2018-05-09 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 9, 2018
Vice Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Megan Livingston, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Nathan Monroe, Chair (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Board Member Lovell urged members of the public to read the minutes from the April 11' meeting where the draft Urban
Forest Management Plan was presented to the Planning Board for discussion. He advised that the City Council would take all
discussions into account, including the Planning Board minutes, when making a final decision.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2018 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director Report that was provided in the Board's packet.
Board Member Lovell inquired if the City Council took action to approve a professional services agreement with a
Homelessness Response Project Consultant. Ms. Hope reported that Kone Consulting was selected as the consultant, and work
is moving forward. However, there are still some contract details that need to be worked out.
Board Member Crank reported that Snohomish County recently implemented a Paine Field Airport Commission. She asked if
a City Department will be watching this commission as meetings start to occur that pertain to Edmonds. Ms. Hope answered
that her department has not been requested to follow the commission, but she will check to see if another department has been
given this responsibility.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Activities Report, which was included in the Board's packet. He
commented that the PowerPoint presentation provided in the Staff Report to illustrate 2017 development activity was
interesting, and it was helpful to see photographs of what has been or is being built. Ms. Hope said she is pleased the Board
found the information interesting and noted that there is a lot of development activity going on right now. She concluded that
2017 was a strong year for development in the City, with the most building permits ever issued in a single year. The Board
requested that the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the public via the City's website, and Vice Chair Cheung noted
that it could already be accessed via the Planning Commission's May 9' meeting agenda packet.
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP)
Mr. Shipley explained that the UFMP is intended to guide the management of trees in Edmonds, with a particular focus on
trees on public lands (rights -of -way, parks, etc.). The plan includes a description of the value of trees, as well as information
on tree management and the tree canopy in Edmonds. It provides a number of goals and objectives for urban forest
management, including goals and objectives related to public education and outreach. He introduced the consultant, Ian Scott
from the Davey Resource Group, who was present to provide an overview of the proposed plan.
Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, explained that the long-range strategic goals provided in the plan are intended to address
the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program:
• Tree Resources are the trees on both public and private properties. The Urban Forest Asset Goals are intended to
improve the urban forest resources over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest.
• Municipal Resources include City staff from Development Services, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services. The Municipal Resource Goals are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by
developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments.
• Community Resources include the tree board, volunteers and non-profit organizations. Community Resource Goals
are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The
Community Resource Goals are a key component to the success of the plan.
Mr. Scott advised that the planning process for the draft UFMP included an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment, which
provided a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds. The study identified an average tree
canopy in Edmonds of 30.3%. If all areas with grass and other vegetation are included as possible locations for trees, the City
has a theoretical maximum canopy of 57.4%. However, it is important to keep in mind that private owners control the majority
of the tree canopy (83%), and there are currently few regulations to limit tree removal. Only about 13% of the existing tree
canopy is on public lands, and the City has a very limited knowledge about the condition or number of these existing trees.
Mr. Scott explained that the UTC project provides the City with new tools for planning into the future. The results were used
to prioritize planting opportunities around the City and understand how to manage the forest fragmentation to benefit wildlife.
Going forward, the City can better manage software tools such as UTRACE, which can help estimate how many trees need to
be planted to affect tree canopy into the future and where these trees should be planted. The City can also start connecting its
information about trees to the iTREE suite of urban forest software tools to uncover ways to optimize the environmental services
provided by trees. He advised that the Priority Planting Analysis provided in the plan identifies an estimated 1,619 acres of
priority tree planting space where trees could be planted to expand the urban forest canopy. However, a number of citizens
have raised concern that planting trees in some of these locations could result in a loss of view. While view is an important
consideration, other factors (i.e. steep slopes and wetlands) were also considered when identifying the probable high priority
areas.
