Loading...
2026-08-11 Council PacketEdmonds City Council Agenda August 11, 2026 Posted: 8/7/2026 11:43 AM Page 1 Agenda Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting Council Chambers 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261 AUGUST 11, 2026, 6:00 PM 1.CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 2.LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self- determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. 3.ROLL CALL 4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5.PRESENTATION 1.Resolution Recognizing the 136th Anniversary of the Founding of the City of Edmonds Only One Reading Required – City Council Office (5 minutes) 2.Resolution Commending Student Representative to City Council, Vivian Liao Only One Reading Required – City Council Office (5 minutes) 3.Mayor’s Finance Update – Mayor's Office (5 minutes) 6.AUDIENCE COMMENTS This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as closed record review or as a public hearing. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state clearly your name and city of residence. If attending via Zoom, raise a virtual hand to be recognized. If using a phone to dial in, press *9 to raise a hand. When prompted, press *6 to unmute. 7.RECEIVED FOR FILING 8.APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Only One Reading Required Edmonds City Council Agenda August 11, 2026 Posted: 8/7/2026 11:43 AM Page 2 2. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Only One Reading Required 3. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Only One Reading Required 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2026 Tree Code Amendments, File #AMD2026-0001 Fifth Reading and Beyond – Planning and Development Services (45 minutes) 2. Edmonds Automated Traffic Safety Program and draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.10 ECC First Reading – Police Department and Mayor's Office (45 minutes) 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 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. 9 0 0 City Council Agenda Item 5.1 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Resolution Recognizing the 136th Anniversary of the Founding of the City of Edmonds (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:City Council Office PRESENTER:Jenna Nand NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approve a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RECOGNIZING THE 136TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: The resolution recognizes August 11, 2026, as the 136th anniversary of the founding of the City of Edmonds. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: This resolution formally acknowledges and celebrates today, August 11, 2026 as the 136th anniversary of the founding of the City of Edmonds, originally established on August 11, 1890. The resolution reflects on the city’s history and recognizes the community’s ongoing commitment to civic values and quality of life. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution recognizing the 136th anniversary of the founding of the City of Edmonds. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ITEM HISTORY: Since its founding, Edmonds has developed into a vibrant community known for its strong civic engagement, environmental stewardship, and dedication to fostering a high quality of life for residents and visitors. The anniversary is an opportunity for the City Council to publicly honor Edmonds' past while affirming support for a sustainable and prosperous future. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS:   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 3/143   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 3/143 9 0 0 1. Resolution celebrating the 136th anniversary of the founding of the City of Edmonds.   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 4/143   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 4/143 RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RECOGNIZING THE 136TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WHEREAS, we acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors, the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds was officially founded on Snohomish land on August 11, 1890, marking a 136 year history of collaboration with our tribal allies; and WHEREAS; the history of Edmonds reflects the dedication, resilience, and vision of its early community members, whose combined efforts established the foundation for a vibrant and thriving city; and WHEREAS and Edmonds today is recognized for its strong community values, its dedication to civic engagement, and its success in fostering a high quality of life for residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, the City continues to honor its past while embracing a prosperous and sustainable future; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Council hereby recognizes and celebrates the 136th anniversary of the founding of Edmonds, Washington, and extends appreciation to all who have contributed to the city's history, growth, and continued success. MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 5/143   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 5/143 1 5 7 8 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:INSERT DATE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:INSERT DATE RESOLUTION NO:XXXX   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 6/143   Item 5.1       Packet pg. 6/143 City Council Agenda Item 5.2 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Resolution Commending Student Representative to City Council, Vivian Liao (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:City Council Office PRESENTER:Michelle Dotsch NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:Move to approve a resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, commending Vivian Liao for her service as student representative to the Edmonds City Council. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: Public recognition and appreciation for Student Representative to City Council fo completion of School Year 2025 – 2026 CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: Today we commend Vivain Liao for her dedication to the City of Edmonds. RECOMMENDATION: Consider and support the proposed resolution. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ITEM HISTORY: Student volunteers are important to the fabric and character of the City of Edmonds. We are grateful to Vivian Liao, who serviced as City Council Student Representative from November 2025 – August 2026. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the Edmonds City Council and Mayor Commending Vivan Liao   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 7/143   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 7/143 RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, COMMENDING VIVIAN LIAO FOR HER SERVICE AS STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Vivian Liao, a student of the University of Washington and resident of Edmonds, was selected to serve as the Student Representative to the Edmonds City Council for the 2025–2026 term; and WHEREAS, Student Representative Vivian Liao implemented a weekly educational mission featuring community partners that had offerings that could be of interest or assistance to Edmonds youth; and WHEREAS, During her term of service, Vivian consistently demonstrated professionalism, thoughtful engagement, and a strong commitment to public service; and WHEREAS, She exceeded the expectations of the Council and fulfilled the role in a manner that reflected extremely well on herself and on the City of Edmonds; WHEREAS, The Edmonds City Council wishes to formally recognize Vivian’s dedication, time, and contributions; and THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Edmonds City Council hereby commends and expresses its respect and appreciation to Vivian Liao for her outstanding service as Student Representative to the Edmonds City Council; and Section 2 That the Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to Vivian in her future academic and professional endeavors, and thanks her for helping to enrich civic engagement within the Edmonds community during the 2025/2026 school year.   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 8/143   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 8/143 1 5 6 7 MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO:   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 9/143   Item 5.2       Packet pg. 9/143 9 0 3 City Council Agenda Item 8.1 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:City Clerk's Office PRESENTER:Luke Lonie, City Clerk NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes of the August 3, 2026 City Council Meeting. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: N/A CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the August 3, 2026 City Council Meeting. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026-08-03 Council Minutes DRAFT   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 10/143   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 10/143 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting August 03, 2026 Page 1 Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting Action Minutes August 03, 2026 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Michelle Dotsch, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Erika Barnett, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Stephanie Lucash, City Administrator Kisha Post, Finance Specialist Neil Weiss, Municipal Court Judge Natasha Ryan, Public Information Officer Andy Rheaume, Public Works Director Lisa Takach, Human Resources Director Loi Dawkins, Chief of Police Angie Feser, Parks and Recreation Director Mike Clugston, Planning and Development Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Luke Lonie, City Clerk 1.CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2.LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgment. 3.ROLL CALL City Clerk Lonie called the roll. All elected officials were present except for Councilmember Paine. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PAINE FROM TONIGHT’S MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 11/143   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 11/143 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting August 03, 2026 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THAT WE ADD COUNCIL BUSINESS 9.3 COUNCIL VOTE ON ADDING A DISCUSSION OF PAID PARKING TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE COUNCIL AGENDA. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND ECK IN SUPPORT. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5.PRESENTATION 1.Edmonds PFD Board Presentation to City Council Only One Reading Required – City Council Office Caitlin Pontrella, Interim Executive Director of the Edmonds Center for the Arts, and Wayne Grotheer, Board President of the Edmonds Public Facilities District, presented on the operations of the Edmonds Public Facilities District and Edmonds Center for the Arts. 2.Mayor’s Finance Update – Mayor’s Office Mayor Rosen provided a summary of the recent Ask the Mayor event. 6.AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the community who wished to provide comment. 7.RECEIVED FOR FILING 1.2027-2028 Draft Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Only One Reading Required 2.Parks Q1 and Q2 Capital Projects Report Only One Reading Required 3.Claim for Damages for filing First Reading 8.APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Only One Reading Required 2.Resolution of Personnel Policy 3.10 Interpretation Second Reading 3.Approval of Construction Contract for the 7th Ave Pedestrian Improvement Project Second Reading 4.Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4424 to Correct and Clarify Legislative Recitals Second Reading 5.Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Only One Reading Required 9.COUNCIL BUSINESS 1.2027-2028 Services to Our Community First Reading – Mayor's Office Stephanie Lucash, City Administrator; Kisha Post, Finance Specialist; Neil Weiss, Municipal   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 12/143   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 12/143 Edmonds City Council Minutes Regular Meeting August 03, 2026 Page 3 Court Judge; Natasha Ryan, Public Information Officer; Andy Rheaume, Public Works Director; Lisa Takach, Human Resources Director; Loi Dawkins, Chief of Police; Angie Feser, Parks and Recreation Director; Mike Clugston, Planning and Development Director; and Luke Lonie, City Clerk, provided overviews of their respective departments. These included the duties of each department and the functions each one fulfills. Council took a break from 7:39 until 7:45 pm. Directors took questions of Council. 2.Correction to Title of Ordinance 4443 First Reading – City Council Office COUNCIL PRESIDENT DOTSCH MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4443 AS AMENDED, WHICH PASSED AT LAST WEEK’S REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER CHEN IN OPPOSITION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DOTSCH MOVED TO AMEND THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE, REPLACING THE WORD “REPEALING” WITH “AMENDING.” MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER CHEN IN OPPOSITION. MAIN MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER CHEN IN OPPOSITION. 10.COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers commented on various topics. 11.MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen provided comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 pm. Luke Lonie, City Clerk   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 13/143   Item 8.1       Packet pg. 13/143 City Council Agenda Item 8.2 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:Finance PRESENTER:Richard Gould NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:$1,505,993.45 ☒ Approved in Budget Fund(s):Various ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or mpm-approval of payments. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: Approval of payroll checks #66488 through #66490 dated August 5, 2026 for $6,349.63, direct deposit for $822,931.45, benefit checks #66491 through #66497 and wire payments of $676,712.37 for the pay period of July 16, 2026 through July 31, 2026. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. BUDGET IMPACTS: $1,505,993.45 ITEM HISTORY: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1 – 07-16-2026 to 07-31-2026 Payroll Earnings Summary Report Attachment #2 – 07-16-2026 to 07-31-2026 Benefit Summary Report   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 14/143   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 14/143 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,210 (07/16/2026 to 07/31/2026) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 43.00 0.00 UNPAID L & IABSENT118 24.00 0.00 SICK LEAVESICK121 646.00 33,395.25 VACATIONVACATION122 1,676.00 92,964.52 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 182.50 9,711.62 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 51.50 2,627.23 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 178.00 9,172.68 Holiday Bank WWTPHOLIDAY128 121.25 5,607.59 MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 24.00 1,003.45 BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 39.00 2,284.61 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 102.50 5,896.80 FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY154 9.00 358.01 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 189.25 13,745.17 SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 10.00 397.79 VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 3.00 119.34 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 74.00 6,557.32 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 12,294.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 351.26 COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 5,465.06 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 17,581.75 912,566.67 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 2.00 5,365.52 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 38.50 1,382.60 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 22.00 722.34 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 60.00 4,577.87 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 2,283.28 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 389.75 41,175.72 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 43.50 4,588.07 MISC PAYMISCELLANEOUS400 0.00 54.35 PREMIUM PAYMISCELLANEOUS403 0.00 0.00 WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 2,807.71 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 2,079.60 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 2,697.36 ACCRUED COMP 1.0COMP HOURS602 38.50 0.00 08/03/2026 Page 1 of 3   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 15/143   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 15/143 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,210 (07/16/2026 to 07/31/2026) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5COMP HOURS604 216.50 0.00 ACCRUED COMP 2.0COMP HOURS606 5.00 0.00 Commander Standy AccrualCOMP HOURS609 5.00 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 202.79 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 234.62 Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc 0.00 239.52 Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc2 0.00 1,509.45 Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc3 0.00 1,198.74 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 125.70 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 241.76 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 125.70 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,145.74 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 746.34 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 737.30 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 11,271.92 HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 26.00 1,334.55 K-9 AssignmentMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 253.84 LANGUAGE PAYMISCELLANEOUSlan 0.00 1,050.00 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,237.51 LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 829.18 Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg12 0.00 2,105.42 Longevity 7%LONGEVITYlg13 0.00 1,765.52 Longevity 5%LONGEVITYlg14 0.00 2,121.96 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg16 0.00 115.14 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 571.44 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 1,154.16 Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 3,631.65 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 946.65 Medical Leave VacationVACATIONmelv 54.00 2,373.53 Paid Family Medical Unpaid/SupABSENTpfmp 410.00 0.00 Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKpfms 80.25 5,018.19 Paid Family Medical VacationVACATIONpfmv 15.75 714.42 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 3,321.37 08/03/2026 Page 2 of 3   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 16/143   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 16/143 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,210 (07/16/2026 to 07/31/2026) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 262.70 Special Ops SergeantMISCELLANEOUSsop 0.00 253.84 PSET SergeantMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 262.70 SWAT/NegotiatorsMISCELLANEOUSswat 0.00 441.52 Traffic Officer - CarMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 662.28 Vacation PremiumVACATIONvap 8.00 385.66 Total Net Pay: $829,281.08 $1,230,845.8423,084.50 08/03/2026 Page 3 of 3   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 17/143   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 17/143 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,210 - 07/16/2026 to 07/31/2026 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct Deposit Check Amt Name Payee # Date Check # 66491 08/05/2026 bpas BPAS 7,630.76 0.00 66492 08/05/2026 ever EVERGREEN FINANCIAL SERVICES 768.17 0.00 66493 08/05/2026 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 6,515.63 0.00 66494 08/05/2026 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 7,502.93 0.00 66495 08/05/2026 tx TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT SDU 634.50 0.00 66496 08/05/2026 rwt WASHINGTON TEAMSTERS 189.70 0.00 66497 08/05/2026 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 3,312.08 0.00 26,553.77 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct Deposit Check Amt Name Payee # Date Check # 4039 08/05/2026 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 284,387.94 0.00 4041 08/05/2026 aflac AFLAC 3,008.76 0.00 4044 08/05/2026 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 41,980.14 0.00 4045 08/05/2026 us US BANK 162,872.95 0.00 4046 08/05/2026 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 148,134.07 0.00 4047 08/05/2026 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 9,145.24 0.00 4048 08/05/2026 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 629.50 0.00 650,158.60 0.00 676,712.37 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 18/3/2026   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 18/143   Item 8.2       Packet pg. 18/143 City Council Agenda Item 8.3 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Approval of claim checks and wire payment. (Only One Reading Required) DEPARTMENT:Finance PRESENTER:Richard Gould NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Approval of claim checks and wire payment. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:$597,884.12 ☒ Approved in Budget Fund(s):various ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: Approval of claim checks #283122 – #283197 dated August 5, 2026 for $596,268.15 and wire payment of $1,615.97. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of claim checks and wire payment. BUDGET IMPACTS: $597,884.12 ITEM HISTORY: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: N/A   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 19/143   Item 8.3       Packet pg. 19/143 City Council Agenda Item 9.1 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:2026 Tree Code Amendments, File #AMD2026-0001 (Fifth Reading and Beyond) DEPARTMENT:Planning and Development Services PRESENTER:Deb Powers NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:Receive and review Planning Board Recommendation for ECDC 17.130 code amendments for discussion purposes only. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: This agenda item introduces the Planning Board Recommendation (Attachment 1) for amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 17.130 and 20.75.048 (Attachments 2 and 3). The Planning Board has provided a detailed addendum to the Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation to reiterate code amendment considerations and describe decisions that were not made (Attachment 4). A clean copy version of amended ECDC 17.130 is provided to facilitate a discussion on how the proposed code amendments work when applied to both development and non-development scenarios (Attachment 5). Following the August 11 study session, Council will have the opportunity to submit additional questions on code applicability in advance of a second study session scheduled for September 9, 2026. This agenda item is informational and process- focused only. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The 2026 tree code amendments aim to resolve code interpretation and legal issues by incorporating clear metrics, industry best practices, and improved code structure and terminology related to tree retention, removal, and replacement requirements. Specific code issues, some of which were associated with legal challenges and permit decision appeals, were identified in a gap analysis (Attachment 6), which formed a basis for the project scope: •Establish a citywide tree canopy cover goal •Define landmark trees and determine an appropriate regulatory approach •Explore strategies to slow tree canopy loss unrelated to development •Consider code changes for consistency and clarity based on policy guidance, best practices, prior analysis, and stakeholder feedback.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 20/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 20/143 The August 11 study session will focus on the applicability of proposed code that is anticipated to result in budget impacts inconsistent with the Council priorities outlined in Resolution No. 1586, such as the proposed landmark tree definition, new tree removal requirements unrelated to development, and expanded tree retention, planting and fee in lieu requirements associated with development. For the discussion, staff has provided alternative recommendations below and included public feedback representing different perspectives on the same topics (Attachment 7). Landmark tree - Define by trunk size only. Tree removals unrelated to development - Allow 1, 2, or 3 significant tree removals based on property size through a notification process (no permit/fee). Consider fewer, less frequent landmark tree removal allowances, such as one landmark tree removal every three years through the notification process. Require a permit for the removal of landmark and protected trees when hazard or nuisance criteria are met, or to exceed allowances with hazard or nuisance tree removals. Require a permit for forest stand management on larger properties that are heavily wooded. Tree retention and replacement requirements with development - Retain and replant to meet a 50 credits/acre threshold for Low Density Residential development and certain site improvements using a 1-10 existing tree credit value scale. Retain Priority One trees, even if doing so exceeds the minimum tree density credit threshold for the lot. Consider incentives for retaining native conifers and for planting future groves. Staff will walk through these code applicability scenarios with a presentation at the August 11 study session (Attachment 8). RECOMMENDATION: Receive and review Planning Board Recommendation for ECDC 17.130 code amendments for discussion purposes only. BUDGET IMPACTS: This agenda item does not introduce budget line items. However, potential budget impacts to the City, such as new or dedicated resources, and added costs to property owners and permit applicants associated with proposed code amendments will be discussed. ITEM HISTORY: A complete project history, policy guidance and prior Planning Board direction is provided with the August 5, 2026 Planning Board public hearing, Agenda Item 6.1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings, Conclusion, Recommendation 2. ECDC 17.130_markups   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 21/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 21/143 3. ECDC 20.75.048_markups 4. FCR Addendum letter 5. ECDC 17.130_clean copy 6. Tracking Sheet 7. Public Testimony 8. August 11, 2026 Presentation   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 22/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 22/143 ATTACHMENT 1 2026 Tree Code Amendment, File #AMD2026-0001 Planning Board Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Findings 1)History. This project was initiated by staff in January 2026 to revise Edmonds tree code to establish measurable metrics, regulate landmark trees, track tree removals and reduce canopy loss unrelated to development, and to achieve greater code consistency and clarity. 2)Geographic Location. The proposed code amendments would apply citywide. 3)Proposed Action. The proposed amendments include edits, updates, and deletions to the following sections: a. Reorganize ECDC 17.130 “Tree Related Regulations” and consolidate with ECC 3.95 “Tree Fund” b. Amend 17.130.020 “Definitions” c. Amend and consolidate 17.130.030 “Permits” with 040 “Exemptions” and 050 “Tree Removal Prohibited” d. Amend 17.130.060 “Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity” and 070 “Tree Protection Measures”, 090 “Bonding”, 100 “Violation, enforcement and penalties” and 110 “Liability” e. Strike 17.130.080 “Tree replacement” content and retain section as a placeholder for future code consolidation f. Amend 20.75.04 “Conservation Subdivision” 4)Public Meetings. The Planning Board held study sessions on January 14 and 28, February 25, March 11 and 25, April 22, May 13 and 27, June 10 and 24, and July 8 and 22, 2026 regarding proposed amendments. The City Council held staff briefings and study sessions on February 24, April 14, and June 10, 2026. The Tree Board held meetings on July 2 and 29, 2026 to provide its recommendation to the Planning Board and City Council. A Planning Board public hearing was held August 5, 2026 and duly noticed. A City Council public hearing is anticipated September 8, with October 6, 2026 adoption. 5)Public Engagement. A project-specific focus group comprised of developers, arborists, environmental advocates, Tree Board and special interest group members met on February 12, March 10, May 1, and June 1, 2026 to inform the Planning Board on specific code topics. Public engagement results from a 2023 community survey, two workshops, and three stakeholder meetings, in addition to written public testimony were provided to the Planning Board at the August 5, 2026 public hearing. 6)Public Notice. Consistent with ECDC 20.03.003, public notice for the proposed ECDC 17.130 code amendments was provided through the following methods:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 23/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 23/143 ATTACHMENT 1 a. Published in the City’s official newspaper, The Everett Daily Herald on July 22, 2026. b. Posted on the City website on July 22, 2026. c. Physically posted at City Hall and the Public Safety Building on July 31, 2026. 7)Planning Board Deliberations and Specific Findings a. An analysis of the existing code identified gaps and opportunities for code updates. b. Public input showed a need to simplify and clarify the existing code, while some stakeholders desire greater code complexity and restrictiveness to meet citywide tree canopy cover goals on lots undergoing development. c. The Focus Group provided feedback on practical, reasonable requirements related to development and non-development tree removal, retention and replanting scenarios. d. The Tree Board provided feedback on key code concepts related to landmark tree regulations, removal, retention and replacement requirements for non-development and development scenarios, fees in lieu and penalty fines. e. A Planning Board subcommittee met on July 2 and July 14 for additional draft code review to provide guidance to the whole Board on July 8 and 22, 2026. 8)Department of Commerce Review. Proposed code amendments were submitted to WA Department of Commerce on July 31, 2026 for review and compliance with 60-Day Notice of Intent to Adopt development code amendments. 