2023-04-26 Planning Board Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
N
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
V
REGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 26, 2023, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION:
Meeting Link:https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287
2194 Passcode:007978
This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial
meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m
Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 12 Draft Meeting Minutes
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q1 Accomplishments
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued public hearing to consider ADB recommendations on permanent amendments to
Chapters 16.60, 20.01, and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back
requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone to replace Interim Ordinance
4295 (AMD2022-0008).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Update Phase II - Private Property Tree Removals
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
April 26, 2023
Page 1
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. April 26 Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
April 26, 2023
Page 2
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
April 12 Draft Meeting Minutes
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes from April 12 Planning Board regular meeting.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes from the April 12 Planning Board regular meeting are attached. Staff provided a
follow-up email on April 13 to clarify that human voices are exempt from the noise ordinance beween 7
am and 10 pm, as opposed to the 10 am to 7 pm listed in the minutes.
Attachments:
April 12 Draft Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
April 12, 2023
Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:22 p.m. in the
Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. She apologized for the delay in starting the meeting while
they were waiting for a quorum.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair (online)
Jeremy Mitchell
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Nick Maxwell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Susanna Law Martini
Richard Kuehn
Lauren Golembiewski
Todd Cloutier
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Rose Haas, Planner
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Vice Chair Campbell suggested moving Administrative Reports to the end of the evening just prior to the
Extended Agenda due to the late start.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Seitz (online) commented that an email she had provided to the Board prior the meeting had been
included in the packet; however, the six attachments she had attached to that email were not included. She
requested that those be included in the final meeting minutes.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds resident, welcomed new Planning Board members. He suggested that when the Planning
Board makes a recommendation to the City Council a member of the Planning Board attend the City Council
meeting to make that recommendation in person to make sure it is conveyed as intended. He also referred to the
absences of four Planning Board members tonight and noted that the decision as to whether or not those
absences are excused needs to take place in an open public meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public hearing to consider Architectural Design Board (ADB) recommendation on permanent
amendments to Chapters 16.60, 20.01 and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and
building step back requirements for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone. The
permanent standards would replace interim standards that were adopted by City Council in Interim
Ordinance 4283, which will expire on June 10, 2023. (AMD2022-0008)
Staff Presentation:
Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the staff presentation. He introduced the public hearing and reviewed the
history of interim Ordinance 4283. Provisions of Ordinance 4283 are that it requires a two-phase public hearing
and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height) and that it requires
an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the
ADB. He reviewed work on this to date. The ADB's unanimous recommendation regarding process is to
maintain the Type III -A process from the interim ordinance for projects more than 35 feet in height that are
adjacent/across street from RS zones and create a new Type II process for projects greater than 35 feet in height
that are not adjacent/across the street from RS zones (staff decision after public notice). All other projects would
continue to be reviewed by staff as Type I.
The ADB recommendation regarding step backs is to maintain step back requirements for projects across the
street from RS zones unless deemed not necessary by the ADB. He explained there had been discussion among
the ADB about whether they wanted to maintain discretion and operate during the first phase of the two-phase
public hearing as opposed to explicitly requiring the step back and then having the option to waive the
requirement. Some members also expressed concerns about project costs for developers of having to prepare
multiple designs. He reviewed visual representations that staff had prepared regarding various step back and
modulation scenarios. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board take oral public comments regarding this item;
review and ask questions about it; deliberate; and make a recommendation to Council on permanent code
language. Council must hold their own public hearing and adopt any permanent regulations by June 10, 2023
when interim Ordinance 4283 expires.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Public Testimony:
Randy Hollis (online) encouraged the Board to make the interim ordinance permanent. He noted that the only
members of the development community who have commented on this are working on a deal related to one
parcel in this 260-acre area. He asserted that if the Council were making a radical departure from the code in
nearby cities they would have heard from other developers. He raised concerns about the motivations of these
stakeholders and discussed some background on their communications which he stated have consisted of
incomplete information and personal attacks.
Jan Steadman (online), Edmonds resident, commented that building step backs are a common regulation in land
use planning when there are no transition zones, and a tall building needs to transition to a less intensive zone.
The authors of the Highway 99 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required these step backs. These step
backs were an important mitigation to the upzoning to 75 feet; however, when adopted in 2017 the City Council
did not require step backs across the street because of the slow development environment. She stated that the
development activity today is significantly higher. When this was reviewed in 2022 staff encouraged them to
consider step backs across the street from residential. She noted that these CG property owners on the boundary
of Highway 99 have already received a huge windfall from the city's upzoning of the area. She recommended
that interim Ordinance 4283 be made permanent.
Natalie Seitz (online), Edmonds resident, spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing EIS for
the SR 99 Planned Action until a supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding CG
zone step backs seek to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She also spoke
in support of the two-step process for design review. She pointed out that the SR 99 area brought in four times
the annual sales tax of the downtown area and twice that of Westgate in 2022. She also pointed out that the
Edmonds population has shifted to the east. The current population of the Highway 99 area exceeds downtown
area population. She urged the Board to challenge their perception of how residential development in this area
functions within the context of the City.
She expressed concern that this area and its residents are not treated with the same consideration that would be
given to a similar development downtown. She acknowledged that there is a housing shortage and that this
upzone can help to address some of that but it also kills the city's commercial breadbasket and exacerbates the
simplification of the housing structures into renters and single family. It eliminates middle housing and does not
address the equity issues that are now required by the Growth Management Act. She asserted the impacts are
being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of the lower density, whiter,
and wealthier areas of Edmonds. She asked the Planning Board to recommend step backs or an overlay to
require the CG to function within the densities envisioned by the Planned Action. At a minimum, they should
keep the City's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a supplemental EIS can be completed.
The interim ordinance is simply keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, spoke in support of Chair Gladstone's right to make public comments to the
City Council regarding this item and noted she had acted within her rights and with transparency. She stated she
read the codes of many neighboring jurisdictions. Step backs to mitigate the mass and bulk of a building is a
very common principle in the field of architecture design. She was not aware of any examples of cities that
require step backs when abutting but not across the street. She urged the Planning Board to make the interim
ordinance permanent.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Sue Oskowski, Edmonds residents, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She feels it is important to
allow the public to participate in the design review of tall buildings in the Highway 99 area especially since the
City removed the transition zone in 2017. She raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed 75-foot tall,
six -story apartment building at the corner of 236th and 84th which would be built five feet away from the
walkway of the neighboring three-story condo. She suggested that the developer could change the building's
footprint and courtyard size to allow for a buffer from the condo building on the south boundary. She urged the
City to make the interim ordinance permanent because it helps to level the playing field between the interests
of the new development and the neighbors who were here first.
Seeing no further public comments, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed.
Clarification Questions:
Board Member Maxwell requested a clarification about the difference between the two-step and the one-step
process. Senior Planner Clugston reviewed the difference and how each process would work.
Vice Chair Campbell asked staff if it was accurate that one of the developers who has provided comments
related to the step backs was a person who provided recommendations in the 2017 design standards process.
Mr. Clugston thought that it was.
Chair Gladstone noted that Bothell has overlays. She asked if this is something that Edmonds has done or is
able to do. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the City has the ability to establish overlay zones. Senior
Planner Clugston noted there are no overlay zones right now, but there are overlay districts in the Comp Plan.
Chair Gladstone asked if the Council was made aware about the neighborhood objection to not doing the step
backs. Senior Planner Clugston was not certain but thought it was probably discussed at more than one public
meeting.
Board Deliberation:
Board Member Mitchell referred to the vagueness of the code and the discretion of the ADB to make the
determination as to whether there are step backs or not. He noted that the skill level of whoever sits on the Board
at the time varies. He expressed concern that there would not be consistent measures implemented across the
same zone over time. He wondered what metrics they would look at when making that determination. He
referred to the people concerned about the step backs and noted that a property can still take both step backs at
the same time. He also noted that somebody could buy up a group of parcels, do a lot line adjustment into one
parcel and not have to do the step back.
Chair Gladstone referred to Board Member Mitchell's comments about the ambiguity of the code and the
potential for inconsistency as ADB members change. She commented that if the ordinance just says that step
backs need to occur and removes the ADB review it would resolve that issue. Board Member Mitchell agreed.
Right now, any applicant could come to the table and easily remove the step backs and justify it in many different
ways. From a community standpoint, if they are really concerned about mitigating the bulk with step backs, he
thinks that the code language needs to be improved.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Student Representative Distelhorst thought that the benefits of living in these areas would outweigh aesthetic
concerns over building heights and mass. She referred to downtown Seattle and noted this is a necessary part of
urban development.
Vice Chair Campbell commented that if a builder didn't want to do a secondary set of step backs, they wouldn't
have to build so high. She would like to go back to the intentions of the subarea plan talking about three to four-
story buildings. She is in favor of maintaining step back requirements and making sure they can mitigate the
bulk of the building. They have heard over and over that the neighborhood is very concerned about
overshadowing. They have only seen a small number of comments in favor of removing the step backs, and
those are from the developers. She thinks they can have community development without the overshadowing.
They also need to consider the good of the community now as opposed to the 2017 timeframe when the 2017
ordinance was adopted.
Vice Chair Campbell also noted they are missing four board members tonight; she doesn't feel it is appropriate
to make a recommendation to Council on any aspect of this even if all four members present who are present
came to a consensus. She proposed that they table the discussion until the April 26 meeting. Chair Gladstone
concurred. She also recommended doing some homework before the next meeting to explore some of the
concepts that Board Member Mitchell raised. Board Member Mitchell suggested that they also need to discuss
exceptions (such as distance) as it relates to the proposed language. He indicated he would look into examples
of how codes are applied in surrounding areas.
Board Member Maxwell was in favor of tabling this. He said he was not in favor of drafting the actual language
tonight. He commented that the community feedback is clearly in favor of step backs. He agreed with removing
the ADB review unless they want to allow removal of step backs. He is concerned that the review process would
be quite long due to issues that are not essential or beneficial. He has heard about backlogs and long review
processes. He thinks the Board's recommendation should say something about providing as quick a review
process as possible. Two months seems reasonable. He is not sure about the benefit of a two-phase process. He
is worried that it will just drag the process on unnecessarily. He also was in favor of ADB review for buildings
over 35 feet.
Chair Gladstone recommended they come up with one or more possible options including recommended
language before the next meeting. She offered to work on details of draft recommendations with Board Member
Mitchell.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN OF APRIL 26.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the
Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023 -000 1)
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Staff Presentation:
Rose Haas, Planner, made the staff presentation and noted that the applicant, Mr. Shapiro, was also present to
answer questions if needed. She explained this is a citizen -initiated amendment to allow daycares as a primary
permitted use in the BN zone. It would also exempt outdoor recreation space associated with daycare centers
from the operating restrictions in the BN zones which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed
buildings. This would benefit the applicant directly. It would also apply to all of the other BN zones. The
Planning Department is in support of this. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She
explained that there would be a public hearing followed by a recommendation to City Council. Staff is hoping
to schedule the hearing for May 10.
Discussion:
Vice Chair Campbell asked about the difference in the process if this were an allowable use. Ms. Haas explained
they would not be going through the Conditional Use Land Use process. It would also remove the hearing
examiner step. The applicant has identified that this is a use consistent with the intent of the BN zone.
Chair Gladstone said she thought the more they could do to make daycare affordable the better. She is looking
forward to the public hearing.
Board Member Maxwell asked about potential objections to this. Planning Manager Levitan commented that
staff didn't have any.
Mr. Shapiro commented that if a daycare isn't a natural use in the BN zone, he wasn't sure what is. Hopefully
the neighbors would utilize it and could even walk there. He thought close to housing was a natural place for
this type of use. The current code does not allow anything outdoors, but the WAC requires outdoor playground
areas.
Board Member Mitchell commented on the long waiting lists to get into daycare and expressed support for this.
Student Representative Distelhorst also thought that this makes sense.
Vice Chair Campbell asked about impacts to traffic in the area. Also, are additional precautions necessary for
the safety of children because of the traffic. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are general trip
generation rates associated with these facilities. There is also a rigorous licensing process though the State where
they look at things related to health and safety. Vice Chair Campbell said she was tentatively in favor of this
and looked forward to the public hearing.
Board Member Maxwell referred to the noise exception for human voices from 10 am to 7 p.m. and suggested
that this would need to start earlier in the day. Planning Manager Levitan stated he could look at that.
Vice Chair Campbell asked if it would be appropriate to put in maximum headcounts in different types of zones.
Planning Manager Levitan replied that they have different definitions. A daycare center such as this is different
than a home -based daycare. There are separate licensing processes and requirements. The zoning code generally
relies on state regulations.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Summary of March 28 Planning Board Presentation to Council
Vice Chair Campbell summarized the presentation she and Chair Gladstone had made to the City Council and
Council's responses to questions that were raised as contained in the packet.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Planning Manager Levitan reviewed the extended agenda.