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 2
Mr. Scott said concern has been raised about whether or not the iTREE software is applicable in Edmonds. However, at this
point, it is the best available science available to look at the environmental service provided by trees. The software was
developed by a consortium across the country and is used as a resource both nationally and internationally. As new and better
science becomes available, the UFMP will allow the City to take advantage of this new information.
Mr. Scott displayed a table which outlines the common urban forestry activities that a city might engage in. The table
establishes a benchmark around how City staff currently spends its time related to each of the activities. Implementing the
goals and objectives in the plan will likely require changes in these numbers, and the table will need to be updated as work is
reprioritized into other areas and/or additional staff is added. He also shared a table outlining how the City currently spends
money related to urban forestry. He summarized that in 2017, urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita or a total of
$319,542. A minimum of $2 per capita is required in order for the City to maintain its Tree City USA status, and the national
average is about $7.50 per capita. The 2017 numbers were higher as a result of the UFMP project, and the City's average in
previous years was likely about $3.50.
Mr. Scott said it is estimated that the urban tree canopy provides about $1.5 million in benefits to the City annually. That
means for every $1 the City invests in urban forestry work, the community yields almost $5 in environmental benefits. The
introductory section of the UFMP describes the benefits that trees provide. Cities with street tree inventories can be more
specific about these benefits. In the absence of this information, the plan provides examples of the street tree species that are
recommended in the City's Street Tree Plan. Some residents have requested that Douglas Fir and other large native trees be
added to the plan. However, the focus of the UFMP is to help improve the City's management of trees and that is why it
focuses on street trees.
Mr. Scott advised that as far as community resources go, the City already has a Tree Board in place, and the City has obtained
the status of Tree City USA. Another fundamental element of the plan is to encourage more partnerships and public engagement
in the management of the urban forest. As the current tree canopy is significantly weighted towards private properties,
partnerships and community outreach will be essential to move the plan forward in a unified direction. About 175 people
responded to the community survey, and the majority of them were from the bowl area or other neighborhoods associated with
a view. Most voiced concern about private property rights and how the plan might impact their ability to maintain their views.
However, the goals contained in the plan are much broader than views and they allow freedom for private property owners to
manage trees according to basic environmental rules, city requirements, and their own decisions.
Mr. Scott said the public also voiced concern that the plan needs to have more science, and the goals called out in the plan are
designed to provide this additional information. As they learn more about the City's urban forest, the plan can be updated
accordingly. He emphasized that the plan is not meant to be a research document, but a planning document for the City moving
forward.
Mr. Scott specifically referred to Urban Asset (UA) Goals UA5 and UA8, which call for managing species diversity and
encouraging tree species diversity. Because these goals are closely related, they were combined into a single, more -meaningful
goal. He explained that a number of the Municipal Goals contained in the plan are designed to encourage better cooperation
amongst the various City departments so that consistent decisions are made. Community Goal (C5) calls for establishing a
Heritage Tree Designation. However, it is important to understand that this program would be voluntary for interested property
owners to get a tree recognized for its stature and significance to the community. One advantage of the program is that
subsequent property owners would at least think about what made the tree so significant to the community before making a
decision to take it down.
Mr. Scott said another important aspect of the plan is that it establishes a foundation for adaptive management over the next 5
to 10 years. As the City implements, monitors and evaluates the goals over time, adjustments can be made to the strategies for
implementation. The intent is that staff would provide routine reports moving forward, with additional community surveys to
gauge the success of the plan's implementation. It is anticipated that new science will become available, and the City can
establish better objectives to accomplish each of the goals based on this new information.
Mr. Scott reviewed that the draft plan was presented to the Tree Board on April 5' and the Planning Board on April 11'. An
open house was conducted on April 19t1i. Following the public hearing, the Planning Board will be asked to forward a
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 3
recommendation to the City Council. Revisions will be made to the plan based on community and Planning Board feedback,
and the goal is to present it to the City Council for a public hearing and discussion starting in June.
Ms. Hope observed that creating the draft UFMP has been a long process, and there are still some clean up work and additional
background information that needs to be done.
Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed 21 goals represent a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of creating
a tree inventory, getting organized, keeping track of tree conditions, etc. He asked if the City Departments responsible for this
additional work have made plans for implementation or if they are waiting until after the plan has been adopted. Ms. Hope
answered that representatives from the Parks, Public Works and Development Services Departments have all been involved in
the process and provided detailed input relative to the proposed goals and objectives. Before the plan is presented to the City
Council for approval, they are hoping to at least identify the estimated costs associated with implementing the goals and
objectives. Some of the objectives can be implemented at little or no cost to the City, such as establishing interdepartmental
relationships, but an actual inventory of trees on public lands will be a large project. If the plan is adopted, the City Council
will look at the projects and identify priorities. The intent is to implement the plan in phases over time.
Ms. Hite advised that, from a Parks Department perspective, the UFMP will be a foundational plan for the City going forward.
She appreciates that the consultant has addressed the concerns raised by citizens to date as the plan is polished up. She observed
that a number of residents have expressed their love for trees. The Parks Department loves trees, as well, and 348 new trees
were planted in 2017. However, it is also important to keep in mind that only 13% of the tree canopy is located on public lands.
The need for protecting and even increasing the tree canopy must be balanced with other environmental needs, as well as the
budget, view protection and private property rights. There is a robust conversation happening in the community as the UFMP
has been presented to the public, and she encouraged people to keep all perspectives in mind as they work to come up with a
balanced approach that makes sense for the City.
Ms. Hite commented that the goals identified in the draft plan are very ambitious. Short of regulating trees on private property,
the plan gives some tools for the City to provide public education and try to influence behaviors. The City does not currently
have this capacity. As the plan moves forward, perhaps the City could provide more funding for public outreach and education.
The Tree Board does a great job with public education, including a new brochure, but the City could do a lot more. She
summarized that the Parks Department supports the goals presented in the plan and believes they will go a long way to help
maintain the urban forest. Regarding the proposed arborist position, she advised that the Parks Department recently supported
a staff member to get certified to be an arborist, and she now works for the City in that capacity, performing tree evaluations
on both private and public lands. While this is not an arborist-dedicated position, it is a value add for the City.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the UFMP is a structure in which Edmonds can look at its urban forest canopy. A
focal point of the plan is evaluating and assessing the existing tree canopy. Once this information is available, the City Council
can decide if further action is needed in addition to what is already being done concerning trees and vegetation in Edmonds. A
lot of items could be added to the plan, but perhaps the City is already addressing them and they just need to be finetuned. For
example, there are industry practices associated with street trees to discourage conflict with sidewalks. These are practical
standards that the City applies now, but providing an approved street tree list would clarify the issue further. Perhaps it is a
matter of framing the information so it gets out to the community.
Ms. McConnell said that, in the past, inappropriate street trees were planted. These trees are causing problems with the
sidewalks and other infrastructure and need to be dealt with. The Engineering Department was hoping the UFMP would
provide additional direction. While preserving and/or enhancing the tree canopy is important, it is also important to recognize
that some trees are creating unsafe pedestrian conditions. These trees need to be replaced as part of the overall infrastructure
goals. When development occurs on private properties, the City requires frontage improvements, and it may be necessary to
remove some trees that are causing damage to existing infrastructure. When planting new street trees, it is important to consider
the species, as well as provide a planting strip that is wide enough to accommodate the tree's future growth. The Public Works
Department is working with the Parks Department to update the Street Tree Plan to address these types of issues. The UFMP
will provide helpful guidelines for the overall City goals, and this will enable staff to work at a more detailed level to make
sure the goals are implemented appropriately.
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 4
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that an approved Street Tree List could also be a valuable tool for private property
owners to ensure that trees planted in neighborhoods meet the industry standard. She suggested that the benefits provided by
the Street Tree Plan need to be better communicated to the public.