9)State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on August 5, 2026, finding the proposal does not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. Conclusions 1) The proposed 2026 Tree Code Updates, File #AMD2026-0001 have been drafted, noticed, reviewed by the public and considered by the Planning Board in accordance with the applicable laws of the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds. 2) A public hearing was held and a vote to approve with revisions the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for ECDC 17.130 code amendments necessary to meet scoped objectives, consistent with the previously established goals and policies found within the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Forest Management Plan, and Climate Action Plan and are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Recommendation Based upon these findings and conclusions and the entire record, the Planning Board recommends City Council adopt the proposed ECDC 17.130 and 20.75.048 code amendments as Attachments 2 and 3 to these Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation. In addition, the Planning Board has prepared a separate letter as Attachment 4 that further explains the   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 24/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 24/143 ATTACHMENT 1 Board's decision-making process, including key considerations from deliberations and the public hearing.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 25/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 25/143 Page 1 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. Chapter 17.130 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Sections: 17.130.000 Intent and purpose. 17.130.010 Administration authority. 17.130.020 Definitions. 17.130.030 Permits required. 17.130.040 ExemptionsStreet Trees [placeholder]. 17.130.050 Tree removal prohibitedTree removals unrelated to development. 17.130.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. 17.130.070 Tree protection measures during development. 17.130.080 Tree replacementLandscaping Requirements [placeholder]. 17.130.090 BondingTree and Landscape Maintenance Requirements. 17.130.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 17.130.110 Liability. 17.130.120 Tree Fund 17.130.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees on private, public and city-owned property and associated vegetation, and woodlands located in Edmonds. This includes the following: A.  Implement the goals and objectives of the cCity’s uUrban fForest mManagement pPlan (UFMP); B.  Implement the goals and objectives of the cCity’s cComprehensive pPlan; C.  Implement the goals and objectives of the cCity’s cClimate aAction pPlan (CAP); D.  Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; DK.  Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on-site and off-site tree replacement to help Work towards achieveing a healthy, sustainable urban forest with a minimum citywide goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage goal of 35 percent by 2036, with a no net loss of 32.4 percent canopy cover based on 2021 imagerythroughout the city of Edmonds, while providing applicants with optional procedural mechanisms to ensure that the mitigation is proportional to the impact; and;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 26/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 26/143 Page 2 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. E.  To pPromote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, by mitigating stormwater runoff and the impacts of climate change, improving air quality,provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation D.  Ppreserveing, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;, and maintainingpreserve the physical and aesthetic characteristics of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and vegetationground cover on improved or partially improved property; F.  Preserve the maximum number of trees with a reasonable chance of long-term survival that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survivalto ensure an even urban forest succession of mature trees, when combined with supplemental trees, provide optimal environmental and public health benefits; G.  Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city’s natural vegetation, and provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; GH.  Encourage tree retention and mitigation efforts on developing sites by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements, promoting right tree-right place replanting objectivesreplanting when trees are removed during development, and provide landscaping to buffering the effects of built and paved areas through landscaping standards; H  J.  Promote site designplanning, building and development practices that avoid unnecessary disturbance to and/or removal or destruction of trees, vegetation, and are consistent with the city’s natural topographic and vegetation features, and Rretain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during development; I.J.  Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city’s natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing Recognize that certain factors such as hazardous tree conditions (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover;. K.  Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on-site and off-site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds, while providing applicants with optional procedural mechanisms to ensure that the mitigation is proportional to the impact; and L.  Promote net ecological gain on a citywide basis over a long period of time.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 27/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 27/143 Page 3 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 17.130.010 Administration aAuthority. The planning and development director (“director”) or his/hera designee is given shall have the authority and responsibility to interpret and apply, and the responsibility toadminister and enforce this chapter to accomplish the stated purposeall provisions of this chapter. 17.130.020 Definitions. “Caliper” means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock, applicable to replacement tree size requirements. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above gradethe ground for up to and including four-inch caliper size and 12 inches above gradethe ground for larger sizes. “Canopy” means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. “Critical root zone (CRZ)” means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DSH. Example: a 24-inch DSH tree has a 24-foot radius CRZ measured from the face of the trunk. “Inner Critical Root Zone” refers to an area half the distance of the CRZ that, when impacted, may compromise the structural integrity of the tree. Example: a 24-inch DSH tree has a 12-foot radius inner critical root zone measured from the face of the trunk. ”Crown” means the upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all the branches and foliage. “Developable site” means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and their buffers. “Diameter at standard height (DSH)” means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet above average gradefrom the ground. References to DBH shall be understood as synonymous with “diameter at standard height (DSH).” For trees with multiple leadersstems at four and one-half feet height, the DSH shall be the combined cumulative totalsquare root of the sum of each individualbranches stem greater than six six inches diameter, squared, as shown in Diagram x at four and one-half feet above the average grade. For multiple-stemmed trees in critical areas, the minimum individual stem diameter is four inches. Example: with three stems: Combined DSH = √ [(stem1)2 + (stem2)2 + (stem3)2]). Atypical trunk formations and site conditions shall follow the Guide for Plant Appraisal, current edition, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 28/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 28/143 Page 4 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. If a tree has been removed and only the a stump remains that is below four and one-half feet above average gradetall, the DSH is thesize of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the remaining stump. Diagram x. “Dripline” means the distance in radius from the face of the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest horizontal extent of the tree’s crown. For trees with asymmetrical crowns, dripline is measured in all four cardinal directions (north, south, east and west). “Feasible” means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant’s primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant. “Grove” means a group of three or more viable significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns that are located on a proposed development site; one of which is located within a required yard setback. “Hazard tree” means a tree/tree part that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective, and considered a threat to life or public safety, posing determined to have a high or extreme overall tree risk rating using Level 2 the current ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) method. A hazard tree must meet all the following criteriaas determined by an ISA-certified arborist: 1. Have a combination of structural defects and/or conditions of concern resulting in a probable or imminent likelihood of failure, 2. Is in proximity to frequent or constantly occupied targets resulting in a high likelihood of impact, 1.3. The hazard condition cannot be reduced with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices, nor can the target be moved.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 29/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 29/143 Page 5 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. “Improved lot” means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. “Improvement” means and includes, but is not limited to, an existing or proposed building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property. “Landmark tree” means a significant tree with a minimum 24-inch DSH, or the minimum threshold diameters listed for the species in Table x: Table x. Landmark Tree Species Minimum Threshold Diameter (DSH) Any significant tree 24 inches Madrone – Arbutus menziesii 8 inches Pacific yew – Taxus brevifolia 8 inches Lodgepole/Shore Pine – Pinus contorta 12 inches All oak – Quercus species 12 inches “Limits of disturbance” means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the urban forest management plan (UFMP) as being well suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. “Net ecological gain” means a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss over a period of 20 years. “Nuisance tree” means a significant tree that meets the following criteria: 1. iIs causing significant extensive physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure in a manner that disrupts functional use, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. 2. Damage caused by the tree cannot be corrected through remediation such as repaving, surface lifting/leveling, mechanical rooter, or hydro jetting. 1.3. Standard arboricultural practices such as root or branch pruning or installation of preventative measures such as root barriers cannot rectify the nuisance without severe injury to the tree, as documented by a qualified professional arborist. Commented [DP1]: Pending WNPS feedback.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 30/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 30/143 Page 6 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. “Prohibited Tree” means a tree currently listed in any class as a noxious, invasive or “weed of concern” species by Washington State or Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control Boards or shown on the Prohibited Plant List maintained by the City. “Protected tree” means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan and/or an approved landscaping planreplacement in relation to a development permit or plan, a bond, maintenance agreement, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. “Pruning” means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. “Qualified professional arborist” means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials (or equivalent): 1.  International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2.  Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3.  American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4.  Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;. 5. Board Certified Master Arborist. For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional arborist must also have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three years’ experience prescribing appropriate tree protection measures working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with for optimal tree health and longevitythe likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. “Significant tree” means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter, up to 23.9-inches at standard height (DSH), that does not include a landmark tree species as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DSH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. “Specimen tree” means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city’s qualified professional. Commented [DP2]: Undesirable?   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 31/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 31/143 Page 7 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. “Tree” means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. “Tree fund” refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. “Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)” means the area determined by a qualified professional arborist in which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees during construction, applicable to individual or groups of tree trunks, roots and soil. TPZ is measured in feet from the face of the trunk and may be determined using critical root zone, dripline, exploratory root excavations or other methodologies. TPZ is variable depending on species, age and health of the tree, soil conditions and proposed construction. TPZ denotes the location of tree protection fencing. “Tree removal” means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree’s root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. “Tree topping” means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. “Viable tree” means a significant tree that a qualified professional arborist has determined to be in fair, good, or excellent health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location, subject to City review/approval. “Wildlife snag” means the remaining trunk of a tree that is intentionally reduced in height, stripped of its branches and initiated cavities using coronet cuts and other techniques with the intent of providing habitat. 17.130.030 Permits and exemptions. A.  Applicability. No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 32/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 32/143 Page 8 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. B.  Street tree pruning or removal. Other than City crews, no person, directly or indirectly, shall prune, trim, modify, alter or damage any street tree without first obtaining a permit as provided in ECDC 18.85. C. Tree removal on private property. A Type 1 permit is required to: 1. Remove a maximum of three significant trees, excluding landmark tree species, in a 36- month period as set forth in 17.130.050.C. 2. Exceed the tree removal allowances set forth in 17.130.050.A with the removal of hazard or nuisance trees pursuant to 17.130.050.B if the proposed removals are: a. Located in critical areas and associated buffers That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer as provided in Chapter 23.10 ECDC. Critical areas in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. b. Located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties. a.c.Identified as a protected tree.Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 17.130.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees d. Landmark trees. 3. (Placeholder: Develop a Forest Stewardship Plan). DC.  Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: 1. Emergency Tree Removal. Any tree that poses an imminent threat to life and property may be removed. The City shall be notified within seven days after the emergency tree removal with evidence of the threat for removing the tree to be considered exempt from this chapter. If the Planning Official determines that the emergency tree removal was not warranted or if the removed tree was required to be retained or planted pursuant to a development permit, then the removal will be subject to code enforcement, including fines and restoration. The Planning Official may require that the party obtain a tree removal permit. 2. C.  Utility Maintenance. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and/or franchised utilities utility agencies for one of the following purposes: 1a.  Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 33/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 33/143 Page 9 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 2b.  In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. 3. Procedural ExemptionDevelopment Proposal. Tree removal associated with site improvements, building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All tree removal activitiesclearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. 4. Routine Landscaping and Maintenance. of A permit is not required for vegetation, such as routine pruning, and planting, andremoval of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees, including the removal of noxious/invasive vegetation. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 – 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone, provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public safety or tree health. 5. Removal of Prohibited Tree Species. A permit or notification is not required for the removal of significant, prohibited tree species. Example: a property owner may remove a 10-inch DSH black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) without notifying the City or seeking a permit because the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board lists it as a Class C Noxious Weed. 17.130.040 ExemptionsStreet Trees (placeholder). The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: 1.  That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. B.  Removal of nonsignificant trees that are not protected by any other means. C.  Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and/or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 34/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 34/143 Page 10 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 1.  Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths. 2.  In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. D.  Removal and maintenance of trees within city of Edmonds’ parks at the direction of the parks department. E.  Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 – 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone, provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public safety or tree health. F.  Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections (A) through (E) of this section may be removed with supporting documentation: 1.  Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. 2.  Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant’s qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 3.  Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080(D)(7)(d). [Ord. 4426 § 1 (Exh. A), 2026]. 17.130.050 Tree removals prohibitedunrelated to development. A.  Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 17.130.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, or through an approved modification of a landscape plan. B.  Vacant Lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 17.130.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 35/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 35/143 Page 11 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. C.  Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. To slow the loss of canopy cover resulting from tree removal not associated with development activity, the City of Edmonds allows the limited removal of significant trees on private property without a permit, while providing for additional tree removal flexibility through permit options. Landmark tree removal is prohibited except those that meet hazard or nuisance criteria. A. Significant Tree Removal Allowance – Notification Required. Any property owner of developed property may remove one significant tree within a 12-month period, on any size property with the approval of a tree removal notification. B. Hazard and Nuisance Tree Removals – Permit Required. Landmark trees, protected trees, trees located in critical areas, on vacant or subdividable lots, and significant trees that exceed allowances may be removed if hazard or nuisance tree criteria are met with the approval of a Type 1 tree removal permit. Additional documentation is required for: 1. Hazard tree removal – a tree risk assessment or arborist report prepared by the applicant’s qualified professional arborist documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. The City may approve the removal of dead, dying, and/or diseased trees from private property as hazard trees without the submission of a tree removal permit if the applicant provides photographic evidence or other documentation demonstrating that the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 2.Nuisance tree removal - documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify remedy the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified professional arborist explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectifyremedy the nuisance. 1.3. Protected tree removal - submittal of a landscape modification plan subject to design review may be required for the removal of trees located in required landscaping buffers pursuant to Chapter 20.13 ECDC. C. Maximum Tree Removal – Permit Required. A Type 1 tree removal permit is required to exceed the significant tree removal allowance in one occurrence, provided that no more than 3 significant trees may be removed at one time for a total of 36 months from the date the permit was issued. D. (Placeholder - pending additional applicability criteria and permit submittal requirements) Forest Stewardship Plan – Permit required. Staff proposal: A Type 1 tree removal permit is required to   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 36/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 36/143 Page 12 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. develop a Forest Stewardship Plan. Property owners of heavily wooded, developed properties at least 25,000 square feet in area may propose a stand management approach that exceeds the tree removal allowances and maximums set forth in this section. The purpose of a Forest Stewardship Plan is to improve the long-term health and condition of existing tree stands through forest thinning, restoration and maintenance practices over a minimum five-year timeframe. Applicants are encouraged to seek direction from City staff and the technical assistance, incentives and resources available through local and state agencies that promote forest best management practices. E. Tree Replacement Requirements. To mitigate the consequences of tree removal unrelated to development activity, the City requires replacements for the removal of viable and nuisance trees, planted in suitable locations appropriate to the subject property, based on the size of the removed trees: Removed Viable or Nuisance Tree Diameter Number of Required Replacement Trees 6 to 13.9-inch DSH 1 14 to 17.9-inch DSH 2 18 to 23.9-inch DSH 3 24-inch DSH and greater All landmark tree species 4 Street trees: any DSH 1 Critical areas and buffers: any 4-inch DSH minimum 2 F. Pre-Development Tree Removals. Any significant or landmark tree removal counts towards the requirements associated with site improvement or development permits submitted within 36-months following the approval of a tree notification or permit. 17.130.060 Tree retention requirements associated with development activity. A.  Introduction. The city’s objective is to mitigate the impacts of incremental canopy loss due to development by establishing clear standards and priorities for the retain retention of existing as many viable trees and for the planting of new trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. B. Applicability. To that end, tThe city requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following development applications: 1.  Short subdivision, including Conservation Subdivision pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048; 2.  Subdivision, including Conservation Subdivision pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 37/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 37/143 Page 13 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 34.  New Low Density Residential (LDR) single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family unit or structurehouse; and 4. New accessory dwelling unit (ADU), detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU), duplex or triplex developments up to 4 units per parcel; 5.  Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 17.130.040.Site improvements including parking lots, retaining walls, new decks and structural additions 500 square feet of disturbed area/footprint or greater; 6. New multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments where existing significant trees located within required buffers, proposed open space, public amenity or other areas that may be preserved, if feasible. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. CB.  Tree Retention and Protection Plan Submittal. 1.  An applicant for a development identified in subsection (BA) of this section shallmust submit a tree retention and protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional arborist may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant’s expense. 2.  Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a.  A tree inventory containing the following: i.  A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); ii.  Trunk Ssize (DSH) and estimated tree crown diameter; iii.  Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv.  Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.); v.  Tree type or sSpecies and common name.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 38/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 38/143 Page 14 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. b.  A site plan depicting the following: i.  Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection (CB)(3)(a) of this section; ii.  Accurate location of significant, grove, and landmark trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy crown and/or critical root zone tree protection zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required); iii.  Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv.  Location of tree protection measures; iv.  Indicate tree protection fence at the proposed Tree Protection Zonelimits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities. Silt fence locations to meet Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control requirements may satisfy tree protection fence requirements if observed distances are identical and signage is posted; vi.  Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an “X” or by ghosting out; vii.  Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 17.130.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with subsections (E-GC)(5) of this section. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner shall must be provided. c.  An arborist report containing the following: i.  A complete brief description of each tree’s current health condition and viability; ii.  A description of the method(s) used to determine the tree protection zonelimits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, driplineroot plate diameter, exploratory root excavationsor a case-by-case basis description for individual trees);   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 39/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 39/143 Page 15 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. iii.  Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the tree protection zonelimits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand-digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv.  For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc.,E.  In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that are mature trees and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage, etc., for which no reasonable alternative action is possible (pruning, cabling, etc.) mustshall be given; v.  Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3.  Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Submittal Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions. a.  Phased Review. i.  If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a tree retention and protection plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. ii.  A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. DC.  Minimum Tree Retention Requirements. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish a sequence of minimum tree retention requirements, priorities, site design procedures, and mitigation standards to maximize successfulincentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees, plant replacement trees and provide offsite mitigation for trees removed with development.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 40/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 40/143 Page 16 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 1.  Minimum Tree Density Credit General Tree Retention Requirements. This section establishes the minimum quantitative retention requirements using a tree credit system. This section does not establish maximum retention standards for existing trees. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained to meet the minimum tree density credit thresholds for each lot, as follows: a. Low Density Residential and site improvements including additions, retaining walls, parking lots and new decks 500 square feet or greater disturbed area or footprint, based on the total number of proposed units per lot: i. One unit: 110 credits/acre ii. 2-3 units, including ADU/DADU, duplex, triplex: 88 credits/acre iii. 4 units: 66 credits/acre b. Conservation Subdivision variations to development standards pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048 apply when the minimum tree density credit requirements below are met, based on the total number of proposed units per lot: i. One unit: 132 credits/acre ii. 2-3 units: 110 credits/acre iii. 4 units: 88 credits/acre a.c.Multifamily, Commercial, and Mixed-Use development Required Landscaping buffer widths and planting standards for trees, shrubs and groundcovers apply, pursuant to ECDC 20.13. b.d.Demolition permits - tree removal is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities, subject to director approval and immediate tree replacement of any removed trees pursuant to 17.130.050.E. Table 17.130.060.C. Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required C.  Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 41/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 41/143 Page 17 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. Development Retention Required New single-family, short subdivision, or subdivision 30% of all significant trees in the developable site Multifamily development, unit lot short subdivision, or unit lot subdivision 25% of all significant trees in the developable site a.2.  Trees that are located within native growth protection areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provided for in ECDC 17.130.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, and ECDC 23.10.080(D)(7)(d), critical area hazard tree. b.3.  The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapter 23.10 ECDC), or the shoreline master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site-specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4.  In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 17.130.080. 5.  For developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. 2D.  Priority of Tree Retention PrioritiesRequirements. Tree retention priorities may exceed the minimum tree density credit thresholds in subsection (1) of this section. There are no maximum retention standards for Priority One trees; tree density credits may be exceeded to retain Priority One landmark trees and groves. Viable Ssignificant trees shall to be retained to meet or exceed minimum tree density credits for the lot should be retained in the following order of priority: a1.  Priority One. i.a.  Specimen Viable landmark trees located in required yard setbacks; ii.b.  Significant trees which form a continuous canopy Groves;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 42/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 42/143 Page 18 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. c.  Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d.  Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers e.  Significant trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 18 inches DSH. b2.  Priority Two. ia.  GrovesHealthy tree groupings comprised of native tree species withwhose associated undergrowth that can be preserved; iib.  Viable significant Ttrees located within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; iiic.  Viable Ssignificant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; ivd.  Viable sSignificant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers vc.  Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; vid.  Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and vie.  Other significant non-native trees. 3.  Priority Three. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E.  In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. 3F.  Site DesignTree Retention Procedures. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher pPriority One trees, the tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to: a.  Maximize the retention of higher pPriority One trees to meet or exceed the minimum tree density credits required for the lot; and b.  Satisfy the minimum retention requirement in subsection (D) of this section. c. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section shallmust be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the proposed development infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 43/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 43/143 Page 19 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing the variations to development standards using conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. d. Once the location of on-site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing pPriority oOne trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements shallmust be retained at least to the number of trees required bymeet or exceed the minimum tree density credit requirements required by subsection (D) of this section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees. e. If there are not enough existing viable significant and landmark trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy the tree density credit requirements in subsection (D) of this section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows: ia.  Planting a number of new trees on site in accordance with subsection (E) of this sectionECDC 17.130.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (D) of this section; and iib.  If it is not feasible for replanting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of treestree density credits for the lot, the applicant shall make a fee-in-lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection (I) of this section. E. Tree Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 17.130.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows; provided, that these replacement ratios shall not apply if the applicant opts to have its tree replacement requirement calculated through an individualized determination pursuant to subsection of this section: This section establishes minimum tree planting standards for trees removed through development activity using a tree density credit system. Tree density credits apply to existing trees to incentivize tree retention, while also providing a threshold for replanting based on the zoning and development potential of a lot. 1. Applicability of Tree Credits. The tree credit value corresponding with DSH is found in Table x. For trees that fall in between listed size categories, credits shall be rounded down. 1.  For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DSH removed, one replacement tree is required.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 44/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 44/143 Page 20 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 2.  For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DSH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3.  For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less than 24 inches in DSH removed, three replacement trees are required. Table x. Existing Significant Tree Credit Values DSH New 6-10”12”14”16”18”20”22”24”26”28”>30” CREDIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 a. The maximum number of credits awarded for any one tree is 12 credits. Trees located on property lines shall count for half tree density credits. Trees planted in the right-of- way do not count towards a lot’s tree density credits. For individual lots in a phased short plat or subdivision with an approved tree retention plan, the required tree density shall be calculated for each lot within the short plat or subdivision. b. Replacement trees selected from the Preferred Species List are awarded two credits to incentivize planting native conifers and species that attain landmark tree stature at maturity. c. To calculate required tree credits, divide the square footage of the subject lot by 43,560 (the square footage of one acre). The resulting number is then multiplied by the minimum tree credit requirement for one acre. In calculating required tree credits, any fraction of credits shall be rounded up to the next whole number from a 0.5 or greater value. Example: for a proposed new single-family residence, an 8,500-square-foot lot would need 21 tree credits (8,500/43,560 = 0.195 x 110 = 21.46, or 21 credits). The tree density for the lot would be met by retaining two 24-inch landmark trees worth 9 credits each, planting 1 new tree from the Preferred Species List (worth two credits each) and one non-preferred species (worth one credit) for a total of 21 tree credits. FB.  No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1.  The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2.  The tTrees is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that transplant specifications have been approved and relocation complies with the standards in this section.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 45/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 45/143 Page 21 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. GC.  Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. HD.  Tree Replacement Specifications. 1.  Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a.  One-and-one-half-inch caliper for deciduous trees; b.  Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2.  The director may consider smaller-sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3.  Replacement trees shall be primarily Pacific Northwest native species, trees native to other regions in the U.S, or climate-resilient ornamental species that are known to be non-invasive. IE.  Tree Replacement Fee-In-Lieu. After providing clear documentation to the City, planning and development which may include the applicant’s arborist recommendations that all replacement options have been considered and the Director determines on-site locations are unavailable, and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu for each replacement trees required but not replaced. 1.  The amount of the fee shall be $2,5001,600 multiplied by the number of trees density credits necessary to satisfy the tree replacement replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the cCity’s Ttree Ffund pursuant to section 17.130.120 of this Chapter. 2.  The fee shall be paid to the cCity prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 3.  For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DSH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city’s qualified professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required; provided, that no appraisal shall be required if the applicant’s tree removal will necessitate the maximum fee-in-lieu, as specified in subsection (E)(4) of this section, without the appraisal. 4.  In no case shall the fee-in-lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $4.00 per square foot of lot area.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 46/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 46/143 Page 22 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 3. The Director is authorized to adjust the fee-in-lieu value periodically to reflect current costs of materials and labor. G.  If a development retains at least 50 percent of the significant trees on a site, the fee-in-lieu provisions of ECDC 17.130.080(E) do not apply. 17.130.070 Tree protection measures during development. Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 17.130.060(D) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards, in order of construction sequencing: A.  Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the applicantpermittee and appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows: 1.  The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2.  Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3.  Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4.  Property lines. B.  Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. BC.  Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1.  Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2.  Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign shallmust be approved by the director and shall state, at a   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 47/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 47/143 Page 23 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. minimum, “Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited,” and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3B.  Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. 43.  Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities as proposedapproved by a qualified professional arborist and under the supervision of a qualified professional arborist retained and paid for by the applicant. 54.  Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 65.  Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 76.  Limit the time period that the tree protection critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils to 12 months, to protect the tree’s critical root zone. 87.  In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a.  If equipment is authorized to operate within the tree protectionprotected zone, the soil and mowed vegetationand critical root zone of a tree must shall be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from compactiondamage caused by heavy equipment. b.  Encourage new root generation and Mminimize root damage by exposing roots hand- excavating a two-foot-deep trench, at the outer boundary of theedge of critical root tree protection zone using air excavation tolls or hand-digging, to cleanly sever the roots of retained trees to be retained. Never cut, rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c.  PreventativeCorrective pruning performed on retainedprotected trees in order to avoid damage from equipment operationmachinery or constructionbuilding activity. d.  Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. e. Aftercare such as monitoring, watering, mulching, etc.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 48/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 48/143 Page 24 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. CD.  Grade. 1.  The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the tree protectioncritical root zones of trees to be preserved without the director’s authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional arborist. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree’s critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Soil decompaction Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree’s survival. 2.  If the grade adjacent to a retainedpreserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree’s tree protectioncritical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots compaction. 3.  The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the tree protectioncritical root zone of any retained tree to be retained without thedirector authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree’s survival and to minimize the potential for root-induced damage to adjacent the impervious surfaces. 4.  To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the tree protectioncritical root zone of retained trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of retained trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree’s survival. 5.  Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6.  The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. DE.  Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. EF.  Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 17.130.080 Tree replacementLandscaping Requirements (placeholder).   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 49/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 49/143 Page 25 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. A.  Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 17.130.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows; provided, that these replacement ratios shall not apply if the applicant opts to have its tree replacement requirement calculated through an individualized determination pursuant to subsection (F) of this section: 1.  For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DSH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2.  For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DSH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3.  For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less than 24 inches in DSH removed, three replacement trees are required. B.  No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1.  The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2.  The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C.  Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D.  Replacement Specifications. 1.  Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a.  One-and-one-half-inch caliper for deciduous trees; b.  Six feet in height for evergreen trees.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 50/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 50/143 Page 26 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 2.  The director may consider smaller-sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3.  Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. E.  Tree Replacement Fee-In-Lieu. After providing clear documentation to planning and development that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee-in-lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. 1.  The amount of the fee shall be $2,500 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the city’s tree fund. 2.  The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 3.  For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DSH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city’s qualified professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required; provided, that no appraisal shall be required if the applicant’s tree removal will necessitate the maximum fee-in-lieu, as specified in subsection (E)(4) of this section, without the appraisal. 4.  In no case shall the fee-in-lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $4.00 per square foot of lot area. F.  Individualized Determination. An applicant who believes that the replacement ratios of subsection (A) of this section are disproportionate to the impact of its tree removal may opt to calculate an alternative replacement ratio using an individualized determination of impact and impact mitigation as provided in this subsection. 1.  To calculate an alternative replacement ratio under this subsection, the applicant must pay a supplemental fee as set forth in the city’s fee schedule and retain a qualified professional to perform the replacement calculation. The qualified professional shall use best available science to quantify the environmental value of the trees that will be removed as a direct result of the development. In doing so, the qualified professional shall evaluate, at least, the following factors in its calculation:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 51/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 51/143 Page 27 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. a.  Carbon sequestration; b.  Air quality; c.  Stormwater mitigation; d.  Shade and temperature regulation; e.  Biodiversity support; f.  Erosion control. Once the environmental value of the trees to be removed has been calculated, the qualified professional shall develop an on-site tree replacement plan that, using the same factors, is likely, within 20 years of planting, to yield the same environmental value of the trees being removed. The replacement plan shall specify the number, species, size at planting, and location of each tree to be replaced pursuant to the plan. If the qualified professional determines that it is not feasible to yield the same environmental value of the trees being removed within 20 years, it shall calculate the replacement value that would be achieved in 20 years and propose a fee-in-lieu payment that allows the city to achieve the remaining value off site; provided, that the plan must show that at least 50 percent of the environmental value would be replaced on site in 20 years. 2.  The individualized determination of impact and impact mitigation shall undergo peer review by a qualified professional. If the peer review results in a more burdensome replacement plan, the city will condition the permit on the peer-reviewed replacement plan, giving the applicant an opportunity to appeal the more burdensome plan to the hearing examiner. G.  Removal of Protected Trees. If it becomes necessary to remove a protected tree, the replacement ratio for replacement of the protected tree shall be governed by an individualized determination as provided in subsection (F) of this section. [Ord. 4426 § 1 (Exh. A), 2026]. 17.130.090 BondingTree and Landscape Maintenance Requirements. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the planting of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. The applicant, landowner, or successors in interest shall be responsible for the regular maintenance of trees that were required to be retained or planted with development. Maintenance shall be ensured in the following manner:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 52/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 52/143 Page 28 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. A. New low density residential, short subdivision, subdivision, accessory dwelling unit, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex or triplex development up to 4 units per parcel. Any existing trees or trees planted pursuant to ECDC 17.130.060 shall be maintained for a period of five years following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A five-year tree maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Recorder’s office on the document approved by the City Attorney. After five years, all trees on the property are subject to ECDC 17.130. B. Multifamily, Commercial, and Mixed-Use Development. All required landscaping installed pursuant to ECDC 20.13 are subject to performance and maintenance bonds. Plants that die must be replaced in kind. Following bond release, trees are defined as protected, and all trees and vegetation shown on an approved required landscaping plan shall be maintained throughout the life of the development. 1B.  The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. 2C.  A five-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation and/or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of replaced trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 50 percent of the performance bond in subsection (B) of this section. 17.130.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. This section applies to all trees in the city, including private property trees, public property trees and street trees. Enforcement shall be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth in ECDC 20.110. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this code. AB.  A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. B1.  Aiding or Abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection (C)(1) of this section.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 53/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 53/143 Page 29 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. C2.  Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. 1.Fines. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the city may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a.  An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to investigate and administer the infraction; b.  The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c.  Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city’s qualified professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter; cd.  Penaltiesy for illegal removal of trees shall be assessed based on the tree density credit equivalent of the unlawfully removed or damaged tree diameter (DSH) multiplied by $3,200$1,500 per tree less than 12 inches in diameter and the appraised value of trees 12 inches or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the city arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions. Fines for the removal of Protected trees are assessed 1.5 times the fine for a tree that is not protected. If the DSH of an unlawfully removed or damaged tree cannot be established, the diameter of the remaining stump top shall be used in lieu of DSH. In cases where the stump has been removed, the city will approximate the size of removed tree(s) based on available evidence, and if there is inadequate evidence the city shall assess a minimum $10,000 civil penalty fine per unlawfully removed tree. Fines may be assessed against the responsible party in addition to the cost(s) of restoration. The director may elect not to seek fines if it is determined that the circumstances do not warrant imposition of fines in addition to the cost(s) of restoration.; Unlawfully Removed or Damaged Tree DSH or Stump Diameter Fines per Tree Fines per Tree Protected through easement, tracts, or similar mechanisms Less than 6”None $1,000 6” up to 10”$6,400 $9,600   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 54/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 54/143 Page 30 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. Larger than 10, up to 14”$9,600 $14,400 Larger than 14, up to 18”$16,000 $24,000 Larger than 18, up to 22”$22,400 $33,600 Larger than 22, up to 26”$28,800 $43,200 Larger than 26, up to 30”$35,200 $52,800 Larger than 30”$28,400 $57,600 Tree stump has been eliminated $10,000 $15,000 e.  The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s); f.  If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. e3.  Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed pursuant to Chapter 20.110 ECDC, Civil Violation – Enforcement Procedure. The notice shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time, or any other remedy set forth within the city code or state law. f4.  Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the city’s tree fund as established herein section 120 Chapter ECDCChapter 3.95 ECC. D. Tree and Site Restoration. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. 1. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s);   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 55/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 55/143 Page 31 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 2f.  If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. 17.130.110 Liability. A.  Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 17.130.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B.  Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 17.130.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C.  Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D.  The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. 17.130.120 Tree Fund. A. There is hereby created and established a fund known as the “tree fund.” B. Funding sources. Monies for the tree fund shall come from the following sources: 1. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 17.130 ECDC; 2. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 56/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 56/143 Page 32 of 32 ATTACHMENT 2 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 3. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and 4. Other monies allocated by the city council. C. Funding purposes. Monies in the tree fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the city of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health; 4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city’s observance of Arbor Day or other educational purchases; 6. Purchasing and planting of trees by the city of Edmonds, including planting street trees within the right-of-way; 7. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city council. D. Monies from the tree fund shallmust not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions in Chapter 23.1017.130 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. E. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee in lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC 23.10.17.130.0860(IE) shallmust be used to purchase trees for planting or acquiring and preserving wooded areas and open space.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 57/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 57/143 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 3 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 20.75.048 Conservation subdivision design. A.  Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant and landmark trees or specimen trees and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions. B.  Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in low density residential zones is limited to the following development standards: 1.  Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones; provided, that: a.  No street setback shall be less than 15 feet; b.  No rear setback shall be less than 10 feet; c.  No required side setback shall be less than five feet; and d.  Street and rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced. 2.  Lot Size and Width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and widths; provided, that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. 3.  Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots; provided, that, in total, coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allowed for the zoning district in which it is located. 4.  Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with the intent of city codes and standards. C.  Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection in association with design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC 23.10.085.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 58/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 58/143 ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Board Recommendation Tree Code Update August 5, 2026 To: Mayor Rosen and Edmonds City Council From: Edmonds Planning Board Subject: 2026 Tree Code Recommendation This memo outlines the Planning Board’s (PB) recommendation that the City Council adopt permanent amendments to ECDC Chapter 17.130, Tree Related Regulations, and related code sections. The amendments replace temporary landmark tree protections with permanent standards; establish measurable requirements for tree retention and replacement; reduce and track canopy loss unrelated to development; and clarify permit, maintenance, enforcement, and Tree Fund requirements. The recommendation is intended to advance the City’s tree canopy goals while maintaining a feasible path for the reasonable use and development of private property. While this memo does not memorialize all the reasoning behind the Planning Board decisions, it is intended to provide key considerations that were made during this process or additional details when a decision could not be made. Throughout this process, we have worked collaboratively with a host of groups to arrive at a best fit solution. Specifically, Deb Powers (City of Edmonds Urban Forest Planner) and Friends of Edmonds Trees (FOET), were instrumental in providing PB with the information necessary to develop this updated Tree Code. Overall, we feel that the updated code provides the citizens of Edmonds a path to tree canopy growth and brings the city in line with a majority of surrounding jurisdictions.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 59/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 59/143 ATTACHMENT 4 Key Decisions 1. Citywide Canopy Objective and Code Organization The Planning Board supports a measurable citywide objective of at least 35 percent tree canopy cover by 2036, with “no net loss” measured against the 32.4 percent canopy cover identified from 2021 imagery. The Board also supports consolidating and cross- referencing tree regulations to make the code easier to understand and administer, including moving Tree Fund provisions into ECDC 17.130 and reserving additional consolidation for the Unified Development Code update. 