Chair Gladstone commented it would be helpful to know exactly what is expected of the Planning Board
regarding park land acquisition. Do they want a recommendation on whether this should be purchased as a park
or not? Also, what are the constraints on the property in terms of acquisition and use? Planning Manager Levitan
stated he would clarify with Parks staff.
Planning Manager Levitan stated that the City Council, specifically Councilmember Teitzel, is interested in
having a joint meeting with the full board sometime in June. A major focus of that would be related to housing.
This would help to jumpstart some of the community engagement related to housing in the Comp Plan.
Chair Gladstone referred to the Gantt chart in the packet and stated she will be working with Planning Manager
Levitan on this so they can get a sense of what kind of activity needs to be done at each meeting and can better
plot the meeting's pace and content. She expressed appreciation to Board Member Golembiewski for initiating
this.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone apologized for being on Zoom and stated she would be in -person for the next meeting. She
expressed concern about there almost not being a quorum tonight and noted they need to figure out how to
prevent that from happening again.
She commented that Board Member Golembiewski had informed her prior to the meeting that she would not
be able to attend so she recommended that she should be excused.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Maxwell commented that the idea that there is a conflict of interest because a board member
cares about a topic in their own neighborhood more than other people is in error. He pointed out that the
guidelines for appointing people to the Planning Board state that there should be geographical distribution which
implies that they would represent their geographical area. He also clarified that the only things board members
can't talk about to people outside the meeting (non -Board members) are quasi-judicial matters.
Recommendations to Council are not quasi-judicial.
Board Member Mitchell expressed appreciation for all the public comments tonight. He is looking forward to
coming up with a good balance for the neighborhood and also for long-range planning.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Vice Chair Campbell agreed and added that they need to consider all of the Highway 99 corridor and CG zone,
not just one neighborhood. She also spoke to the importance of making sure that board members attend meetings
so that they can all fulfill their obligations to the City.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 11
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q1 Accomplishments
Staff Lead: Angie Feser
Department: Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Prepared By: Angie Feser
Background/History
Attached is the 2023 first quarter (Q1) accomplishments of the Parks, Recreation & Human Services
(PRHS) Department for the months of January through March.
Staff Recommendation
This agenda item is for informational purposes, there is no need for a formal recommendation or action.
Attachments:
PRHS 2023 Q1 Accomplishments
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department
2023 Quarter 1 Accomplishments
January 1 - March 31, 2023
Administration
• Updated numerous departmental job descriptions, opened recruitment and have started hiring for more
than 25 seasonal and part time staff including parks maintenance, environmental education beach
rangers, summer day camp, receptionist, facility monitors, gymnastics and others. Had some Council
approved position wage adjustments, which is resulting in better application response.
• Promotion of Jesse Curran to Parks Maintenance Manager.
• Set Civic Park Grand Opening date of June 23 and began planning for large special event.
• Working on possible parks maintenance satellite location due to inability to accommodate the new staff,
vehicles and equipment in existing facility.
• Developing new master park signage design program and site -specific signage for Civic Park.
• Managing Civic Park grant funding program by submitting for reimbursements and tracking for project
close-out.
• Negotiated and received Council approval of new Ground Lease between City and Boys & Girls Club.
• Continuous work on potential land acquisition program including Hurst property including grant funding
opportunities.
• Waiting for response from City of Lynnwood regarding our proposal for Meadowdale Playfield Interlocal
Agreement.
• Updated lease payments based on inflation increases for all Frances Anderson Tenants pursuant to their
existing lease agreements.
• Finalized special event agreements for the Farmers Market and Edmonds SpringFest. Contracts
authorized by City Council for 2023. Providing event support for the PAWS walk a new event in 2023.
• Established 2023 goals and objectives by division, completed re -cap of 2022 Marketing and Advertising
Plan, finalized 2023 Marketing and Advertising Plan.
• Developed a matrix to ensure the proper permit and process is utilized for park usage (Park Rental, City
Special Event Permit, City Contracted Event, Volunteer Events).
• Converted room 123 in the Frances Anderson Center to a conference room to include video capabilities.
• Completed outreach to 34 waterfront memorial bench leaseholders; next step will be to open available
locations to the waiting list.
• All full time parks and recreation employees completed required NIMS training for emergency
management and submitted record of completion to risk management.
Parks Planning & Projects
• The 961h Ave Infiltration was successfully completed in January 2023, Blue Mountain Construction did a
great job finishing this project on -time during the cold and wet winter season.
• The Mika's Playground sign (for the all-inclusive playground at Civic Park named after Mika) has
progressed from initial concept to a defined sign plan and location. Currently the sign design is being
finalized for fabrication and installation.
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
• Mathay Ballinger Park —the improvement project commenced with a full legal survey and recording of
the survey documents. The next step will be to contact PUD to seek permission to use their easement to
allow a trail connection to the Interurban Trail.
• On -call contracts were established for Geotechnical, Survey, and Professional Engineering services for
park projects.
• Yost Park - An initial scoping meeting was held to assess the inclusive playground project at Yost Park.
Initial scoping and design are underway.
• Johnson Property— completed a successful bid process for refuse removal. Work will commence to
removal the large amount of refuse material on May 4, 2023. Following this, next steps include an
asbestos survey, asbestos mitigation, and then contracting for the demolition. The permit for demolition
is in progress.
• Goose deterrent at Civic Park — A quote was secured for goose deterrent services at Civic Park.
• Brackett's Landing North —A new outdoor shower and drinking fountain/bottle filler have been ordered
and there are plans to hire contractor to install this Spring.
Park Maintenance
• Put together Civic Field tables and benches and deliver to site.
• (1) Brackett's Landing North, (2) Seaview, (3) (4) City Park restroom vandalism repair including painting
and replacement of fixtures. Some of these restrooms have been damaged and repaired more than once
in Q1. (working for two months to get bids for automatic door locks and cameras)
• Installation of a new sink at Hickman Park due to vandalism.
• Hazardous Tree removals at Sierra, Maplewood and Pine Ridge Park, and Inner Urban Trail.
• 5t" & Dayton Corner Park hardscape installation and landscape design completed and materials ordered.
• Waterfront Center Fossil waterfront walkway sign installation.
• Flower pole artwork installation titled "Hare".
• Bench plaques installed that Brackets Landing South and Seaview Park.
• Two Creative district signs installed at 5th and Main Street intersection.
• Downtown tree and fountain holiday lights removed and fountain started for this season.
• Showers and drinking fountains turned on for the season.
• Library beds renovation including removal of all invasive ivy and heavily mulched.
• Brackett's Landing North planter bed renovation.
• Brackett's Landing South shoreline restoration and planting.
• New benches installed at Meadowdale Clubhouse and Seaview Park.
• Ongoing reorganization of entire park maintenance operations and significant amount of record purging
and archiving following departure of long-term Manager.
• Planting of memorial trees at Yost Park.
• City Park restoration planting.
• Supported the Museum's Winter Markets.
Recreation
• Designed and published the digital Summer 2023 CRAZE recreation guide. CRAZE went live online on
April 3rd
• Distributed a postcard mailer advertising the CRAZE Recreation Guide to 20,000+ Edmonds residents.
• Social Media Engagement:
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
o Facebook: 1,484 followers, increase of 488 (49%) followers from Q1 2022.
o Instagram: 997 followers, increase of 268 (36%) followers from Q1 2022.
• Database Marketing: monthly emails have been going out the first week of every month. Emails include
registration information, new programs, special events, park updates, etc.
o Open Rate: above industry standards (averaging 57%) and click rate (averaging 7%.)
o Registration spikes following email distribution which demonstrates engagement and usefulness
to customers.
• 35% increase in recreation revenue attributed to an increase in recreation and fitness class offerings and
registrations.
• 70% increase in athletic revenue attributed to returning adult volleyball (29 Coed Teams and 21 Women
teams) and adult basketball leagues (12 teams). In addition, pickleball league participation continues to
be strong with 62 doubles teams.
• $13,500 decrease in facility rentals in the first quarter due to the Plaza Room being used for the pop-up
library and unavailable for rentals, in addition the Meadowdale Clubhouse is being used by the
Meadowdale preschool and also unavailable for rentals. It is anticipated that these numbers will be
made up with an increase in shelter rentals and influx of plaza room rentals beginning in June.
250 shelter rentals scheduled to date
0 QR codes are up at all shelters to allow users to quickly access the rental schedule and place a
reservation.
• Fitness/Wellness programs:
0 Offered 25 varieties of classes, with 15 instructors in the fall and added Sound Bath, Gentle Yoga
and Jazzercise in the winter/spring.
• Youth and Adult Recreation:
o Offered 61 total programs serving 315 participants.
• Gymnastics:
o Full staffing continues to be a challenge, but were able to run the Winter session without any
cancellations.
o Spring session, all classes are full with large waiting lists. Will add more classes if additional
staffing can be secured.
• Sweetheart Dance:
0 130 people of all ages attended the dance. Kids, parents, grandparents, relatives, and friends
came to enjoy the glow themed dance party at the Waterfront Center. Reece Homes sponsored
the DJ. The evening included dancing (wonderful DJ), crafts, cookie decorating, snacks and
professional photos.
• Environmental Education:
o Held week-long Amazing Animals Spring Break Nature Camp with a full roster
o K-6 education program is nearly fully booked with 83 two-part programs, 17 independent
classroom programs, and six forest field trips booked.
o Developed revised interpretive signage plan for Brackett's Landing North in collaboration with
the local dive community.
o Hired one new permanent 0.5 FTE Interpretive Specialist, three seasonal Ranger -Naturalists.
Currently training staff for program delivery.
o Kicked off planning for annual events including Earth Day, Watershed Fun Fair, and Puget Sound
Bird Fest.
• Meadowdale Preschool:
0 Maintained full enrollment of 14 participants in the both the morning and afternoon classes.
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
• Day Camps:
o Marketed and planned the first Edmonds Spring Break camp. Enrollment was full at 15
participants in grades 2-6. This program was run out of the Frances Anderson Center.
o Submitted a grant application with the Hazel Miller Foundation to provide scholarships for the
Edmonds Summer Day Camp program.
Human Services
• Assisted in coordinating and conducting the Point -in -Time count in South Snohomish County.
• Coordinated communication with the Day Warming Centers and Cold Weather Shelter ensuring those in
need had accurate information and support.
• Worked with DSHS to provide a dedicated Benefits Specialist for Edmonds residents in need (3rd
Wednesday per month 10 am — Noon).
• Developed a free cell phone/tablet program available twice per month at the Neighborhood Office.
• Provided ongoing support for distribution of ARPA funding through Household Support Grant program.
• Continued support for 5 motel voucher recipients, preparing for Department of Commerce funded
program to end in June 2023.
• Coordinated resources for people to include a high needs individual requiring support from Edmonds
Police, South County Fire Community Paramedics, Adult Protective Services and Compass Health Care
Coordinator.
• Human Services Program Manager invited by the National Low Income Housing Coalition in Washington
DC to be a panelist and participant in the Annual Housing Policy Forum March 2023.
• Secured Council approval of a contract to utilize the Snohomish County Diversion Center, Council
approved in February 2023.
• Participating in Edmonds Emergency Preparedness Committee to ensure vulnerable residents are
included in planning efforts.
• Ongoing support of Snohomish County's efforts to rehabilitate and open an enhanced shelter in South
County at the former America's Best Value Inn on HWY 99, anticipated open late Q4 or early Q1 2024.
• Provided Social Services support at each Edmonds Community Court.
• Ongoing partnership with City Hall Neighborhood Office to provide outreach from that location to
individuals along the HWY 99 corridor.
Commissions/Boards
• Youth Commission - Nominated the four leadership roles of chair, co-chair, secretary and
communications manager and selected year's projects including survey for teens, a teen forum, partner
for the annual Earth Day event and to present annual report to city council.
• Staff supporting Cemetery Board, Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee and Park & Planning
Board.
Packet Pg. 16
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
Continued public hearing to consider ADB recommendations on permanent amendments to Chapters
16.60, 20.01, and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements
for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone to replace Interim Ordinance 4295 (AMD2022-
0008).
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
The Planning Board held a public hearing on April 12 to consider a potential permanent ordinance to
replace Interim Ordinance 4283, which revised step back requirements and review processes in the CG
zone (AMD2022-0008). The April 12 meeting materials are included as a weblink.
The Planning Board heard a staff presentation, took public comments, and began discussion and
deliberation before opting to continue the public hearing to April 26 to allow for additional research and
deliberation (see meeting video weblink and draft meeting minutes). The public comment period was
closed by Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell (who chaired the meeting) but may be reopened via a motion
approved by the Board.