Board Member Rubenkonig recognized that the City is already doing good things on behalf of trees and will continue to do so
in the future. The UFMP will result in additional future actions. However, the focus of tonight's discussion is regarding the
goals and policies in the draft plan. A specific action plan will be addressed at some point in the future after the UFMP has
been adopted by the City Council.
Ms. Hope referred the Board Members to the written public comments that were attached to the Staff Report and/or forwarded
to the Board Members via email. Vice Chair Cheung confirmed that the Board Members received the public comments and
read each one prior to the meeting.
Board Member Crank referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. Having lived
in a community that had a Heritage Tree Designation Program, she observed that a lot of work was required by staff to review
petitions from private citizens who wanted to save significant trees that were deemed diseased and/or dangerous by an arborist.
It would be good if the City's certified and licensed arborist could handle all of the cases. However, based on the number of
petitions the City might receive, it may be necessary to have a full-time arborist on staff. Ms. Hope responded that the City
has discussed the concept, but they are not ready to propose a specific program at this time. She agreed that some cities have
done a good job, but other programs have resulted in a lot of hassle with little value. Mr. Scott explained that the method for
evaluating the risk of a tree to cause injury or harm to individual properties has improved. For example, the risk assessment
method approved by the International Society of Arbiculturists provides an objective method for evaluating trees.
Board Member Robles asked about the City's method for allowing property owners to report on the condition of existing trees
on their properties. He also asked how citizens interact with the City when they have questions about trees. Ms. Hope said
that, typically, citizens either call or email City staff to report a concern or obtain additional information, and staff responds to
each one. Ms. Hite added that her department gets quite a few calls and emails about trees in the parks, as well. She appreciates
having the eyes of the citizens to help spot potentially hazardous situations and report them to the City.
Board Member Robles commented that the City has a strong activist community regarding trees. He asked if the City has the
capability to allow citizens to self -report tree assets and conditions on a centralized data base. Mr. Scott answered that work
management software is available that allows citizens to self -report essential infrastructure, but trees are more difficult because
they grow and appreciate over time. Because there is so much public interest in trees, software is available that allows people
to look up trees to find out more information about them. This information could be made publicly assessible and potentially
reduce the number of site visits needed by city officials responding to calls.
Board Member Robles explained that there are ways, such as using a block change, which acts as a metronome that klicks off
every data that goes onto the register. This concept could be used to the City's advantage to offer a token (a type of
cryptographic coin) when private property owners report on their trees. Property owners could also earn tokens for preserving
trees, and these tokens could be used when applying for permits in the future. Using this type of concept, the City could track
trees and incentivize people to preserve them whenever possible.
Ann Cade, Edmonds, said she missed the previous meetings where the UFMP was discussed because THE EDMONDS
BEACON is delivered to her home on Thursdays, after the meetings had already taken place. She asked why a tree inventory
is needed and what benefit it would provide to the City. She said her concern is not just about views, but about light and
warmth. She does not want to live in a shoreline that is cold and void of sunlight as a result of too many large trees. She
referred to a statement that was made at an earlier meeting, suggesting that other vegetation can provide similar benefits to
those provided by tall trees. People can vegetate their yards and create oxygen exchange. While she considers herself to be a
"tree hugger," she felt there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl. If the City wants to plant tall trees, she suggested
that a strip of land adjacent to Edmonds Way would be a good location since they would not block views.
Phyllis Becker, Edmonds, said she has lived most of her life in the Northwest. As any Northwesterner knows, the forest is
the forest. The idea of an urban forest is an oxymoron. Forests have huge trees and existed in Edmonds 100 years ago. But
now Edmonds is an urban center. She agreed with Ms. Cade that there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl area. She
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 5
felt that Douglas Fir and other large species are inappropriate in areas where view is a concern. These trees belong in the forest
where they do better. There are millions of alternative species that could be planted that would not impact views. She said she
currently has a small view that is precious to her and she would like it to be preserved.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, noted that this is the third time he has been before the Board to voice his concerns relative to trees. He
agreed there is a lot to consider relative to views, but the Board should keep in mind that the majority of households in Edmonds
do not have a view of the water. Most of the views people have are of trees, and trees are what brought him to Edmonds. He
recalled that a few years ago, his neighbor cut down three huge Douglas Fir trees. While he previously could see only one
neighbor from his deck, he can now see at least five homes. Removal of these trees directly impacted his property.