2. Landmark Tree Definition and Species List The Planning Board recommends defining a landmark tree as any significant tree with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of at least 24 inches, together with selected species that attain landmark status at smaller diameters because of their ecological, cultural, or regional significance. The species-specific thresholds supplement the general 24-inch standard. Planning Board chose the species list based on our understanding that these species have low survival rates with new plantings and felt the protection of the existing specimens was warranted. While we recognize that this will require an additional level of education and enforcement complexity, we felt the list was thoughtfully condensed, and with the availability of web-based identification tools, it was reasonable to expect a lay person to identify the species. LANDMARK TREE SPECIES LIST MINIMUM DSH Any significant tree 24 inches Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)8 inches Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia)8 inches Lodgepole/Shore pine (Pinus contorta)12 inches All oak species (Quercus spp.)12 inches 3. Landmark Tree Removal Prohibition   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 60/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 60/143 ATTACHMENT 4 Healthy landmark trees may not be removed through either the annual property-owner allowance or the permit pathway for additional significant-tree removals. A landmark tree may be removed only when it meets the adopted hazard tree or nuisance-tree criteria and a Type I tree removal permit is approved. Hazard tree documentation must establish a high- or extreme-risk that cannot reasonably be reduced; nuisance-tree documentation must establish extensive physical damage that cannot be corrected through reasonable infrastructure repair or arboricultural practices. Emergency removals remain exempt when an imminent threat exists, subject to prompt City notification and supporting evidence. 4. Annual Property-Owner Allowance and Permit Process for Additional Removals The Planning Board recommends a two-step process for significant tree removals on developed property that are not associated with development: Annual allowance. A property owner may remove one significant tree during any 12-month period on a developed property after notification to the City of a tree removal. The allowance does not authorize removal of a landmark tree, trees within critical areas, or other protected trees. Additional removals. A Type I tree removal permit is required to exceed the annual allowance. The permit may authorize no more than three significant trees in one occurrence, and those removals establish the total allowance for the following 36 months. Planning Board felt a permit process to allow for additional removals at one time would give property owners greater flexibility and less of a cost burden (if their intent was to remove up to 3 trees), while at the same time providing the City with a vehicle to track these longer duration scenarios. We also agreed that allowing this maximum with permit, we would not recommend an allowance that increases by lot size, because the larger lots could still apply for a permit to remove 3 trees. Pre-development removals. Any tree removal counts toward requirements for a site improvement or development application submitted within 36 months after tree removal notification or permit approval. Other permit triggers. A Type I permit is required for qualifying hazard or nuisance removals involving landmark or protected trees, critical areas and   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 61/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 61/143 ATTACHMENT 4 buffers, vacant or subdividable lots, and other removals that exceed the allowance. Forest Stewardship Plan. Planning Board supports the concept of a Forest Stewardship Plan and believes there are practical applications for that process in Edmonds. We felt that the code language needs to include language that the intent of using a Forest Stewardship Plan must be to promote, protect and enhance the existing forested areas. Furthermore, we felt the code language needs to provide a measurable threshold for who would qualify for a Forest Stewardship Plan beyond just “heavily wooded” and a lot size of 25,000SF. 5. Tree Density Credits as the Development Regulation: The Planning Board recommends replacing the existing 30-percent tree retention calculation with a tree density credit (TDC) system for Low Density Residential development. TDCs provide a measurable standard that accounts for lot area, development intensity, and the greater value of retaining larger existing trees. The system establishes a minimum number of credits that must be met first through retention, then on-site planting, and finally through a fee-in-lieu only when planting is infeasible. The Planning Board elected to use a graduated requirement based on the number of dwelling units on a lot. We felt this allowed for a balance between the goal to increase our canopy without discouraging development of middle housing. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MINIMUM TREE DENSITY CREDITS PER ACRE One unit on a lot 110 Two to three units, including ADU/DADUs 88 Four units 66 The TDC requirements also apply to additions, new decks, retaining walls, and parking lots. Site improvements, less than 500 square feet, that require tree removals would need to meet the requirements and follow the process for tree removals not related to development.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 62/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 62/143 ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Board was undecided if Multi-Family, Mixed Use and Commercial developments should have a TDC minimum. Planning Board recognizes the desire to promote retention with these development types; however, we could not come to a consensus if this should be achieved using the TDC method because we felt there could be unintended consequences when development standards conflict with a tree density credit minimum (for example in the BD zones). We recognize that most developments that need to meet landscaping requirements would likely meet a TDC minimum but that still fails to promote retention as a priority. Planning Board recommends the code should clearly establish a retention hierarchy and require site design to retain Priority One trees before allowing replanting or payment of fees-in-lieu. Priority One trees include viable landmark trees within required yard setbacks and groves. These trees are required to be retained even when the site would otherwise exceed its minimum TDC requirement, unless the applicant demonstrates that retention would make the primary intended legal use infeasible. This approach provides measurable minimums without treating retention, planting, and payment as interchangeable choices. Existing trees receive increasing credit as trunk diameter increases, recognizing the greater canopy and ecological value of mature trees. The recommended scale reaches a maximum of 12 credits for trees 30 inches DSH and larger. New replacement trees receive one credit; a replacement tree selected from the City’s Preferred Species List receives two credits. The referenced list is to include at least native conifers and other species that can attain landmark stature at maturity. Planning Board felt that it was important to include trees larger than 24” in the credit scale to further promote retention of our largest/oldest trees. We also felt that by allowing two credits for preferred species provides flexibility and makes the higher TDC minimums more feasible. DSH 6”12”14”16”18”20”22”24”26”28”30”+ TDC Value 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6. Fees-in-Lieu and Civil Penalties   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 63/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 63/143 ATTACHMENT 4 When the City determines that the required TDCs cannot be met through retention and feasible on-site planting, the Planning Board recommends a fee-in-lieu of $1,600 for each unmet credit. The existing maximum fee cap should be eliminated so that mitigation remains proportional to the unmet requirement. Site restoration obligations are separate from civil penalties. Planning Board also voted to remove the waiver of fee-in-lieu if greater than 50% of trees are retained; we determined this code language is now moot and/or in conflict with the TDC method. 7. Maintenance Agreements Planning Board supports adopting a 5-year maintenance agreement for any development of site improvement projects that fall under the TDC requirements to ensure establishment of newly planted trees.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 64/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 64/143 Page 1 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. Chapter 17.130 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Sections: 17.130.000 Intent and purpose. 17.130.010 Administration authority. 17.130.020 Definitions. 17.130.030 Permit required. 17.130.040 Street Trees [placeholder]. 17.130.050 Tree removals unrelated to development. 17.130.060 Tree retention associated with development. 17.130.070 Tree protection measures during development. 17.130.080 Landscaping Requirements [placeholder]. 17.130.090 Tree and Landscape Maintenance Requirements. 17.130.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 17.130.110 Liability. 17.130.120 Tree Fund 17.130.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of trees on private, public and city-owned property and associated vegetation, and woodlands located in Edmonds. This includes the following: A.  Implement the goals and objectives of the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP); B.  Implement the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; C.  Implement the goals and objectives of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP); D.  Work towards achieving a healthy, sustainable urban forest with a minimum citywide tree canopy cover goal of 35 percent by 2036, with a no net loss of 32.4 percent canopy cover based on 2021 imagery; E.  Promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds by mitigating stormwater runoff and the impacts of climate change, improving air quality, preserving wildlife corridors and habitat, and maintaining the physical and aesthetic characteristics of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and vegetation;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 65/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 65/143 Page 2 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. F.  Preserve the maximum number of trees with a reasonable chance of long-term survival determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment to ensure an even urban forest succession of mature trees, when combined with supplemental trees, provide optimal environmental and public health benefits; G.  Encourage tree retention and mitigation efforts on developing sites by providing design flexibility, promoting right tree-right place replanting objectives, and buffering the effects of built and paved areas through landscaping standards; H.  Promote site design and development practices that avoid unnecessary disturbance to and/or removal of trees, vegetation, and the city’s natural topographic and vegetation features, and retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner; I. Recognize that certain factors such as hazardous tree conditions, proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees. 17.130.010 Authority. The planning and development director (“director”) or his/her designee is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to enforce this chapter to accomplish the stated purpose. 17.130.020 Definitions. “Caliper” means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock, applicable to replacement tree size requirements. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above grade for up to and including four-inch caliper size and 12 inches above grade for larger sizes. “Critical root zone (CRZ)” means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DSH. Example: a 24-inch DSH tree has a 24-foot radius CRZ measured from the face of the trunk. “Inner Critical Root Zone” refers to an area half the distance of the CRZ that, when impacted, may compromise the structural integrity of the tree. Example: a 24-inch DSH tree has a 12-foot radius inner critical root zone measured from the face of the trunk. ”Crown” means the upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all the branches and foliage.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 66/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 66/143 Page 3 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. “Developable site” means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and their buffers. “Diameter at standard height (DSH)” means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet above average grade. References to DBH shall be understood as synonymous with “diameter at standard height (DSH).” For trees with multiple stems at four and one-half feet height, the DSH shall be the square root of the sum of each individual stem greater than six inches diameter, squared, as shown in Diagram x. For multiple-stemmed trees in critical areas, the minimum individual stem diameter is four inches. Example: with three stems: Combined DSH = √ [(stem1)2 + (stem2)2 + (stem3)2]). Atypical trunk formations and site conditions shall follow the Guide for Plant Appraisal, current edition, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. If a tree has been removed and only a stump remains below four and one-half feet above average grade, the DSH is the diameter of the top of the remaining stump. Diagram x. “Dripline” means the distance in radius from the face of the tree trunk to the furthest horizontal extent of the tree’s crown. For trees with asymmetrical crowns, dripline is measured in all four cardinal directions (north, south, east and west). “Feasible” means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant’s primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant. “Grove” means a group of three or more viable significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns that are located on a proposed development site; one of which is located within a required yard setback. “Hazard tree” means a tree/tree part that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective, determined to have a high or extreme overall tree risk rating using the current ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) method. A hazard tree must meet all the following criteria:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 67/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 67/143 Page 4 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 1. Have a combination of structural defects and/or conditions of concern resulting in a probable or imminent likelihood of failure, 2. Is in proximity to frequent or constantly occupied targets resulting in a high likelihood of impact, 3. The hazard condition cannot be reduced with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices, nor can the target be moved. “Improvement” means and includes, but is not limited to, an existing or proposed building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property. “Landmark tree” means a significant tree with a minimum 24-inch DSH, or the minimum threshold diameters listed for the species in Table x: Table x. Landmark Tree Species Minimum Threshold Diameter (DSH) Any significant tree 24 inches Madrone – Arbutus menziesii 8 inches Pacific yew – Taxus brevifolia 8 inches Lodgepole/Shore Pine – Pinus contorta 12 inches All oak – Quercus species 12 inches “Nuisance tree” means a significant tree that meets the following criteria: 1. Is causing extensive physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure in a manner that disrupts functional use, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. 2. Damage caused by the tree cannot be corrected through remediation such as repaving, surface lifting/leveling, mechanical rooter, or hydro jetting. 3. Standard arboricultural practices such as root or branch pruning or installation of preventative measures such as root barriers cannot rectify the nuisance without severe injury to the tree, as documented by a qualified professional arborist. “Prohibited Tree” means a tree currently listed in any class as a noxious, invasive or “weed of concern” species by Washington State or Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control Boards or shown on the Prohibited Plant List maintained by the City. “Protected tree” means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan and/or an approved landscaping plan in relation to a development permit , a   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 68/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 68/143 Page 5 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. bond, maintenance agreement, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. “Pruning” means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. “Qualified professional arborist” means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials (or equivalent): 1.  International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2.  Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3.  American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4.  Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans. 5. Board Certified Master Arborist For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional arborist must also have a minimum of three years’ experience prescribing appropriate tree protection measures for optimal tree health and longevity after construction. “Significant tree” means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter, up to 23.9-inches at standard height (DSH), that does not include a landmark tree species. “Tree” means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. “Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)” means the area determined by a qualified professional arborist in which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees during construction, applicable to individual or groups of tree trunks, roots and soil. TPZ is measured in feet from the face of the trunk and may be determined using critical root zone, dripline, exploratory root excavations or other methodologies. TPZ is variable depending on species, age and health of the tree, soil conditions and proposed construction. TPZ denotes the location of tree protection fencing. “Tree removal” means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree’s root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 69/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 69/143 Page 6 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. “Tree topping” means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. “Viable tree” means a significant tree that a qualified professional arborist has determined to be in fair, good, or excellent health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove and is a species that is suitable for its location, subject to City review/approval. “Wildlife snag” means the remaining trunk of a tree that is intentionally reduced in height, stripped of its branches and initiated cavities using coronet cuts and other techniques with the intent of providing habitat. 17.130.030 Permits and exemptions. A.  Applicability. No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter. B.  Street tree pruning or removal. Other than City crews, no person, directly or indirectly, shall prune, trim, modify, alter or damage any street tree without first obtaining a permit as provided in ECDC 18.85. C. Tree removal on private property. A Type 1 permit is required to: 1. Remove a maximum of three significant trees, excluding landmark tree species, in a 36- month period as set forth in 17.130.050.C. 2. Exceed the tree removal allowances set forth in 17.130.050.A with the removal of hazard or nuisance trees pursuant to 17.130.050.B if the proposed removals are: a. Located in critical areas and associated buffers as provided in Chapter 23.10 ECDC. Critical areas in this context do not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. b. Located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties. c. Identified as a protected tree. d. Landmark trees. 3. (Placeholder: Develop a Forest Stewardship Plan). D.  Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 70/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 70/143 Page 7 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 1. Emergency Tree Removal. Any tree that poses an imminent threat to life and property may be removed. The City shall be notified within seven days after the emergency tree removal with evidence of the threat for removing the tree to be considered exempt from this chapter. If the Planning Official determines that the emergency tree removal was not warranted or if the removed tree was required to be retained or planted pursuant to a development permit, then the removal will be subject to code enforcement, including fines and restoration. The Planning Official may require that the party obtain a tree removal permit. 2. Utility Maintenance. Removal of trees by utility agencies for one of the following purposes: a. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths. b. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. 3. Development Proposal. Tree removal associated with site improvements, building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All tree removal activities shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. 4. Routine Landscaping and Maintenance. A permit is not required for routine pruning, planting, and management of brush and seedling trees, including the removal of noxious/invasive vegetation. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 – 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone, provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public safety or tree health. 5. Removal of Prohibited Tree Species. A permit or notification is not required for the removal of significant, prohibited tree species. Example: a property owner may remove a 10-inch DSH black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) without notifying the City or seeking a permit because the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board lists it as a Class C Noxious Weed.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 71/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 71/143 Page 8 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 17.130.040 Street Trees (placeholder).   17.130.050 Tree removals unrelated to development. To slow the loss of canopy cover resulting from tree removal not associated with development activity, the City of Edmonds allows the limited removal of significant trees on private property without a permit, while providing for additional tree removal flexibility through permit options. Landmark tree removal is prohibited except those that meet hazard or nuisance criteria. A. Significant Tree Removal Allowance – Notification Required. Any property owner of developed property may remove one significant tree within a 12-month period, on any size property with the approval of a tree removal notification. B. Hazard and Nuisance Tree Removals – Permit Required. Landmark trees, protected trees, trees located in critical areas, on vacant or subdividable lots, and significant trees that exceed allowances may be removed if hazard or nuisance tree criteria are met with the approval of a Type 1 tree removal permit. Additional documentation is required for: 1. Hazard tree removal – a tree risk assessment or arborist report prepared by the applicant’s qualified professional arborist documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. The City may approve the removal of dead, dying, and/or diseased trees from private property as hazard trees without the submission of a tree removal permit if the applicant provides photographic evidence or other documentation demonstrating that the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 2. Nuisance tree removal - documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to remedy the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified professional arborist explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely remedy the nuisance. 3. Protected tree removal - submittal of a landscape modification plan subject to design review may be required for the removal of trees located in required landscaping buffers pursuant to Chapter 20.13 ECDC. C. Maximum Tree Removal – Permit Required. A Type 1 tree removal permit is required to exceed the significant tree removal allowance in one occurrence, provided that no more than 3 significant trees may be removed at one time for a total of 36 months from the date the permit was issued.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 72/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 72/143 Page 9 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. D. (Placeholder - pending additional applicability criteria and permit submittal requirements) Forest Stewardship Plan – Permit required. Staff proposal: A Type 1 tree removal permit is required to develop a Forest Stewardship Plan. Property owners of heavily wooded, developed properties at least 25,000 square feet in area may propose a stand management approach that exceeds the tree removal allowances and maximums set forth in this section. The purpose of a Forest Stewardship Plan is to improve the long-term health and condition of existing tree stands through forest thinning, restoration and maintenance practices over a minimum five-year timeframe. Applicants are encouraged to seek direction from City staff and the technical assistance, incentives and resources available through local and state agencies that promote forest best management practices. E. Tree Replacement Requirements. To mitigate the consequences of tree removal unrelated to development activity, the City requires replacements for the removal of viable and nuisance trees, planted in suitable locations appropriate to the subject property, based on the size of the removed trees: Removed Viable or Nuisance Tree Diameter Number of Required Replacement Trees 6 to 13.9-inch DSH 1 14 to 17.9-inch DSH 2 18 to 23.9-inch DSH 3 24-inch DSH and greater All landmark tree species 4 Street trees: any DSH 1 Critical areas and buffers: any 4-inch DSH minimum 2 F. Pre-Development Tree Removals. Any significant or landmark tree removal counts towards the requirements associated with site improvement or development permits submitted within 36-months following the approval of a tree notification or permit. 17.130.060 Tree retention requirements associated with development activity. A.  Introduction. The city’s objective is to mitigate the impacts of incremental canopy loss due to development by establishing clear standards and priorities for the retention of existing viable trees and for the planting of new trees on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. B. Applicability. The city requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following development applications: 1.  Short subdivision, including Conservation Subdivision pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048; 2.  Subdivision, including Conservation Subdivision pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 73/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 73/143 Page 10 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 3.  New Low Density Residential (LDR) development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a unit or structure; 4. New accessory dwelling unit (ADU), detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU), duplex or triplex developments up to 4 units per parcel; 5.  Site improvements including parking lots, retaining walls, new decks and structural additions 500 square feet of disturbed area/footprint or greater; 6. New multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments where existing significant trees located within required buffers, proposed open space, public amenity or other areas that may be preserved, if feasible. C.  Tree Retention Plan Submittal. 1.  An applicant for a development identified in subsection (B) of this section shall submit a tree retention plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional arborist may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention plan at the applicant’s expense. 2.  Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a.  A tree inventory containing the following: i.  A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); ii.  Trunk size (DSH) and estimated tree crown diameter; iii.  Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv.  Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.); v.  Species and common name. b.  A site plan depicting the following: i.  Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection (C)(3)(a) of this section;   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 74/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 74/143 Page 11 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. ii.  Accurate location of significant, grove, and landmark trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the crown and/or tree protection zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required); iii.  Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv.  Indicate tree protection fence at the proposed Tree Protection Zone drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities. Silt fence locations to meet Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control requirements may satisfy tree protection fence requirements if observed distances are identical and signage is posted; v.  Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an “X” or by ghosting out; vi.  Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in subsections (E-G) of this section. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner shall be provided. c.  An arborist report containing the following: i.  A brief description of each tree’s current viability; ii.  A description of the method(s) used to determine the tree protection zone (i.e., critical root zone, dripline, exploratory root excavations; iii.  Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the tree protection zone (i.e., hand-digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv.  For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), unsuitability of species, mature trees adjacent to utility corridors, etc., for which no reasonable alternative action is possible (pruning, cabling, etc.) shall be given; v.  Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3.  Additional Tree Retention Plan Submittal Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 75/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 75/143 Page 12 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. a.  