In the time since the April 12 meeting, a subcommittee of the Planning Board (Chair Gladstone, Member
Golembiewski, and Member Mitchell) met and prepared two additional documents that are included as
Attachments 10 and 11.
Attachment 10 includes a narrative that outlines the Working Group's understanding of the goals of the
emergency ordinance and four options for moving forward:
In considering the options for a recommendation on the CG Emergency Ordinance, the subgroup
identified four goals:
1. Provide transition between CG and RS zones.
2. Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 Subarea Plan for development across the street or adjacent to RS
zones to be buildings that don't exceed 3 or 4 stories and expedite permitting process.
3. Certainty for builders.
4. Compliance with HB 1293 since it has been approved by the legislature: design review that would
require clear and objective design standards and limit design review processes to a maximum of
one public meeting.
The subgroup identified four options in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They include the
following:
1. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated.
Packet Pg. 17
6.A
2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by
ADB possibly).
3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or
meeting but staff decision.
4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10'step back at 25 feet and 30'step back at 55-
feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55 feet
and under are exempt from Step Back requirements. Stepbacks would not eliminate requirement
to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or
meeting.
Attachment 11 contains three renderings for consideration based on the options discussed above:
1) Top image: The Architectural Design Board's recommendation for buildings across the street from
RS-zoned parcels - a 10' step back from the required setback above 25' in height and a 20' step back
from the required setback above 55' in height (the same step -back language as is in interim
ordinance 4283)
2) Middle image: The Working Group's recommended option for buildings less than 55' in height across
the street from RS-zone parcels - no step backs required.
3) Bottom image: The Working Group's recommended option for buildings greater than 55' in height -
10' step back above 25' and a 30' step back above 55'
It should be noted that Attachment 11 does not show the required 10' street setback for the CG parcels
and the street setback for the RS parcels is not shown to scale. However, the images provide a good
overview of a variety of step back options.
The Working Group referenced House Bill (HB) 1293, which has passed the state legislature and is
awaiting signature from Governor Inslee. If signed, HB 1293 would require the city to amend its
development code to include only clear and objective design standards and revise its design review
processes so as not to require more than one public meeting. The ADB currently utilizes a two-phase
public hearing that would need to be amended to comply with state law. A summary of HB 1293 is
included as a weblink.
Staff Recommendation
Continue deliberations on the draft permanent code language forwarded by the ADB as supplemented
by staff (Attachment 3). Discuss the additional options presented in the Working Group materials
(Attachments 10 and 11), which address both the step back requirements and the design review
process. Make a recommendation on permanent language so it can be forwarded to Council for their
consideration and action prior to the June 10, 2023 expiration of interim ordinance 4283.
Narrative
Should the Planning Board decide upon recommended code language, that recommendation is
tentatively scheduled to be introduced to the City Council at their May 2, 2023 meeting, with the public
hearing occurring on May 16 and potential action on the ordinance on May 23. Staff is proposing that
the Planning Board's recommendation on code amendments (as well as other recommendations they
make) be summarized in a formal written recommendation signed by the Planning Board Chair, which
would be included in the Council meeting packet.
Attachments:
Packet Pg. 18
6.A
April 12 Meeting Materials for AMD2022-0008
April 12 Planning Board Meeting Video
Attachment 10 - CG Emergency Ordinance Options V.2
Attachment 11 - Ilustrations of ADB and PB Working Group Recommendations
Packet Pg. 19
6.A.c
Planning Board Options for CG Emergency Ordinance 4283
Prepared by Working Subgroup: Jeremy Mitchell, Lauren Golembiewski, and Judi Gladstone
Goals of Emergency Ordinance
In considering the options for a recommendation on the CG Emergency Ordinance, the subgroup
identified four goals:
1. Provide transition between CG and RS zones.
2. Keep in the spirit of the HWY 99 Subarea Plan for development across the street or adjacent to
RS zones to be buildings that don't exceed 3 or 4 stories and expedite permitting process.
3. Certainty for builders.
4. Compliance with HB 1293 since it has been approved by the legislature: design review that
would require clear and objective design standards and limit design review processes to a
maximum of one public meeting.
4 Options
The subgroup identified four options in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They include the
following:
1. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated.
2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended
by ADB possibly).
3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or
meeting but staff decision.
4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25-feet and 30' step back at 55-
feet for buildings over 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55-feet
and under are exempt from Step Back requirements. Stepbacks would not eliminate
requirement to use other massing techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public
notice and/or meeting.
Below is a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options.
Stepbacks of 10'
Allow
Emergency
Require
and 30' for
Stepbacks as
Goals/Option
Emergency
Ordinance as
written with
buildings over
Ordinance to
written.
55'. No ADB
be vacated.
no ADB review.
Review.
Provide better
transition
between CG and
X
X
X
RS zones
Keep in the spirit
of the HWY 99
X
Subarea Plan
Certainty for
X
builders
X
X
Compliance with
X
X
X
HB 1239
Packet Pg. 20
0
- a
� r
millik
�a I 1 1
i '}• I '
. 5 6 $ 11 11 $
15
(j
_ L
---------------------------
M
Sidewalk
>k
Y y+
tI
I t
5� 6 g
11
11
8
6 7
15
_ •
Sidewalk
'� �■ ■■ ■z IBM
■■ i on ■■ MEMNON ■■ ME
No I mail
moll
! me f a f� _ roc � � tillil a■ r � .
., _ff� l
a' i 9:;r -
iuu a�11;�i ",ill 11 111111111111111 nomi �uIu� iiiiiN ��i�ii im�i
I NII �IGII! IIII 1-1-litm
it IIII 11111 IIII ii
I' Mimi
r. r Fi
~�_+ s+- ;` - _I.{ � �� •.� *•` ' .ail.
ik. SIGN SIGN
_ r`
0Mnil
hill
� M' , ., I '�■ � ■��al ; � � I � �
iMEN so
nim
� ,� I■ i r ■ � ,� t ■ ■ �. .1' � _ `_ . _ �4 -- - ;;,;r, — - - _ � /�\ ► �_.. �.. zs I ! Ili
- v BAT I t I t 1 I t 1 BAT
_ LANE LANE
West 7 6 12 11 11 2 9 2 11 11' 12 1 6 7 2 East
15 12 57 12 15
Sidewalk Transit Travel Lanes Transit Sidewalk
15 84 15
W. Roadside Curb to Curb E. Roadside
iiii 1uuii iii r 0111111111111 p iiiiii 1m iii iui i+ ii1n irioi iiuU ii1111111111111111 , i�
09
-� ■ ■m
Air-
900
1
'x
SIGN SIGH �' #
rY ^
■ ■ _ r.�
I101 , k im
111-
-,I
uu�y��oa iiii� olio luL1
jc111mi �ma iu�ii ii�oiimm��111ull iN IIIII� ju�i i�mi iiii� i1111111111111111,1 iii .uii
�� I ■ � � � �� � flllllllli f �� �� I� � — -- ,�, —
4gip1� is �` E.I@ in I 4 "
44 SEMEN oil,
Amok Ammik
- - - �r ! T f' ��•� ■ - #-fir � r Y!_ - - -
I t I t t
M �+ 5 6 11 11 6 51
15
• Sidewalk
-A" , . .
1!! III !�I III
V.
IGN SIGN1111W FEW
`-
m
■ � ■ � _ ram., �:..
WWE
r
• .
fir. �.7F�'la�'��~�y -
SAT I t
t t
BAT
'• ' -c�r�
LANE f
I I
1 I LANE
-
6
12 11
11 2 9 2 11
11 12
1 6 7 2 East
15
12
57
12
15
Sidewalk
Transit
Travel Lanes
Transit
Sidewalk
15
84
15
W. Roadside
Curb to Curb
E. Roadside
�t
BAT
t
t t
BAT 4
LANE f I
I
I ANEr41
West
7 1 1
12 11
11 2 9 2 11
11
12 1
6
7 2 East
15
12
57
12
15
Sidewalk
Transit
Travel Lanes
Transit
Sidewalk
15
84
15
W. Roadside
Curb to Curb
E. Roadside
M
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
Tree Code Update Phase II - Private Property Tree Removals
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Deb Powers
Background/History
The Planning Board received a project update on Phase II of the Tree Code Update project and reviewed
the related Community Engagement Strategy at its March 8, 2023 meeting.
Planning Board meetings to address the remaining Chapter 23.10 Edmonds Community and
Development Code (ECDC) amendments are scheduled for April 26, May 10, and June 14, 2023. Staff will
review potential options for property owner tree removals (not related to development) at the April 26
Planning Board meeting. On May 10, staff will review major code amendments proposed to the existing
development -related tree code. The anticipated outcome for each of these meetings is general direction
for staff to develop preliminary draft code for Planning Board and public review at the June 14, 2023
meeting, before potentially holding a public hearing as early as July 12, 2023.
Development and land use code amendments are a Type V decision consistent with ECDC Chapter
20.80, with Planning Board review of proposed code amendments and recommendation to City Council
following a public hearing. The City Council holds a second public hearing to consider the Planning
Board's recommendation, with any code amendments adopted by ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
No formal action is required at this meeting. Members are asked to review and discuss regulatory
options for property owner tree removal. Staff has included a summary of initial public feedback on the
topic prepared by the city's public engagement consultant (Attachments 2 and 3) as well as examples
from local jurisdictions. Board members are asked to provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred
approach to property owner tree removals so staff may develop preliminary draft code language for
Planning Board review and discussion on June 14, 2023. Staff is proposing to invite the Tree Board to the
June 14 meeting so that they may provide additional feedback.
Narrative
The primary purpose of the 2022-2023 tree code amendments is to consider code amendments to ECDC
23.10 (see weblink above) that limit tree removals on private property. The project aims to balance a
property owner's right to remove trees on their property with the community's interest in slowing the
loss of canopy cover and the role of the tree canopy in helping with climate change adaptation and
mitigation. Incentives, programs, public education and other tools that work towards a healthy,
sustainable urban forest are outlined in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP; see weblink) and
implemented by various groups or individuals as resources allow.
Scope
Changes to ECDC that add new requirements or substantially prohibit/ban something currently allowed,
Packet Pg. 22
7.A
or amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures/additional cost to permit applicants, are
considered major code amendments. Currently, there are no limits to tree removal on developed, single
family properties that cannot be subdivided and do not have critical areas. Therefore, new regulations
that limit property owner tree removals are major code amendments.
Regulatory Framework
In simplistic terms, codes that limit property owner tree removals establish two things: 1) a maximum or
limited number of tree removals, and 2) a specified timeframe for the tree removals to occur. From
there, key code concepts form a regulatory framework for property owner tree removals, including
replacement and mitigation requirements. Attachment 1 lists these key code concepts, identifies
issues/gaps with the current code and provides examples of code options adopted by neighboring
municipalities. Staff has also included weblinks to private property tree removal regulations in a number
of local cities, which board members are encouraged to review and identify components that they
believe the city should consider implementing.
The main options identified in Attachment 1 are:
1) Tree removal allowances (number of trees that can be removed)
2) Tree removal frequency
3) Reasonable exceptions
4) Landmark trees
5) Removal in critical areas
6) Tree replacement requirements
Each code option presents questions that drill down to greater levels of code detail for the Planning
Board to consider - "How should the code regulate property owner tree removals in Edmonds?" Note
that increased code complexity or options that do not correlate to a streamlined review process
weighted lower in staff recommendations. At the April 26 Planning Board meeting, staff will be seeking
direction on these key code concepts to draft code to bring back to the Planning Board on June 14, 2023.
Public Feedback
In addition to reviewing code options implemented by other cities, Planning Board should consider
public feedback provided thus far on the topic. The city recently distributed a public survey (see
weblink), with preliminary results (as of April 19) provided in Attachment 2. The survey was launched
just after the city hosted a March 27 "Community Conversation", which was attended by approximately
20 people and a summary of which is included in Attachment 3. Staff expects that additional code
amendments will be identified from public and stakeholder feedback and at subsequent outreach
events, Planning Board, Tree Board and City Council meetings. A second "Community Conversation" is
tentatively schedule for May 15 and the Tree Board will be holding their stakeholder discussion on May
3. Staff is also proposing to invite the Tree Board to the June 14 work session to review and provide
input on draft code language.
During development of the UFMP in 2019, a survey was conducted to gauge public sentiment on
trees/tree issues. While that survey focused on gaining information about public tree management,
some of the responses may be considered baseline information as a comparison to current public
sentiment:
Question 1 asked survey -takers to rank levels of agreement to the statement "Trees are important to
the quality of life in Edmonds," with the highest response (74%) as strongly agree.