Mr. Phipps commented that a lot of people love trees and the urban forest, and he suggested that Community Goal CI, which
calls for establishing a tree bank, is the most important goal and key to answering the question of what tree canopy the City
wants to have. Once this question is answered, the rest will follow. He said he hopes the City will choose to have a net gain
in tree canopy and decide against allowing further loss. He noted that there are not many places to plant trees in the City, and
he supports the recommendation of establishing a tree bank to avoid the controversy associated with views. As long as trees
are planted somewhere in the Puget Sound basin, they would be environmentally beneficial to all. It does not necessarily have
to take place in Edmonds. Almost 6% of the City's urban forest has been lost since 2005. It would be great if the City could
require that a tree be planted for every tree that is chopped down to accommodate development. A tree bank program would
allow the replacement trees to be planted outside of Edmonds where they won't impact views but would provide an
environmental benefit.
Mr. Phipps reminded the Board that 83% of the City's current tree canopy is on private property. Many cities have tree
ordinances, including Lynnwood and Shoreline, that apply to private properties, too. Whether the City adopts a UFMP or a
tree ordinance, it would be very important not to impact views from private properties. Tall trees should not be planted in the
bowl area. He did not believe that the strip of land west of 9' Avenue on the west facing slope would be a politically viable
place to plant large trees given concerns about view. That is why the tree bank concept is so important.
Mr. Phipps voiced concern that development has resulted in wholesale logging of land. Once these forested areas are gone,
they cannot be reclaimed. He would like the City's Parks Department to make a concerted effort to purchase more open space
and forested land to preserve forever. The property east of Seaview Park (between Seaview Park and Perrinville) is a good
example of forested land that should be purchased by the City and preserved. He also stressed the need for the City to
acknowledge the problems that street trees have created. Injuries have occurred when people have tripped over sidewalks that
were raised by tree roots. Some research needs to be done to determine not only the appropriate species, but also the best
planting practices. For example, the City of Seattle uses a double grate approach. The first grate is placed at the root level,
and the second a foot higher at the sidewalk level. This gives the roots of the trees space to grow without impacting the
sidewalks.
Eric Soll, Edmonds, referred the Board to a letter he submitted prior to the meeting. He advised that since he and his wife
moved to Edmonds they have planted a number of trees on their property without the benefit of any government interaction or
education. The tree population in the United States is increasing due to a number of factors outlined in his letter. Because of
government legislation, more trees are being saved in other areas. A lot of development is taking place in Edmonds because
the Growth Management Act has restricted development opportunities in rural areas. Because development is being pushed to
the urban areas, trees in the rural areas are being saved.
Mr. Soll emphasized that the Board and City Council do not operate in a vacuum. They just underwent the largest property tax
increase in recent memory. In addition, the library measure failed in Snohomish County and only narrowly passed in Edmonds.
Government agencies must realize that people are getting tapped out in terms of spending money, and they should concentrate
on traditional city functions. He urged the City to recognize that the good times will not last forever, and they should work to
establish a rainy -day fund for future needs. Lastly, he said he is fine with the idea of people establishing Heritage Trees on
their properties, but he does not want the City to require him to do so on his property.
Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, said he also submitted written comments prior to the meeting. He referred to Ms. Hite's earlier
comment about the need for a balance between the environmental benefits of trees and views. For his job he writes
environmental impact statements, which takes a wholistic analysis of environmental benefits, including a section on aesthetics.