Phased Review. i.  If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a tree retention plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. ii.  A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. D.  Minimum Tree Retention Requirements. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish a sequence of minimum tree retention requirements, priorities, site design procedures, and mitigation standards to maximize successful preservation of viable trees, plant replacement trees and provide offsite mitigation for trees removed with development. 1.  Minimum Tree Density Credit Requirements. This section establishes the minimum quantitative retention requirements using a tree credit system. This section does not establish maximum retention standards for existing trees. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained to meet the minimum tree density credit thresholds for each lot, as follows: a. Low Density Residential and site improvements including additions, retaining walls, parking lots and new decks 500 square feet or greater disturbed area or footprint, based on the total number of proposed units per lot: i. One unit: 110 credits/acre ii. 2-3 units, including ADU/DADU, duplex, triplex: 88 credits/acre iii. 4 units: 66 credits/acre b. Conservation Subdivision variations to development standards pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048 apply when the minimum tree density credit requirements below are met, based on the total number of proposed units per lot: i. One unit: 132 credits/acre ii. 2-3 units: 110 credits/acre   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 76/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 76/143 Page 13 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. iii. 4 units: 88 credits/acre c. Multifamily, Commercial, and Mixed-Use development Required Landscaping buffer widths and planting standards for trees, shrubs and groundcovers apply, pursuant to ECDC 20.13. d. Demolition permits - tree removal is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities, subject to director approval and immediate tree replacement of any removed trees pursuant to 17.130.050.E. e. Trees that are located within native growth protection areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provided for in ECDC 17.130.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, and ECDC 23.10.080(D)(7)(d), critical area hazard tree. f. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapter 23.10 ECDC), or the shoreline master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site-specific conditions demand SEPA substantive authority. 2.  Tree Retention Priorities. Tree retention priorities may exceed the minimum tree density credit thresholds in subsection (1) of this section. There are no maximum retention standards for Priority One trees; tree density credits may be exceeded to retain Priority One landmark trees and groves. Viable significant trees shall be retained to meet or exceed minimum tree density credits for the lot in the following order of priority: a.Priority One. i. Viable landmark trees located in required yard setbacks; ii. Groves; b.Priority Two. i. Groves comprised of native tree species with associated undergrowth that can be preserved; ii. Viable significant trees located within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; iii. Viable significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; iv. Viable significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 77/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 77/143 Page 14 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. v. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; vi. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and vii. Other significant non-native trees. 3.  Site Design Procedures. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of Priority One trees, the tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to: a. Maximize the retention of Priority One trees to meet or exceed the minimum tree density credits required for the lot; and b. Satisfy the minimum retention requirement in subsection (D) of this section. c. This adjustment shall be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that compliance with this section would make the proposed development infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing the variations to development standards using conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. d. Once the location of on-site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing Priority One trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements shall be retained at least to meet or exceed the minimum tree density credit requirements required by subsection (D) of this section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees. e. If there are not enough existing viable significant and landmark trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy the tree density credit requirements in subsection (D) of this section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows: i. Planting a number of new trees on site in accordance with subsection (E) of this section that would be sufficient, in combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (D) of this section; and ii. If it is not feasible for replanting under this subsection to achieve the tree density credits for the lot, the applicant shall make a fee-in-lieu payment pursuant to subsection (I) of this section. E. Tree Replacement Required. This section establishes minimum tree planting standards for trees removed through development activity using a tree density credit system. Tree density   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 78/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 78/143 Page 15 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. credits apply to existing trees to incentivize tree retention, while also providing a threshold for replanting based on the zoning and development potential of a lot. 1. Applicability of Tree Credits. The tree credit value corresponding with DSH is found in Table x. For trees that fall in between listed size categories, credits shall be rounded down. Table x. Existing Significant Tree Credit Values DSH New 6-10”12”14”16”18”20”22”24”26”28”>30” CREDIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 a. The maximum number of credits awarded for any one tree is 12 credits. Trees located on property lines shall count for half tree density credits. Trees planted in the right-of- way do not count towards a lot’s tree density credits. For individual lots in a phased short plat or subdivision with an approved tree retention plan, the required tree density shall be calculated for each lot within the short plat or subdivision. b. Replacement trees selected from the Preferred Species List are awarded two credits to incentivize planting native conifers and species that attain landmark tree stature at maturity. c. To calculate required tree credits, divide the square footage of the subject lot by 43,560 (the square footage of one acre). The resulting number is then multiplied by the minimum tree credit requirement for one acre. In calculating required tree credits, any fraction of credits shall be rounded up to the next whole number from a 0.5 or greater value. Example: for a proposed new low density primary residence, an 8,500-square- foot lot would need 21 tree credits (8,500/43,560 = 0.195 x 110 = 21.46, or 21 credits). The tree density for the lot would be met by retaining two 24-inch landmark trees worth 9 credits each, planting 1 new tree from the Preferred Species List (worth two credits each) and one non-preferred species (worth one credit). If there were no existing trees on the lot, 21 new trees would need to be planted, and/or fees-in-lieu assessed. F.  No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1.  The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2.  Trees proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that transplant specifications have been approved and relocation complies with the standards in this section.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 79/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 79/143 Page 16 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. G.  Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. H.  Tree Replacement Specifications. 1.  Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a.  One-and-one-half-inch caliper for deciduous trees; b.  Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2.  The director may consider smaller-sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3.  Replacement trees shall be primarily Pacific Northwest native species, trees native to other regions in the U.S, or climate-resilient ornamental species that are known to be non-invasive. I.  Tree Replacement Fee-In-Lieu. After providing clear documentation to the City, which may include the applicant’s arborist recommendations that all replacement options have been considered and the Director determines on-site locations are unavailable, the applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu for replacement trees required but not replaced. 1.  The amount of the fee shall be $1,600 multiplied by the tree density credits necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section shall be deposited into the City’s Tree Fund pursuant to section 17.130.120 of this Chapter. 2.  The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 3. The Director is authorized to adjust the fee-in-lieu value periodically to reflect current costs of materials and labor. 17.130.070 Tree protection measures during development. Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 17.130.060(D) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards, in order of construction sequencing:   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 80/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 80/143 Page 17 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. A.  Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the applicant and appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows: 1.  The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2.  Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3.  Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4.  Property lines. B.  Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1.  Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2.  Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign shall be approved by the director and shall state, at a minimum, “Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited,” and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. 4.  Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided that the director may allow such activities as proposed by a qualified professional arborist and under the supervision of a qualified professional arborist retained and paid for by the applicant. 5.  Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 6.  Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 81/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 81/143 Page 18 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 7.  Limit the time period that the tree protection zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils to 12 months. 8.  In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a.  If equipment is authorized to operate within the tree protection zone, soil and mowed vegetation shall be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from compaction. b.  Encourage new root generation and minimize root damage by exposing roots at the outer boundary of the tree protection zone using air excavation tolls or hand-digging, to cleanly sever the roots of retained trees. Never cut, rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c.  Preventative pruning performed on retained trees in order to avoid damage from equipment operation or construction activity. d.  Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. e. Aftercare such as monitoring, watering, mulching, etc. C.  Grade. 1.  The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within tree protection zones without the director’s authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional arborist. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree’s critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Soil decompaction may be required to ensure the tree’s survival. 2.  If the grade adjacent to a retained tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree’s tree protection zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and root compaction. 3.  The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the tree protection zone of any retained tree without director authorization. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree’s survival and to minimize the potential for root-induced damage to adjacent impervious surfaces. 4.  To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the tree protection zone of retained trees. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of retained trees if trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree’s survival.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 82/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 82/143 Page 19 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 5.  Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6.  The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. D.  Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. E.  Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 17.130.080 Landscaping Requirements (placeholder). 17.130.090 Tree and Landscape Maintenance Requirements. The applicant, landowner, or successors in interest shall be responsible for the regular maintenance of trees that were required to be retained or planted with development. Maintenance shall be ensured in the following manner: A.New low density residential, short subdivision, subdivision, accessory dwelling unit, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex or triplex development up to 4 units per parcel. Any existing trees or trees planted pursuant to ECDC 17.130.060 shall be maintained for a period of five years following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A five-year tree maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Recorder’s office on the document approved by the City Attorney. After five years, all trees on the property are subject to ECDC 17.130. B.Multifamily, Commercial, and Mixed-Use Development. All required landscaping installed pursuant to ECDC 20.13 are subject to performance and maintenance bonds. Plants that die must be replaced in kind. Following bond release, trees are defined as protected, and all trees and vegetation shown on an approved required landscaping plan shall be maintained throughout the life of the development. 1. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 83/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 83/143 Page 20 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 2. A five-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation and/or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of replaced trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 50 percent of the performance bond in subsection (B) of this section. 17.130.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. This section applies to all trees in the city, including private property trees, public property trees and street trees. Enforcement shall be conducted in accordance with procedures set forth in ECDC 20.110. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this code. A. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. B. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection (C)(1) of this section. C.Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. 1.Fines. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the city may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c. Penalties for illegal removal of trees shall be assessed based on the tree density credit equivalent of the unlawfully removed or damaged tree diameter (DSH) multiplied by $3,200. Fines for the removal of Protected trees are assessed 1.5 times the fine for a tree that is not protected. If the DSH of an unlawfully removed or damaged tree cannot be established, the diameter of the remaining stump top   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 84/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 84/143 Page 21 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. shall be used in lieu of DSH. In cases where the stump has been removed, the city will approximate the size of removed tree(s) based on available evidence, and if there is inadequate evidence the city shall assess a minimum $10,000 civil penalty fine per unlawfully removed tree. Fines may be assessed against the responsible party in addition to the cost(s) of restoration. The director may elect not to seek fines if it is determined that the circumstances do not warrant imposition of fines in addition to the cost(s) of restoration. Unlawfully Removed or Damaged Tree DSH or Stump Diameter Fines per Tree Fines per Tree Protected through easement, tracts, or similar mechanisms Less than 6”None $1,000 6” up to 10”$6,400 $9,600 Larger than 10, up to 14”$9,600 $14,400 Larger than 14, up to 18”$16,000 $24,000 Larger than 18, up to 22”$22,400 $33,600 Larger than 22, up to 26”$28,800 $43,200 Larger than 26, up to 30”$35,200 $52,800 Larger than 30”$28,400 $57,600 Tree stump has been eliminated $10,000 $15,000 d. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed pursuant to Chapter 20.110 ECDC, Civil Violation – Enforcement Procedure. The notice shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time, or any other remedy set forth within the city code or state law. e. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the city’s tree fund as established herein section 120 Chapter ECDC. D.Tree and Site Restoration. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. 1. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s);   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 85/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 85/143 Page 22 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 2. If illegal tree topping occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. 17.130.110 Liability. A.  Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 17.130.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B.  Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 17.130.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C.  Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D.  The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. [Ord. 4426 § 1 (Exh. A), 2026]. 17.130.120 Tree Fund. A. There is hereby created and established a fund known as the “tree fund.” B. Funding sources. Monies for the tree fund shall come from the following sources: 1. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 17.130 ECDC; 2. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC; 3. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 86/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 86/143 Page 23 of 23 ATTACHMENT 5 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4427, passed January 15, 2026. 4. Other monies allocated by the city council. C. Funding purposes. Monies in the tree fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the city of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health; 4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city’s observance of Arbor Day or other educational purchases; 6. Purchasing and planting of trees by the city of Edmonds, including planting street trees within the right-of-way; 7. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city council. D. Monies from the tree fund shall not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions in Chapter 17.130 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. E. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee in lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC .17.130.060(I) shall be used to purchase trees for planting or acquiring and preserving wooded areas and open space.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 87/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 87/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources 1 Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment project scheduled to launch in 2027 CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION General: Overall Code Organization (ECC & ECDC) ECC 3.95 – Tree Fund ECDC 17.130 – Tree Related Regulations ECDC 18.85 – Street Trees (Public Works) ECDC 20.13 – Landscaping Requirements (MF, COMM, Mixed Use, etc.) ECDC 20.75.048 – Conservation Subdivision (variations to development standards to incentivize tree retention with short plats/subdivisions) Issue: Various ECC and ECDC chapters with tree requirements causing confusion, interpretation and compliance issues, impedes streamlined review. Would code consolidation and better cross-referencing resolve issues? PB Direction: Consolidate disparate tree codes as much as feasible. Consider additional code reorganization under the 2027 UDC project.1 Staff Recommendation: Concur. Notes: Legal: OK to consolidate ECC 3.95 into 17.130 Public Works: OK to consolidate ECDC 18.85 Street Trees into 17.130; include street tree design standards with 2027 UDC1 amendments. ECDC 23.10, Environmentally Critical Areas and ECDC 20.75.048, Conservation Subdivision will not move under 17.130. 1/28/26 17.130.000 Intent and Purpose D. – L. Issue: Redundant, vague and subjective Intent/Purpose code language does not give code users the ability to understand, interpret and enforce subsequent code sections with more insight/accuracy. Should clearly identify outcomes of code implementation, not what is undesired. No PB direction needed. Staff recommendation: update section to reduce potential legal challenges. Include outcomes unrelated to development. N/A N/A K.Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on-site and off-site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds, while providing applicants with optional procedural mechanisms to ensure that the mitigation is proportional to the impact. L. Promote net ecological gain on a citywide basis over a long period of time. Issue: Vague, unclear metrics such as “no net loss” and “over a long period of time” invites legal challenges. What is an appropriate citywide tree canopy cover goal in Edmonds? PB Direction: minimum 35% in 10 years (by 2036). State “no net loss” as 32.4% and consider an annual minimum canopy cover percentage. Staff recommendation: Concur, except quantifying an annual minimum UTC% due to infeasibility of measuring on an annual basis. K.Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on-site and off- site tree replacement to help Work towards achieveing a healthy, sustainable urban forest with a minimum citywide tree canopy cover of 35 percent by 2036, with a no net loss of 32.4 percent canopy cover goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds, while providing applicants with optional procedural mechanisms to ensure that the mitigation is proportional to the impact. L. Promote net ecological gain on a citywide basis over a long period of time. 2/25/26 17.130.010 Administrative Authority The planning and development director (“director”) or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. Revise if consolidating Tree Fund, Street Tree, and other chapters into 17.130 based on Legal and Director guidance. No PB direction needed. Revise with 2027 Unified Development Code updates so Public Works Director authority is applicable to 17.130.040 Street Trees.N/A 17.130.020 Definitions   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 88/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 88/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Developable site – means the gross site area of a lot, minus critical areas and buffers. Relates to 17.130.060.D.2.b, 060.F.4 - trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter…existing trees outside of the improved area of the site…trees in non-developable areas… Issue: Various terminology is confusing and does not establish clear retention priorities based on location. No PB direction needed. Staff recommendation: Consider prioritizing tree retention by location (outside the building envelope or within setbacks). Check for consistency, address definition if needed with 2027 unified development code updates.N/A Diameter at standard height (DSH) - means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet from the ground… Significant tree - means a tree that is… For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DSH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed… Issue: Calculating total DSH for multiple-trunked trees is shown under the significant tree definition, does not follow ISA industry standards or proper math. Should the method for measuring multiple-trunked trees be moved under the DSH/DBH definition and revised per industry standards/accurate math? PB Direction: Move measuring method under DBH/DSH. Add an example, calculation, and graphics. Staff Recommendation: Concur, with added reference to industry standards. Significant tree means a tree that is… For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DSH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed… Diameter at standard height (DSH) means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. References to DBH shall be understood as synonymous with “diameter at standard height (DSH). For trees with multiple leaders stems at four and one-half feet height, the DSH shall be the combined cumulative total square root of the sum of each individual stems branches greater than six four inches diameter, squared, in diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. as shown in Diagram x. Example with three stems: Combined DSH = square root [(stem1)2 + (stem2)2 + (stem3)2]). Atypical trunk formations and site conditions shall follow the Guide for Plant Appraisal, current edition, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall height above grade, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. Diagram x. 3/11/26 Grove - means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. Relates to: 17.130.060.D.1(b) Priority of Tree Retention Requirements Significant trees which form a continuous canopy… [grove is not specifically identified] Issue: Consider code updates in response to 2015-2019 canopy study findings: address loss of “forest patches” with development by clarifying grove definition and retention priority. No PB direction needed. Grove means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns that are located on a proposed development site; one of which is located within a required yard setback. Address definition if needed with development code updates. N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 89/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 89/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Staff Recommendation: Require that groves be identified on tree retention plans and have a high priority for retention. Hazard tree - means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective and considered a threat to life or public safety, posing a high or extreme risk using Level 2 ISA Tree Risk Assessment as determined by an ISA certified arborist. Issues: The current definition does not align with ISA TRAQ standards. Development permit applicants claim healthy trees are “hazardous” to justify removals or to avoid replanting/paying fees in lieu associated with development. Should the proposed “hazard” tree definition reflect industry standards? PB Direction (3/11/26): Yes. Address permit cost barriers with a procedural alternative to arborist reports. Staff Recommendation: Add an abbreviated review option with no permit fees and ensure “emergency removal” code language is added to Exemptions. Hazard tree – means a tree/tree part that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective and considered a threat to life or public safety, posing with a high or extreme overall tree risk rating using Level 2 Tree Risk the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) method in its current form, that meets all the following criteria as determined by an ISA- certified arborist: 1. A tree with a combination of structural defects and/or disease which makes it subject to a high or severe probability of failure, 2. Is in proximity to frequent or constantly occupied targets, 3. The hazard condition cannot be reduced with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices, nor can the target be moved. Show removal procedure under Applicability/Permit (as no permit required) or under new property owner tree removal section, as “the City may approve the removal of dead, dying, and/or diseased trees from private property as hazard trees without the submission of a [tree removal permit?] if the applicant provides photographic evidence demonstrating that the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree…” 3/11/26 Improved lot – means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. Issue: code interpretation issues due to tree removals unrelated to development on LDR lots with underlying MF zoning. No PB direction needed. Strike definition with tree removal allowances per property size and address pre-development preemptive removals. N/A Landmark tree – currently not defined in code. Issue: Currently undefined. Correlates with tree removal and development requirements. How should Landmark tree be defined: as one DBH threshold, or by multiple species/trunk diameter thresholds? PB Subcommittee 7/2/26: min. 24” DBH, use Bellevue species list, no cascara. Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: Minimum 24” DBH, plus madrone at 12” DBH, white oak, Pacific yew and shore pine at 15” DBH, Pacific dogwood at 18” DBH, and white pine at 20” DBH. PB Direction 7/8/26: concur with PB subcommittee recommendation. Staff recommendation: define by a single DBH threshold (26-28” DSH). Landmark tree means a significant tree with a minimum 24-inch DSH, and the species and minimum diameters listed in Table x: Species Threshold Diameter (DSH) Madrone – Arbutus menziesii 8 inches Pacific yew – Taxus brevifolia 8 inches Oak – Quercus species 12 inches Lodgepole/shore Pine – Pinus contorta 12 inches 3/25/26, 7/8/26 $ Limits of disturbance - means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. Issue: Code vaguely defines tree protection fence locations that are required to be shown on development site plans. “LOD” is often confused with other limits of disturbance (critical area, TESC fencing, clearing/grading) on site plans, ultimately resulting in trees damaged during development. Limits of disturbance - the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) - the defined area as determined by a qualified professional arborist in which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 90/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 90/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: define per 2023 ANSI standards (TPZ), strike LOD definition. prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees during construction, applicable to individual or groups of tree trunks, roots and soil. TPZ is measured in feet from the face of the trunk and may be determined using critical root zone, dripline, exploratory root excavations or other methodologies. TPZ is variable depending on species, age and health of the tree, soil conditions and proposed construction TPZ denotes the location of tree protection fencing. Nuisance tree - means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. Relates to: 17.130.040(F) Exemptions…trees that do not meet exemptions A through E may be removed with supporting documentation… 1. Nuisance tree (removal) with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified professional arborist explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. Issues: “…is causing significant damage” is subjective, results in frequent code interpretation and enforcement issues. Remediation measures are not considered; code implies only tree removal can address damage. Few municipalities regulate nuisance trees due to legal and enforcement issues. Least subjective threshold for criteria is monetary cost of repairs. Without noxious/invasive species language in the nuisance tree definition (or as its own “Prohibited Tree” definition), a permit or arborist report may be required to allow holly, English laurel, etc. removal. On development sites, noxious/invasive tree species are otherwise required to be retained or mitigated. Should the nuisance definition be updated to reduce subjectivity? Include noxious/invasive species? Or strike ‘nuisance’ definition altogether? PB Direction: Outline steps for damage and tree remediation before removal. Staff Recommendation: Quantify damage and identify remediation in “checklist” order. Nuisance tree means a significant or landmark tree that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. Is currently causing significant irreparable physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. 2. Is currently listed as a noxious or invasive species by Washington State or Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control Boards. 3.The problems associated with a nuisance tree must be such that they cannot be corrected by tree work such as root/branch pruning and/or reasonable infrastructure repair such as repaving or preventative measures such as root barriers, as documented by a qualified professional arborist. Move Prohibited/Invasive content to Exemptions for greater clarify with checklist format. 3/11/26 Definition refined by staff in V2 Qualified Professional - means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having 2 or more of the following credentials: 1. ISA Certified Arborist 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborist (ASCA) registered consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester Issue: Current definition does not consider new qualifications or equivalent experience/training. May be confused with “Qualified Professional” elsewhere that refers to surveyors, geotechnical, wetland and other professions. Should the Qualified Professional definition be updated to include relevant credentials and equivalent experience/education? PB Direction: Yes, update accordingly. Staff Recommendation: Add BCMA credential, “or equivalent” and distinguish from other “Qualified Professionals” elsewhere in the code, i.e. ECDC 23.10.080(D)7(d) tree removal in critical areas. Qualified Professional Arborist means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having 2 or more of the following credentials (or equivalent): 1. ISA Certified Arborist 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborist (ASCA) registered consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans 5.Board Certified Master Arborist 3/11/26 Specimen tree - means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city’s qualified professional. Issue: Size criteria duplicate landmark tree criteria. Rarity and form criteria are too subjective without reference to authoritative resources. Note: definition has been infrequently applied due to its subjectivity. Criteria may be better suited for a voluntary Heritage Tree program than as regulatory criteria for protection. Should specimen tree definition be updated to reduce subjectivity? Or deleted altogether? Means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city’s qualified professional. (strike)3/11/26   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 91/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 91/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION PB Direction: Strike. Consider criteria and protections if a voluntary heritage tree program is initiated. Staff Recommendation: Concur. Viable tree - means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. Relates to: 17.130.060.D-F Tree retention associated with development activity Check that significant, hazard, viable and specimen tree definitions related to development priorities, procedures and requirements are consistent. Issues: Code does not establish specific tree condition ratings. Some permit applicants “downgrade” tree condition to avoid tree replacement and/or fees in lieu, resulting in prolonged development permit review times. No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: Add “subject to review.” Consider general tree condition descriptions for development scenarios, i.e., dead, poor, good, excellent, etc. Viable tree – means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in fair, good, or excellent health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove and is a species that is suitable for its location, subject to City review/approval. Address definition if needed with development code updates. N/A 17.130.030 Permits Section identifies tree activities that require a permit. Issue: Permits required for public/private trees (to prune, remove, protect, etc.) are shown across Permits, Exemptions, and Tree Removal Prohibited sections, resulting in code interpretation issues, lack of code awareness, and violations. No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: Clarify which citywide tree activities require a permit and other submittal or notification processes. Reorganize/consolidate Permit, Exemptions and Tree Removal Prohibited sections. Use table or checklist format, cross-reference. Move 17.130.040 Exemptions and 170.130.050 Tree Removal Prohibited sections under Permits. Clarify activities that do/do not require a permit. Expand if needed with development code updates. N/A Emergency Tree Removal From 23.10.080(D)7(d)iii “Imminent Risk” (related to critical areas) iii. When a tree poses an imminent risk to public safety or property, the landowner may prune or cut the tree into a wildlife snag before receiving written city approval. Within 14 days of such action, the landowner shall and (B) a restoration plan demonstrating compliance with this section. Issue: Current code does not consider that emergency tree removals may be applicable to properties without critical areas. No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: Add new emergency tree removal code language to 17.130.030 Applicability under Exemptions and revise 23.10.080(D)7iii to reflect correct professional qualifications. Under Exemptions, add: [x]. Emergency Tree Removal. Any tree that requires City approval for removal may be removed by the property owner if it is determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health and safety, public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation; provided, that within 14 days, the property owner notifies the City and demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title. Revise 23.10.080(D)7iii: …submit to the director: (A) a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified a qualified professional arborist documenting the hazard… N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 92/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 92/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION 030-060 When a tree removal permit is required (non-development) 030.B: Tree removal not specifically exempted will be processed as a Type I permit… 030.C “Procedural Exemptions” 040: …activities exempt from the provisions of this chapter [that] do not require a permit…except for… 040.F: …trees that do not meet the exemptions…may be removed… 050.A: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in… 050.B: …removal of trees… is prohibited except as provided for in… 060.A.5: …the city requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with…for…any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by… Issues: Addressing both non-development and development permit requirements within similar code sections is confusing. Terms such as “procedural exemptions” do not clearly state when a permit IS required. Excessive exemptions, followed by “exceptions to exemptions” and other double negatives has resulted in code interpretation issues, lower code awareness and compliance. What process or submittal mechanism applies to non-development tree removal scenarios? PB Direction: Ensure the notification versus permit process is clear and consistently used throughout the code. Staff Recommendation: Identify when a permit is required for citywide tree activities. Note permit processes and requirements are outlined in 17.130.050. Under Permits: A permit is required for: Landmark tree removal (hazard/nuisance only) Hazard/nuisance tree removal that exceed allowances Street tree pruning/removal Trees proposed for removal in critical areas consistent with ECDC 23.10.080… Tree removal on commercial and multifamily-zoned properties (may require a Landscape Modification permit if design review is warranted). Tree removal on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties To remove up to 3 trees within 3 years Forest Stewardship Plan? List when permits are required, what type, cost. Reorganize chapter so that non-development and development-related tree permit requirements and processes are in separate code sections. 4/22/26, 6/10/26 $ 040 & 050 Tree removal in critical areas 040.F …the following activities are exempt and do not require a permit…trees that do not meet the exemptions…hazard tree removal in a critical area… 020.V, 050.D, 23.40.220.8, 23.40.005 Tree topping in critical areas 050.D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed… 23.40.220.8.b.ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning… where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; “Normal maintenance of vegetation” means removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the past five years. Issues: Unclear and contradictory code provisions and/or permit requirements result in excessive unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. Difficulty in verifying previously approved topping in the past 5 years Excessive removals in critical areas leads to incremental loss of canopy cover due to removal of “forest patches” per 2021 canopy study findings. Code should include creation of wildlife snags. No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: Clarify a Type 1 permit is required to remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas. Strike “rectify” and replace with “remedy” or other Add wildlife snag definition that aligns with best practices. Under Permits subsection, clarify a permit is required for tree removal in critical areas, cross-reference to 23.10.N/A 17.130.040 Exemptions Street Trees (placeholder) Section currently identifies activities exempt from regulations or that do not require a permit. Issue: Overly complex code language (exceptions to exemptions, double negatives, etc.) is not user-friendly, leads to lower quality permit applications and lower code compliance. No PB direction needed. Move Exemptions under Permit, consolidate with Tree Removal Prohibited subsections, move 18.85 Street Trees to 17.130.040 N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 93/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 93/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Staff Recommendation: Minimize/revise exemptions to fit legal criteria. Define what IS regulated, versus NOT. 17.130.050 Tree Removals Prohibited Unrelated to Development Section currently identifies prohibited tree removal activities. Issue: Tree Removal Prohibited code content is redundant with 17.130.030 Permits and 17.130.040 Exemptions No PB direction needed for code reorganization. Consolidate, add new non-development tree removal codes under 17.130.050. Use charts/tables for greater code clarity. List or show tree replacement requirements in a table, based on removed tree DBH ranges. Provide examples. N/A Section currently identifies prohibited tree removals. Reorganize 030, 040 and 050, Tree Removals Unrelated to Development. Issues: Limit property owner tree removals within a specific timeframe per scope objectives to slow loss of canopy cover not associated with development. Track tree removals unrelated to development (currently unknown). Regulate healthy Landmark tree removals and identify removal processes. Consider a tree removal process for heavily wooded, larger properties where an allowance system is inappropriate for stand management. Consider resources currently in place for tree removal tracking/review. New code concepts: What code framework is appropriate (ie: clear/grade permit, allowance, other mechanisms? Should Landmark tree removals be prohibited (unless hazard or nuisance)? If not, how many healthy landmark trees may be removed at one time? How many healthy significant trees may be removed at one time? What are appropriate significant/landmark replacement requirements? Should there be a minimum # of trees required to remain on the property? Does the Landmark tree definition need to be revised after considering removal requirements? PB Subcommittee 7/2/26, 7/14/26: One significant tree per 12 months removal allowance for any size property, with a 3-tree per 36-month paid permit. Concur with FOET replacement schedule, except the full landmark tree definition (species <24” DBH) should not apply to replacement requirements. Any property owner of developed property may remove one significant tree within a 12-month period, on any size property with the submittal of a tree removal notification… AND per 6/10/26: If additional trees are requested for removal at a greater frequency than allowed, a Tree Removal Permit is required, provided that no more than 3 trees may be removed at one time for a total of 36 months from the date the permit was issued. OR Any property owner of developed property may remove up to a specified number of significant trees based on property size within a 12-month period with the submittal of a tree removal notification: Property Size Maximum Tree Removal Allowance per 12 months Up to 10,000 sq. ft.1 10,001-20,000 sq. ft.2 20,001 sq. ft. +3 AND Forest Management Stewardship Plan. Property owners of heavily wooded, developed properties at least 25,000 square feet in area may submit proposals that support stand management where tree removals exceed the allowances in this section. The purpose of a Forest Stewardship Plan is to improve the long-term health and condition of existing trees through forest thinning, restoration and maintenance practices over a minimum five-year timeframe. Applicants are encouraged to seek direction from City staff and the technical assistance, incentives and resources available though local and state agencies that promote forest best management practices. [Identify permit requirements]. 4/22/26, 6/10/26, 7/22/26 No direction on Forest Stewardship Plan $   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 94/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 94/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: One significant tree removal per 12 months, or 3 tree removals per 36 months allowance for any size property (no fee). Reduce proposed required replacement tree quantities if replanting conifers: only 1 replacement tree would be required for removals between 6” - 17.9” DBH, and only 2 replacement trees would be required for removals 18” DBH or greater (including landmark trees), if replaced with a conifer. PB Direction: Prohibit landmark tree removals except those that meet hazard or nuisance criteria. Allow one significant tree removal per 12 months/any size property with replacements. Consider Forest Management Plan option (4/22/26). Require a paid permit to remove 3 trees per 36-month period, with replacements (6/10/26). Staff recommendation: Allow 1, 2, or 3 significant tree removals based on property size through notification (no permit/fee). Replacements based on removed tree DBH. Consider fewer, less frequent landmark tree removal allowances, such as 1 landmark tree removal per 3 years. Consider Forest Stewardship Plan permit option. Clarify additional hazard/nuisance tree removals require a permit, replacements not required for hazard tree removals, add preemptive tree removal language such as development permit submittal or review wait period and/or removals count with all development permit applications. Tree Replacement Requirements – to mitigate the consequences of tree removal unrelated to development activity, the City requires the planting of replacement trees on suitable locations appropriate to the subject property, based on the size or Landmark status of removed trees trunk diameter Removed Tree Diameter Required Number of Replacement Trees 6-13.9” DBH 1 14-17.9” DBH 2 18-23.9” DBH 3 Minimum 24” DBH, and Landmark species 4 Street trees – any DBH 1 Critical areas and buffers 4” minimum 1 17.130.060 Tree retention associated with development 030.C, 060.C Tree retention associated with development activity I. Quantitative (numerical) retention requirements Currently, tree retention plans/permit review are required for low density residential (LDR - single family, short plat and subdivision) and multifamily/unit lot development. Retaining certain percentages of existing trees is required, while qualitative retention criteria are unclear and redundant. Issues: Site improvements, additions, new middle housing development types (duplex/triplex), and larger development retention requirements are not identified in the code, although staff reviews these permit applications during landmark tree interim ordinance effective dates. MF zoning allows greater structural (45%) and impervious coverage for fire lanes, parking lots, access, etc., so typically, the 25% retention standard is not feasible, triggering fees in lieu payment. Tree planting is required per MF landscaping requirements/buffers already. Requirements that default to fees in lieu may be a legal takings challenge (RCW 82.02.020). What development permits should be reviewed for tree retention and replacement requirements? Should tree density credits apply to ADU/DADU, duplex/triplex up to four units per parcel? Should tree retention be required with multifamily (RM), commercial, mixed use, office developments (CG, BD, CW, etc), if retention is generally infeasible and fees in lieu are typically triggered? Planning Board 7/22/26 and 8/5/26: C. Tree Retention and Replacement Requirements 1. General Minimum Tree Density Credits. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained using a tree density credit system for the following development permits: a. Low Density Residential and site improvements including additions, new decks, retaining walls and parking lots >500 sq ft disturbed area or footprint, based on the total number of proposed units: i. One unit: 110 credits/acre ii. 2-3 units, including ADU/DADU, duplex, triplex: 88 credits/acre iii. 4 units: 66 credits/acre b. Conservation Subdivision – variations to development standards per 20.75.048 apply when the minimum tree density credits requirements below are met: i. One unit: 132 credits/acre ii. 2-3 units: 110 credits/acre iii. 4 units: 88 credits/acre c. Multifamily, Commercial, Mixed-Use development. Required Landscaping buffer widths and planting standards apply pursuant to 20.13. Discussed 5/27/26, 6/10/26, 7/8/26, 7/22/26, 8/5/26 $   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 95/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 95/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources 3 Note Shoreline tree code SMC 20.50.350 uses percentages, not credits and is currently undergoing amendments to address ongoing implementation issues. CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION PB Subcommittee 7/2/26: unable to reach agreement but consider a Shoreline tree code “conversion”3 for LDR with 2 options (when applied to an 8,500-sf lot): “Option A” requires 110 credits/acre using 1-10 existing tree credit values, which results in 2 retained landmark trees plus 3 new trees. Or 21 replacement trees on 8,500 sf lot w/ no trees. “Option B” requires 65 credits/acre using 1-6 existing tree credit values, which results in 2 retained landmark trees, no new trees required. Or 13 replacement trees on 8,500 st lot w/ no trees. PB Subcommittee 7/14/26: see draft code (right) for combined Options A and B credits/acre, depending on number of units on a lot, with an additional minimum 50% retention requirement. Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: Retain and replant to 88 credits/acre for LDR and site improvements using a 1-6 credit value scale (1 credit = replacement tree). Exceed credits with Priority-1 trees. Required Landscaping applies to MF, COMM, MU developments, not credits. PB Direction 7/22/26: Add “minimum” to Tree Retention Requirements in Table 17.130.060.C and related text. See draft code (right). Exceed credits with Priority-1 trees. Required Landscaping applies to MF, COMM, MU developments, not credits. The 50% retention requirement is unnecessary. Staff Recommendation: Retain and replant 50 credits/acre for LDR, site improvements using a 1-10 credit value scale. Exceed credits with Priority-1 trees. Landscaping Requirements apply to MF, COMM, MU developments. Consider incentives for retaining native conifers and for planting future groves. d.Demolition: tree removal is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities, subject to director approval and immediate tree replacement of any removed trees. 060.D-F Tree retention associated with development activity II. Qualitative (condition, location, priority) retention requirements Issues: Code emphasizes meeting a quota versus qualitative tree retention. “Priorities” do not clearly emphasize groves and larger, mature tree retention. Without “viable,” some applicants interpret the code to include dead, dying or poor condition trees to meet required tree retention thresholds. PB Direction 7/22/26: rewrite priorities code section, provide “preamble” to clarify that P-1 tree retention exceeds tree density credits. PB Subcommittee 7/2/26, 7/14/26: not addressed Tree Board Consensus 7/2/26: Revised Priorities section provides an effective mechanism to maximize landmark tree and grove retention in addition to tree density credit requirements. 060.C: 30% [retention is required] of all significant viable trees… 060.D. Tree Retention Priorities. Viable significant and landmark trees shall to be retained to meet or exceed minimum tree density credits for the lot by priority: 1.  Priority One. a.  Specimen Viable landmark trees located in required yard setbacks; b.  Significant trees which form a contiguous canopy Groves; c-e. (delete, redundant) 060.F.3: … existing viable priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements must be retained… 060.G. Tree Retention Incentive. If a development retains…significant viable trees on a site… 7/22/26   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 96/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 96/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Staff Recommendation: Add “viable” where needed. Revise priorities to reduce redundancies and clarify highest retention value trees, emphasizing tree credit minimums don’t apply to P-1 trees. Identify location criteria. Revise per PB direction 080.A Tree replacement requirements – general …Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits …and/or for tree removal associated with development. 060.C.4 Tree replacement requirements with development (I) In addition to the [30%] tree retention requirements… every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 060.F.4.a-b Tree replacement requirements with development (II) If there are not enough existing trees… to satisfy [the 30% retention threshold], the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency by planting several new trees per 23.10.080 that would be sufficient… Issues: Multiple replacement requirements apply to both development and non- development tree removal scenarios, across different code sections. Development-related replacement requirements are not equitable across site conditions ranging from no trees to heavily wooded sites. Inconsistent code language is confusing, causes code interpretation issues. Should the City consider a tree mitigation method that would reduce code complexity and apply equitably across varying lot sizes and conditions? PB Direction: reorganize code, use a tree replacement schedule based on removed tree DBH for non-development scenarios. Use a tree density credit system for development-related tree retention and replacement. Staff Recommendation: Concur. N/A 5/28/26 080.A.1-3 Tree replacement requirements - all (III) …each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between 6-10” DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1-14” DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14” and less than 24” DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. 080.E.3 Tree replacement requirements - all (IV) …For each significant tree greater than 24” DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value…shall be required. 060.C.5 Tree replacement requirements - all (V) For developing properties…with fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area Issues: Numerical replacement requirements in a narrative format are overly complicated. Code lacks replanting options to replace removed viable trees >24” DBH. Various replacement requirements in different code sections are overly complex and confusing. PB Subcommittee 7/8/26: clarify that one replacement tree equates to 1 credit. PB Subcommittee 7/14/26: modify credit value table to award additional credits for >30” DBH trees (note: example skips 28” DBH). Replacement requirements should award 2 credits for planting preferred trees, i.e., native conifers. Tree Board Consensus 7/2/26: show existing tree credits in a 1-5 value range table that includes non-significant trees (<6” DBH). Replace all landmark trees with maximum number replacements, not by landmark tree DBH. PB Direction 7/22: Establish existing tree credit values based on 12 maximum credits for >30” trees at 2” increments. Staff Recommendation: show existing significant and replacement tree credits in a 1-10 value range table that includes landmark trees. Clarify 1 credit equates to 1 replacement tree. Consider planting incentives such as lower TDCs per acre or higher credits per tree for planting groves or native conifers. DSH 6-10”>10-12”>12-14”>14-16”>16-18”>18-20” CREDIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 DSH >20-22”>22-24”>24-26”>28-30”>26-28”>30” CREDIT 7 8 9 11 10 12 7/22/26 060-080 Fees in lieu of replanting – general Issues: Payment in Lieu of Planting. …After providing clear documentation to development services the City that all replacement options have been considered and the Planning Official determines on-site locations are 7/22/26   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 97/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 97/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION 080.E Fee in lieu – replanting infeasibility …After providing clear documentation to development services that all replacement options have been considered …the developer shall pay a fee- in-lieu for each replacement tree… (1) into the city’s tree fund. For each significant tree greater than 24” DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional shall be required… 080.E.1 Fees in lieu of replanting (I) … the [applicant] shall pay a fee-in-lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced [in] the amount of … $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section… 060.F.4.b Fees in lieu of replanting (II) If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection to achieve the required number of trees, the applicant shall make a fee-in-lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection. 080.E.3 Fees in lieu of replanting (III) For each significant tree greater than 24” DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value… shall be required. 080.E.4 Fees in lieu of replanting (IV) In no case shall the fee-in-lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area. Multiple fees-in-lieu in different code sections are confusing. The difference between the $1,000/$2,500 fee is unclear, or if applicable to >24” DBH trees. The current fee in lieu structure does not reflect order of priority to retain and replant first and may be marginally effective in achieving offsite tree planting. $1,000 per tree fee in lieu relates to the number of trees required to meet the 30% tree retention threshold per 23.10.060.C, however, “of this section” relates to the number of replacement trees (1-3) based on the size of removed trees per 23.10.080. $2,500 per tree also relates to the number of trees required to meet the 30% tree retention threshold per 23.10.060.C. Where $1,000 per tree is an average standard cost of planting a new tree, $2,500 is an arbitrary and seemingly inflated cost. Viable trees >24” DBH removed with development are not mitigated on site, which does not support priorities to retain, then replant before assessing fees in lieu. May be legally challenged per RCW 82.02.020. Removed viable trees >24” DBH are mitigated only through payment of appraised values, which may be logistically problematic with phased development and pursuit of violations. Payment of the appraised value of removed trees >24” DBH is waived or “capped” by the $4 per sf per lot area limit (below). Inconsistent references to City and applicant throughout these code sections cause confusion. Should the City use a single fee-in-lieu structure for required tree replacement, e.g., based on a flat dollar amount multiplied by the required tree credits? PB Subcommittee 7/2/26: No recommendation PB Subcommittee 7/14/26: Assess $750 per required credit fee in lieu Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: Assess $1,600 per required credit fee in lieu. PB Direction 7/22/26: Assess $1,600 per required credit fee in lieu if penalty fines are doubled in proportion, eliminate cap. Staff Recommendation: Combine 060 and 080 fee in lieu requirements. Strike the $2,500 and appraised value requirements, replace with $1,000 per required tree credit, add language to update per cost of replacements. unavailable, then the applicant shall pay an amount of money in lieu of planting set at $1,700 multiplied by the number of required tree credits. All fee in lieu payments shall be paid into the Tree Fund account pursuant to ECDC 3.95. The Director is authorized to adjust the fee-in-lieu value periodically to reflect current costs of materials and labor. 