Question 15 asked, "What are your biggest concerns for trees in Edmonds?" with the following
responses: Loss of wildlife habitat (72%), Healthy mature trees removed during development (68%),
Canopy loss (57%), Trees blocking my view (24%), and a range of responses under 20% concerned with
debris, shade, etc.
Attachments:
Packet Pg. 23
7.A
Attachment 1 - Regulatory Framework
Attachment 2 - Public Survey Responses as of 4-19-23
Attachment 3 - Summary of March 27 Public Meeting
Packet Pg. 24
7.A.a
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
Relevant
Code Section
Key Code Concept
Options
23.10
• Allow a maximum number of property owner tree removals atone time. (Kirkland pre -
Tree removal allowances (not in current code)
2021)
Issue: currently, tree removals are unlimited on developed,
• OR, allow a certain number of tree removals based on the size of the property
single family properties (not subdividable).
(Redmond, Renton, Kenmore)
N/A
Issue: need to balance property owner's rights to remove trees
Q; SHOULD TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES BE ESTABLISHED TO SLOW THE LOSS
on private property with community interest in reducing canopy
OF CANOPY IN EDMONDS?
loss.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: YES, USING A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD
Issue: without tracking removals, the number of removals, tree
NUMERICAL ALLOWANCE, SUCH AS 2 OR 3 (PER 12 MONTHS, BELOW), NO PERMIT
size, etc. is unknown. The metric for tree canopy cover gain/loss
REQUIRED, HOWEVER, NOTIFICATION REQUESTED TO AVOID CODE
is with canopy assessments every 5-10 years.
ENFORCEMENT CALLS.
• 2- per 12 months (Kirkland pre-2021)
Tree removal frequency (not in current code)
• 5 significant trees allowed every 3 years (Bellevue)
Issue: unlimited # of removals at the same time maximizes
• 2 trees in 12 months and 4 trees in 24 months (Woodinville)
N/A
canopy cover loss.
• Not more than 4 significant trees per year ... etc. (Sammamish)
Issue: lack of limitations has inadvertently allowed preemptive
Q; IS 12 MONTHS BETWEEN ALLOWED REMOVALS APPROPRIATE?
tree removals in anticipation of development, which can result in
greater canopy loss than allowed in ECDC 23.10.060
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: YES. A SIMPLE 12 MONTH CYCLE IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SLOWS CANOPY LOSS OVER TIME VS. CALENDAR
YEAR CYCLE.
Allow reasonable exceptions to exceed the maximum # of
Consider exceptions to tree removal limits that don't count towards tree removal
tree removal allowances (current code doesn't have
allowances, such as removal of hazard or nuisance trees (Kirkland, Medina,
numerical tree removal limits, but allows removal of
Woodinville, others).
hazard/nuisance trees without a permit)
Q: WHEN SHOULD A PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR TREE REMOVALS?
N/A
Issue: promote best management practices in tree care on
private property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: HAZARD OR NUISANCE TREE REMOVALS SHOULD
NOT COUNT AGAINST TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES, SUBJECT TO REVIEW
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code
THROUGH PERMIT PROCESS. ALSO SEE CRITICAL AREAS BELOW.
amendments: consider requiring permits for all property owner
tree removals.)
Landmark tree definition and property owner removal
• Define Landmark/Legacy/Exceptional trees by size (DBH = trunk diameter at 4.5 feet),
41
restrictions (not in current code)
(Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Kirkland, Snoqualmie, Redmond, etc. range from
DBH to 30" DBH)
N/A
Issue: although removals were banned under a prior moratorium,
• Determine appropriate number of Landmark removals within a given timeframe (1
there is no Landmark tree definition or removal restrictions in the
current code.
Landmark tree removal per 12 months — Kirkland, others vary widely. Seattle prohibits
Exceptional (30" DBH) tree removal.
Q
Packet Pg. 25
7.A.a
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
Relevant
Code Section
Key Code Concept
Options
23.10
Issue: address incremental loss of canopy cover on private
Q: SHOULD LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL BE PROHIBITED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
property in response to canopy study findings, protect ecological
HAZARD OR NUISANCE TREES?
functions.
Q: CONSIDERING THE PRIOR LANDMARK TREE DEFINITION, IS A MINIMUM 24" DBH
AN APPROPRIATE SIZE TO DEFINE TREES WITH GREATER LIMITS TO TREE
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code
REMOVAL?
amendments: restrict or prohibit Landmark tree removals).
Q: SHOULD FEWER LANDMARK TREE REMOVALS BE ALLOWED? PROHIBITED
EXCEPT HAZARD OR NUISANCE?
Q: SHOULD MORE TIME BE REQUIRED TO LAPSE BETWEEN LANDMARK TREE
REMOVALS, COMPARED TO OTHER TREES?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ALLOW LOWER # OF >24" DBH LANDMARK REMOVALS
AND/OR OVER LONGER TIME PERIOD OR PROHIBIT LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAZARD/NUISANCE TREES.
Tree removal in critical areas
Issue: contradictory and inconsistent code language in various
. Require a permit to remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas (Most cities/counties,
code sections results in high frequency of unauthorized tree
even those without tree codes)
removals in critical areas. For example, 23.40 says no tree
removal in critical areas and permit is required, while 23.10.040
• Only allow hazard/nuisance tree removals in critical areas (Most cities/counties, even
says no permit is required, etc.
those without tree codes)
040 & 050,
Issue: current code issues are directly related to numerous,
• Considering adding an appeals process (Most cities/counties, even those without tree
sometimes ongoing tree removal code violations in critical areas.
codes)
23.40.220
Issue: Current code leads to incremental loss of canopy cover
Q: SHOULD A PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR TREE REMOVALS IN CRITICAL AREAS?
due to removal of "forest patches" per canopy study findings.
Q: SHOULD THE SAME TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES APPLY IN CRITICAL AREAS?
Risks protection of ecological functions in critical areas, negative
impacts to water quality and landslide hazard areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PROHIBIT TREE REMOVAL IN CRITICAL AREAS WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF HAZARD/NUISANCE TREES, SUBJECT TO REVIEW. PERMIT
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code
REQUIRED.
amendments includes greater restrictions on tree removals in
critical areas).
• Require new tree replacements based on size of removed tree (Edmonds ECDC
Tree replacement requirements for property owner -removed
23.10080)
080,
trees
• OR, use a formula based on replacement trees per increments of removed tree trunk
Issue: different, unclear replacement requirements in various
diameter (1 new tree for every removed 6" trunk diameter - Woodinville).
23.40.220,
code sections apply. Can be 2:1, appraised value or 1-3 new
trees, depending on size of removed trees, underlying zoning, if
• require tree replacements only when the number of remaining trees on the lot
20.13
critical areas are present or if multifamily/commercial
reaOR,
reaches a minimum threshold (Kirkland pre-2021)
landscaping requirements apply.
Q: WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY
OWNER TREE REMOVALS?
Q
Packet Pg. 26
7.A.a
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
Relevant
Code Section
Key Code Concept
Options
23.10
• STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE SIMPLE 1 TO 3 NEW TREE
REPLACEMENTS, BASED ON SIZE OF REMOVED TREE, SHOWN IN TABLE
FORMAT.
r
a
Packet Pg. 27
7.A.b
EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT
Question 1: What do you consider to be part of Edmonds' urban forest? Check all
that apply.
ResponseResponders
Forested Areas
Question
94
1
22%
92%
City Parks
91
21%
89%
Street Trees
86
20%
84%
Trees in my Yard
66
16%
65%
Parking Lot Trees
79
19%
77%
Other
9
2%
9%
Total Selections
425
Total Responders
102
"Other"
(freeform responses): Question 1
•
All trees in the city
•
green space areas that give homes to small
ecosystems in neighborhoods that are at
■ Forested Areas
high risk of losing these green spaces b/c of
■ City Parks
the larger lot sizes that only have 1 house
on them (developer -interest) - i have seen
■ Street Trees
75 trres removed on one acre in my
■Trees in my Yard
neighborhood and there was a clear
■ Parking Lot Trees
isplacement of the wildlife that once
depended on that area. There is more
■ Other
noise, wind, it's been notable over the 15
years i have lived here. trees are left
vulnerable by this- more innovative low impact development ideas and codes are needed if we
really care about preservation of old growth trees - which is a must.
•
Trees in vacant lots
•
Trees in municipal areas (PSE, water retention ponds etc)
•
Any where a tree could be planted
•
In public Education, PLEASE, teach kids to be citizens by teaching real civics and the pledge in the
morning. Such a small thing but kids will then identify with being American.
•
All trees within city limits are part of the urban canopy coverage.
•
1 don't consider "urban forest".
•
1 mean, isn't it basically trees within the city limits?
•V Page 1of12
PIanIT Geo
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.b
Question 2: How would you rate your awareness and understanding of Edmonds'
current tree code (adopted 2021)?
Question 2
Responsef
Not familiar at all
24
,. Total
24%
% of Total
.. .
24%
Somewhat familiar: I used it when I removed or planted a tree
42
41%
41%
Very familiar: I reference it professionally and/or often
23
23%
23%
Other
13
13%
13%
Total Selections
102
Total Responders
102
"Other" (freeform responses):
• New to town but reviewed the code
• From its beginnings
• Aware of the tree code feel the city
should manage the parks property
they own.
• Yes
Question 2
■ Not familiar at all
■ Somewhat familiar: I
used it when I
removed or planted
• It is not related to my profession,
a tree
but I have followed the issue for
■ Very familiar: I
several years
reference it
4
professionally
• Familiar, but not when removing a
and/or often
tree or as a professional
■ other
• Have talked to people at the City
about the code.
• The code violates my personal
property tights
• 1 read through it, and wished there was a synopsis
• Somewhat familiar
• In public Education, PLEASE, teach kids to be citizens by teaching real civics and the pledge in the
morning. Such a small thing but kids will then identify with being American.
• I'm opposed to any sort of official tree code that mandates behavior
• Survey response is on what should be - not what is.
Plan eo
Page 1 2of12
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.b
Question 3. In your opinion, the current tree code is:
Question
Response..
Too lax/flexible
24
.Total
24%
.
24%
Just right
9
9%
9%
Too strict
18
18%
18%
Confusing
21
21%
21%
I'm not familiar enough to say
21
21%
21%
Other
9
9%
9%
Total Selections
102
Total Responders
102
"Other" (freeform responses):
• A mess
• improved but still not seeming to be
effective in preserving significant trees
where development projects occur. 30% is
not a high enough threshold and/or it s/b
focused on old gowth significant trees , or
else the developer leaves onlly smaller
younger trees t omeet the threshold
• Just another way to tax residents and does
little to actually save trees
• Should not be applicable to private
Question 3
■ Too lax/flexible
■ Just right
■ Too strict
■ Confusing
■ I'm not familiar
enough to say
property ■ Other
• Confusing AND strict in weird areas AND
unenforced (multiple answers should have
been able to be checked)
• First I have no problem with the present code, our condo actually had to use it when we need to
remove some diseased trees. BUT - I thought this current tree board effort was to 'refine,' but
after the 3/27/23 meeting, it sounded the rules that condo owners needed follow were different
from private resident owners regarding tree removal and replacement. Shouldn't these
requirements be the same? Also, I remember with Northwood Apartments converted to condos
in 2005. A lot of trees were removed - because it was in 98045. 1 was told that if it was 98020, it
would not have been allowed. Again I think same rules should apply.
• I'm opposed to any sort of official tree code that mandates behavior
• Not relevant to my survey responses.
• 1 have never needed help but I should know. I'll find out.
y •J
Plan rGeo
Page 1 3of12
Packet Pg. 30
7.A.b
Question 4: How should trees be protected in Edmonds?
Question
ResponseResponders
Save some trees when development occurs
12
.
12%
.
12%
Limit the number of trees that a property owner can remove at
one time
7
7%
7%
It depends on the size of the property and how many trees
11
11%
11%
People should be able to remove trees on their property if they
want or need to
25
25%
25%
Large/mature trees should have greater levels of protection
24
24%
24%
Other
23
23%
23%
Total Selections
102
Total Responders
102
Question 4
"Other" (freeform responses):
•
All trees under individual
■ Save some trees when
circumstances should be
development occurs
protected to some extent
•
Protect all trees
■ Limit the number of trees
•
Home owners should be able
that a property owner
to remove dead/toppled trees
can remove at one time
in adjacent Edmonds
■ It depends on the size of
protected property and
the property and how
replant healthy trees to
many trees
protect slope stability.
■ People should be able to
•
All of these topics should be
remove trees on their
addressed.
property if they want or
•
Depends on the size of the
need to
■ Large/mature trees
property, how many trees
should have greater
levels of protection
AND the health of the trees.
