbor Day Foundation established the Tree City USA program in 1976.47 Arborist report Written findings of a tree inventory that includes recommendations prepared by a qualified professional defined by code, typically an ISA Certified Arborist and/or other certifications and allied professionals. Buildable area The portion of land wherein a structure, parking, and other improvements may be located and where construction may take place. The definition of buildable area varies by jurisdiction but does not generally include environmentally critical areas, shorelines, or public rights-of-way. Also termed the “building envelope.” Calculated Tree Protection Zone (CTPZ)Defined by species tolerance to construction activities, tree size (DBH), and relative age/health. The calculated TPZ radius should be 6-18 times the trunk diameter (DBH). Caliper The industry standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock is measured in inches, taken at four to twelve inches above the ground, depending on the trunk diameter, applicable to replacement tree standards. Canopy Cover The percentage of a fixed area covered by the crown of a tree is measured by the horizontal projection of its outermost perimeter. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) The area of soil around a tree where the minimum volume of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree is located. Currently, there are no universally accepted methods to calculate the CRZ. Historically known and still defined in tree codes as a formulaic area expressed as the radius from the face of a tree trunk equal to one foot for every inch of trunk diameter (DBH). (Duvall, Kenmore, North Bend, etc.). Culturally modified tree A tree that has been modified by Indigenous people as part of their traditions. This may include peeling, ax cuts, delimbing, wood removal, or other modifications. Crown The branches and foliage of a tree. Development Any activity that requires a project permit or jurisdictional approval. This varies by jurisdiction and is often differentiated between major and minor thresholds or by development type relating to additional square feet or cost of improvements. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 143/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 56 TOP Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) or Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) The diameter of a tree trunk measured 4.5 feet above average grade. Diameter at standard height is used in determining the diameter of existing trees. 1. Where a tree has a branch or branches or swelling that interferes with the measurement at four and one-half feet above average grade or where a tree tapers below this point, the diameter is measured at the narrowest point below four and one-half feet. 2. For trees located on a slope, the four and-one-half feet height is measured from the average of the highest and lowest ground points or, on very steep slopes where this is not possible, the lowest practical point on the uphill side. 3. Where a tree splits into several trunks close to ground level, the diameter at standard height for the tree is the square root of the sum of the diameter at standard height for each individual stem squared. Dripline The distance from the tree trunk is equal to the furthest extent of the tree’s crown. For trees with asymmetrical crowns, the dripline is measured in all four cardinal directions. Dripline may be a measure for determining the extent of a tree’s roots to designate the TPZ (e.g., As seen in Issaquah and Newcastle). Fee in-lieu A payment made in place of planting replacement trees. Grove trees A group of a specified number, typically three or more, viable regulated trees with overlapping or touching crowns. Growth Management Act (GMA) A series of state statutes that require fast-growing cities and counties to develop a comprehensive plan that outlines their vision for growth, land use, and development within their communities to manage population growth. State GMAs designate urban growth areas, require identification and protection of critical areas, and influence development regulations. Hazard treeA tree or tree part that has a high likelihood of failure that would cause damage or injury due to its proximity to a target, which cannot be mitigated. In practice, a hazard tree is assessed by a qualified professional arborist typically using the ISA Tree Risk Assessment methodology. Heritage tree A tree designated by code criteria, often nominated by the City, Tree Board, or other organization on public or private property as historically significant, specimen, rare, as a significant grove, or other criteria. Inner Critical Root Zone Not currently defined as an ANSI A300 (2023) Tree Care standard or recognized as ISA Best Management Practices. Historically known and still defined in tree codes as an area half the distance of the CRZ that, when impacted, may compromise the structural integrity of the tree and is not to be disturbed during construction activities. Example: A 26-inch DBH tree has a 13-foot radius inner critical root zone measured from the face of the trunk. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) An organization that promotes the professional practice of arboriculture and fosters a greater awareness of tree benefits. Landmark tree A healthy mature significant tree with a minimum DBH that varies by jurisdiction but is typically between 24 inches and 30 inches. Some jurisdictions define landmark trees by both species and size. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 144/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 57 TOP Limits of DisturbanceNot currently defined as an ANSI A300 (2023) Tree Care standard or recognized as ISA Best Management Practices. Historically known and still defined in tree codes as the boundary between allowable site disturbance from development activity and the protected area surrounding a tree. (Kent, Lake Forest Park). Due to similarities to Temporary Erosion-Sediment Control (TESC) Limits of Disturbance fencing and the resulting confusion on site plans, Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) has become more common as a codified industry standard replacing tree “limits of disturbance.” Municipal codeA collection of laws passed by a governing body. The municipal code contains the ordinances adopted by a jurisdiction. Nuisance treesA tree that meets certain criteria and cannot be corrected by reasonable practices such as pruning, bracing, or cabling. May also be defined as causing significant physical damage to structures. Ordinance A local law or regulation enacted by a municipal authority. Public tree A tree located in parks, maintained or unmaintained public rights-of-way, stormwater facilities, or on other property owned by the jurisdiction. Private tree A tree located on private (fee-simple) property not owned or maintained by a jurisdiction. Qualified ProfessionalThis definition varies by jurisdiction but generally means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry who can demonstrate performing appropriate assessments to produce the required documentation for a request or application. Some jurisdictions require qualified professionals completing arborist evaluations to have one or more of the following credentials: • International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; • Tree Risk Assessor Qualification (TRAQ) as established by ISA or equivalent; • American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist; • Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; • Board Certified Master Arborist as established by the ISA. Significant tree A regulated tree that meets a minimum DBH threshold. Tree City USAA program founded by the Arbor Day Foundation that provides assistance and recognition to incorporated communities and military bases that maintain a continuously active tree management program. Photo credit: Freepik.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 145/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 58 TOP Tree inventory A record of the location and characteristics of trees that provides basic information on attributes like species, condition, and size. Many jurisdictions require a tree inventory to be completed by a qualified professional arborist as part of development or tree removal permit requirements. Tree protection fencing Chain link or orange plastic construction fence or similar material that must meet height and installation standards, be erected around the tree protection zone. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Means a qualified tree professional who has specialized knowledge and training and is certified by the ISA in basic tree risk assessment as defined by the ISA Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Currently defined as an ANSI A300 (2023) Tree Care standard and recognized as an ISA Best Management Practices term. A defined area within and including an outer boundary, as determined by a qualified professional arborist, in which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential impacts from construction or development, and applies to individual trees, groups of trees, 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 established TPZ is the location of tree protection fencing. (Burien, Kirkland). See Calculated TPZ. Urban Growth Area (UGA) A regional boundary is set by a jurisdiction to encourage urban growth and development to limit urban sprawl, enhance open space, protect rural areas, and more efficiently use human services. The UGA is required under the Growth Management Act as part of a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan. UGA is often referenced by cities, while UUA (below) is most often referenced by counties. Both are often used interchangeably; for the purposes of this Guide, UGA will be referenced throughout. Urban Unincorporated Area (UUA)An area that is unincorporated as a municipality that typically does not have elected officials at the town level. Since unincorporated communities are not officially considered to be municipal areas of their own accord they often act as a part of a larger municipality, such as a county. Skyway is an example of an urban unincorporated area. Viable treeA term that typically describes a tree that meets a combination of tree health and structure criteria for tree retention purposes. Although defined in the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) Guide for Plant Appraisal, ‘viable tree’ means trees assessed by a qualified professional to be in fair or better condition, with low risk of failure due to structural defects. Some jurisdictions define trees worthy of retention succinctly with ‘viable’ criteria, while others may define qualitative tree retention criteria in greater detail with tree condition tables. Wildland Urban Interface Code (WWUI)A code designed to mitigate the risks from wildfire to life and property in wildland-urban interface areas. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 146/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 59 TOP Appendix B. Data Synthesis Reporthttps://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648AppB.pdf Appendix C. King County Jurisdictional Tree Code Matrixhttps://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648AppC.pdf Appendix D. King County Jurisdictional Tree Code Summary Spreadsheethttps://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648AppD.pdf Appendix E. National Tree Code Research Spreadsheethttps://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648AppE.pdf Item 2.2 Packet pg. 147/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 60 TOP Appendix F. Sample Documents and Online Resources The following resources are provided by the four cities that participated in the in-depth interviews to discuss their recent tree code updates. Cities included Kirkland, Burien, Issaquah, and Seattle. For more information on the interviews see the Data Synthesis Report in Appendix B. SAMPLE DOCUMENTS KirklandDiscussion of issues and staff recommendations (staff report pages 1-13), Public Engagement Plan (2018) pages 87-97 https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/planning-amp-building/code-amendments-to-kzc-95-packet-cam18-00408.pdf Issaquah Title 18 Update – Goals, Issues, Desired Outcome Chart Used for tracking public meeting outcomes. https://www.issaquahwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8646/Attachment-B-Goals-and-Outcomes-Document-PPC-additions ONLINE RESOURCES Kirkland• Public Educational Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5fm8-LA-8 • Trees Webpage. Includes guides to example site plans, tree retention plans, pre-submittal checklists, arborist report guides, etc. • Online High Retention Value Tree Checklist • Currently developing an interactive permitting guide Seattle• SDCI’s Tree and Code webpage - https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/codes/codes-we-enforce-(a-z)/trees-and-codes • “Stay Connected” webpage: https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/about-us/stay-connected Issaquah• Webpage dedicated to the 2023 Land Use Code Update, Including Tree Code https://issaquahwa.gov/3141/2023-Land-Use-Code-Update • Tree Permits webpage on Community Planning and Development site – has canopy cover worksheet and FAQs: https://issaquahwa.gov/1072/Tree-Permits Burien• Webpage dedicated to Trees and Urban Forest Management https://www.burienwa.gov/business/community_development/trees_and_urban_forest_management • Tree regulations and permit webpage that includes videos on “when do you need a tree removal permit” and “how to measure a tree”; translated to Spanish and Vietnamese (factsheets): https://www.burienwa.gov/business/community_development/trees_and_urban_forest_management/tree_regulations_and_permit_requirements Item 2.2 Packet pg. 148/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 61 TOP PRINT RESOURCES Kirkland• Tree Code FAQ: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/planning-amp-building/trees/tree-code-faq.pdf • Tree Retention Plan Checklist: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/2/development-services/pdfs/planning-pdfs-mbp/pre-submittal-tree-retention-plan-checklist_2023.pdf Seattle• 242 Tips (A-D) on tree code information https://web.seattle.gov/dpd/cams/CamList.aspx • 242A – Tree Requirements Associated with Development https://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/Tip242A.pdf Sample OrdinanceCity of Duvall, Washington. Ordinance No. 1234 amending City of Duvall Municipal Code, Chapter 14.40: https://duvallwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5746/ORD-1234-Tree-Protection?bidId= Item 2.2 Packet pg. 149/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 62 TOP Appendix G. Tree Lists IssaquahPreferred Tree List (2022) https://issaquahwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/863/Preferred-Tree-List-2022 Kenmore Street Tree List, 2021 Road Standards, Appendix C, pages 100-101 https://www.kenmorewa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2735/638233924155364765 Kirkland Public WorksSurface Water Division: Staff Recommendations https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/public-works/surface-water/tree_list_final_web_1.pdf Kirkland Planning and Building Department Approved Landmark Tree Mitigation List (2023) https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/planning-amp-building/trees/landmark-tree-mitigation-species-list.pdf Lake Forest Park General Tree List (2011) https://www.cityoflfp.gov/DocumentCenter/View/224/Tree-List?bidId= North Bend Street Tree List (2018) https://www.northbendwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6798/City-of-North-Bend-Approved-Street-Tree-List-August-2018 Redmond Native Tree Species for Tree Replacement (No Date) https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29813/Native_Plant_List_for_Tree_Replacement_PDF?bidId= Seattle Green Factor Plant List (Bioretention Trees) (2010) https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/PublicSpaceManagement/SeattleGreenFactorPlantList.pdf Tukwila Approved Tree List (2017) https://www.tukwilawa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Approved-_Tree_List_2017.pdf Item 2.2 Packet pg. 150/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Appendices / 63 TOP Endnotes Photo credit: Tomoko Uji Item 2.2 Packet pg. 151/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Endnotes / 64 TOP Endnotes 1 Aken, J. et al. 2019. Redmond’s Tree Canopy Strategic Plan. City of Redmond. Accessed on 3/28/2024 from https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9576/Tree-Canopy-Strategic-Plan?bidId=#:~:text=The%20proposed%20goal%20for%20the%20plan%20is%20to,time%20to%20realize%20the%20benefits%2C%20costs%2C%20and%20resources. 2 Dyson, K. and M.S. Patterson. 2018. City of Sammamish Land and Canopy Cover Analysis. University of Washington-Urban Design and Planning. Accessed on 3/28/2024 from https://www.sammamish.us/media/aapjcaxf/urban-forest-management-plan-survey-results.pdf 3 O’Neil-Dunne, J. 2016. Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment. University of Vermont- Spatial Analysis Laboratory. Accessed online on 3/28/2024 from https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Trees/Mangement/Canopy/Seattle2016CCAFinalReportFINAL.pdf 4 City of Kirkland. 2018. Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. Plan-It Geo. Accessed on 3/28/2024 from https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/planning-amp-building/2018-tree-canopy-assessment.pdf 5 United States Census Bureau. 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce. 6 King County 30-Year Forest Plan. 2021. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. Accessed online on 2/26/2024 from https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/forestry/30-year-forest-plan/30-year-forest-plan.pdf. 7 Nowak, D. 2016. “Chapter 4: Urban Forests.” Assessing the Sustainability of Agricultural and Urban Forests in the United States. PP 37-52. Edited by Robertson, Guy; Mason, Andy, 2016. Assessing the Sustainability of Agricultural and Urban Forests in the United States. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, FS-1067. 75 pages. 8 Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., Van den Bosch, M., and Bardekjian, A. C. 2020. Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124371 9 Wolf, K.L. 2010. Crime and Fear - A Literature Review. Green Cities: Good Health. College of the Environment, University of Washington. Accessed on 2/1/2024 from https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_Crime.html. 10 Nowak, D. J. and J.F. Dwyer. 2000. Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban Forest Ecosystems. In Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast (pp. 11–25). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4191-2_2. 11 Kuehler, E.; J. Hathaway and A. Tirpak. Quantifying the benefits of urban forest systems as a component of the green infrastructure stormwater treatment network. Ecohydrology. 2017;10e. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1813. 12 Wolf, K.L. 2007. City Trees and Property Values. Arborist News 16, 4:34-36. 13 Makido Y.; D. Hellman and V. Shandas. 2019. Nature-Based Designs to Mitigate Urban Heat: The Efficacy of Green Infrastructure Treatments in Portland, Oregon. Atmosphere. 10(5):282. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10050282 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 152/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Endnotes / 65 TOP 14 Ettinger A.K.; G. Bratman, M.Carey, R. Hebert, O. Hill, H. Kett, P. Levin, M. Murphy-Williams, and L. Wyse. 2024. Street trees provide an opportunity to mitigate urban heat and reduce risk of high heat exposure. Scientific Reports 14, Article number 3266. Accessed on 2/26/2024 from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51921-y. 15 Nowak, D.J.; D. Crane, and J.C. Stevens. 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening Vol 4, Issues 3-4 (pp. 115-123). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007. 16 Naizhuo, Z.; J.F. Prieur, Y. Liu, D Kneeshaw, E.M. Lapoint, A. Paquette, K. Zinszer, J. Dupras, P.J. Villeneuve, D.G. Rainham, E. Lavigne, H.Chen, M. vanden Bosch, T.Oiamo, A.Smargiassi. 2021. Tree characteristics and environmental noise in complex urban settings – A case study from Montreal, Canada, Environmental Research, Volume 202, ISSN 0013-9351. 