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 6
A very important part of the environmental impact statement is the scenic value, which quite definitely includes views. He
said he was born and raised in Edmonds and moved back six years ago after spending time in a variety of other locations. Most
recently, he lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where there are not a lot of trees. He moved back to Edmonds because of the
benefit of trees to the aesthetics of the area, but also for the view. You can travel around the country and will not find a similar
view in any of the lower 48 states. It is a unique resource that needs to be considered as part of any discussion about aesthetics.
Mr. Dimmick voiced concern that the science contained in the draft plan is weak and does not reflect the unique character of
Edmonds. He urged the Board to reject the plan and hold the consultant accountable to produce a real plan rather than a cut
and paste plan from other jurisdictions. The Plan needs to have a scientific basis with transparent numbers that can be cross-
checked.
Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for 50 years. While she agreed that most people love the view of
the water that is available in Edmonds, she was present to speak on behalf of the eagles and herons that roost and feed in the
beautiful evergreen trees. This iconic image is as precious to her as the view of the water, which she also enjoys. She said she
is in favor of the City finding any way to preserve the existing evergreen trees, and she is also in favor of no net loss and would
like to see some gain. She said there are 7 huge trees on her property of the species that has been referred to as inappropriate
in an urban setting. She hires an arborist to inspect the trees every few years to make sure they are safe and healthy. These
trees continue to thrive and provide a great service to wildlife, and they are an important part of Edmonds.
Val Stewart, Bellevue, said she was a citizen of Edmonds for 30 years before recently moving to Bellevue, which is known
for being a "city in the park." The City of Bellevue has proactively planted trees, similar to what is being suggested in the draft
plan for Edmonds. Bellevue currently has a lot of trees that help improve the quality of life for its citizens, and the parks are
amazing. Bellevue is four times the sizes of Edmonds in population and land mass, but they have a 67% tree canopy in their
parks. By comparison, the City of Edmonds has only 13%. She said she was shocked to learn that 87% of the existing tree
canopy is on private property.
Ms. Stewart expressed her belief that the draft plan is well put together, but she is concerned that there is not enough focus on
the northwest ecosystem, which is very specific. She advised that she started the Students Saving Salmon Group at Edmonds
Woodway High School, and they do water quality testing and help educate home owners about native vegetation on the streams.
It is important that the plan encourage native trees wherever possible in the urban forest. She noted that there are currently five
dominant trees species in Yost Park, which is the only park that shows what a native ecosystem should look like. That is where
she takes students to teach them about native ecosystems in the urban forests.
Ms. Stewart suggested the plan should encourage home owners to plant native trees in their yards, and there are a number of
species that are smaller in size to avoid issues with view. Planting native trees on private properties would help bridge the
fragmented forests throughout the community for the benefit of wildlife. She said she lived in Edmonds long enough to see
the tree canopy diminish over time. As trees have been cut down, the amount of wildlife has also diminished. If this continues,
the children growing up in Edmonds will not have a connection to wildlife unless they go to a park. She agreed with the plan's
emphasis on education and outreach to help local citizens see and understand the reasons to plant native trees where they can.
Ms. Stewart suggested that the plan should make note of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program that received
certification about 10 years ago after 104s of Edmonds residents certified their yards and made a commitment to provide food,
shelter, water and a place for wildlife to raise their young. She suggested that this community effort needs to be revived, and
this could help improve the canopy on private lands. Lastly, Ms. Stewart referred to a statement in the plan that "tree physiology
for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years
before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional
maturity. " It is important to understand that when a 100-year-old tree is taken down, it will take many human generations to
replace its ecosystem function.
Vice Chair Cheung closed the public portion of the hearing.
Board Member Rosen thanked the residents for sharing their thoughts and concerns with the Board. Their comments are
important and do matter, and the Board is listening. In listening to the public testimony and reading the written comments, it
is clear that the public wants it all. They want to preserve views of water and trees, create biodiversity, protect and improve
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 7
water and air quality, protect property rights, and provide habitat for wildlife. They seem to like trees as long as they don't get
in the way of anything. He commented that not all factors are equal, and the Planting Priority Analysis Map was created with
the right perspective in mind. It was a noble effort to identify areas where trees could be planted to increase the canopy.