•
Save trees when development
■ other
occurs and greater protection
of large/mature trees
•
All of the above
•
If trees pose a safety risk they should be readily removed. So too, if there
is significant
obstruction of view that has evolved after the property was purchased.
•
There should be more than one option here. Large trees are my priority
but the first 3 options
are all important
•
AGAIN, multiple answers should be able to be chosen. I choose 1, 2, 3 and 5.
•
Need to save trees everywhere; on private property or elsewhere- and special care for mature
trees special care for mature treesrequire replanting
y
J P a g e 4of12
Plan T Geo
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.b
• Need to save trees everywhere; on private property or elsewhere- and special care for mature
trees special care for mature treesrequire replanting
• you know this poll is so limiting, all of these options are valid except for option 4. we do need to
limit tree removal on private property.
• Save trees with grandfathering: require tree protection only of owners who purchase properties
after restrictions have been placed.
• Edmonds needs to augment its tree canopy. Trees need to be preserved wherever possible,
especially large and mature trees.
• 1 think we need to recognize a rule needs to be enforceable. For example, we followed the rules,
replacing trees if they did not live - but for one tree, we have replaced it twice and still it died.
• Provisions for replanting, right tree in the right place.
• Save some trees when development occurs. Protect critical areas from slides.
• There should be a number of trees/sqft. Prunus, Pyrus, and Fraxinus trees should not be seen as
replacement trees.
• The city should only be conscerned withtrees in parks and public spaces
• Depends on amount of trees andlocation of property.
• All of these answers are true. This question should allow multiple answers. You are not going to
increase tree canopy without doing all of these answers. With allowance made for flolks who
want to remove some trees on their property. wers. You not going to get increase in tree canopy
by doing any one of these answers. You need to do all of them with allowances made for
property owners who want to remove some trees.s
• Significant trees that are not considered a nuisance should not be removed under any
circumstance.
Y 'J
r
Plan T Geo
Page 1 5of12
Packet Pg. 32
7.A.b
Question 5: When property owners remove trees, how important do you think it
is to plant new trees?
Question
Response..
1 (not important)
5
10
,.
10%
.
10%
2
4
4%
4%
3
5
5%
5%
4
2
2%
2%
5
8
8%
8%
6
1
1%
1%
7
4
4%
4%
8
15
15 %
15%
9
7
7%
7%
10 (extremely important)
46
45%
45%
Total Selections
102
Total Responders
102
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Question 5
10
8
■ 4 5 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Plan eo
46
15
7
NMI
8 9 10
Page 1 6of12
Packet Pg. 33
7.A.b
Question 6: Critical Areas are defined as high landslide hazard areas, streams,
wetlands, and their buffers. Should the same rules apply to tree removals in
critical areas as those not in critical areas?
Question 6
Response..
Yes, the same rules should apply regardless of critical areas
10
.Total
10%
.
10%
No, there should be stricter rules on tree removals in critical areas
66
65%
65%
It depends on the situation
16
16%
16%
1 don't know enough about the subject to say
2
2%
2%
Other
8
8%
8%
Total Selections
102
Total Responders
102
"Other" (freeform responses):
• Depends on who owns the property: a
yes for public land, no for private land
• Common sense should prevail.
• Critical area tree removals are only
enforced after the trees have been
removed ,as in the Union oil condo
project near the dog park
• Want to trim branches
• If the trees pose a safety risk to lives or
homes, they should be removable.
• Rules should be strict everywhere, but
• especially in critical areas.
• No rules for private property
• The city should consult with experts
and file lawsuits for injucntions if harm
of people or the enviornment is
expected
Plan�Geo
Question 6
■ Yes, the same rules
should apply
regardless of critical
areas
■ No, there should be
stricter rules on tree
removals in critical
areas
■ It depends on the
situation
■ 1 don't know enough
about the subject to
say
■ Other
Page 1 7of12
Packet Pg. 34
7.A.b
Question 7: What strategies should the City use in enhancing Edmonds' urban
forest? Check all that apply.
Question
Responsef
Public education to increase awareness of the tree code
66
,. Total
19%
% of Total
.. .
65%
Tree giveaways, neighborhood planting events, and pruning
workshops
67
20%
66%
Incentives for developers to preserve and plant trees (fee waivers,
faster permitting, etc.)
64
19%
63%
Codes that require tree preservation and planting with development
67
20%
66%
Fees and fines for violating code requirements
52
15%
51%
None of the above
7
2%
7%
Other
16
5%
16%
Total Selections
339
Total Responders
102
"Other" (freeform responses): Question 7
• Too many rules
• Plant more trees in Edmonds parks
• are there zones where certain legacy tree
growth exist- for instance, we have 3 old
prune plum trees on our proerty- the
area i live in apparently used to be all fruit
tree orchards- can neighborhoods have a
legacy /historical idea to rally around?
• Incentivise private property owners to
plant trees
• If the City owns the property they can
manage it
• Planting the correct size trees for the ■ Public education to increase awareness of the tree
landscape
code
• How about all of the above?
■ Tree giveaways, neighborhood planting events, and
pruning workshops
• Much Is written about preserving views.
■ Incentives for developers to preserve and plant trees
Educated the public on how to
(fee waivers, faster permitting, etc.)
accomplish that and don't cave to loud
• Codes that require tree preservation and planting
voices like those objecting t0 the CIVIC
with development
■ Fees and fines for violating code requirements
Park tree plan.
• Encouragement and incentives like fees
■ None of the above
waivers or faster permitting, but NO
allowance for disregarding the tree code,
■ Other
and vigilance in checking to see that large
fines and public exposure if developers but down trees
Y 'J
r
Plan T Geo
Page 1 8of12
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.b
• Plant as many trees in public parks and other public areas. If we really own our property we should
have the rights to maintain our views and safety from falling branches.
• institute a "tree voucher" program in Edmonds. Use the carrot and stick approaches. If we are to
limit tree removal, we should also encourage tree planting by subsidizing it dmprovide
• Educate on right tree for right space.
• In public Education, PLEASE, teach kids to be citizens by teaching real civics and the pledge in the
morning. Such a small thing but kids will then identify with being American.
• Do as much as possible to increase awareness of tree codes. Farmers markets, fliers, no -topping
sings...
• Fee in -Lieu when replanting on -site isn't an option.
• Restrict tree removal on already developed lots. Such as no more than 4 significant trees removed
in a three year time period, depending on lot size,.
YPlan�Geo
Page 1 9of12
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.b
Question 8: If you have concerns or comments about a specific section of the tree
code, please provide your feedback here. If possible, include the code references.
Click here to view Chapter 23.10 Tree Related Regulations.
28 Responses:
• Government should have less control over private property. Please stop trying to regulate our
PRIVATE PROPERTY that we've owned for years. Protect property rights!!
• Total waste of time and $'s. Typical Edmonds council BS Waste!!!
• Please don't restrict my ability to manage trees on my
• Private property.
• Developers are not held to account when it comes to the code- although improved from prior
code- it just doesn't protect the important and large growth trees, the ecosystems, and they just
pay the fines to get around it. I have seen it multiple times in my neighborhood even since the
new code was implemented. There needs to be more vision and attention put on which trees are
preserved not just the number of trees. Private citizens should have the freedom to decide what
they do with their land, but at the same time, they could be incentivized to take a preservationist
approach, where it can be achieved. It's a slippery slope to achieve desired results without
stepping on the rights of a landowner. Perhaps the focus c/b on properties that meet a
"designated threshold" of tree canopy/clusters (need to get the data//science to back up and
validate this thought) as removal or loss of these could most impact the vulnerable ecosystems
that I spoke of previously. whereas a single tree on a property that is just poorly located might be
handled differently. Doesn't seem to be a 1-rule for all approach....
• Good lord! My comment pertains to private property. Do whatyou want with public areas. Cutting
down or planting a tree on my property is none of the cities business.
• With respect to fees/permits: Housing costs are insane. City, state and federal taxes/fees/permits
are a large part of those costs. Politicians complain about the lack of affordable housing all the
while imposing extra costs for builders, homeowners and potential homeowners. I am not a
builder or developer but I am a homeowner. My advice, stop it.
• More emphasis is needed on proper tree maintenance/care/pruning. Stricter fines to discourage
topping and improper care of existing trees of any size.
• This group does not intervene when a home owner has trees they want to save ,they lack any
support
• The current exemptions are fine. Adjusting those to restrict private property owners from
removing trees would effectively make a property owner like myself (numerous mature conifers
that were topped decades ago and then subjected to subsequent further damage to roots and
canopies from adjoining property development) unable to remove a hazardous tree due to cost
considerations. As it's working now for us, we must remove every 2-3 years or so a tree that has
declined, in order to prevent a threat to our house. In addition, a neighboring property has
dropped FOUR mature trees onto our property, all of them narrowly missing our house. As it is,
arborist costs are right on the edge of prohibitive, and adding city permit costs designed to be
further prohibitive, would mean we wouldn't be able to manage tree hazards on our property.
• The fee allowance for developers to remove and not replace trees is laughably low. The cost is a
no brainer when weighed against the benefits of clear -cutting. Ref. 23.10.080, E and 23.10.060,
F.4.b. Developers should be required to maintain or plant X number of trees per Y development
size ... no exceptions. Housing density is removing all green space due to single family mega-
Plan�Geo
Page I 10of12
Packet Pg. 37
7.A.b
houses. Coding can force development upwards or drive to more compact housing to protect
green space footprint.
• Our neighborhood is surrounded by trees, which we love. But in the past few years several older
and large trees have fallen, damaging community and private property and very nearly striking
homes. However, because of the city's tree code it has been terribly and unwisely difficult to
reduce the threat of more trees of the exact same age and type falling because they are near a
small creek that runs through the neighborhood. As the result, our homes and potentially lives
are left in danger every time there's a high wind. If two trees of the same type, age and location
have now fallen, it stands to reason that others just like and adjacent to them may also come
down in the next storm, but because an arborist cannot prove they are an "immediate threat",
we are stuck. This is unwise and ridiculous. So too, if an owner wants to replace an unsightly and
unhealthy tree on their private property, not necessarily one that is an immediate hazard, they
should be able to do so without terrible bureaucracy, cost, or threat of a fine. It should be a simple
online process indicating which tree is getting removed, why, and how it will be replaced. Finally,
and similarly, if the view of a property begins to become obscured by growth of secondary trees,
e.g. alders, maples etc., the owner should be able to think or prune the trees, not necessarily
clearcut a whole hill side, to preserve the view.
• 1 have a comment about item #5 above. Planting new trees is better than not, but let's not lead
people to believe that planting a new twig will take the place of a mature tree in any way. Carbon
sequestration is the most important, but water absorption and alleviating heat zones are also
critical.
• 1 already filled this out, but didn't see a place where it said "submit" Did I miss it?
• Maintaining our urban forest should encompass ways to also maintain views of the water and
Olympics. Opportunities for'window-planing' views should be accommodated.
• 1 don't want it to apply to residences. Trees are already expensive to own. They have to be
maintained and the debris has to be removed all the time and especially after a storm. And there
is no easy way to get rid of waste now that the solid waste facilities are not accepting yard waste.
• While I love trees, and am a firm believer in the "right tree, right place" mantra, I believe there
also should be strong view protection laws.
• 1 am very concerned with the ability for developers to avoid planting trees by paying fines. Under
the current plan where do the fines go that developers pay and how are those fines managed to
support planting trees and providing for their care? This needs to be managed with transparency
to the public.
• Developers should be required to plant native trees at a set % of the trees they remove and
provide care for those planted trees for a set period of time instead of allowing them a way out
by paying fines.
• How can building occur on a creek?
• Under tree replacement , 080.d.3: replacement of conifers should be conifers. There is a true
cost/value in carbon emissions from the loss of a big Doug Fir. And it should be taken into account.
A weeping cherry tree does not take the place of a mature doug fir.! There needs to be true
accounting for the loss of big conifers, due to development. Don't let the developers say that they
have a landscaping plan and then not question that plan...
• Every big conifer taken down, for whatever reason , needs to be replaced with multiple conifer
tree replacement trees. That's basic forestry practices. That's basic carbon accounting.
• Private property that citizens pay tax on should have no restrictions on cutting trees on their
property or fees, we already pay taxes to the city
Plan�Geo
Page I 11of12
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.b
• When critical area trees are removed, replacement trees are then planted but there is no
protection for the new trees as they are too small. So they can be cut down. What can be done to
protect them?
