2019-08-28 Planning Board PacketAgenda
Edmonds Planning Board
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 28, 2019, 7:00 PM
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
August 28, 2019
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
B. RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Update on Urban Forest Management Plan
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/28/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB190814d
2.A
Packet Pg. 2
SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28TH APPROVAL
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
August 14, 2019
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 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2019 AND JULY 24, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 – STREET VACATIONS Ms. McConnell explained that the street vacation provisions currently reside in ECDC Title 20.70, and the proposed amendment would relocate them to ECDC Title 18, which is the Public Works section. The amendment also clarifies and reorganizes the provisions and adds a definitions section. The appraisal process and timing provisions were revised, as were
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 2
the provisions related to applicability of monetary compensation. Lastly, the timeframe was modified to satisfy conditions. Specifically, the proposed amendments:
• Move Title 20 to Title 18 (Public Works Section).
• Change the review lead from Planning Division to Public Works Division.
• Add a new definition section (ECDC 18.55.005) to provide additional clarity.
• Revise Section 18.55.015.D to reflect the types of plans and other documents needed for the application.
• Add a new Section 18.55.030, which gives the City the right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways and trails.
• Add a new appraisal section (18.55.XXX) to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for 3rd party
appraisal.
• Add Section 18.55.140 to clarify the processing of street vacations, allowing the ordinance to address timing by which the conditions need to be met, establishing compensation of the area to be vacated based on the appraisal, and giving the City Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on review of the appraisal should they choose. Mr. McConnell explained that a “street vacation” means that the public is letting go of, or vacating, the public interest in a property. After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer has a right to use the property for access. Street vacations can be initiated by private property owners or the City Council. As per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.79.040, “If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each.” City Attorney Taraday shared a tool he learned at law school called a “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights,” which is uses sticks to illustrate the concept of real estate ownership He explained that real estate ownership, in actuality, is the ownership of a number of potential rights of land, and the largest bundle of rights (sticks) available for private ownership is called the “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights.” Fee simple ownership means that that the property owner owns every possible right that pertains to the real estate. If someone has the underlying fee, it might mean that they own just one tiny right or stick and the rest have been transferred via dedication. It is important to understand this concept in the context of street vacations. City Attorney Taraday explained that in the vast majority of instances an abutting owner owns the underlying fee. Therefore, if the public’s interest in a street ever goes away, the City doesn’t deed the property back to the abutting property owner because they already have a reversionary interest. Instead, the City vacates the dedication that had been on the property. He explained that a dedication, which is what creates a street, is defined in the subdivision statute as, “the deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself or herself no other rights than such
as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted.” Thinking of that definition in the context of the “Bundle of Rights” concept, it is important to understand that an owner cannot take advantage of many of those rights by having the underlying fee in the street. Property owners cannot exclude people from the street, sell the street, occupy and/or use the street without the City permission, or get a bank loan using the street as collateral. He summarized that when a dedication creates a street, many of the sticks in the bundle are being taken out of the bundle and given to the public. While there are some sticks left in the bundle that is owned by the abutting property owner, the majority of the sticks are now owned by the public. Regarding the Board’s earlier question about whether the City can or should require monetary compensation for street vacations, City Attorney Taraday referred to two court cases that clarify the issue. The first is Nystrand vs. O’Malley, a 1962 Washington Supreme Court decision, which was referenced in Mr. Reidy’s comments at a previous meeting. He read the following quote from the case, “The use by the plaintiffs in extending their garage onto the area, planting the trees and
hedge and constructing the bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public’s easement since the right to open the street for the public’s use had not been asserted by the City.” In this case, the dispute was between two neighbors and did not involve a city. One neighbor felt he had the right to use the street in a particular way, and the other was saying he didn’t have the right. The city did not take a position and was not party to the case in any way. Because the City did not participate or assert its own rights, the case makes it sound like the abutting property owner has more rights than he/she actually has. The second case is Baxter Wycoff vs. the City of Seattle, a 1965 Washington Supreme Court decision. He read the following quote from the case, “The lack of rights of the abutting owner to so use the street in front of his property does not depend on his interference with an actual or proposed public use of the street. The abutting owner simply has no legal right to make this
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 3
kind of use of the dedicated public street unless an ordinance expressly authorizes permits for such use to be issued by the City even though no member of the public is inconvenienced by the private use.” In the latter case, a city is asserting its right to hold the property in trust for the public. When you consider the context of how they came before the court (one involved a city and the other did not), it explains why the law was articulated so differently. He shared another quote from the 1965 case, “The abutting owner has no right to build permanent structures in the street nor to set up storage yards therein for private business purposes. Assuming that such power exists, the granting of permission to a private person to so use the streets is totally within the discretion of the city.” Going back to the bundle of sticks. City Attorney Taraday summarized that there are not a lot of legal rights left to the underlying owner once a street has been dedicated to the public. For that reason, streets are not counted as part of the lot size when a property is appraised. City Attorney Taraday referred to a 1989 Washington Court of Appeals case, City of Seattle vs. ?? Land Company. The older streets in Seattle have glass tiles with space underneath that are frequently attached to basements of buildings abutting the street. Property owners pay the City of Seattle to use that space. In this case, a property owner claimed that, as the abutting owner, he had the right to use that space as long as it wasn’t interfering with the public. He argued that that “other jurisdictions have held that where the fee is in the abutting owner, the City may not charge the abutting landowner rent for the use of such space.” The court, however, determined that, “To the extent that these authorities so hold, that is not the law in Washington.” City Attorney Taraday summarized that case law makes clear the extreme limitations placed on abutting owners within the context of a street dedication. On the other hand, a street vacation has a lot of value to an abutting property owner because all of the