17 Nowak, D.J., Hoehn, R. E. III, Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., & Walton, J. T. 2006. Assessing urban forest effects and values, Washington, D.C.’’s urban forest. Accessed on 2/1/2024 from https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/18406. 18 Exact tree canopy percentages vary based on the data source. Timing and methodologies of studies is not consistent. 19 Puget Sound Regional Council, Regional Housing Strategy, February 2022, page 9. 20 King County 30-Year Forest Plan, page 37-38. 21 Best practices for arboriculture include but are not limited to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 for Tree Care, 2023 which are industry consensus standards developed by the Tree Care Industry Association written by the Accredited Standards Committee. ANSI standards cover everything from specific tree care specifications such as pruning and planting to worker safety. 22 iTree is a free peer-reviewed suite of software applications developed and supported by the USDA Forest Service that quantifies urban forest characteristics as well as their ecosystem and economic benefits. iTree has two applications - iTree Canopy and iTree Landscape - that can be used to calculate tree canopy at the site or landscape scale. For additional information, go to https://www.itreetools.org. 23 City of Decatur, Georgia Tree Canopy Ordinance education webpage. For additional information, go to https://www.decaturga.com/dec/page/tree-canopy-conservation-ordinance 24 City of Olympia, Urban Forestry Manual. Accessed on 3/11/2024 from https://cms7files.revize.com/olympia/Document_center/Services/Urban%20Forestry/Urban-Forestry-Manual.pdf 25 The Facet Project Team learned, during the In-depth Interview process, that tree code amendment timelines were protracted due to the controversial and complex nature of tree code updates. 26 Chicago Region Trees Initiative developed an interactive web map that combines canopy cover, surface temperature, air quality, flood risk, health, and social vulnerability data. Accessed on 2/1/2024 from https://chicagorti.org/maps. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 153/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Endnotes / 66 TOP 27 Chicago Region Trees Initiative: Tree Preservation Ordinance Templates. Accessed on 2/1/2024 from https://chicagorti.org/program/tree-ordinance-templates/. 28 Municipal Research Services Center. Accessed on 3/29/2024 from: MRSC - Taking Action Using Ordinances, Resolutions, Motions, and Proclamations. 29 Dunster, J. 2017. Tree Risk Assessment Manual, Second Edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 30 City of Burien Municipal Code (BMC) 19.2.040 Exceptional trees. Accessed on 2/15/2024 from https://burienwa.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/?preview=75469. 31 City of Lake Forest Park Municipal Code (LMC) Title 16 Environmental Protection, Chapter 16.14 Tree Canopy Preservation and Enhancement. Accessed on 2/15/2024 from https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/LakeForestPark/#!/LakeForestPark16/LakeForestPark1614.html#16.14.030. 32 The King County Noxious Weed board adopts an annual noxious weed list in accordance with RCW 17.10 and WAC 16.750. The Noxious weed List categorizes plants into Class A, B, and C -and specifies which are regulated or recommended for control. For more information go to: https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/services/environment/animals-and-plants/noxious-weeds.aspx 33 iTree is a free peer-reviewed suite of software applications developed and supported by the USDA Forest Service that quantifies urban forest characteristics as well as their ecosystem and economic benefits. iTree has two applications - iTree Canopy and iTree Landscape - that can be used to calculate tree canopy at the site or landscape scale. For additional information, go to https://www.itreetools.org. 34 Matheny, Nelda, and James R Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. 35 American National Standard (ANSI) A300 (Part 5). 2019. Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction). Londonderry, NH: Tree Care Industry Association. 36 American National Standard (ANSI) A300 (Part 5). 2019. Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction). Londonderry, NH: Tree Care Industry Association. 37 Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. 38 American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z-60.1). 2014. Accessed online on 2/26/2024 from https://cdn.ymaws.com/americanhort.site-ym.com/resource/collection/38ED7535-9C88-45E5-AF44-01C26838AD0C/ANSI_Nursery_Stock_Standards_AmericanHort_2014.pdf Item 2.2 Packet pg. 154/194 KING COUNTY / Guide to Developing Effective Urban Tree Regulations on Private Property Endnotes / 67 TOP 39 City of Kirkland, Urban Forestry Strategic Management Plan. 2013. Davey Resource Group and Forterra. Accessed online on 3/28/2024 from: UFMPJuly2013_FINAL_DRAFT_08212013 (kirklandwa.gov), pages 35-40. 40 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A Municipal Code: RCW 35A.01.010 (Purpose and policy - interpretation), RCW 35A.11.020 (Powers vested in legislative bodies of noncharter and charter code cities), RCW 35A.11.050 (Statement of purpose and policy), RCW 35A.21.160 (General application of laws to code cities. Accessed online on 2/26/2024 from https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35A. 41 Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties. 2016. Municipal Research and Service Center. Accessed online on 2/26/2024 from https://mrsc.org/getmedia/44e20d0f-a536-473f-baac-bd7504323330/Local-Ordinances-For-Washington-Cities-And-Counties.pdf?ext=.pdf. 42 Washington State Department of Commerce webpage on planning guidance, grants and other resources for developing a comprehensive plan climate element. Accessed online on 3/7/2024 from: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/climate-change-2/. 43 Washington State Department of Commerce webpage, Planning for Housing. Accessed online on 3/7/2024 from: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/planning-for-housing/. 44 For more information on the State Building Council’s Washington Wildland Urban Interface Resources webpage, go to https://www.sbcc.wa.gov/state-codes-regulations-guidelines/state-building-code/wildland-urban-interface-code-resources. Accessed online on 3/27/2024. 45 State of Washington, 68th Legislature, 2024 Regular Session, Engrossed Senate Bill 6120. Accessed on 3/27/2024 from https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6120.PL.pdf?q=20240327191743 46 International Society of Arboriculture Dictionary online resource. Accessed online on 3/7/2024 from: https://wwv.isa-arbor.com/education/onlineresources/dictionary 47 Arbor Day Foundation. Accessed online on 3/7/2024 from: https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/ Item 2.2 Packet pg. 155/194 Report prepared for The City of Edmonds | Project conducted by PlanIT Geo, Inc. www.planitgeo.com | info@planitgeo.com A FORECAST ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLEPLANTING SCENARIOS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON The urban forest is an invaluable asset for the City of Edmonds, providing residents and visitors with meaningful, quantiﬁ able environmental, social, and economic beneﬁ ts. In 2024, a tree canopy assessment was conducted to enhance understanding of the city’s canopy infrastructure. This assessment identiﬁ ed urban tree canopy (UTC), potential planting areas (PPA), and areas unsuitable for planting, analysing their current distribution across the city. These ﬁ ndings will enable the city to reﬁ ne existing canopy goals, policies, ordinances, and management practices and formulate new ones to protect and expand the tree canopy. Building on the assessment results, this summary report aims to assess and communicate the impacts of various planting strategies on Edmonds’ future canopy. Five scenarios (outlined in Table 1) were selected to demonstrate potential shifts in Edmonds’ canopy cover over a 20-year period, from 2024 to 2044. The outcomes presented for each scenario can serve as guidelines to shape the scale and methods of future planting efforts. Edmonds’ 2024 canopy cover is an assumption based on 2021 canopy data.. 32.4%26.8%36.8% 1,855 ACRES 1,538 ACRES 2,243 ACRES T C P I Figure 1. The number of tree plantings required over the next 20 years. A 150 BUSINESS AS USUAL BAU 220 MAINTAIN CURRENT CANOPY % 320 GROW CANOPY BY 2%* 402 GROW CANOPY TO 36%* 504 GROW CANOPY TO 38%* T A L A R 6,091 5,725 42,593 Planting 402 trees per yearcould grow Edmonds’ canopy cover to 36% by 2044. CURRENT STATE OF THE URBAN FOREST *These scenarios achieve canopy cover goals by removing impervious surfaces in the Right-of-Way to increase plantable space. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 156/194 Report prepared for The City of Edmonds | Project conducted by PlanIT Geo, Inc. www.planitgeo.com | info@planitgeo.com COMPARISON OF PLANTING SCENARIOS CANOPY CALCULATOR ASSUMPTIONS 20 Planning Horizon (years) 2%New Tree Mortality 4%Canopy Loss due toNatural Causes 2%Annual Canopy Loss on Private Property 0.5%Natural Regeneration 0.5%Annual Canopy Growth Tree size distribution (average crown radius at full maturity, percent of total tree population): 12.5 ft Small Tree (10%) 15 ft Medium Tree (25%) 30 ft Large Tree (65%) Various planting scenarios were explored to assist Edmonds in implementing the tree canopy and PPA metrics from this study. These scenarios offer different approaches to deciding where to plant new trees and integrating tree canopy and PPA data with the city’s goals, priorities, and resources. Citywide canopy cover goals were set in collaboration with city ofﬁ cials, and PlanIT Geo’s Canopy Calculator tool was used to determine the necessary canopy (in acres and number of trees) to reach those goals over a 20-year planning period. The calculator tool takes into account natural growth, regeneration, and losses to the canopy from both natural factors and tree removals on private property. These results suggest that the state of the tree canopy in Edmonds may largely be dependent on the stewardship of private residents. Encouraging and supporting residential tree care initiatives could be a key strategy in preserving and enhancing the overall tree canopy in Edmonds. Table 1. Planting scenario descriptions and results. Scenario Estimated Citywide UTC in 2024 Planting Required Net Tree Canopy Change Citywide UTC in 2044 %Acres Total Annual Acres %Acres % Business as Usual 32%1,855 2,993 150 -79 -1%1,776 31.0% Maintain Current Canopy %32%1,855 4,399 220 0 0%1,855 32.4% Grow Canopy by 2%*32%1,855 6,403 320 112 2%2,136 34.4% Grow Canopy to 36%*32%1,855 8,041 402 203 4%2,058 36.0% Grow Canopy to 38%*32%1,855 10,088 504 318 6%2,173 38.0% Property Ownership Type Business as Usual Maintain Current Canopy %Grow Canopy by 2%*Grow Canopy to 36%*Grow Canopy to 38%* Annual # of Trees Total # of Trees Annual # of Trees Total # of Trees Annual # of Trees Total # of Trees Annual # of Trees Total # of Trees Annual # of Trees Total # of Trees Private Property 75 1,501 100 1,992 171 3,412 252 5,049 355 7,096 Right-of-Way 58 1,164 104 2,079 133 2,664 133 2,664 133 2,664 Public Property - City 14 274 14 274 14 274 14 274 14 274 Public Property - County 3 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 3 53 Table 2. Planting scenario metrics by property ownership type. *These scenarios show achieving canopy cover goals by removing impervious surfaces in the Right-of-Way to increase plantable space. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 157/194 Report prepared for The City of Edmonds | Project conducted by PlanIT Geo, Inc. www.planitgeo.com | info@planitgeo.com TREE CANOPY & PLANTABLE SPACE BY LAND USE In addition to assessing tree canopy metrics at the property ownership level, tree canopy was evaluated on Edmonds’ nine combined land use classes. This analysis aimed to understand how different land uses and their primary functions (e.g. residential, commercial, open space, downtown, etc.) inﬂ uence tree canopy. This approach provides insights for urban planning and environmental management, facilitating targeted strategies for sustainable urban development. The classiﬁ ed land use areas within the city limits sum up to 5,675 acres, with 1,850 acres covered by tree canopy. Areas primarily classiﬁ ed for Single Family Residential purposes comprised over 75% of the city’s total land. Not surprisingly, this land use class contained nearly 80% of all tree cover (1,425 acres) in Edmonds, making it the most signiﬁ cant land use class in terms of canopy coverage. Areas classiﬁ ed as Open Space had the most dense canopy coverage at 70%, contributing 225 acres of canopy. In addition to canopy cover, the Single Family Residential class makes up nearly 90% of the total area available for planting trees (1,529 acres). Figure 2. Urban tree canopy potential by land use.Figure 3. Distribution of potential planting area percent by land use. Urban Tree Canopy Potential by Land Use (%)Potential Planting Area Distribution (%) Table 3. Possible planting acres by land use. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 158/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY How To Turn Tree Canopy Data Into Effective Tree Policy Item 2.2 Packet pg. 159/194 Trees Are Part of the Solution The trees that line our streets, shade our parks, and add character to our neighborhoods, collectively known as the urban forest, are a key piece of the puzzle for addressing some of the top challenges facing cities today. Research shows urban tree canopy is correlated with residential housing segregation and historic redlining practices across the United States, exacerbating the impacts of climate change and public health issues in disadvantaged communities. The release of American Forests’ Tree Equity Score maps in 2021 helped to further illustrate this point, showing that marginalized communities across the country suffer from a lack of trees today. With proper planning, urban trees can play a role in helping to mitigate both the causes and impacts of climate change. They also improve public health, both physically and mentally, and have the potential to address major health disparities in our communities. One method for studying urban trees, known as urban tree canopy (UTC) assessments, has experienced major innovations over the last few years, making canopy data more accessible than ever before. Now that canopy data is abundant, how can we translate that information into inclusive and effective policies for equitable urban forests? What Is An Urban Tree Canopy Assessment? A UTC assessment uses satellite or aerial imagery and LiDAR to map out the distribution of trees within a geographic area. It provides urban foresters and city planners a big picture view of the quantity and location of their existing trees and helps guide where new trees should be planted. Historically, UTC assessments and data were mostly used by big-budgeted, major cities, but thanks to technological advancements, communities of all sizes can now obtain regularly updated tree canopy data. WE DEVELOPED THIS GUIDE TO EXPLAIN: WHY Canopy Data Is Important To Planners ......................pg 3 HOW Communities Can Get Canopy Data ...........................pg 5 WHAT Policies Can Be Created From Canopy Data ......pg 8 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 160/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY3 WHY Urban Tree Canopy Is Important to Planners 2007 marked the first time in history that more people lived in cities than rural areas, globally. The trend towards urbanization has only increased since. In order to track urban growth and patterns of land cover change, UTC assessments often incorporate mapping of other land cover types to illustrate the ratio of tree canopy cover to impervious surfaces, other vegetation, soil, water, and more (more on this in the next section). As population growth continues, one of our greatest challenges in city planning is to cultivate urban environments that harmonize with natural systems and benefit residents equitably for generations to come. Frequently, trees and landscaping are treated more as an afterthought rather than an essential asset to the urban fabric. Urban trees offer a multitude of social, economic, and environmental services, such as mitigating stormwater, cooling air temperatures, reducing stress, increasing property values, and improving air quality. The sum of all of these services is an intentionally more livable community. We’ve gotten much better at valuing these services too. The 5.5 billion trees in U.S. urban areas provide an estimated $18.3 billion in value to their communities. Urban Heat Island Reduction Cooler cities are not just more comfortable, they save lives. Heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States, and one study of 97 urban areas estimated tree cover can reduce up to 346 deaths annually. A Public Mental Health Resource The pandemic-triggered lockdowns led to a global rise in park visitation, as people were drawn to green spaces for diversion and decompression. Nearby green space has been shown to reduce anxiety, depression, and aggression. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 161/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY4 We know trees improve our urban areas, both for the people living there and the natural environment, but in the face of development pressures and impacts from climate change (such as disease, pests, storms, and fire), urban forests require strong policies to persist and thrive. New tree growth can push back against these destructive forces when the right policies are in place, but urban forest losses have long overpowered new growth in the United States. The U.S. is losing urban tree canopy at a pace of 36 million trees and $96 million in tree benefits every year. To reverse this course and enact effective tree policies, the best first step is to measure and track what currently exists with an urban tree canopy assessment. With a UTC assessment, you can lay out exactly where your urban tree canopy exists today, and by analyzing imagery from past years, you can show how canopy is growing and shrinking over time. This is invaluable feedback on the impact of past policies, and it can serve as guidance for investments in your urban forest. Most importantly, it allows you to make a reasonable, data-backed case to government leadership for changes to your local policies and ordinances that will improve tree equity and canopy coverage. WHY GRAND JUNCTION GOT A UTC ASSESSMENT “Leadership within community forestry programs will always struggle to get outside agencies to buy into the value of trees without having canopy assessment data. It is too easy to be viewed as the “tree hugger” who is complaining about a few tree losses without data backing up the discussion. Having visual information, as well as data, documenting key aspects of how tree cover is changing in a community, and the services the resource is providing moves the conversation into a discussion of reality versus feelings.” -Rob Davis, City Forester, Grand Junction, Colorado With 62,000 residents, Grand Junction is the largest city on the western slope of Colorado, and in 2021 the city was able to complete its first UTC assessment thanks to the improved accessibility of tree canopy data. The analysis showed Grand Junction’s tree canopy had grown from 7% in 2011 to 11% in 2019 and provided $30 million in annual cost savings. Rob Davis, Grand Junction City Forester, is now using the canopy data to justify changes in the municipal code, influence development code, and better integrate urban forestry goals into future comprehensive plans. Check out our Grand Junction case study to learn more. Urban tree canopy by census block in Grand Junction. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 162/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY5 HOW Communities Can Get Canopy Data There are two approaches for quantifying your urban forest: bottom up or top down. A tree inventory works from the bottom up, as personnel work on the ground to map the location and record the condition of individual trees in a defined area (typically only on public property). The top down approach analyzes where tree canopy exists using remote sensing sources, such as aerial and satellite imagery and LiDAR elevation data, and is called an urban tree canopy (UTC) assessment. Unlike a tree inventory, a tree canopy assessment looks at all trees in the city, both public and private, so it is excellent for tracking large scale trends, setting canopy goals, measuring the effectiveness of urban forest management programs over time, and as we’ll discuss below, informing effective policy updates. There are multiple methods for completing a UTC assessment that vary in scope, cost, and data output. Some of these options can be done in-house, while others require an outside consultant. UTC ASSESSMENT METHODS Point Sampling This is the simplest method and can be completed using the i-Tree Canopy tool. Random points are generated within an area and manually assigned a value of “tree” or “non-tree” until a 1-2% standard error is reached. By dividing the number of “tree” points by the total number of points, you can quickly get an estimate of the percent canopy cover or any other land cover type. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 163/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY6 i-Tree Landscape Another way to measure tree canopy is through the i-Tree Landscape tool. This tool uses land cover data from the National Land Cover Database and sometimes incorporates high-resolution data from a UTC assessment. Once a location is selected, an estimate of the amount of tree canopy is provided. You can also explore location data (census data, forest risk, future climate, etc.), see tree benefits, prioritize tree plantings, and generate reports. The resolution for the land cover information in i-Tree Landscape is typically 30 meters, so many trees in the urban environment are not captured and the information provided may not represent real-world conditions. High-Resolution Land Cover Mapping The third method uses remote sensing technology and high-resolution imagery (aerial or satellite) and elevation (LiDAR) datasets to create detailed land cover data. These data are used to categorize a given landscape into specific classes, such as tree canopy, other vegetation, impervious surfaces, bare soil, or water. This method provides the highest level of detail, with an image resolution of 60 centimeters to 1 meter. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 164/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY7 Artificial Intelligence-Driven Assessments This is a new innovation in canopy and land cover assessment technology available through PlanIT Geo™. The results are similar to high-resolution land cover mapping, but the process is partially automated using the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning. What this means is the delivery time for UTC assessments can be days instead of months and results can be updated as a subscription every two years, instead of repeating the entire process every five to ten years. The dataset baseline is 2011, so communities can get a change analysis to see the trends of their urban forest from 2011 up to current day. Canopy growth does not happen very quickly in most climates, but canopy loss sure can. Having a more frequent change analysis leads to more targeted policies, as you can hone in on trends faster, such as certain zoning districts suddenly making up the majority of canopy losses. This method represents a major shift in the traditional UTC assessment process, as technological advancements and plentiful data sources have made tree canopy analysis accessible for any size community. The story of Grand Junction, highlighted at the end of the previous chapter, exemplifies the importance of this shift. The tight operating budget of Grand Junction’s forestry department had dissuaded any previous attempts to complete a traditional canopy assessment. PlanIT Geo’s subscription model for tree canopy and land cover data made the price point manageable and for first time Grand Junction can support their management actions and advocate for policy changes with canopy data. Geographic Scales UTC assessments can be calculated using a variety of spatial scales. For example, PlanIT Geo analyzed nine distinct geographic boundaries for a UTC Assessment of Colorado Springs, Colorado, including council districts, watersheds, land use types, and census blocks. Each scale offers unique insights, such as identifying which land use types are seeing the greatest canopy losses, which may point to needed policy changes. You can’t just look at the tree canopy alone. The benefit of looking at the scale of census blocks and block groups is they can be easily cross referenced with other socioeconomic data. This helps develop maps highlighting where disadvantaged populations are most lacking in tree canopy. You can even analyze how supportive the natural elements in your city are for public health using new datasets developed by PlanIT Geo partner, NatureQuant. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 165/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY8 WHAT Policies Can Be Created From Canopy Data Now that we’ve covered how and why tree canopy data is valuable to city planning efforts, let’s explore what type of urban forestry policies can be pursued as a result. A tree canopy assessment can lay the groundwork for canopy goal-setting, preservation of the existing urban forest, and implementation of proactive tree care. Comprehensive plans, municipal codes of ordinances, and master plans are all tools city planners use to shape and guide development, preservation, and everything in between. Many city departments are typically involved with the day-to-day operations for trees, which can result in confusion over responsibility, authority, and maintenance. A UTC assessment helps you orient your city departments and set the stage for citywide urban tree canopy goals and a proactive tree maintenance plan. PLANNING AND UTC GOALS As is the case with all citywide planning goals, it takes specific regulations to build toward a canopy cover goal over time. After completing a UTC assessment and understanding your baseline data, you can set a goal for how much canopy is appropriate to strive for in your city. While 40% was once referenced as an ideal citywide canopy goal, the urban forestry industry now recognizes there is no “one size fits all” recommendation for cities due to the vast array of climatic, land use, and population density conditions. As such, we strongly encourage you to set canopy goals with input from city staff, local experts, community members, and elected officials to ensure community buy-in and an integrated approach. You can read more on setting canopy goals in our blog: How To Set Effective, Evidence-Based Urban Tree Canopy Goals. When a UTC goal is decided upon, your city’s comprehensive plan or an urban forest management plan are both appropriate places to house this overarching goal. The supporting actions that build toward this canopy goal should be included in your municipal code of ordinances and standard operating procedures. For example, Fremont, California completed a UTC assessment in 2020 as part of a larger Urban Forest Management Plan that includes canopy goals and equity-based prioritization for future canopy investments. The City then incorporated references to their canopy coverage within the municipal code chapters for Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Property, as well as Planning and Zoning. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 166/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY9 ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC TREES VS. PRIVATE TREES It’s important to understand how much of the UTC is owned and maintained by the city versus privately owned. When UTC data is aggregated by parks, streets and rights-of-way, and city-owned properties, your city can discover areas of strength or opportunity within your domain. In many urbanized areas, it is often the tree canopy on private property that outweighs the amount on publicly owned land. Urban forestry management plans and public tree ordinances are common avenues for your city to provide structure for your municipal urban forestry program, set goals and implementation strategies, and designate public tree maintenance responsibilities, authority, and processes. Whether your municipality handles street tree maintenance or the adjacent property owner does, policies need to be clear and concise for setting the trees up for a long, healthy life that will continue to grow the canopy. Canopy study trends are continuously revealing that, aside from large-scale nature preserves and parks, tree canopy cover is greatest within single-family residential zoning districts. Ordinances protecting trees on private land are on the rise, particularly in cities experiencing a lot of growth, development, and redevelopment. These codes may include planting requirements, tree removal regulations, and standards for tree maintenance. Beyond these ordinances, municipalities have a great opportunity to provide public education and stewardship training to help community members care for trees. Care for young and newly planted trees is especially important to ensure the trees contribute to the citywide canopy for generations to come. This is an area where a nonprofit partnership can be extremely effective. EDUCATING THE PUBLIC WITH TREESCHARLOTTE TreesCharlotte is a local nonprofit that has been an invaluable community partner for Charlotte, North Carolina’s urban forestry team. The nonprofit organizes volunteer planting events all over the city (43,000 trees planted or given away so far) and educates residents on the importance of the canopy and how to preserve trees. To support these efforts the city hosts the headquarters of TreesCharlotte in their Landscape Management office and supports their operations with capital, planting plans, and technical support. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 167/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY10 PRESERVING EXISTING URBAN FOREST VS. PROMOTING FUTURE URBAN FOREST Depending on the preservation issues facing your community, you may have specific tree species or ecosystems in need of additional protection standards. Establishing guidelines for preserving larger trees can help to retain existing canopy. You may think preservation of existing urban forest is the main objective of local ordinances, but it’s also important to consider trees that will be planted in the future. As previously explained, land classification typically includes both tree canopy, other vegetative cover, and impervious surfaces, among other land cover types. The ratio of impervious surfaces to tree canopy can be quite alarming in urbanized areas, resulting in large amounts of land throughout the city unable to support tree canopy. Policies limiting impervious surfaces can promote future possible planting areas (PPA) for your city. In promoting your future urban forest, you can analyze UTC by land use or zoning districts to identify areas for improvement in your zoning code. Zoning districts with low UTC but high PPA are prime for investment in tree plantings. UTC goals and tree planting requirements can be set at a large scale (citywide or zoning district) or they can be site-specific. For example, a citywide goal could be 35% canopy or a maximum impervious area at 35%. RENTON’S PATH TO NEW TREE POLICIES Renton, Washington is a suburb of Seattle with a population just over 100,000. Their path to updating tree ordinances started with a 2018 UTC Assessment, which found the citywide canopy cover had actually increased slightly from 2010 to 2017. However, the only land-use type with declining canopy cover over that span was single-family residential, which accounts for 73% of the city’s total canopy. The city proposed several tree regulation amendments in 2022 to better encourage the retention of mature trees, including new development incentives to preserve high-value trees and ensuring tree preservation methods discourage future tree removal violations. They are supporting these changes with a new urban forest management plan which includes canopy goals and staffing recommendations so they can effectively enforce the tree regulations. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 168/194 FROM CANOPY TO POLICY: HOW TO TURN TREE CANOPY DATA INTO EFFECTIVE TREE POLICY11 Conclusion It’s time for every program to start measuring and mitigating the unequal distribution of urban tree canopy and all associated benefits that come with it. It starts with understanding your community’s baseline canopy coverage, then analyzing that data for the bigger story. Where is your urban forest disappearing? Where has canopy always been lacking? How does possible planting area correlate with rising temperatures or poor public health? Backed by these insights, your city is ready to look towards the future and start planning policies to make sure your urban forestry program is moving in the right direction. This often starts by establishing a canopy cover goal, which helps prioritize management actions, motivate the public and officials, and inspire funding and stewardship. That goal can be the catalyst to create more tactical policy changes based on what was identified in the UTC assessment, such as the need to promote more new plantings or strengthen mature tree protections. With canopy data as your guide, your community can enact updates to codes, ordinances, and regulations ensuring decisions made today build towards beneficial outcomes for your forest in decades to come. About PlanIT Geo Since 2012, PlanIT Geo™ has provided cutting-edge technology and planning services globally for urban forestry, parks management, and arboriculture. Our TreePlotter™ Software Suite and expert team of GIS specialists and consultants are ready to help your community acquire canopy data and turn those insights into customized policy recommendations. If you would like to know more about our urban forestry software or services, please explore our website and feel free to send us your questions. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 169/194 2026 TREE CODE UPDATE PROJECT ATTACHMENT 4 RESOURCES LIST EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 17.130 Last amended through Ordinances No. 4410, 4426 with minor amendments. Tree Related Regulations moved from Title 23 Natural Resources to Title 17 General Zoning Regulations. BEST PRACTICES/GENERAL RESOURCES King County Guide to Developing Effective Tree Regulations1 https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648.pdf Appendix D – King County Jurisdictions Tree Code Summary Table https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648AppD.pdf Urban Forests for Healthier Cities: Policy, Planning, Regulations, and Institutional Arrangements. Cities4Forests, 2019. For decision makers, planners, stakeholders on policy, planning, regulation topics. https://cities4forests.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/C4F-Urban-Forests-for-Healthier-Cities.pdf MRSC (Municipal Research Services Center) links to good examples of Urban Forest Management Plans, tree code, statutory references, Growth Management Act requirements associated with Comp Plan elements, and tree canopy cover resources. https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/environment/resources/urban-forestry APA Resource Library (see publications listed by topic). Not all resources are available online for free. ISA Online Dictionary – concise, publicly accessible definitions that align with industry standards. Note: ANSI Standards and ISA Best Management Practices reflect the most recent updates but are not available online for free. Vibrant Cities Lab – USDA guidance for urban forest management. Its Resource Library search engine includes publications, research, case studies, tools, guides, organizations on most topics relevant to the tree code update project, such as canopy cover. Local Ordinances for WA Cities and Counties – best practices on proper code/ordinance language by MRSC. https://mrsc.org/getmedia/44e20d0f-a536-473f- 1 The agreed-upon best practices guide for Edmonds Planning Board reference. No resource exists for Snohomish County jurisdictions, although county-wide urban growth area policies have been developed. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 170/194 2026 TREE CODE UPDATE PROJECT ATTACHMENT 4 RESOURCES LIST baac-bd7504323330/Local-Ordinances-For-Washington-Cities-And- Counties.pdf?ext=.pdf REGULATING TREES: MUNICIPAL COMPARISONS & LEGAL ISSUES See King County Guide, Appendix D for a comparison of 39 King County jurisdictions’ tree code approaches: basic framework, definitions, minimum requirements, etc. Analysis of Urban Tree Protections in King County. February 2024. Comparison of local jurisdictions tree code development process, lessons learned, some info on legal challenges. https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2024/kcr3648/kcr3648AppB.pdf Publication on Nollan-Dolan standard (case law affecting local land use regulations) by the Housing Affordability Institute. https://www.housingaffordabilityinstitute.org/nollan- dolan/ Tree Conservation Ordinances: Land-Use Regulations Go Green. 1993. Christopher Duerksen w/ Suzanne Richman. APA, Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Report Number 446. Chapter 3, Legal Aspects of Tree Conservation: authority, review standards, takings, rational nexus, etc. Not in Planning library, can access through APA. Got Trees? 2006. Chris Duerkensen, Molly Mowery and Michele McGlyn. APA, Zoning Practice publication, Issue Number 7. Constitutional issues, case law related to tree regulations. Not in Planning library, can access pdf through APA. HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS & URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 7 Ways to Encourage Urban Forests in Your City. Planning Magazine, Nov 6, 2025. Mary Hammon. https://www.planning.org/planning/2025/nov/7-ways-to-encourage- urban-forests-in-your-city/ University of Washington College of Forestry: Green Cities: Good Health. Online compendium of research related to human health benefits of trees/nature in cities. https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Top_Introduction.html Planning for Urban Forest Benefits. Robert Laverne. APA PAS QuickNotes 39 (2-page publication) free to APA members (Planning library) https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9007636/ Community Trees and Forests: Improving Environmental and Human Well-Being. Dr. David Nowak, Elsevier Publishing. To be released May 1, 2026. Everett Herald article on heat and canopy cover, Aug. 2025 A new online tool could aid in local planning to increase tree coverage | HeraldNet.com Item 2.2 Packet pg. 171/194 2026 TREE CODE UPDATE PROJECT ATTACHMENT 4 RESOURCES LIST Check: APA Knowledge Center, Research Knowledgebase, category “Tree Preservation and the Urban Forest.” Member access through: https://www.planning.org/search/?csrfmiddlewaretoken=ET91z2QnEy03mIaqlCP8q3uK OEWtB8PwJd8iPVyv7CCXkk86RhLg6aOoVebAV3SO&keyword=planning+the+urban+f orest See DNR map showing neighboring jurisdictions’ investments in UF. Urban and Community Forestry | Department of Natural Resources TREE CANOPY COVER (UTC) Excerpt: UTC measures impervious surface vs canopy cover and other land cover. It is a relatively easy-to-obtain metric gauging how cities are balancing growth, housing needs and development with other community goals, such as climate resiliency, environmental quality, livability and private property rights. UTC is a performance measure that allows cities to track canopy cover gain/loss over time, trends that may correlate to code effectiveness, tree planting programs, incentives, public education, etc. PlanIT Geo Guide on Canopy Cover to Policy (pdf accessible through PlanIT Geo, attached to Jan 28 PB memo). Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. 2009. James Schwab, FAICP. American Planning Association. Written from planner’s perspective. See p. 120-121 on canopy cover goal as important step in establishing ordinance. Planning Principles 1-6, p. 31. Case study: City of Olympia, similar tree ordinance to Kirkland. Planning library, free to APA members here: https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026879/ Urban Forestry Today - University of Massachusetts Amherst/Extension (research and professional development) for publications and webcasts. Note Jan 14, 2026 archived webcast on U.S. urbanization and other factors affecting tree cover and benefits. Intended for STEM audiences. Snohomish County Urban Tree Policies webpage, including resources and canopy cover applicable to county UGAs (not applicable to individual cities, unless unincorporated. Urban Tree Canopy Policies | Snohomish County, WA - Official Website Development Practices and Ordinances as Predictors of Canopy Coverage in FL Communities. Study on the effects on tree canopy cover from 43 FL cities’ management practices and ordinances. Predictors are housing densities and [landmark] trees. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327549477_Development_Practices_and_Ord inances_as_Predictors_of_Canopy_Coverage_in_Florida_United_States_Communities Item 2.2 Packet pg. 172/194 2026 TREE CODE UPDATE PROJECT ATTACHMENT 4 RESOURCES LIST Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - December 17, 2025 discussion on establishing citywide tree canopy cover goal at timestamp 1:38:45, slide 18, and relevant agenda materials. Decision outcome: Bothell adopted 46% citywide canopy cover goal by 2045. Kenmore City Council meeting discussion re: establishing citywide tree canopy cover goal (date? link + agenda materials), presented by consultant Facet. Contact Nina Rasmussen. Municipal Canopy Cover Comparisons* (edited table shown in 1/28/26 PB memo) City Existing Canopy Cover Citywide Tree Canopy Goal Target Year Bellevue 40%40%2050 Bothell 44%46%2045 (20years) Edmonds 32%35% (proposed)2045 (proposed) Issaquah 51%55%2035 Kenmore 46%50%2045 Kirkland 38%40%2044 Lake Forest Park 50%By zoning designation “30-year maturity cycle” Montlake Terrace 32%38%2050 Redmond 38%40%2050 Renton 32%33%2042 Seattle 28%30%2037 Spokane 23%40%2030 Tacoma 20%30%2030 Woodinville 45%40%N/A *Data initially compiled by PlanITGeo for Bothell UFMP, fact-checked by staff. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 173/194 Progress Report 2026 Tree Code Updates City Council Study Session June 10, 2026 Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner Item 2.2 Packet pg. 174/194 Overvie w 2CITY OF EDMONDS 2026 Tree Code Update Background Planning Board Direction Supporting Materials Next Steps Item 2.2 Packet pg. 175/194 Why regulate trees? Item 2.2 Packet pg. 176/194 Why update the code? 4 UFMP: Preserve trees with development (2019) City Council: Address tree removals unrelated to development (2021) Climate Action Plan (2023), Comprehensive Plan (2024): tree canopy cover goal Rimmer case (2023-current) “Big Red” removal (2025) Interim Landmark Tree Ordinances (2021-2026) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 177/194 Scoped Objectives •Establish citywide tree canopy cover goal •Define landmark trees and determine an appropriate regulatory approach •Slow the loss of tree removals on private property •Consider code changes for consistency and clarity based on policy guidance, best practices, prior analysis and stakeholder feedback. CITY OF EDMONDS 2026 Tree Code Update 5 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 178/194 Who is involved? CITY OF EDMONDS 2026 Tree Code Update 6 2023 Feedback Public survey “Community Conversation” workshops (2) Individual stakeholder group meetings (3) 2026 Focus Group FOET, developers, arborists, and environmental advocates Role: inform Planning Board decisions throughout project Tree Board Prior recommendations Review draft code, provide Planning Board recommendation Planning Board, City Council, Legal, Planning/Public Works staff, consultants (2023). Item 2.2 Packet pg. 179/194 Planning Board Direction: 7CITY OF EDMONDS 2026 Tree Code Update Code Intent/Purpose 35% citywide tree canopy cover goal by 2045 Definitions Including Landmark tree 1 2 Tree removals unrelated to development Tree removal allowances Additional code changes •Tree retention/replacement with development •Simplify/clarify code, align with BMPs, etc. 3 5 Code reorganization 4 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 180/194 Supporting Materials CITY OF EDMONDS 2026 Tree Code Update 8 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 181/194 Discussion Item 2.2 Packet pg. 182/194 Next Steps 10CITY OF EDMONDS Critical Areas Ordinance Update Planning Board June 24/Jul 8 (tentative) – review draft code July 22 - public hearing, recommendation to Council Tree Board July 2 – recommendation to Planning Board City Council August 4 – review and discuss draft ECDC 17.130 Sept 8 – public hearing Sept 22 – review, approve changes to the code Oct 6 – adopt ECDC 17.130 amendments Item 2.2 Packet pg. 183/194 City Council Agenda Item 3.1 June 10, 2026 - Study Session TITLE:Access Agreement for Edmonds Marsh Esturay Advocates and Adopt a Stream Foundation to Perform Stream Restoration Work on City Property (First Reading) DEPARTMENT:Public Works and Utilities PRESENTER:Andy Rheaume, Public Works and Utilities Director NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:I move to authorize the Mayor to sign the access agreement as presented. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates and Adopt a Stream Foundation secured grant funding and permits to perform restoration work in and adjacent to Shellabarger Creek and Shell Creek. Part of the restoration project is in Yost Park and Adopt a Stream Foundation needs an access agreement with the City to perform the work. Purchasing Policy section 14 titled Real Property requires City Council to approve the Mayor to sign real property contracts such as access agreements. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates and the Adopt A Stream Foundation (AASF) propose a multi- faceted watershed restoration initiative to stabilize eroding streambanks, enhance stormwater retention, and restore hydrologic function within the upper watersheds of Shell Creek and Shellabarger Creek—two vital Edmonds waterways that drain directly to Puget Sound. This project will employ low-tech, process-based restoration techniques supported by dedicated community volunteers. The primary methods include: ● Native vegetation planting for streambank stabilization ● Post-Assisted Log Structure (PALS)/Beaver Dam Analog (BDA) installations These efforts aim to slow, spread, and sink stormwater higher in the watershed, improving base flows during summer months, reducing stream flashiness, and increasing habitat resilience. Lessons learned will guide larger-scale implementation across other Edmonds watersheds in future years. The overall project period is proposed to be 2026 through 2029, 3 ½ years, with maintenance extending to 2031. This Rose Foundation funding would fund Phase 1, the first 12 months. RECOMMENDATION: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign the access agreement as presented. Item 3.1 Packet pg. 184/194 BUDGET IMPACTS: No budget impact. ITEM HISTORY: None ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Access Agreement with Scope fo Work Item 3.1 Packet pg. 185/194 LANDOWNER AGREEMENT This Landowner Agreement (this “Agreement”) dated and effective this 23rd day of May, 2026, by and between: Landowner: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Ave N Edmonds Grantee: The Adopt A Stream Foundation (AASF), 600 128th St. SE, Everett, WA 98208 (425) 316-85 1. Consent. The signatories to this agreement join in conducting certain restoration activities to benefit water quality and fish habitat on property owned by the City of Edmonds . The legal description of the property and a project scope of work are presented in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 2. Access. The Landowner agrees to provide access to employees of AASF (the Grantee) and local citizen volunteers to complete streamside planting and related restoration work with a one (1) week prior notice to the Landowner. The Landowner also agrees to provide access, with a two (2) week notice, to Rose Foundation staff, when accompanied by AASF, to view the site. The terms of this Agreement will be for a ten (10) year period from the date of final signature. During this period, the Landowner agrees to not intentionally compromise the integrity of the restoration work and project site. The Landowner also agrees to provide reasonable property access to the Grantee to plan, complete, and monitor the long-term condition of the restoration site, and to allow the Grantee to display the site for educational purposes. This agreement transfers with ownership, rental or leasing of the land. 3. Agreement Modification/Termination. This Agreement may be modified at any time by mutual written consent by authorized representatives of all the parties. 4. Landowner Rights. This Agreement does not authorize the Grantee to assume jurisdiction over, or any ownership interest in the premises. The Landowner retains all rights to control trespass and retains all responsibility for taxes, assessments, and damage claims. 5. Removal of Property. Grantee agrees that it will, upon the conclusion of the project, remove any equipment it installed on the property as a part of the permitted activities, repair any damage to the property that might have been caused with any of the permitted activities, and will return the property to the condition it was in before Grantee’s entry onto the property. In the event any materials and/or equipment placed on the property by the Grantee are not removed in a timely manner, the Landowner will have the right to remove such materials and/or equipment, and the Grantee agrees to be responsible for the reasonable costs of such removal. 6. Liability. Each of the parties to this Agreement agrees that it will be liable for its own acts and the acts of its employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and the results thereof, in connection with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, and for its own acts and the acts of its employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and the results thereof, that occur on the land, unless such acts or results arise from the negligent or willful acts, or omissions of the other parties to this Agreement, their employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, or affiliates. 7. Agreement Expiration/Termination. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Landowner assumes full and complete responsibility for all restoration developments made under this Agreement. Landowner guarantees ownership of the above-described land and warrant that there are no outstanding rights, which interfere with this Agreement. _____________________________ _________ ______________________________ ___________ Date Keith Binkley, AASF Co-Director Date Item 3.1 Packet pg. 186/194 Rose Foundation Grant Proposal – Edmonds Watershed Restoration Projects Submitted by: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates 4/27/26 Project Overview The Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates and the Adopt A Stream Foundation (AASF) propose a multi-faceted watershed restoration initiative to stabilize eroding streambanks, enhance stormwater retention, and restore hydrologic function within the upper watersheds of Shell Creek and Shellabarger Creek—two vital Edmonds waterways that drain directly to Puget Sound. This project will employ low-tech, process-based restoration techniques supported by dedicated community volunteers. The primary methods include: ● Native vegetation planting for streambank stabilization ● Post-Assisted Log Structure (PALS)/Beaver Dam Analog (BDA) installations These efforts aim to slow, spread, and sink stormwater higher in the watershed, improving base flows during summer months, reducing stream flashiness, and increasing habitat resilience. Lessons learned will guide larger-scale implementation across other Edmonds watersheds in future years. The overall project period is proposed to be 2026 through 2029, 3 ½ years, with maintenance extending to 2031. This Rose Foundation funding would fund Phase 1, the first 12 months. Project Goals and Objectives ● Restore hydrologic balance by increasing water retention and infiltration. ● Stabilize eroding streambanks with deep-rooted native vegetation. ● Reduce stream flashiness and downstream erosion using PALS. ● Enhance ecological function and resilience in the Shell and Shellabarger Creek systems. ● Educate and engage citizen volunteers in hands-on restoration, maintenance, and monitoring. Work Process AASF will assume fiduciary responsibility along with grant and project management, with local Edmonds volunteers conducting the work. There will be monthly, one day, week-end work parties at the Shellabarger sites throughout the length of the grant. In addition, larger, community work parties will be held in the late fall each year to plant natives. Woody debris will be stockpiled by existing volunteer work Item 3.1 Packet pg. 187/194 parties in multiple Edmonds Parks as it becomes available. Weekly work parties during the summer in-water work window will perform the wood structure installations in Shellabarger and Shell Creek. Names of volunteers and work hours will be recorded at each event and submitted to AASF. Volunteer activities will be insured through AASF. Collaborators include AASF, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the City of Edmonds and local volunteer stewardship programs. Work descriptions common to vegetation tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Goal: Stabilize eroding riparian zones using native plants to strengthen soils, reduce erosion, and enhance carbon storage. Approach: ● Replace grass and invasive vegetation (e.g., English ivy) with native shrubs, trees, and wetland plants. ● Prioritize species such as: o Willows (Pacific, Scouler’s, and Sitka) o Wetland shrubs—twinberry, ninebark, salmonberry, snowberry, and dogwood o Riparian trees and understory plants—Sitka spruce, sword fern, paper birch, Oregon ash, Oregon grape, and Cascara, red flowering currant, red elderberry, and mock orange ● Native plant cuttings will be used for many of these species Phase 1 Schedule: ● Planting and maintenance: Late Fall of 2026 and spring 2027 ● Invasive removal: Gradual expansion outward from planted zones as work occurs ● Monitoring annually, as future funding phases allow Work descriptions common to stream work tasks 6 and 7 (BDAs/PALS). Goal: Strengthen stream structure, reduce erosion, retain stormwater in upper watersheds, and restore channel stability through natural engineering techniques. Design & Permitting: ● Detailed design and site plans will be developed by volunteers and reviewed by AASF and WDFW. They will emphasize hydraulic resilience under high-flow conditions, focusing on scour and buoyant force impacts. ● Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) application will be drafted by volunteers, reviewed by AASF and signed by landowners, and submitted to WDFW. ● In-water work will occur during the July 1st – September 15th instream work window as specified by WDFW (2026 or 2027, pending permits). Maintenance: ● Post fall/winter storm inspections and repairs will be ongoing. ● New materials will be added as structures evolve to maintain function. Monitoring and Long-Term Stewardship Project success will be tracked through: ● Annual visual and photo monitoring ● Vegetation survival assessments ● Hydrologic and erosion observations ● Community engagement tracking Long-term maintenance and adaptive management will ensure structures and vegetation continue functioning effectively after major storm events. Community Involvement Volunteer networks are already mobilized: ● Edmonds Steward volunteers at Yost Park (Shell Creek) ● Local citizen teams active in upper and lower Shellabarger Creek sites ● Advertising in local papers and on-line will encourage community work parties. Item 3.1 Packet pg. 188/194 Task Descriptions: Lower Shellabarger Tasks 1 and 2. Riparian vegetation Both left and right banks will be planted with wetland/stream bank vegetation. The grassy area on the left bank is highly subject to erosion and channel migration. Native live staking will help stabilize this area. The right bank and steep slopes on both sides of the Creek are covered in English ivy. This will be replaced in a gradual process with more deeply rooted native shrubs and trees. Native revegetation will also occur in the downstream wetland area, focusing on willows. Item 3.1 Packet pg. 189/194 Upper Shellabarger Tasks 3 and 4. Riparian vegetation The grassy area is highly subject to erosion and channel migration. Native vegetation will stabilize the banks. Steep slopes on both sides of the Creek are covered in English ivy. This will be replaced in a gradual process with more deeply rooted native shrubs and trees. Task 5. Maintain an existing bank stabilization project. Sandbags and willow fascines were installation in Shellabarger Creek in the fall of 2025 under an expedited Hydraulics Project Approval. This temporary installation will be maintained and improved as needed. The plastic sandbags will be replaced with soil filled burlap planted through with willow stakes. Task 6. Beaver Dam Analog Beaver dam analogs (BDAs) are low-tech, channel-spanning structures designed to mimic the form and function of natural beaver dams using hand-built bioengineering techniques. They will consist of Item 3.1 Packet pg. 190/194 a foundation of wooden posts driven into the streambed, reinforced with woven vegetation and local materials to create a semi-porous barrier. Approximately half the posts will be live willow stakes to help create a more permanent structure. One 35’ long BDA will be installed on Shellabarger Creek. The dam will extend from historic bank to bank to reduce the potential for additional erosion. Construction steps will include: installing vertical untreated wooden posts in two rows perpendicular to the flow, spaced 2-3 feet apart; installing a brush mat of conifer branches; weaving horizontal branches between the posts; creating an apron downstream with branches to avoid plunge scour. Posts will be purchased and will be of high strength untreated wood with tapered bottoms. An AASF motorized post driver will be used to help ensure that posts are deeply embedded and able to resist hydrostatic forces. Wood for BDAs will come from local tree fall in Edmonds Parks and from nursery-sourced live stakes. Materials will be stockpiled throughout the year for installation during the summer work window. Site Plan: Item 3.1 Packet pg. 191/194 Shell Creek Task 7. Post-Assisted Log Structure Shell Creek has an eroding left bank where abandoned concrete dam has partially failed. A Post Assisted Log Structure (PALS) extending from the end of the dam to the bank (20’) will help direct flow back to original channel, reducing erosion and allowing previously-planted willows to fully mature and provide long-term erosion control. The construction elements include: large key logs on the stream bed; vertical, angled, driven posts; smaller branches woven between the posts to create a semi-permeable matrix; and a downstream apron of branches to resist downstream scour. The posts will be driven with an motorized post pounder. They will be angled to resist the upward buoyancy of submerged wood and will be placed in pairs two feet apart. Willows and other riparian vegetation will be planted on the eroding streambank to eventually provide permanent bank stabilization. Site plan: Item 3.1 Packet pg. 192/194 Budget: Item 3.1 Packet pg. 193/194 Legal Descriptions Shellabarger Creek Condominiums NW1/4 SEC25 T27N R3E SHELLABARGER CREEK CONDO UNIT 302 TGW ENCLOSED PARKING SPACE NO 302 & OTHER PARKING AS ASSIGNED & UND 12% INT IN COMMON AREAS & FACS AS DESC IN DECL REC AF NO 9506230114 & AMENDED PER AFN 199906110239 Edmonds Park Apartments SEC 26 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-6A-1) N 190FT OF N1/2 NW1/4 NE1/4 NE 1/4 EXC E 30FT THOF & EXC FDT BEG NE COROF NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 TH S89*44 00W ALG N LN THOF 30FT TPB TH CONT S89**44 00W 270FT TH S00*19 00E 50FT TH N89*44 00E190FT TH S00*19 00E 10FT TH N89*44 00E 80FT TAP 30FT W OF E LN OF NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 TH N 60FT TPB 3rd Avenue Condominiums Section 26 Township 27 Range 03 Quarter NE THIRD AVENUE CONDOMINIUM BLDG B UNIT B201 TGW ASSIGNED GARAGE/PARKING SP/STORAGE (IF ANY) & TGW EQ & UNDIV 3.58% INT IN COM AREAS & FACS AS DESCIN DECL REC UND AFN 9110310017 AMEND BY AF NOS 9206240360, 9207010280, 200808110381 City of Edmonds, Yost Park SEC 24 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-41) SE1/4 SE1/4 LESS RDS LESS S 110FTOF W 330FT LY NELY CITY RD Item 3.1 Packet pg. 194/194