• Please consider having a preferred tree list that favors aggressive shade trees such as hornbeams
and zelkovas over high -maintenance fruit trees. 23.10.090 Bonding: Please consider increasing
the maintenance period to 4 years, to ensure saplings receive enough water to survive our new
drought cycles. Deep infrequent watering! Turn irrigation doesn't count.
• 2310 030 Does Edmonds auto -grant permit to "Davey?"/ PUD to remove mature trees instead of
providing some financial support to low income owners to appropriately trim back? Because they
topped mine. after second time in around 10yrs the tree grew crazy and became a leaning mess.
Third time they insisted removal due to its growth, which they created the problem in first place.
• As a home owner I should have final right to remove a tree. It's okay to have some rules around
when/where/how but it should be simple.
• 1 don't understand why Edmonds can't model our code on the Sno County tree code which
apparently has been successful for over 10 years
• Need high fees to remove a tree. Look to Lake Forest Park's tree code
• We should consider ecological offsets for accounting for replacement trees that can't be planted
on the site of development, such as contributing to a regional Tree Bank/preserve.
• 23.10.060.B.2.b.ii: I have a significant tree right next to my property line. If the adjacent property
is ever developed a tree retention and protection plan must include this tree and it's critical root
zone (which extends well into the neighboring property). However, I have no rights as to the
protection of my tree's root system on the said property. Shouldn't some sort of protection for
neighboring trees be added to this section? At least during major developments of a property? I
know the tree code is a work in progress, but this seems like a big oversight.
Plan�Geo
Page I 12of12
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.c
CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT
PUBLIC MEETING #1 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
Edmonds' Tree Code was formally adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of
gathering public input on potential tree code updates and amendments with the following
objectives:
1. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments)
2. Consider regulations on private property tree removals
As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's
Community Engagement Strategy, an initial public
meeting was held for community to learn about
the project and to voice their thoughts and
opinions about potential updates and
amendments to the tree code. The meeting was
advertised using an event page and project page
on the City's website, social media posts on March
16 and March 27, a press release on March 24, and
additional direct outreach via email and with fliers.
This meeting was organized in a hybrid format so
that attendees could join virtually via Zoom, or in
person at the Edmonds City Council Chambers.
The meeting results analysis and summary are
included in this document as a progress report. A
second public meeting is scheduled for May 15,
which will be held in person.
Tree Code Amendment Community Conversation
Date: March 27, 2023
Time: 6:00 - 7:30pm
Location: Edmonds City Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020
Virtual Option: Zoom link provided on City's event page
Zoom recording available at request
Attendees: 37 (21 in person and 16 virtual)
Summary and Assessment Contents
Framework for Organizing Public Feedback
Outreach Prior to the Meeting
Feedback Gathered at the Meeting
y y
Page I 1
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 40
7.A.c
FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZING PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Comments received during Public Meeting #1 were categorized into one of five categories
(listed below with associated activities). These categories and activities are part of the
framework utilized in the Tree Ordinance Checklist, which was created for the Municipal Tree
Care and Management in the United States: A 2074 Urban & Community Forestry Census of
Tree Activities. This framework provides a starting point to assess and organize the comments
received and prepares the feedback to be integrated into potential code recommendations.
Tree Ordinance Checklist Framework
- Credential
o Requires certified arborist for paid private tree work
o Requires certified arborist for public tree work
o Requires licensing of private tree care firms
o Defines official authority for public tree management
- Management/Maintenance
o Requires annual community tree work plans
o Identifies formula for determining monetary tree value
o Requires regular public tree maintenance
o Requires particular types of maintenance (e.g. pruning)
o Establishes permit system for work on public trees
o Establishes provisions for penalties for non-compliance
o Restricts burning of solid wood waste
o Establishes an insect/disease control strategy
o Defines tree maintenance requirements on public property
o Prohibits tree topping
o Regulates abatement of hazardous or public nuisance trees
o Regulates removal of dead or diseased trees
- Planting
o Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on private property
(approved tree list)
o Requirestree planting around reconstructed parking lots
o Requires replacement of removed publicly owned trees
o Requires tree planting around new parking lots
o Requires tree planting in new developments
o Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on public property
(approved tree list)
- Preservation
o Restricts tree cutting on private property
o Identifies preservation of heritage or significant trees
o Requires preservation of trees during development
- Other
o Citywide canopy cover goals and targets
o Public education/engagement regarding codes
o Other
i Page 12
Plan Geo
�II" Packet Pg. 41
7.A.c
OUTREACH PRIOR TO THE MEETING
In preparation of the event, multiple engagement strategies
were utilized for reaching community members and informing
them ofthe event. All ofthe methods and strategies used align
with the project's overarching Tree Code Amendment
Community Engagement Strategy.
Press Release in My Edmonds News
- rn�Edmo-cammenay and w.emment
- _-Edmontls k mnside g(ECCC 23.1 M 13dz neR rave
.. _: oonsttlerfimrting:.:: o^.Private properly aatl to make
- .a the�stirt9 tode. whitlr n'aa ee::::: "a, :._. to remin antl Phrrttrees whh
r.n nncetl mlom ours P�.b-' t 7c share A— antl heermwe ways m get
ea .1 Publk survey will P: a"-^-::, 28:h ftngh May lft {Fnk belw)
entlma>tt�rlmr,._
^a2' 6:00-7:30pm
ilChamhers a[250 ivb Ave N. Edmonds WA g6020
--._ aebinar PNdonn
^�.us!_1Wh kCYYic4'fU9sk2gyN%rvw?rc
__-.------.-_--tl:M1[pslhlanV[geoioomusl_jNN}iYYTrNRFgsY2�Tl%vrxPw
_- _- _. _ _:•',_t_g�n: r_'.'3 :1. =;.M1 `.-c" :-�+,_glcJPk58zQ1af16shwMfilA
The City published a press release in My Edmonds News on
March 17, 2023. The press release and comments on the press release are included below. The
comments and discussion posted in response to the press release were factored into the
planning of the event as well as the public survey.
Press Release:
"Reminder: City sponsoring community conversation March 27 about changes to Edmonds tree code"
Posted: March 16, 2023, Updated: March 24, 2023 `� of E 4o
a
The City of Edmonds is considering amendments to its tree code, including
limiting tree removal on private property. Minor changes are also being proposed
for the existing tree code, which the city council adopted in 2021 to retain and
plant trees with development. �4C• sg9°
The public is invited to the participate in a Tree Code Amendment Community Conversation from
6-7:30 p.m. Monday, March 27. The meeting will be in the Edmonds City Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N. You can also attend virtually at this link.
RSVPs are appreciated here.
Following the meeting, the city will release a public survey running from March 28 through May
19. The survey link, which will go live March 28, is here.
For more information, email deb.powers@edmondswa.gov or visit the project website
at www.edmondswa.gov/treecodeupdates.
y y
Page 13
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 42
7.A.c
Press Release Comments
Joe Scordino
March 17, 2023 at 11:20 am
What the heck is a "community conversation"? This City already had community engagement
on tree retention when the `Urban Forest Management Plan' (UFMP) was developed. The
UFMP established goals to "maintain and enhance citywide canopy coverage" and "promote
the right tree in the right place".
The balancing act to achieve UFMP goals involves restricting mature tree removal and
planting of new trees on undeveloped property, developed residential/commercial property,
and City property. Unfortunately, the recently approved 6-year City Parks Plan (the PROS Plan)
did not set any requirements for planting trees in Parks (as it should have), so now, the burden
falls on private property owners.
So enough with the "conversations" and surveys as has transpired with the Comp Plan update.
Just tell the public what the alternatives are to achieve UFMP goals and let the City's legislative
body (the Council) decide, with public input, how to proceed.
Clinton Wright
March 17, 2023 at 1:26 pm
Definition of an Edmonds "community conversation." We are from the Mayor's office and we
are here to lead a seminar on what we think your visions for the city should be. Poll question:
Is it just a good idea; or a great idea to place a specific moratorium date on cutting down trees
greater than 24'' in diameter? Wait, what's that sound I hear? I think it's over 100 2 stroke chain
saws suddenly belching fire to beat the moratorium.
Deborah Arthur
March 18, 2023 at 3:46 pm
Ya Nailed it! The surveys I did try to use were much like this too. No real room for any
suggestion or complaint. Counted by letter so we couldn't say much at all. You are
correct again Clinton and you too Joe. Are we seeing the pattern now? It is clear to me
what the problem is and much of it is just like trash news stations, enquirer ha type
stories. They say oh we had such a big turnout. Right of people who feel exactly like
they who put on the events. Because Idealism is so huge here we just need standard
votes and reason on our council and in our Mayors office and every department that is
in charge of such important things in our city. Surveys embellish, Polls embellish. Lots
of embellishing around haha. IT seems to me. So stop it already and just be happy. And
avoid cutting trees. Its ignorantto destroyyour own city. Consider your topography and
you won't maybe have to pay so many taxes after we can fix what we have destroyed
and stop a lot of what is trying to be destroyed.
Chris Cantu
March 19, 2023 at 10:28 am
At least there is Clinton to provide a (sort of painful) laugh as we watch the city of
Edmonds morph into a crowded Cali beach town complete with crawling traffic, no
parking and divisive housing problems but minus the sunshine for 6 months a year.
i Page 14
Plan Geo
,II Packet Pg. 43
7.A.c
Jim Fairchild
March 24, 2023 at 6:19 pm
Chris that is about right but you forgot about the loss of trees. It doesn't matter
if the city chooses to buy into alternatives to our tree cover we the people will
miss it eventually. But you can't have increased development without the loss
of canopy. The government has gotten themselves in a bind, you can't have
both. But yet they promote both. Have your cake and eat it too always leaves
taxpayers paying more for less.
Nathaniel Brown
March 24, 2023 at 9:05 pm
Clinton, you know perfectly well that trees provide shade, clean the air, help retain soil,
and add beauty -and do it all in the presence of children! The soonerwe get rid of them,
the sooner we can be Arizona by the Sea!
Clinton Wright
March 25, 2023 at 1:34 pm
Nathaniel, right on. Trees are great. I have nothing against trees, here or in
Arizona, which also has lots of really cool ones (think Saguaro National Park -
Tucson). I do take some issue with overzealous tree boards and committees and
Draconian bans and moratoriums that tend to do more harm than good. I'm
just a little tired of Edmond's hypocrisy also. For years we've allowed the
wholesale cutting of huge amounts of trees to build Mc Mansions on the one
hand and then turned around and made cutting down trees illegal for the latest
comers to the over development and sell Edmonds fest. On top of that we now
have the state sticking it's collective nose in to demand more loss of trees and
green space; to promote more development. Can't have it both ways.
Steve Date
March 24, 2023 at 7:24 pm
Here we go again.......... Last time the city tried to pull this crap 6 trees were cut down on my
street the week prior to the meeting and MANY more all over the city. I would sure hate to
remove my beautiful tree however I'll be damned if I will pay the city (fees) to prune it or even
remove it if it becomes a threat to my home or self. I planted my tree 50 years ago and have
been taking care of it alone all these years. Last go -around we were going to have to obtain a
permit ($$$) and pay an arborist ($400-$800) in order to do any work on our own tree, and pay
a hefty fee to cut it down! I'm sharpening my chainsaw this weekend. If I remember correctly
the residents made such a fuss the city council scrapped the idea (but quietly hired a couple
of tree huggers to continue the process in the background) 'nuff said
Diane T
March 25, 2023 at 8:41 am
The winter ice storm did a lot of the management work for us. The City does nothing to
maintain those huge stands of trees in public parks. The winter storm took out here of
my two of my large trees because the City trees which were rotten rained down huge
i Page 15
Plan Geo
,II Packet Pg. 44
7.A.c
limbs and obliterated them, city gonna pay me for that? Another huge tree which was
rotted was uprooted and leaning on another uprooted huge tree. City arborists said all
was stable. No worries. Until it moved (duh) and then and only them did the City get a
crew out. Now there is a fire hazard this summer from all of the uncleared branches,
limbs and trees that were dropped. When our tree code only go one way, it is
unsustainable. Huge trees crowd out any light so no young trees are there to replace
them as they become more and more unhealthy. Edmonds is not interested in a
healthy tree canopy, but rather in generating revenue by charging residents for an
aging unhealthy ones with no effort to renewing of the canopy. My neighbors know
what they are doing with their trees. The City does not.
Chris Walton
March 25, 2023 at 6:17 am
I'm with Joe S. and Nathaniel B. In the end, there really is no healthy solution to the real
problem: overpopulation. A 'community conversation' is basically just a way to kick the
proverbial can down the street once again, rather than face difficult choices. But on the bright
side, it'sa lotcheaperthan hiring a $250,000 consultant to tell uswhattodo (anothercommon
method of kicking the can).
ALAN MEARNS
March 25, 2023 at 9:53 am
Last week I watched, and listened, as three 50-foot tall firs came down in our Maplewood area.