Everyone can likely agree that they don't want houses to slide down the hillside, and this requires stabilization whether by trees
or some other method.
Board Member Rosen said he would advocate for increasing the tree canopy over a no -net -loss approach. He would encourage
a more sophisticated goal setting specific to preservation. While this will be a heavy lift, the plan is a good place to start. The
plan identifies a vision and strong goals and objectives to implement the vision, and course corrections can be made at every
opportunity based on new information, changing conditions, etc. He felt the plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs
stronger goals, and perhaps they could be stated differently. Additional scientific information is needed to clarify the problem
and solutions. The plan speaks only about trees, yet there is a variety of vegetation that can help the City accomplish its goal.
The need exists and it must be addressed or the consequences will be severe and significant.
Board Member Lovell observed that implementing the goals and objectives called out in the plan will involve a significant
amount of staff time. He agreed with Board Member Rosen that additional study is needed in some areas. There has been a
lot of feedback with respect to narrowing the tree species down to be more applicable to the environment. Questions have also
been raised about whether or not it is realistic to increase the tree canopy, and he is not sure there is a universal belief or
understanding that the tree benefit calculations will actually work. He agreed with the finding that a tree inventory is needed
to document the existing tree canopy. A number of people commented on the importance of view preservation, but it must be
noted that there are more views than just of the water. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City
to preserve public views, which means they need to be careful what they plan for the view corridors.
Board Member Lovell referred to Municipal Goal M6, which calls for creating a dedicated Urban Forest/Arborist staff position.
He also referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. While they all understand
it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the City to regulate what private property owners can and cannot do on their
properties, there are things the City can do to educate about maintaining and planting trees. For example, would it would be
possible for a full-time arborist to be on call to address situations where a private property owner wants to remove a tree that
is blocking a view or is a nuisance? It seems like there should be a process and some type of inspection done by a professional
to identify the appropriate way to handle the situation.
Board Member Lovell observed that, typically, a development plan for multi -family residential development will take
advantage of as much area as possible, and the tendency is to clear-cut the lot and then replant after development is finished.
If the City is serious about preservation and the importance of maintaining the mature trees, there should be a process whereby
each site is looked at with respect to the potential retention of trees. He also expressed his belief that the City should renew or
bump up its efforts to address street trees that interfere with sidewalks and other infrastructure.
Board Member Robles commented that risks and hazards are quite easy to manage if there are adequate standards in place.
However, you must first identify the risk exposure, as well as the probability and consequences should it happen. This all starts
with some form of inventory. It does not need to be a complete inventory; it could even be as sample inventory. They have a
strong citizen base and people who are interested in trees but no way to receive their input. There are a lot of tools available
to receive comments on a shared -data base and to incentivize certain behaviors. He cautioned that before the City considers
additional regulations, it should try to incentivize desirable behaviors. Understanding technology is necessary to learn what is
available, and he hopes the City can look forward rather than backward to take advantage of these new tools rather than creating
additional regulations that end up infringing on private property rights.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the plan contains a set of facts and information, some of which came from other
jurisdictions. The City Council will have to ultimately decide whether or not the facts are true and applicable to Edmonds.
They must also decide if the current tree canopy is sufficient or not. Decisions need to be made about whether it is a serious
enough issue to adopt the UFMP and preserve or increase the tree canopy. In the comments from the public, as well as the
information presented in the plan and in the Staff Report, she particularly liked the following ideas:
• Licensing companies providing tree cutting services to limit the scare tactics of storm damage control.
• Providing incentives for private land practices to increase the tree canopy.