080.E.4 Fee in lieu “cap” at $4 per square foot In no case shall the fee-in-lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $4.00 per square feet of lot area. Issue: Applicants typically opt for the $4 per square foot “cap,” significantly reducing mitigating trees removed with development. Code prioritizes fee in lieu payments over retention and on-site tree planting. The “cap” significantly reduces opportunities to purchase and plant trees offsite. In no case shall the fee-in-lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $4.00 per square feet of lot area. (STRIKE)7/22/26   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 98/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 98/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Should the City continue to limit or “cap” fees in lieu of planting trees removed with development? Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: Eliminate the cap. PB Direction 7/22: Eliminate the cap. Staff Recommendation: Eliminate the cap. Incentivize retention. Prioritize on- site tree planting to replace trees >24” DBH removed with development. 17.130.060.G L Fee in lieu waiver If a development retains 50% of the significant trees on a site, the fee-in-lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. Cross-reference from ECDC 17.130.060.FE.2 to: 20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Issues: Conservation Subdivision “gives” include reduced setbacks and driveway widths, etc. intended to maximize tree retention and protect critical areas with subdivision development. However, specific thresholds for “greater tree retention” are not shown in 17.130 or 20.75.048. Applicants that benefit from 20.75.048 variations to development standards can also waive fees in lieu of replanting trees, which prompts the question whether receiving both “breaks” is fair. Waiving fees in lieu of replanting trees removed with development means those trees are not mitigated through offsite planting using Tree Fund monies. What are appropriate retention thresholds for Conservation Subdivision developments? Should both fee in lieu waivers and variations to development standards apply? Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: as discussed 7/2, waiving fees in lieu may be moot with a tree density credit replacement system. PB Direction: Set high retention thresholds and strike fee waiver. Staff Recommendation: Set realistic retention thresholds or strike fee waiver. G L. Tree Retention Incentive. If a development retains at least twice the minimum tree density credits 50% of the significant viable trees on a site, the fee-in-lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. (STRIKE) 8/5/26 080.E, et al How fees in lieu of replanting are paid …fees shall be deposited into the city’s tree fund. Issue: Tree Fund requirements are in a different Chapter (ECDC 3.95) and are not cross-referenced throughout 23.10, causing procedural confusion. No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: consolidate into 17.130 or update Tree Fund references throughout ECDC 23.10. …deposited into the City’s Tree Fund per ECDC 3.95.N/A 080.E When an arborist report is required …After providing clear documentation…that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary… Issue: Current code is unclear that an arborist report, although not required, “may be” needed to document infeasibility of replanting. No PB direction needed. Staff Recommendation: Restructure sentence, add “may.” …After providing clear documentation, which may include the applicant’s arborist recommendations …that all replacement options have been considered… including arborist reports as necessary… N/A Tree protection measures 060.B.2.b.iv Issue: Various terminology is confusing, resulting in tree protection fence locations incorrectly shown on proposals, inadequate on-site tree protection. iv. [Show] location of tree protection measures fence at the proposed TPZs, with distances from the face of trunks to fence noted on the site plan, v. N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 99/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 99/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION 060.B.2.b.v,060.B.2.c.ii 060.B.2.c.iii etc.Tree protection fence shown on site plans iv. [Show] location of tree protection measures… v. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities. No PB direction needed for definitions to align with industry standards. Staff Recommendation: Use TPZ, allow silt fence may if TPZs are observed. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities. Silt fence per TESC requirements may satisfy tree protection fence requirements if TPZs are observed. 060 Fractions Issue: When calculating tree retention requirements, the code doesn’t provide guidelines for fractions. Some applicants wish to interpret any fraction up to .99 less than a whole number as justification to round down. No PB direction needed Staff Recommendation: Round up or down at .5 fractions, or consistent with ECDC. State how tables that show average size ranges are interpreted, provide examples. Search/revise draft code as needed N/A Redundant and incorrect code reference 060.C.1 Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows… Issue: Incorrect code reference: (F)(3) refers to the same section, whereas (F)(4) describes requirements if there are not enough existing significant trees. Use of term “substitute” is confusing. No PB direction needed Staff Recommendation: Strike “substitution” reference. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section shall be retained as follows… N/A Code flexibility, ambiguous language 060.C.3, 070.C-F, 080.D.2, 090.A Director may… [allow, require, approve, consider, etc.] Use of various terms (may, should, must, shall) is confusing and has resulted in code interpretation issues, although the intent of many of these terms is to allow some flexibility in the code. No PB direction needed Staff Recommendation: Clarify areas of the code that require flexibility. Replace “must,” “should” and “may” with uniform, intended code language. Search/revise draft code as needed.N/A 17.130.070 Tree protection measures during development Critical Root Zone (CRZ), dripline, Limits of Disturbance (LOD), Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) references Issue: Various confusing terms that do not align with industry standards, are confusing, duplicative, inconsistent across code sections, etc. No PB direction needed Staff Recommendation: update per 2023 ANSI Standards/best practices. Update development-related definitions to align with industry standards.N/A 17.130.080 Tree replacement Landscaping Requirements (placeholder) Section currently identifies tree replacement associated with development. Issues: Tree planting requirements for MF, COMM, Mixed Use, etc. developments are shown in a separate code chapter, causing some confusion. Move development-related tree density credit requirements under 17.130.070, reserve section as a placeholder for Landscaping Requirements when moved from ECDC 20.13 with the 2027 Unified Development Code updates. N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 100/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 100/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Retention and replacement requirements related to development and should be shown together under 17.130.060. 17.130.090 Bonding Tree and Landscape Maintenance Requirements 090.C-D Performance and maintenance bonds C. A 2-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements… to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond… Issue: Lack of property owners’ awareness to maintain protected and newly planted trees post-development. Developer-replaced trees planted at the end of bond periods are not maintained, have high mortality rates. Should trees retained and/or planted with LDR development be subject to a maintenance agreement with the property owner, versus a bond secured by the developer? PB Subcommittee 7/2/26: Not addressed. TB Recommendation 7/29/26: Apply a 5-Year Maintenance Agreement, noticed on title for LDR developments. Continue to apply bonds for trees planted in required landscapes (MF, COMM, Mixed Use, etc.). PB Direction: Emphasize property owner maintenance responsibilities with LDR development using a 5 Year Maintenance Agreement. Maintain bond requirements for commercial landscapes only (MF, COMM, Mixed Use, etc.). Staff Recommendation: Concur. Any existing trees or trees planted with the development designated as protected in a tree retention plan shall be maintained for a period of five years following issuance of the certificate of occupancy… recorded on the Snohomish County Recorders on a document approved by the City Attorney. 8/5/26 17.130.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties All sections Issues: There is no distinction between penalty fees/fines for tree code violations versus mitigation/restoration costs, causing some confusion. No fee structure for site restoration. Civil penalty fine structure does not align with fee-in-lieu payments related to development, incentivizing unauthorized tree removals (penalty fees are less expensive). Should tree code penalties be adjusted to better deter violations, improve fairness, or address other concerns? PB Subcommittee 7/2/26, 7/14/26: no recommendation, although “fines should be sufficiently high” to deter violations. Tree Board Recommendation 7/29/26: Penalty fines should be double a $1,600 fee-in-lieu cost, based on a 1-6 credit value scale). Strike section 17.130.100(B) related to misdemeanors from the code. PB Direction 7/22/26: double the $1,600 per required credit as a deterrent for tree code violations (based on a 1-12 credit value scale). Revise in correlation with fee in lieu updates. A. General B. Civil penalties Fines Unlawfully Removed or Damaged Tree DSH or Stump Diameter Fines per Tree Fines per Protected Tree Up to 6”None $1,000 Over 6 up to 10 inches $6,400 $9,600 Over 10 up to 14 inches $9,600 $14,400 Over 14” up to 18”$16,000 $24,000 Over 18” up to 22”$22,400 $33,600 Over 22” up to 26”$28,800 $43,200 Over 26 up to 30 inches $35,200 $52,800 Larger than 30 inches $38,400 $57,600 Tree stump has been eliminated $10,000 $15,000 7/22/26 $   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 101/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 101/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Staff recommendation: assess civil penalties based on size of tree (i.e., dollar amount per DBH inch). Separate restoration costs from civil penalties. C. Restoration Plan …at the cost of violator… or fees in lieu of restoration shall be $1,600 multiplied by the number of illegally removed tree credits. 17.130.110 Liability All 17.130.110 sections No PB direction needed. Staff recommendation: pending legal review.N/A N/A 17.130.120 Tree Fund Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 3.95 Issue: funds have not been allocated expeditiously. Issues have arisen with its management, approved uses and authority. No PB direction needed Move ECC 3.95 into 17.130.120, consider revisions to address fund management. N/A Miscellaneous and Related Code Updates 20.75.060 Error noting 8-inch diameter trees No PB direction needed Revise to 6” DSH N/A Prohibited Plant List (reference in code) Update current list to reflect trees that fall under state/county “weeds of concern” so that a permit is not required for removal. No PB direction needed Revise list, post online N/A Definitions Will need to include PW and ROW definitions (or cross-reference) when ECDC 18.85 Street Trees is consolidated under 17.130. With 2027 Unified Development Code updates. N/A Emerging Issues - Outside 2026 ECDC 17.130 Scope of Work N/A Issue: Revise multifamily, commercial, mixed use, etc. zoning/development requirements for maximum tree retention, less allowable lot coverage (Planning Board 5/27/26). May be a Comprehensive Plan update. N/A N/A N/A Ensure Landmark trees are protected in perpetuity to preserve canopy cover and protect ecological functions (Planning Board 4/22/26). Staff Recommendation: Incentivize voluntary landmark tree preservation on private property through a Heritage Tree Program that offers a template for a Tree Conservation Easement (Covenant?) to protect trees in perpetuity. Consider program that compensates property owners for large tree retention with development (Transfer of Development Rights program) per WA TDR. N/A N/A $   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 102/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 102/143 2026 Tree Code Amendment Tracking Sheet ATTACHMENT 6 Revised 8/6/26 Blue text – recommendations, discussion, direction Strikeouts - existing code proposed to be deleted Red underlined markups - proposed code language Green underlined markups – existing code proposed to be moved $ - proposed code change with budget impacts to applicants, property owners, developers, or City resources CURRENT CODE GAP ANALYSIS & DIRECTION DRAFT CODE EXAMPLE PB DIRECTION Currently addressed with development in critical areas under ECDC 23.10 Require maintenance assurance mechanism for trees required to be planted in critical areas. N/A N/A   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 103/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 103/143 August 5, 2026 City of Edmonds Planning Board 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Comments on Proposed Tree Code Amendments Dear Planning Board, On behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS), thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed updates to Chapter 17.130, Tree Related Regulations. We appreciate the ordinance's recognition that tree retention and housing production must be balanced. The stated purpose acknowledges the need to retain trees "while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner," and the inclusion of phased review for subdivisions, a tree credit system, and incentives for retaining larger trees are positive changes that move the proposal in a more practical direction. While these improvements are appreciated, we continue to have concerns that several provisions may unintentionally reduce housing capacity, increase development costs, and create uncertainty in the permitting process at a time when Edmonds faces significant housing obligations under the Growth Management Act. One of our primary concerns is the continued reliance on administrative discretion. Throughout the ordinance, the Director is authorized to require additional tree retention, impose additional protection measures, determine whether alternatives are "feasible," and establish site-specific requirements beyond the objective standards. While professional judgment is important, development regulations should be predictable and based on objective standards that provide certainty for applicants, staff, and the public. Uncertainty in the permitting process increases risk, extends project timelines, and ultimately increases the cost of housing. We are also concerned that the ordinance combines a flexible tree credit system with mandatory retention requirements. The proposal requires retention of Priority One trees regardless of whether an applicant has already met the required tree credit threshold. Mandatory retention requirements significantly reduce the flexibility that makes a credit-based system effective and can unnecessarily constrain site design, particularly on smaller infill lots and middle housing projects. MBAKS recommends ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 104/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 104/143 avoiding mandatory retention requirements because they often undermine the purpose of a flexible canopy or credit system. Similarly, the proposed tree density requirements and fee-in-lieu provisions warrant additional evaluation. For many residential lots, the required credits may be difficult to achieve without substantial redesign or costly mitigation. Where replacement planting is not feasible, the ordinance establishes a fee-in-lieu of $1,600 per required tree credit, which could result in substantial additional project costs. Before adopting these standards, we encourage the City to analyze how the proposal affects development capacity, particularly for middle housing implementation. We also recommend revising the definition of "feasible." The current definition focuses only on whether a legal use can occur, without considering whether the project remains reasonably achievable from a site planning and economic perspective. Tree regulations should provide flexibility where strict application would substantially reduce housing yield or make an otherwise code-compliant project impractical. MBAKS supports Edmonds' efforts to maintain and enhance its urban forest while also meeting the City's housing obligations. We believe these goals are complementary when regulations are objective, predictable, and flexible. We respectfully encourage the City to continue refining this ordinance by limiting discretionary standards, preserving the flexibility of the tree credit system, evaluating the cumulative impacts of tree retention requirements on housing production, and ensuring that the final regulations balance environmental stewardship with the urgent need for additional housing. Thank you for your consideration. We appreciate the collaborative work that has occurred to date and look forward to continuing to work with the City to develop a tree code that supports both a healthy urban forest and a healthy housing market. Sincerely, Natalie Reber Natalie Reber Natalie Reber Snohomish County Government Affairs Manager Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 105/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 105/143 1 August 4, 2025 To: Planning Board Members Brad Shipley Deb Powers From: Friends of Edmonds Trees (FOET), Kathleen Sears, Chair. Debora Ashland, Memo author. Subject: FOET Comments on the 2nd Version DRAFT Tree Code - SecƟon 17.130.060 Tree retenƟon requirements associated with development acƟvity This memo summarizes FOET recommendaƟons and comments on the 2nd Version of the DraŌ Tree Code issued 8/1/26 related to SecƟon 17.130.060 Development, shortened to 060.XX below. FOET comments related to other secƟons of the code are provided separately. We request Planning Board (PB) acƟon or input on the first 4 items. The remaining items may only require staff to include them in the code. However, PB input on those items is always welcome. Several of the comments propose changes to specific code language to beƩer clarify the requirements. Concise code language will assist staff and users as they navigate the code and its requirements. Summary of RecommendaƟons (RaƟonale for recommendaƟons follow on page 2): Planning Board AcƟon/Input requested: 1. Minimum Tree RetenƟon Requirements 060.D. Provide consistent terminology and beƩer clarify requirements. 2. Adopt TDC requirements for Mixed-Use ResidenƟal and MulƟ-Family Zones (060.D.1.c.): 44 cr/acre 3. Adopt TDC requirements for ConservaƟon Subdivision (060.D.1.b.): One unit 132 cr/acre, 2-3 units 110 cr/acre, and 4 units, 88 cr/acre. 4. Provide thorough Review Procedures and IncenƟves to encourage retenƟon of trees. Proposed language included based on Kirkland process. Staff AcƟon requested: 5. Add DefiniƟons for Non-Development and Development in SecƟon 17.130.020 DefiniƟons. Reword to align with PB MoƟon. 6. Update Tree Credit Value Requirements: a. Show ranges of tree sizes on 060.E.1 Table x, not one DSH size per credit. b. Indicate Tree Species List on 060.E.1 Table x as Landmark Trees worth 10 credits. c. Add language that all replacement trees equal 1 credit except for “Preferred Species” are 2 credits in 060.E.1.b. d. Prohibit clipped or sheared hedge plants to count towards TDC as exisƟng or replacement trees. 7. Allow Commercial, Mixed-Use, and MulƟ-Family zones to retain trees by giving them priority over, and subsƟtute for, required landscaping, if exisƟng viable trees exist. ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 106/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 106/143 2 RaƟonale for FOET RecommendaƟons: The following raƟonale supports the Summary of RecommendaƟons on page 1. General text is Black. Code language is shown in blue. Proposed added text is in bold black. Underline has been added to highlight text related to the comment. Strike-through represents deleted text. 1. Minimum Tree RetenƟon Requirements were discussed at length at the July 22, 2026 Planning Board meeƟng. The Planning Board held off on adopƟng a MoƟon to require 50% of the TDC be retained on site in lieu of more robust retenƟon requirement language. The 2nd DraŌ code renamed this secƟon to “Minimum Tree RetenƟon Requirements” and the paragraph is rewriƩen to beƩer indicate retenƟon requirements. However, the terminology switches between Priority One and Two trees versus significant and landmark trees. Please use consistent terminology to clarify the retenƟon requirements. In addiƟon, follow-on language in 060.D.3 confuses these requirements. Proposed edits below. If these are not acceptable to the PB, FOET would recommend including the 50% TDC minimum retenƟon requirement. 060.D. Minimum Tree RetenƟon Requirements Specific development review standards provided in this secƟon establish a sequence of minimum tree retenƟon requirements, prioriƟes, site design procedures, and miƟgaƟon standards to maximize successful preservaƟon of viable trees, plant replacement trees and provide offsite miƟgaƟon for trees removed with development. 1. Minimum Tree Density Credits. This secƟon establishes the minimum quanƟtaƟve retenƟon requirements using a tree credit system. This secƟon does not establish maximum retenƟon standards for exisƟng trees. Significant and landmark trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained to meet the minimum tree density credit thresholds for each lot. 2. Tree RetenƟon PrioriƟes. Priority One tree retenƟon is required, even if the minimum tree density credit thresholds in subsecƟon (1) of this secƟon are exceeded for the lot. There are no maximum tree density credit standards for Priority One landmark trees and groves. Viable significant and landmark trees shall be retained to meet or exceed minimum tree density credits for the lot in the following order of priority: a. Priority One. i. Viable landmark trees located in required yard setbacks; and ii. Groves b. Priority Two, if minimum TDC cannot be met by Priority One trees i. Groves comprised of naƟve tree species with associated undergrowth that can be preserved; ii. Viable significant trees located within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; iii. Viable significant and landmark trees on slope greater than 15 percent; iv. Viable significant and landmark trees adjacent to criƟcal areas and their associated buffers v. Trees that have a screening funcƟon or provide relief from glare, blight, or ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 107/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 107/143 3 commercial development; vi. Other significant and landmark naƟve evergreen or deciduous trees outside improved areas; and vii. Other significant and landmark non-naƟve trees outside improved areas. 060.D.3 Site Design Procedures. a. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retenƟon of Priority One addiƟonal Priority Two trees, the tree retenƟon and protecƟon plan should be adjusted. to: i. Maximize the retenƟon of Priority One trees to meet or exceed the minimum tree density credits required for the lot; and ii. SaƟsfy the minimum retenƟon requirement in subsecƟon (D) of this secƟon. Item a. idenƟfies Priority One trees, but Priority One trees are only located in the setback so changes to the improvements will not affect them. Recommend changing Priority One to Priority Two. Items 060.D.3. i. and ii. add confusion to the previous requirements in 060.D.2 which requires all Priority One trees to be retained in required yard setbacks. The word “Maximize” makes this subjecƟve and the item does not indicate “only in required yard setbacks”. The sentence in “a.” is all that is needed, as edited, for this item. Delete items i. and ii. In lieu of this secƟon, see Item 4 for recommended language for the Permit Review Process and IncenƟves. This subsecƟon goes on to say “d. If there are not enough exisƟng viable significant and landmark trees Priority One and Two trees in setbacks and outside of the improved areas of the site to saƟsfy the tree density credit requirements in subsecƟon (D) of this secƟon through retenƟon alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows…”. The terminology changes from Priority One and Two trees to significant and landmark trees in this subsecƟon. Modify the terms for consistency. 2. Adopt TDC for MulƟ-Family (RM) and Mixed-Use ResidenƟal. FOET recommends a minimum of 44 credits per acre. Include all RM (MulƟple ResidenƟal) and NCH (Neighborhood Centers & Hubs) zones, excluding zero lot line zones. Lot coverage for RM is 45% and NCH matches the underlying zone. Setbacks range from 10’, 15’, or more if required to match adjacent zones. These are larger than some LDR setbacks and can support retaining trees. The purpose of these zones is to create walkable neighborhoods with plazas, courtyards, open space, parking, as well as buffers, therefore retenƟon and minimum tree requirements are important, not just for buffers between lots. This is where people live, spend Ɵme with family, and socialize. Trees will also help to counter heat island effects which tend to be higher in these areas. It’s hard to image an appealing walkable neighborhood without trees, and not just lollipop street trees with limited growth. The 1st DraŌ Tree code indicated 30 credits per acre for MulƟ-Family. Many other ciƟes require TDC for mulƟ-family and other non-residenƟal uses:  Bellevue - Multi-family "All other land uses 2 units or more" 33 cr/acre with a 10 credit scale  Bellevue - Commercial, Non-residential, Industrial Large lot 44 cr/acre with a 10 credit scale  Burien Mixed Use - High density housing 44 cr/acre with a 10 credit scale (converted from 22 cr/acre with a 5 credit scale) ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 108/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 108/143 4  Shoreline DRAFT - MUR-35, MUR-45 and TC-4 55 cr/acre with a 10 credit scale (converted from 33 cr/acre with a 6 credit scale)  Shoreline DRAFT - All other uses 19 cr/acre with a 10 credit scale (converted from 11 cr/acre with a 6 credit scale)  Vancouver - Commercial, Industrial & MF 43 cr/acre with a 10 credit scale (converted from 30 cr/acre 7 credit scale) 3. Adopt ConservaƟon Subdivision TDC requirements. 060.D.1.b. ConservaƟon Subdivision variaƟons to development standards apply pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048 (TDC?) FOET recommends adopƟng TDC as follows, adding approximately 20% to each category: 1. One unit: 110 credits/acre x 20% = 132 cr/acre 2. 2-3 units, including ADU/DADU, duplex, triplex: 110 cr/acre 3. 4 units: 88 cr/acre 4. Provide more thorough Permit Review Procedures and IncenƟves: The review process and allowing incenƟves to developers has been discussed and commented on at numerous PB meeƟngs. At the May 13, 2026 PB meeƟng, the review process was discussed with staff, specifically Kirkland’s process, and it was met with posiƟve response. Yet, none of that is included in the DraŌ Tree Code. These are important features to assist developers and encourage retenƟon of trees, which is the premise of these code modificaƟons. Kirkland and Bellevue both have more robust permit review procedures. We offer the following as one, but not the only way to incorporate a thorough review process and idenƟfy incenƟves. The incenƟves could be listed in a separate subsecƟon from the process. SecƟon D. 3. Site Design or Permit Review Procedures. 1. Tree RetenƟon Plan review and approval shall be an iteraƟve process between the Applicant and the City to assure viable trees are retained and the Tree Density Credit Requirements are met on-site. The applicant shall submit an IniƟal Plan of the Tree RetenƟon Plan idenƟfied in SubsecƟon C. The IniƟal Plan will be reviewed by the City with the Applicant prior to approval. The following opƟons shall be considered to maximize tree retenƟon (Based on Kirkland): a. Expedited Permit review if all Tree Density Credit requirements are met by retained trees. And/or ReducƟon to Stormwater fees or requirements if all TDC met by retained trees. b. Site Plan AlteraƟons, including the following: i. ShiŌ or flip (mirror) the locaƟon of proposed building footprints, hardscape, and driveways or other modificaƟons to the proposed building footprints, hardscape, and driveways; ii. Adjust deck, paƟo, and path designs; iii. Relocate uƟliƟes when feasible, taking into account gravity and locaƟon of exisƟng mains; iv. Avoid new rockery/retaining walls located within TPZs to maintain exisƟng grades. ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 109/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 109/143 5 c. Arboricultural Methods. Arboriculture methods to retain trees, such as, but not limited to, air excavaƟons, boring under roots instead of trenching within TPZs for uƟliƟes less than two inches diameter. d. VariaƟons to Development Standards, such as, but not limited to: i. ShiŌ the building footprint on the lot to uƟlize the variaƟons to development standards allowed in this secƟon; ii. Reduce required front yard by up to five feet; iii. Reduce required rear yards by up to three feet where the rear yard is adjacent to an access easement, tract, or alley; iv. Allow variaƟons to the garage requirements; v. Allow the driveway to be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet; vi. Reduce parking requirements. e. For ResidenƟal Subdivisions, MulƟ-family, Commercial and Mixed Use: When there are feasible and prudent locaƟon alternaƟves on site for proposed building structures or other site improvements, exisƟng naƟve vegetaƟon and viable trees are to be preserved, even if the minimum tree density is exceeded. This may require site redesign including, but not limited to: redesign of streets, sidewalks, landscape strips, stormwater faciliƟes, uƟliƟes; changing the shape and size of the parking lot; reducing or limiƟng proposed site grading; and changing the locaƟons of buildings or building lots. 2. The City shall advise the Applicant, in wriƟng, of their preliminary determinaƟon on the IniƟal Plan. This preliminary determinaƟon shall address tree retenƟon, protecƟon, and planƟng standards of this chapter as applied to the Applicant’s proposed project, and the Applicant shall use this preliminary determinaƟon in preparing an Updated Tree RetenƟon Plan. This preliminary determinaƟon is not a final land use decision and new or changed condiƟons or informaƟon could impact this determinaƟon. (Kirkland) 3. An Updated Tree RetenƟon Plan shall be submiƩed by the Applicant with adjustments made based on the iniƟal City review and preliminary determinaƟon. The city will review and approve or provide addiƟonal comments to the Applicant on the updated plan. Once approved, the final Tree RetenƟon Plan will be accepted (approved) for submission with the full permit submiƩal to the city. 4. If the City review and the adjustments in this subsecƟon do not meet the required Tree Density Credit requirements, the Applicant can submit documentaƟon that compliance with this secƟon would make the proposed development infeasible. In documenƟng infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision shall consider implemenƟng ConservaƟon Subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. The city will review and provide addiƟonal comments or accept (approve) the documentaƟon and require Fee-In-Lieu per SecƟon G. ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 110/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 110/143 6 5. DefiniƟons: Add the threshold definiƟon for Development and Non-Development to the DefiniƟon secƟon. Delete it from 060.D.1.a. Revise the wording to indicate the 500 square foot limit first so there is no confusion that the last item listed is the only one related to the 500 square foot limit. Example: Any development project that disturbs 500 square feet or more of earth such as decks, addiƟons, parking lots, and structures. 060.D.1 Low Density ResidenƟal: and site improvements including addiƟons, new decks, retaining walls and parking lots >500 sq Ō disturbed area or footprint, based on the total number of proposed units: 6. Tree Credit Values idenƟfied in 060.E.1 6.a. For clarity, show ranges of tree sizes on 060.E.1 Table X, not one size per credit. Example: >10”-12 would be 3 credits, >12”-14” would be 4 credits… >24”-26” would be 10 credits. 10 credits would define the minimum credits for a Landmark tree. The PB MoƟon for modifying the scale to 12 credits was to include 12 credits for trees equal to 30” DSH and above. The current table only shows trees above 30”. Please modify. 6.b. Indicate where the Landmark Tree Species list falls on the credit values Table x. FOET previously requested Landmark tree sizes of 10 credits (>24”-26” listed as 26” on Table x), show a footnote: “Includes the Landmark Tree Species List in SecƟon 17.130.020”. Without that note there is no Ɵe between the tree credit values and the Landmark Tree Species List. 6.c. Tree Credits for newly planted trees: 060.E.1 now lists “b. Replacement trees selected from the Preferred Species List are awarded two credits to incenƟvize planƟng naƟve conifers and species that aƩain landmark tree stature at maturity.” However, there is no language that a newly planted tree is worth one credit, except for a reference buried in an Example in 060.E.1.c. Add replacement tree credit value to 060.E.1 or 060.F. 1. Tree Replacement SpecificaƟons. 060.F. 1. i. One credit for each One-and-one-half caliper deciduous trees; ii. One credit for each Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 6.d. Add language that prohibits trees planted to the form a clipped or sheared hedge to count towards tree credits, exisƟng or replacement, such as Arborvitae, Leyland Cypress, or other narrow screening conifers. Kirkland and most other ciƟes have this restricƟon in their codes. 7. RetenƟon of Trees for Commercial, Mixed-Use, and MulƟ-Family zones. In SecƟon 060.D.1.c. include language that allows retained trees to have priority over, and subsƟtute for, required landscaping, if exisƟng viable trees exist. ATTACHMENT 7   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 111/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 111/143 City Council Study Session 2026 Tree Code Update Reading #5 August 11, 2026 Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 112/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 112/143 Aug 11 2CITY OF EDMONDS 2026 Tree Code Update Study Session - no action •Review Planning Board Recommendation •Discussion: code applicability •Next steps   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 113/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 113/143 3CITY OF EDMONDS Tree Code Update Project Scope •Establish citywide tree canopy cover goal •Define landmark trees and determine an appropriate regulatory approach •Explore strategies to slow tree canopy loss unrelated to development •Consider code changes for consistency and clarity based on policy guidance, best practices, prior analysis and stakeholder feedback.   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 114/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 114/143 4CITY OF EDMONDS Tree Code Update •Landmark tree definition •Tree removal permits unrelated to development •Tree density credit - development requirements Code Applicability Discussion   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 115/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 115/143 5CITY OF EDMONDS Tree Code Update •Site improve/remodels, (D)ADUs >500 sq ft: 110, 88, 66 credits/acre •Demolition: no tree removal, except by Director approval •Low density residential <4 units: retain/plant 110, 88, 66 credits/acre •Multifamily 5+ units: Landscaping requirements apply •Commercial, Mixed Use, etc: Landscaping requirements apply •Conservation Subdivisions: 132, 110, 88 credits/acre Required Tree Credits (“TDC”) By Development Permit Type   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 116/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 116/143 CITY OF EDMONDS Tree Code Update 6 Tree Density Credit Outcomes LDR Development #1 #5 #6 35% structural lot coverage + Driveway, paths, etc. Cedar Japanese Maple Doug Fir Cherry Tree Maple Tree Average size lot: 8,500 sf   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 117/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 117/143 Discussion   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 118/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 118/143 Next Steps 8CITY OF EDMONDS Tree Code Update City Council Public Hearing: Sept 8 Study Sessions: Sept 9 Planned Adoption: Oct 6   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 119/143   Item 9.1       Packet pg. 119/143 City Council Agenda Item 9.2 August 11, 2026 - Regular Meeting TITLE:Edmonds Automated Traffic Safety Program and draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.10 ECC (First Reading) DEPARTMENT:Police Department and Mayor's Office PRESENTER:Loi Dawkins, Chief of Police; Stephanie Lucash, City Administrator; and Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Discuss and consider Motion: I move that we adopt the Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.10 ECC (Automated Traffic Safety Cameras) to provide for Twenty-Four Hour Operation of School Speed Zone and School Walk Zone Cameras, to Revise the Fine Structure for School Zone and School Walk Zone Infractions, and to update definitions and statutory reference to confirm to Chapter 307, Laws of 2024 and Chapter 123, Laws of 2026 (This item has been placed on the August 18 Special Council Meeting agenda for potential action.) BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:Potential revenues are to be determined based on council direction ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):General Fund ☒ Budget Reallocation Required in Upcoming 2027-2028 Budget ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: During the Edmonds City Council’s July 8, 2026 Special Meeting, automated traffic safety cameras were discussed. Several councilmembers indicated they would appreciate staff bringing options for expanding the City’s school zone automated traffic safety program. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The Edmonds City Council adopted the City’s current automated traffic safety program in 2023 and selected Verra Mobility as its vendor for this work. The City’s current program includes automated traffic safety cameras at four school-zone locations: Chase Lake Elementary, Edmonds-Woodway High School, Scriber Lake High School, and Westgate Elementary. Automated traffic safety cameras are currently active at each of the above schools during drop off and pick up times only. This includes 45 minutes in the morning (30 minutes before school   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 120/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 120/143 start time and 15 minutes after) and 45 minutes in the afternoon (15 minutes before school dismissal and 30 minutes after) when school is in session. Traffic engineering analysis, including a recent two week study, has repeatedly shown there is significant speeding happening in school zones during all hours of the day and night, creating safety concerns for children, families and other pedestrians and bicyclists in these high use areas. The proposed change would utilize the cameras to enforce the regular posted speed in these school zones during all other times, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The proposed change to ECC 8.10 would increase fines for school speed zone infractions during school pickup and dropoff times while there is a reduced speed limit, and establish fines for school walk zone infractions during other times at the regular posted speed limit. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and consider Motion: I move that we adopt the Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.10 ECC (Automated Traffic Safety Cameras) to provide for Twenty-Four Hour Operation of School Speed Zone and School Walk Zone Cameras, to Revise the Fine Structure for School Zone and School Walk Zone Infractions, and to update definitions and statutory reference to confirm to Chapter 307, Laws of 2024 and Chapter 123, Laws of 2026 (This item has been placed on the August 18 Special Council Meeting agenda for potential action.) BUDGET IMPACTS: Potential revenues are still to be determined based on council direction. ITEM HISTORY: In February 2023, Council adopted Ordinance 4292 authorizing use of five automated traffic safety cameras in approved school locations. In June 2024, Ordinance 4361 authorized the use of red-light cameras at two intersections. In December 2024, Ordinance 4374 revised the fine structure for automated camera infractions. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 121/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 121/143 ATTACHMENTS: Slide Presentation Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.10 ECC   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 122/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 122/143 Edmonds Automated Traffic Safety Program Presented by Edmonds City Team Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 123/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 123/143 The Purpose of Tonight’s Presentation •Respond to several council members requesting more information on the Edmonds automated traffic safety program and possible expansion in school zones •Describe current traffic safety trends and data •Discuss pedestrian and bicycle safety project needs •Receive direction from Council on possible next steps Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 124/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 124/143 Current Program •Program launched in 2023 using Verra Mobility •School Zone Cameras at following school zones (total of 5 cameras) ❑Chase Lake Elementary ❑Edmonds-Woodway ❑Scriber Lake ❑Westgate Elementary Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program •Operating Schedule - 45 minutes during drop-off & pick-up ▪Drop-off starts 30 minutes prior to school start time and ends 15 minutes after ▪Pick-up starts 15 minutes prior to final bell and ends 30 minutes after 84th Ave. W (SB) 76th Ave. W & 212th St. SW (SB & EB) 100th Ave. W (SB) 220th St. SW (WB)   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 125/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 125/143 Map of Camera Locations Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 126/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 126/143 Focus on Safety •Safety concerns with speeding in school zones when kids and families are present •Three-day example to illustrate the extent of the problem •Chart shows drivers exceeding 20mph school zone speed limit by 11mph+ during drop off/pick up Violations School Total Vehicles Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program 62 Westgate Elementary 1,600 53 Chase Lake Elementary 1,690 915 Edmonds-Woodway 5,303 365 Scriber Lake 2,472   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 127/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 127/143 Speeding in Edmonds * Two-week study conducted summer 2026 Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program School Speed Potential Violations Edmonds Woodway +7 mph over 5,763 Chase Lake +7 mph over 6,395 Westgate +7 mph over 2,223 Scriber Lake +7 mph over 5,048   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 128/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 128/143 Where Are Speeders Coming From? *Based on Verra Mobility data generated from all cameras in the city Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 129/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 129/143 How Our Program Compares Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 City Speed Threshold Fine Schedule Fine Amount Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 130/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 130/143 What Speeding Data Shows •Slower speeds lead to increased safety •As vehicle speeds increase, you see a corresponding increase in collision rates, severity of injuries, and risk of fatalities Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 131/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 131/143 Map of Proposed Safety Improvements Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 132/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 132/143 Ordinance for Consideration •Expand Current School Zone Cameras to Operate 24/7 •Proposed Fines During Drop Off and Pick Up ▪6-10 mph over: $200 ▪11+ mph over: $290 •Proposed Fines Outside School Hours ▪7+ mph over: $144 Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 133/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 133/143 Next Steps •Council consideration of draft ordinance to expand the program •Expansion would include a warning period •Court considerations •School starts in September Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 134/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 134/143 Thank You Edmonds City Council Meeting August 11, 2026 Automated Traffic Safety Program   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 135/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 135/143 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 ECC (AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS) TO PROVIDE FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOUR OPERATION OF SCHOOL SPEED ZONE AND SCHOOL WALK ZONE CAMERAS, TO REVISE THE FINE STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL ZONE AND SCHOOL WALK ZONE INFRACTIONS, TO UPDATE DEFINITIONS AND STATUTORY REFERENCES TO CONFORM TO CHAPTER 307, LAWS OF 2024, AND CHAPTER 123, LAWS OF 2026; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in February 2023, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4292, which adopted a new Chapter 8.10 (Automated Traffic Safety Cameras) of the Edmonds City Code authorizing the use of automated traffic safety cameras in school speed zones and school walk areas pursuant to former RCW 46.63.170; and WHEREAS, in June 2024, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4361 to amend Section 8.10.010 of the Edmonds City Code to authorize automated traffic safety cameras at certain stoplight intersections; and WHEREAS, in the 2024 Regular Session, the Washington State Legislature enacted Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2384 (Chapter 307, Laws of 2024), which took effect on June 6, 2024, and which repealed former RCW 46.63.170 and re-enacted the statutory framework governing automated traffic safety cameras as new sections of chapter 46.63 RCW, now codified at RCW 46.63.210 through 46.63.260; and WHEREAS, in December 2024, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4374 to amend ECC 8.10.050 to increase the base fine for automated traffic safety camera violations and to revise the fine structure to conform to state law as it then existed; and WHEREAS, in the 2026 Regular Session, the Washington State Legislature enacted Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6066 (Chapter 123, Laws of 2026), which took effect on June 11, 2026, and which further amended RCW 46.63.210 and 46.63.220 to, among other things,   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 136/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 136/143 provide that the maximum fine for an infraction generated through the use of an automated traffic safety camera may not exceed $145.00 (subject to periodic inflation adjustment by the Office of Financial Management beginning January 1, 2029), but may be doubled for a school speed zone infraction; and WHEREAS, portions of chapter 8.10 ECC continue to reference former RCW 46.63.170 and use the term "school walk area," which have been superseded by RCW 46.63.210 through 46.63.260, and by the defined term "school walk zone" set forth in RCW 46.63.210, respectively, and it is in the interest of the public to update chapter 8.10 ECC accordingly; and WHEREAS, scientific evidence demonstrates that reducing or eliminating speeding improves road safety by reducing both the likelihood of crashes and the severity of resulting injuries, and evidence indicates that driver behavior and recidivism are influenced both by a high perceived probability of enforcement and by graduated penalties tied to the severity of the violation; and WHEREAS, the City has data demonstrating that excess speeding is occurring in the City's school speed zones and on roadways within the City's school walk zones outside of school arrival and dismissal times, and the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the public to authorize twenty-four hour per day, seven day per week operation of the automated traffic safety cameras deployed in school speed zones and school walk zones; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that it is in the best interests of the public to establish a graduated fine schedule that (a) imposes higher penalties on infractions occurring during school zone infraction hours, when reduced school-zone speed limits are in effect and children are most likely to be present, and (b) imposes penalties within statutory limits on school walk zone infractions occurring at all other times; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECC 8.10.010 is amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 8.10.010 Automated traffic safety cameras – Detection of violations – Restrictions.   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 137/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 137/143 A. City law enforcement officers and persons commissioned by the Edmonds police chief are authorized to use automated traffic safety cameras and related automated systems to detect and record the image of: (1) traffic control device violations as defined by RCW 46.61.050(1) at the stoplight intersections described in subsection (E) of this section; (2) school speed zone violations; and (3) speed zone violations on any roadway identified in a school walk area zone as defined by RCW 28A.160.160 as defined in RCW 46.63.210; provided, however, pictures of the vehicle and the vehicle license plate may be taken only while an infraction is occurring, and the picture shall not reveal the face of the driver or of any passengers in the vehicle. B. Before adding additional cameras or relocating any existing camera to a new location, an analysis of the locations where automatic traffic safety cameras are proposed must be presented to the city council for approval. C. Each location where an automated safety camera is used shall be clearly marked by signs and/or flashing beacons placed in locations that clearly indicate to a driver that the driver is entering a zone where traffic laws are enforced by an automated traffic safety camera. D. The following definitions apply throughout this chapter: 1. "Automated traffic safety camera" means a device that uses a vehicle sensor, installed to work in conjunction with an intersection traffic control system or a speed measuring device, and a camera synchronized to automatically record one or more sequenced photographs, microphotographs, or electronic images of the rear of a motor vehicle whenever a vehicle fails to stop at a stoplight intersection as defined in RCW 46.61.055(3)(a) or exceeds a speed limit in a school speed zone or school walk area zone as detected by a speed measuring device. 2. "School speed zone" has the same meaning as described in RCW 46.61.440(1) and (2), and refers to the marked school speed zones in the City of Edmonds where a reduced speed limit is in effect when children are present or when otherwise indicated by posted signs or activated flashing beacons. 3. "School walk zone" has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 46.63.210, and means a roadway identified under RCW 28A.160.160 or a roadway within a one-mile radius of a school that students use to travel to school by foot, bicycle, or other means of active transportation. 4. "School zone infraction hours" means the times during a school day when the reduced school speed zone speed limit under RCW 46.61.440 is in effect, as indicated by posted signs, activated flashing beacons, or the presence of children as applicable to the particular location. "Non-school-zone-infraction hours" means all other times. E. Automated traffic safety cameras are approved at the following stoplight intersections:   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 138/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 138/143 1. 220th Street SW and SR 99; 2. 100th Avenue W and SR 104. F. The itemization of intersections in subsection (E) of this section is solely for the purpose of approving the locations of automated traffic safety cameras at stoplight intersections. Subsection (E) of this section shall not be construed to limit the enforcement of violations pertaining to school speed zone violations or speed zone violations on any roadway identified in a school walk area as defined by RCW 28A.160.160 zone. G. Automated traffic safety cameras located in school speed zones and on roadways within school walk zones are authorized to operate twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. Infractions detected by such cameras during school zone infraction hours shall be issued as school speed zone infractions. Infractions detected by such cameras during non- school-zone-infraction hours at locations within a school walk zone shall be issued as school walk zone infractions. Section 2. ECC 8.10.020 is amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through): 8.10.020 Notice of infraction. A. A notice of infraction must be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within 14 days of the violation, or to the renter of a vehicle within 14 days of establishing the renter's name and address. A person receiving a notice of infraction based on evidence detected by an automated traffic safety camera may respond to the notice by mail. B. If the registered owner of the vehicle is a rental car business, the law enforcement agency shall, before a notice of infraction is issued, provide a written notice to the rental car business that a notice of infraction may be issued to the rental car business if the rental car business does not, within 18 days of receiving the written notice, provide to the agency by return mail: (1) a statement under oath stating the name and known mailing address of the individual driving or renting the vehicle when the infraction occurred; or (2) a statement under oath that the business is unable to determine who was driving or renting the vehicle when the infraction occurred; or (3) in lieu of identifying the vehicle operator, the rental car business may pay the applicable penalty. Timely mailing of this statement to the agency shall relieve the rental car business of any liability under this chapter for the infraction. C. The law enforcement officer issuing a notice of infraction shall include with it a certificate or facsimile thereof, based upon the inspection of photographs, microphotographs or electronic images produced by an automated traffic safety camera, citing the infraction and stating the facts supporting the notice of infraction. This certificate or facsimile shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in it and shall be admissible in a proceeding charging a   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 139/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 139/143 violation under this chapter. The photographs, microphotographs or electronic images evidencing the violation must be available for inspection and admission into evidence in a proceeding to adjudicate the liability for the infraction. D. The registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera unless the registered owner overcomes the presumption set forth in ECC 8.10.030, or, in the case of a rental car business, satisfies the conditions under subsection (B) of this section. If appropriate under the circumstances, a renter identified under subsection (B) of this section is responsible for an infraction. E. All photographs, microphotographs or electronic images prepared under this chapter are for the exclusive use of law enforcement in the discharge of duties under this chapter and, as provided in RCW 46.63.170(1)(i) RCW 46.63.220(11), they are not open to the public and may not be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation under this chapter. No photograph, microphotograph or electronic image may be used for any purpose other than enforcement of violations under this chapter nor retained longer than necessary to enforce this chapter. Section 3. ECC 8.10.050 is amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through): 8.10.050 Fine. A. The fine for a traffic control signal violation detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall be equal to the monetary penalty for a violation of RCW 46.61.050 as provided under RCW 46.63.110, including all applicable statutory assessments. Whenever the state of Washington increases the fine imposed for a violation of RCW 46.61.050, by legislation or court rule, the city's fine shall be increased to an amount equal to the increase imposed by legislation or court rule upon the effective date of such legislation or court rule. A. The fine for a traffic control signal violation detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall be $145.00. B. The amount of the fine issued for an infraction generated through the use of an automated traffic safety camera may not exceed $145.00, as adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning January 1, 2030, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. B. Fines for school speed zone and school walk zone infractions.   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 140/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 140/143 1. School speed zone infractions. The fine for a school speed zone infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera during school zone infraction hours shall be: a. Zero (0) to five (5) miles per hour over the posted school speed zone speed limit: no infraction issued. b. Six (6) to ten (10) miles per hour over the posted school speed zone speed limit: $200.00. c. Greater than ten (10) miles per hour over the posted school speed zone speed limit: $290.00. 2. School walk zone infractions. The fine for a school walk zone infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera during non-school-zone-infraction hours shall be: a. Zero (0) to six (6) miles per hour over the posted speed limit: no infraction issued. b. Greater than seven (7) miles per hour over the posted speed limit: $144.00. C. Statutory cap and future adjustments. No fine imposed under this section shall exceed the maximum fine permitted under RCW 46.63.220(16), as it may be amended from time to time. Whenever the state of Washington, by legislation or court rule, changes the maximum fine that may be imposed for an infraction detected by an automated traffic safety camera, the fines set forth in this section shall be automatically adjusted as necessary to remain within the maximum permitted under state law upon the effective date of such legislation or court rule; provided, however, that no fine set forth in this section shall be increased solely by operation of this paragraph without further action by the City Council. DC. Registered owners of vehicles who receive notices of infraction for automated traffic safety camera-enforced infractions and are recipients of public assistance under RCW Title 74 or participants in the Washington Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program, and who request reduced penalties for infractions detected through the use of automated traffic safety camera violations, must be granted reduced penalty amounts of fifty percent (50%) of what would otherwise be assessed for a first automated traffic safety camera violation and for subsequent automated traffic safety camera violations issued within twenty- one (21) days of issuance of the first automated traffic safety camera violation. Eligibility for Medicaid under RCW 74.09.510 is not a qualifying criterion under this subsection. Registered owners of vehicles who receive notices of infraction must be provided with information on their eligibility and the opportunity to apply for a reduction in penalty amounts through the mail or internet. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 141/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 141/143 unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:AUGUST 11, 2026 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:INSERT DATE PUBLISHED:INSERT DATE EFFECTIVE DATE:INSERT DATE ORDINANCE NO:XXXX   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 142/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 142/143 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ________, 2026, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 ECC (AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS) TO PROVIDE FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOUR OPERATION OF SCHOOL SPEED ZONE AND SCHOOL WALK ZONE CAMERAS, TO REVISE THE FINE STRUCTURE FOR SCHOOL ZONE AND SCHOOL WALK ZONE INFRACTIONS, TO UPDATE DEFINITIONS AND STATUTORY REFERENCES TO CONFORM TO CHAPTER 307, LAWS OF 2024, AND CHAPTER 123, LAWS OF 2026; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this ____ day of _______, 2026. CITY CLERK, LUKE LONIE   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 143/143   Item 9.2       Packet pg. 143/143