Smack dab in the middle of bird and wildlife nesting and breeding season. And just before the
spring migration of birds from the south. Very bad timing. The neighborhood where the trees
were cut will suffer more during the next heat waves. And so much for our community's
contribution to carbon reduction. These things connect... shade, carbon, water and soil runoff,
wildlife protection and enhancement, corridors connecting canopies, education. It's not just
one thing ... like a tree cover number. The City's and residents' tree decision strategies need to
consider the total of suburban ecologyand human welfare. I have no idea ifthe propertyowner
will plant new trees, on site or nearby, as mitigation. Unfortunately maintaining a healthy
environment does cost money. So does it's destruction.
Cynthia Pruitt
March 28, 2023 at 10:32 am
Thankyou, Alan. I appreciateyour informed voice of reason.
l Page 16
Plan Geo
Packet Pg. 45
7.A.c
FEEDBACK GATHERED AT THE MEETING
Attendees were provided multiple opportunities to provide input during this hybrid meeting.
The following sections analyze the feedback received during live polling, breakout groups, and
Zoom chat. When possible, this feedback has been categorized using the Tree Ordinance
Checklist Framework to prepare for potential tree code recommendations.
Live Poll Results
A live poll was conducted during the public meeting � Mentimeter
that allowed all attendees (virtual and in -person) to
participate. The Mentimeter poll was four questions,
with the first being a warmup question and the following three questions diving further into
the event's topic of tree ordinance updates.
Ql: How manytrees are on the propertywhere you live?
Answer option
0 trees
V•
0
1-2 trees
3
3-4 trees
3
5+ trees
13
02: How familiar are you with the current tree code?
GO
s ,,s,,//
NotFamiliarAtAll Somewhat Familiar:) u3'Ed 9t when I removed or
planted a tree
13
3 3
o
0 1-2 3-4 5+
"6
Very Familiar: I reference it professionally and/or
often
y
PIanIT Ceo
Page 17
Packet Pg. 46
7.A.c
Q3: How would you describe the current tree code?
Answer option
I'm not sure
tes
5
Too lax
6
Just right
1
Too strict
10
I'm Not Su
Too La)
Just Right
04: How important are these tree code themes to you?
Too Strict
Answer Option
Equitable tree canopy cover
Score
4
Tree protection during construction (fence, signage)
4.3
Tree removal (when, where, which types)
4.8
There shouldn't be any codes for private property
5.1
Tree plantings (require with new development)
5
Replant trees after removal
3.8
Equitable tree canopykover
Tree protection during construction (fence, signage)
Tree removal (when, where which types)
There shouldn't be any tree r:odes for private property
6.1
Tree plantings (require withl&ew development)
Replant trees after removal
•
Page 18
Plan I Gea
T�°Packet Pg. 47
7.A.c
Breakout Groups
In this hybrid meeting format, breakout rooms were held both in person and virtually. Code -
related comments were organized and categorized in the charts below, followed by the full
transcripts of the breakout group notes with images of the original notes.
Question 1: What changes would you make to tree codes relating
Comment
to new development?
Ordinance Checklist
Category
Restrictions on size of trees that can be removed >: 24" o
Preservation
Requirement for licensed arborist
Credential
More code to restrict for new development / offsets
Preservation + Planting
No charges for worth of property owners' trees
Management
Native species
Planting
Care for new trees
Management
Needs to be simplified
Other - General
Seems all or nothing = so developers choose to pay to cut down
Management
NO alternative for developers to do anything but pay into the tree
code. Depends on canopy goals or low-income housing
Management
Mitigation plantings to be based on dbh or canopy
Planting
Preserving viewsheds
Preservation
Create the desire for more tree canopy. Take the OS in public
spaces and set an example of how we can do better.
Planting
Tree canopy downtown is a struggle
Other - canopy
Development will remove trees and plant in the small space. Look
outside the development area in a park, etc. Need other options
besides just paying into fund
Planting
No enforcement, no checkups, follow-up
Management
UTC is important but look at public spaces first
Other - canopy
Development is where the canopy disappears
Other - canopy
Question 2: What changes would you make to tree codes relating
to private property
--removal?
Ordinance Checklist
Comment
Category
Notify on property purchase / better notification
Other - education
Better definitions / locations for replacement / number of
Planting
replacement trees
Define easement responsibilities 4 City/ owner
Credential
ECA requirements
Management
Property rights are very important. Critical areas are important. All
Preservation
circumstances are individual
# of removals depends on the property
Preservation
Condition of the tree
Management
Page 19
Plan�iGeo
T Packet Pg. 48
7.A.c
Dead tree removal must be replaced
Planting
Remove within specific time
Preservation
Natives planted
Planting
Incentive for maintenance of significant trees
Management
Our group feels no need to control / have code (outside Critical
Areas)
Preservation
Moratorium caused rush to cut trees
Preservation
A change should be made that no tree is untouchable, replanting
trees should be tied to natives not undesirable
Planting
Defining significant trees: 6" or greater
Preservation
Trees are great and there are so many options but there is a real
need for affordable housing
Other - general
For removal of significant tree, you can make a request with
arborist report included
Preservation +
Credential
Define landmark trees vs. heritage trees
Preservation
Nothing wrong with sharing the burden (public and private).
Shouldn't do all or nothing
Credential
Private property rights should be preserved
Credential
Trying to create a tree policy that handles all zones but zones
have different needs. E.g., industrial canopy is different than
residential zone.
Other - canopy
Consider equity when it comes to critical area protection
Preservation
• - - should City have on treeremoval?
Comment
Ordinance Checklist
Category
Greater role
Credential
More outreach / education / hotline
Other - Education
Maintenance tree limbing /topping
Management
Quarterlyfliers
Other- Education
Get involved if more than 30-50% of trees are cut down
Preservation
Trees are hazardous
Management
Depends on environment
Management
Minimal government role
Credential
Code enforcement by arborist
Credential
Modify/ update code - public process with expert tree
Credential
Arborist on staff to determine tree health
Credential
Mediation would be nice
Credential
Education - Critical Areas
Other - Education
Planting for right tree right place
Planting
Yes, with Code enforcement
Credential
Crown reduction instead of thinning should be penalized
Management
Only opportunities right now are redevelopment (city is built out).
Preservation
u' Page 110
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 49
7.A.c
There are examples of how to bring UTC into urban setting
Other - canopy
Being proactive would be to adopt the public streets and not put
it on the property owners
Credential
In -Person Breakout Groups
The four breakout groups that met in person each had a flip chart for note taking. The pictures
of the flip chart notes, as well as the typed transcripts, are included below.
Breakout Group 1
1. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to new development?
- Restrictions of size of trees that can be removed >_
24" 0- - -
- Requirement for licensed arborist
- More code to restrict for new development / offsets
2. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to
private property tree removal?
- Notify on property purchase / better notification
- Better definitions / locations for replacement /
number of replacement
- Define easement responsibilities 4 City/ owner
- ECA requirements
3. Role of City for managing tree activity
- Greater role
- More outreach / education / hotline
- Maintenance tree limbing / topping
- Quarterly fliers
Breakout Group 2
1. What would you change on new development tree
removal?
- No charges for worth of property owners' trees
2. How do you feel about restrictions on your property?
- Property rights are very important. Critical areas
are important. All circumstances are individual.
3. What role should City have on tree removal?
- Get involved if more than 30-50% of trees are cut
down
- Trees are hazardous
- Depends on environment
- Minimal government role
v Kok A""
• C�ulydti� �l�aes
Breakout Group 3
1. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to new development?
- Native species
- Care for new trees
'J
i Page III
Plan Geo
°IT" Packet Pg. 50
7.A.c
2. What changes would you make to tree codes relating
to private property tree removal?
- # of removals depends on the property
- Condition of the tree
- Dead tree removal must be replaced
- Remove within specific time
- Natives planted
3. What role should the City have?
- Code enforcement by arborist
- Modify / update code - public process with
expert tree
- Arborist on staff to determine tree health
Breakout Group 4
1. What changes would you make to tree codes relating
to new development?
- Needs to be simplified
- Seems all or nothing = so developers choose to
pay to cut down
2. What changes would you make to tree codes relating
to private property tree removal?
- Incentive for maintenance of significant trees
- Out group feels no need to control / have code
(outside Critical Areas)
i. Moratorium caused rush to cut trees
3. What role should the City have?
- Mediation would be nice
- Education - Critical Areas
- �00�Ivb s�.�,as
�c�ea,o. oP rrsec
i,
-a Me 6r.7�rn o.ad fir_
Virtual Breakout Groups
The two breakout groups that met virtually via Zoom were assigned note takers from the
project team who used Zoom's whiteboard feature to compile answers to the same three
questions as the in -person groups. Screenshots of the whiteboards, as well as the typed
transcripts, are included below.
■=_
tl wnat M1WtmawYu.vab anGuta cOV Ny e. ulw at la en! nintl Yeme anenga aaetemova e!n nntlm m ven nulm elry nm
Dmin a owns .patlmtiv!l a�Iwlu.tTn
TttH INAfatlaE Pining LllS
� Aaamona Ptompif<
Pmvla! Intl! lavtlll0fl 1p 1D! 9l11lalt 01 b!!S�
T n tOr PaD01lm DlanllRl6ln mllr ydrD lial Dalmtl �puWllS mr amDDunllamtt 4CM� M MDatlVlnR pr ylWanln lO ttmOva lnVlaM WttDS IIkl by ltOm DdtlVl erylFlpYNlr
(a MalMam puOfK bees abn9 slrtetn antl Pansl
mNaml albw Irce RmD�ala on pmale propenyi
® Aegalrc tMl trlH an0ulu DC Rbml6 wnln E!�lbpmini DCCunY
2
tree monn«i�W. care. ana .r �y �" �%� rountl nee PNnln3
Maimemnce
VhINntll Ripanan EcusYslem -
Tlee Planlillg
u' Page 112
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 51
7.A.c
Virtual Breakout Groups 1 and 2 Combined
Ql: What changes would you make to tree codes relating to new development?
- NO alternative for developers to do anything but pay into the tree code.
Depends on canopy goals or low-income housing
- Mitigation plantings to be based on dbh or canopy
- Preserving viewsheds
- Create the desire for more tree canopy. Take the OS in public spaces and set an
example of how we can do better.
- Tree canopy downtown is a struggle
- Development will remove trees and plant in the small space. Look outside the
development area in a park, etc. Need other options besides just paying into
fund
- No enforcement, no checkups, follow-up
- UTC is important but look at public spaces first
- Development is where the canopy disappears
Q2: What changes would you make to tree codes relating to private property tree removal?
- A change should be made that no tree is untouchable, replanting trees should
be tied to natives not undesirable
- Defining significant trees: 6" or greater
- Trees are great and there are so many options but there is a real need for
affordable housing
- For removal of significant tree, you can make a request with arborist report
included
- Define landmark trees vs. heritage trees
- Nothing wrong with sharing the burden (public and private). Shouldn't do all or
nothing
- Private property rights should be preserved
- Trying to create a tree policy that handles all zones but zones have different
needs. E.g., industrial canopy is different than residential zone.
- Consider equity when it comes to critical area protection
Q3: What role should the City have?
- Planting for right tree right place
- Yes, with Code enforcement
- Crown reduction instead of thinning should be penalized
- Only opportunities right now are redevelopment (city is built out).
- There are examples of how to bring UTC into urban setting
- Being proactive would be to adopt the public streets and not put it on the
property owners
'J
� Page 113
Plan Geo
T Packet Pg. 52
7.A.c
Zoom Chat
In the virtual Zoom meeting, the chat feature was enabled to allow participants to send
questions, have dialogue, and send additional feedback. Code -related comments were
organized and categorized in the chart below, followed by the full transcript of the Zoom chat.
ZOOM CHAT
Ordinance Checklist
Comment
Category
Could you review what the current code says about private tree
Other -Education
removal?
To the extent the City seeks to support''Right tree, right place," there
must be acknowledgement of Wrong tree, Wrong place, and should
Planting
be supportive of curing those conditions.
Reasonable exceptions considered. The city arborist is qualified to
make these decisions and they can be supported by an arborist
Credential
report if needed, similar to zones having cliff codes/considerations.
The role of the City should be to protect neighbors from erosion due
to tree removal (meaning actual removal of a tree), and from
Management
hazardous trees.
I would like the city to adopt a provision to protect certain ''Heritage"
or "Historic" trees. In our area there are three very large Douglas Fir
Preservation
trees that were a part of Yost's farm over 100 years ago. They should
be protected.