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 8
• Overseeing a regulatory overhaul of the tree -related ordinances. This could include a review of the development
regulations to increase the preservation of existing trees and reviewing the landscape provisions to promote improving
and increasing the tree canopy.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other cities, such as Redmond and Kirkland, have used more stringent tree policies to
successfully create larger tree canopies than what currently exists in Edmonds. Again, she said it will be up to the City Council
to determine whether or not the plan contains the facts and describes the seriousness of what is taking place in Edmonds. She
said she heard some very interesting points that are shaping her view a bit differently, and she appreciates the ability to see
things from a variety of perspectives.
Vice Chair Cheung commented that there are a lot of competing priorities to consider. Most people do not hate trees, and most
do not cut them down for fun. Trees are typically cut down to accommodate development or because they are creating a hazard
or causing damage to property. In addition to increasing the tree canopy, these other factors must be considered to ensure
pedestrian safety and to protect properties and infrastructure. Most of the tree canopy is located on private property, and the
City must balance the need to preserve trees with the need to protect private property rights. He said a number of large trees
have been removed on private properties in his neighborhood over the last five years. One was growing into a home and
damaging the structure, and another was covering the sidewalk and creating a dangerous situation. Again, heh said people
usually have a reason for cutting down a tree. Education and guidance on how developers and property owners can build
around a tree rather than remove it would be helpful. Perhaps the City could provide examples of how projects were
accomplished without removing significant trees.
Vice Chair Cheung cautioned that the City must be reasonable. It cannot put such strict regulations in place that developers
cannot build in the City. He reminded the Board of ongoing discussions about the need for affordable housing and placing
additional restrictions on development could be counterintuitive to this effort. He said he also has some concerns about how
scientific the report is. He summarized that a lot of people are passionate about trees, and others are more passionate about
views or development. They need to be respective of all and recognize there is not a clear solution. Hopefully, they can come
up with a plan and goals and objects that balance all of these interests.
Board Member Crank said the UFMP process has been an interesting experience for her, coming from living 16 years in a Tree
City with a similar plan in place and seeing the spectrum of how community members respond to it to actually being on the
side of creating and putting a plan in place. As the plan develops, she hopes that it will be user-friendly. Those who have
weighed in on the issue to date have been more highly invested than the average homeowner will be. The everyday person will
not spend as much time and energy to review the plan and see how it would apply to them. As the plan goes from draft to
permanent, it is important that it be drafted to be as user-friendly as possible. The education process needs to be easy to
understand and ideas need to be presented in a way that does not require a lot of time and energy to understand. It needs to be
user-friendly to the majority of the City's population.
Board Member Lovell asked about the next step in the process. Ms. Hope said they initially anticipated presenting the plan to
the City Council, along with the Board's recommendation, on June 19', but this might not be possible. The Board is scheduled
to continue its discussion on May 23'. In the meantime, staff will work with the consultant to update the plan and provide
additional background information.
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 9
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Cheung advised that the Board's May 23rd meeting agenda will include a continued discussion and possible
recommendation on the draft UFMP, a discussion about the next steps on code updates to permit decision making, and an
introduction of the draft housing strategy.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Student Representative Livingston commented that there are a lot of mature trees around the Edmonds Woodway High School
and not a lot of space to plant new ones. It would be great if the existing trees could be retained. The Board received a lot of
good comments from citizens about potential places to plant trees in Edmonds to enlarge the canopy. They are currently not
at the maximum canopy, and there were a lot of good ideas about how it could be expanded.
Board Member Robles commented that a lot of things are working well in the City, and he enjoys seeing it everyday as he
works in downtown Edmonds. The new construction is very attractive.
Board Member Lovell announced that he would attend the Economic Development Commission's May 161 meeting
Board Member Crank announced that she was appointed to the Paine Field Commission Airport Commission. A tour of the
existing facility is scheduled for June 1st, and the commission's first meeting will take place on June 2111. She said she looks
forward to participating on the commission and reporting back to the Board on what is happening.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
May 9, 2018 Page 10