It would be great to understand the current code, as well as the
overall goal to modification of tree code. Without this base
information I am not sure we can understand what changes are
Other -education
needed
Maybe a problem statement would help on current code. It kinda
Other - goals
feels like we are hunting for changes without a goal?
Since the tree code affects single-family residential properties with
critical areas, it may be informative for attendees and Council to
Other - education
understand what % of single-family parcels are a critical area.
Here is the summary of what I hear: I want my trees. I want to cut
my trees when I want to cut my trees. I want my views. I want my
shade, oxygen, and green canopy. But most of all - I want my views. I
want to be free of controls or costs from my community. Property
Management
uses are complex and big developers with deep pockets will rule. It
is hard to develop a shared tree policy when everyone has their own
axe to grind.
i Page 114
Plan Geo
�II" Packet Pg. 53
7.A.c
Zoom Chat Transcript
21:25:22 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
www.menti.com
21:25:31 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
code: 8814 9606
21:26:42 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
I'm here for anyone running into issues with the tool. Thanks for your participation!
21:37:53 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
For folks joining late, we are taking a poll and you're welcome to join us by copy/pasting
the link above and entering the code
21:38:03 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
Looks like there was confusion on the yellow bar. 50% said too strict in last question..
21:38:22 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
Double -negative makes it hard to answer.
21:39:00 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
I agree with the gentleman asking the question. it's a poorly worded question.
21:39:45 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
It does not appear that answers can be changed.
21:40:44 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
The 10 people who answered 0 or 1 may have not understood what Alex said at the time
they responded.
21:44:00 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
+1 for reset
21:44:07 From robert to Everyone:
+1
21:44:48 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
thanks for the feedback. You may need to refresh your window to resubmit
21:45:20 From Katy Bigelow to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message):
i am sorry, I just jioned, is it possible for remote to vote?
21:45:32 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Katy Bigelow(Direct Message):
Yes! Go to www.menti.com
21:45:39 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Katy Bigelow(Direct Message):
type in the code at the top of the screen
21:46:09 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Katy Bigelow(Direct Message):
8814 9606
21:46:10 From Katy Bigelow to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message):
I'm sorry, the screenshare info covers the code
21:46:38 From Lu Loree to Everyone:
My screen is not working
21:47:19 From D. Landsverk to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message):
no tree codes for private property
21:50:03 From Christian Saether to Everyone:
Could you review what the current code says about private tree removal?
21:50:12 From robert to Everyone:
Reacted to ''Could you review wha..." with
21:50:14 From Christian Saether to Everyone:
'J
l Page 115
Plan Geo
Packet Pg. 54
7.A.c
My understanding is there are no restrictions currently
22:14:09 From Edmonds Court to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message):
Are you guys ready to start back/full screen?
22:14:21 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Edmonds Court(Direct Message):
yep we are tready
22:17:35 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
To the extent the City seeks to support "Right tree, right place," there must be
acknowledgement of Wrong tree, Wrong place, and should be supportive of curing those
conditions.
22:18:49 From Katy Bigelow to Everyone:
reasonable exceptions considered. The city arborist is qualified to make these decisious
and they can be supported by an arborist report if needed.
22:19:03 From Katy Bigelow to Everyone:
similar to zones having dill codes/considerations
22:20:40 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
The role of the City should be to protect neighbors from erosion due to tree removal
(meaning actual removal of a tree), and from hazardous trees.
22:21:15 From Trudy Dana to Everyone:
I would like the city to adopt a provision to protect certain "Heritage" or "Historic" trees.
In our area there are three very large Douglas Fir trees that were a part of Yost's farm over 100
years ago. They should be protected.
22:21:30 From robert to Everyone:
It would me great to understand the current code, as well as the overall goal to
modification of tree code.
22:22:10 From robert to Everyone:
without this base information I am not sure we can understand what changes are
needed
22:23:18 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
I documented the comments received from Brian, Katy, Trudy, and Robert, thankyou!
22:24:32 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone:
more comments and questions are welcome ifyou'd like to share those in the chat here
22:27:55 From robert to Everyone:
Maybe a problem statement would help on current code. It kinda feels like we are
hunting for changes without a goal?
22:28:38 From Katy Bigelow to Everyone:
how does someone sign up as a stakeholder?
22:29:00 From Brian Thompson to Everyone:
Since the tree code affects single-family residential properties with critical areas, it may
be informative for attendees and Council to understand what % of single-family parcels are a
critical area.
22:30:00 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Everyone:
Project Website: www.edmondswa.gov/treecodeupdates
22:30:18 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Everyone:
Public Survey (goes live tomorrow at noon):
22:30:23 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Everyone:
https://forms.gle/Afhdn H ufNJdGj LzD6
_i Page 116
Plan Geo
,II Packet Pg. 55
7.A.c
22:34:20 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Edmonds Court(Direct Message):
Deb can you repeat the questions? We can't hear
22:36:42 From William to Everyone:
Here is the summary of what I hear:
I want my trees.
I want to cut my trees when I want to cut my trees.
I want my views.
I want my shade, oxygen, and green canopy.
But most of all - I want my views.
I want to be free of controls or costs from my community.
Property uses are complex and big developers with deep pockets will rule.
It is hard to develop a shared tree policy when everyone has their own axe to grind.
Public Comments Organized by Category
Participants provided input during virtual and in person breakout sessions, and throughout
the event in the Zoom chat feature. These comments were organized using the Tree
Ordinance Category Framework, which will be used throughout all public engagement and
for final tree code amendment recommendations.
-- Ordinance Checklist Category
Credential
#
15
%
21%
Management
15
21%
Planting
11
15%
Preservation
15
21%
Other
16
22%
Public Input by Category
■ Credential ■ Management ■ Planting ■ Preservation Other
P a g e 117
PIann' Geo
� Packet Pg. 56
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property
Staff Lead: Angie Feser
Department: Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Prepared By: Angie Feser
Background/History
The City of Edmonds has prioritized the acquisition of property for purposes of increased equitable
access to parkland, conservation and environmental benefits. With the city being mostly built out, it is
challenging to find undeveloped, heavily treed parcels available. Recently, a property (known as the
Hurst Property) which meets many acquisition goals has been identified for potential parkland
acquisition in southern Edmonds. Parks staff is working swiftly to secure the property, which was
recently put on the market and is likely to receive private developer offers as well.
The two -parcel property totals a little more than an acre, is heavily vegetated with significant trees, has
two small older vacant houses. It would provide a much -needed passive -use neighborhood park for the
Edmonds community south and west of SR 104. The site is located in an area of the city where
residences are not within a walkable ( % mile) distance of any public park (city or county) and the
average annual household income is less than $65,000. Please see the attached presentation for more
details.
The advertised asking price is $1.3M and, as part of due diligence, the City has ordered an appraisal to
use in negotiating the purchase price. Staff is also pursuing potential grant opportunities including 2023
Snohomish County Conservation Futures (CFT) and 2024 Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
programs. The CFT program does not have a waiver of retroactivity option and this potential acquisition
timeline does not fit within the current CFT application process slated for later this year. As such, staff
was invited to present to the County's CFT Funding Board on March 6th to request an exception for
funding consideration.
This property meets many of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan goals, objectives and
recommendations including:
Goal #3 - Parks, Trails & Open Space and related objectives #3.1 and 3.2;
Goal #5 - Natural Resource & Habitat Conservation and related objectives #5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5;
Recommendation #1 - Acquisitions to Fill Park System Gaps;
Recommendation #2 - Open Space and Conservation Acquisitions; and
Six -Year Capital Facilities Program (2023 acquisition of $1.5M in SE Edmonds).
In addition, it also fulfills the $1.5M allocation for Neighborhood Park - SE1 described as south Edmonds
target area acquisition, which is included in the 2023-2028 Parks Capital Facilities Plan and Capital
Packet Pg. 57
8.A
Improvement Program (see page 44 of weblink document) recommended by the Planning Board and
adopted by the City Council.
This land acquisition is contingent upon City Council consideration and approval. Due diligence is
currently being conducted and when all the necessary information is available, the City Council will be
presented with the details for review and authorization for the Mayor to proceed with the acquisition.
Per ECC 10.40.020(C)(3), the Planning Board shall "advise the mayor and city council on all matters
relating to the acquisition and development of all city parks and recreation facilities."
Staff Recommendation
The Planning Board is asked to review the proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council on
the potential acquisition of the parcels known as the Hurst property for future parkland.
Attachments:
2023.04.26 Parkland Acquisition - Hurst Property
Packet Pg. 58
8.A.a
Potential Parkland Acquisition
Hurst Property
Planning Board
April 26, 2023
Packet-Pg. 59
Potential Parkland
Property Info
Fulfilling Park System Need
Grant Funding
Timeline/Next Steps
Legentl
Qacy areas
�P—
�om�aareeme�
Pug.f s ... d
Lynnwood
it ......
NIL
Q
Woodway
Mountlake
Ter —
Unincorporated
Snolhornish Co
Shoreline
I Packet Pg. 607
8.A.a
Property/Intent
<3>
L
0
rt+
.y
Address: 9302-9306 232nd C.
2 Parcels = 1.09 Acres
a.
Zoned RS-8 = 5 new houses
0
a
Two vacated houses
Relatively flat
Asking Price: $1.3M
Intent
Conservation
Retain trees
Neighborhood Park
Passive Use
Packet-Pg. 61
8.A.a
Park System Need
2022 (PROS) Plan
• Goal #3 - Parks, Trails & Open Space
objectives #3.1 and 3.2
• Goal #5 - Natural Resource & Habitat
Conservation objectives #5.1, 5.31 5.4
and 5.5
• Recommendation #1 - Acquisitions to
Fill Park System Gaps
• Recommendation #2 - Open Spin
Conservation Acquisitions
• Six -Year Capital Facilities Program
aShoreline
Packet Pg. 62
8.A.a
Park System Need
Travelsheds
• % mile walk
• % mile walk (10 minutes)
• Both city and non -city parks
(5)
L
Legend
`�
C
Q City Limhs
G
11.11 Travelshed W City Parks
1/2-mile Travelshed W Cit Parks
y
•�
1/4mlle Trave=.WAccesslde open Space&Non-Clly Parks poger Saond
112-mile Travelshed W Accesslde Open Space & Non -City Parks
°n
cry Parks
Open Space & Special Use /fleas
Q
_ Non<ity Parks
o.�
— Noncky "a"' 'IImehopal Agreem -
1
Edmonds school Divd.
�� I
Water
L
- Non-residential Zmng (a
� a
`�- a
Lynnwaotl ' d
`
cuw Y - - e ammarer
4Woodway
.14
Mountlake
i Terrace
Unincorporated
Snohomish Co.
:.A a�.,•aaB
Q aaxarm, � ,
P :a of EDM
Shoreline u'
a •B-Non-City
/qc I fiaO
Packet Pg. 63
8.A.a
Edmonds
Demographics
Area is 2nd lowest category
of household income
<6>
0
$1-$64,577
$64,573 - 585,845 r�
- $85,847-$103,594 1�
- $109,s9s-$142,205
�1
- $142,207 - 5196,535
MEIN
o
_ ? Y1OTH ST SW
--
_: =� 2NTH ST SW
r.•� _= 2�TH ST SW
fli
1f1111 C��j
:Y
Packet-Pg. 64
8.A.a
Potential Grant Funding — Passive Park
Snohomish County Conservation Futures (CFT) Program
Annual
No Waiver of Retroactivity currently
Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO)
Local Parks (State)
Land, Water and Conservation Funds (LWCF) Federal
2024 Application (Waiver of Retroactivity)
O
rt+
An
a
TJ
M
o wo
P-
I
Packet Pg. 65
8.A.a
Timeline— updated 4111123
On the Market
Letter of Intent*
Purchase & Sale Agreement*
Escrow
Appraisal ordered
Council Presentation
Planning Board
Mid — January
February
February
March
March
March
April
*With contingencies including Council approval - -
Packet-Pg. 66
8.A.a
Timeline — Next Steps
Appraisal completed
Council Approval
Closing
Securing of site
(mid — May)
(+30 days = mid -June July)
(+3 days = mid- August)
Removal of personal belongings
Vegetation management
Secure the houses
* updated
<9>
ED
v p
Packet Pg. 67
8.A.a
Questions/Comments?
0
y
cr
0
Q
C
m
Y
L
a
cm
N
O
M
N
O
N
+.i
C
d
E
t
0
m
Q
Packet-Pg. 68
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
April 26 Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
The extended agenda as of April 26, 2023 is attached. Staff is utilizing the revised format developed by
Board Member Golembiewski.
The joint workshop with City Council tentatively scheduled for June 14 would likely start at 6 pm, and
would be followed by a final work session on the tree code update that staff is proposing to invite the
Tree Board to.
Packet Pg. 69