rights that applied to the street dedication would be given back to the property owner. All of the rights (or sticks) have value. Anytime they go back and forth between parties, there should be some transaction to compensate for the transfer of property. City Attorney Taraday read from Washington State Constitution Article 8 Section 7, “No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money or property or loan its money or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm or become directly or indirectly the owner in stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.” He said that while there is not a case that directly addresses this constitutional provision in the context of a street vacation, it is his opinion that City should require compensation for a street vacation because it would be considered a gift of public funds or property not to. The rights (sticks) are owned by the public. If the City gives them back to the property owner without compensating the public for the loss of those sticks, it would be a gift of public property, which violates Article 8 Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. The State uses a two-prong analysis to determine if a “gifting” has occurred. The first is, are you trying to carry out a fundamental purpose of government, and he can’t see any argument that giving property rights back to a private citizen would be classified as a fundamental purpose of government. Secondly, the court focuses on the consideration received by the public for the expenditure of public funds and the intent of the appropriating body. The court would look at what consideration the City received for giving the rights (sticks) back, and he believes having the rights appraised is appropriate. Appraisers are trained to measure the differences in fair market value between a before and after situation. Board Member Pence pointed out that the City does not pay compensation when it acquires “bundle of sticks” when plots are dedicated. At the time of a subdivision, developers are required to gift street dedications to the City to provide access to the lots. He understands City Attorney Taraday’s viewpoint that street dedications are owned by the City and have value and that abutting property owners who have reversionary interest in the properties should provide compensation if the streets are vacated by the City. However, it is important to note that the City didn’t pay to acquire the street dedications in the first place. City Attorney Taraday responded that consideration doesn’t have to be identical in terms of flowing both directions. The consideration the original owner gets is an approved plat. While it is true that the City doesn’t pay cash for the streets that are dedicated, it approves the plats and the owners profit from the approval. The only way you can get a subdivision approved is to transfer those sticks (rights) to the City. Once they are owned by the public, it is not relevant any more how they got to be in the public’s hands. What is relevant is, should they be given back, and if so, why? Board Member Pence summarized that the City acquires sticks within the public right-of-way, and its payment is the administerial act of approving the subdivision. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is one way to look at it. It is pretty clear that a developer dedicates property for streets in order to get a subdivision approved.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 4
Board Member Monroe observed that the City sets the value of those rights at zero when they enter into negotiations with a developer of a subdivision, but then they want to sell them back for fair market value. City Attorney Taraday responded that the City does not establish a value when the property is being dedicated for streets as part of a subdivision application. No money changes hands at that point. Not all consideration is in the form of cash. Board Member Monroe commented that when a street vacation is granted, it expands a property and property owners are then required to pay taxes on the additional land. He asked if that would be enough compensation to the City to warrant approval of a vacation request. City Attorney Taraday said his opinion is that every property owner pays taxes, but not every property owner gets to have the street in front of their property back. He cautioned that if the City were to vacate every potential property without requiring any compensation, some residents in the City would get a windfall and others wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be fair to distribute public property unevenly so it goes to some people but not to all. His view is that the fair approach would be to compensate the public for the loss of those rights. The current code allows the City to obtain compensation, but State Law allows the City to require higher levels of compensation than the code currently provides for. It also doesn’t force the City to make an either/or choice between an alternative easement or cash compensation. Board Member Monroe summarized that City Attorney Taraday’s position is that paying taxes on the newly acquired property would not address the concern about the gifting of public funds. He asked if there are other states that do not require money to change hands. City Attorney Taraday was unable to answer the question but explained that it is a Washington State constitutional provision. Board Member Rosen commented that a street vacation could result in a property owner acquiring land that he/she does not want and is not equipped to pay taxes on, and this could cause a hardship or financial burden. City Attorney Taraday emphasized that no one would ever be forced to seek a street vacation. Most street vacations are initiated by a petitioner, who is the abutting owner who happens to want the property. Even if the City Council initiates a street vacation, it would not take affect until compensation is received. If the appraisal comes back higher than a property owner anticipates, he/she can pull the plug on the street vacation. No one would ever be forced to follow through. Board Member Rosen asked what would happen if one of the 10 property owners along an alley doesn’t support the vacation. City Attorney Taraday said it would depend on the location. Highly motivated neighbors might be willing to pick up someone else’s tab. Another scenario is that just half of the block could be vacated. However, he does not foresee the City would ever allow a checkerboard pattern of street vacations. Continuity would be required. Chair Cheung asked if the appraisal would be based on value to the City or the abutting property owner. There must not be a whole lot of value to the City if they are willing to give it away. All the City would lose is the public right-of-way. City Attorney Taraday recommended the Board seek feedback from an appraiser to provide specifics on how an appraisal would be done. He knows that when the City acquires right-of-way from an abutting property owner in order to widen a street, the property is appraised in the before and after conditions, and any damages the dedication might cause to the property are taken into account when determining how much the City must pay the abutting property owner. He suspects that a similar process would be used in street vacation situations, too. Board Member Monroe referred to proposed Section 18.55.040.B, which states that “The city shall not proceed with a city-
council initiated vacation if the owners of 50% or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the subject property file a written objection.” He asked if this provision implies that the City could force property owners to assume ownership of the land. City Attorney Taraday said that, as proposed, the decision to not proceed with a vacation would occur earlier in the process and before there is a Resolution of Intent. If 40% of the abutting property owners object, his experience tells him the City Council would not approve the street vacation. If the Council does approve a street vacation in this situation, a certain dollar amount would have to be paid to the City in order to finalize the transaction. The 40% who object would not be required to pay the compensation amount, in which case, the 60% in favor could either withdraw their request or pay the entire compensation and the property owners in opposition would get a windfall. Board Member Monroe asked who would own the properties, and City Attorney Taraday explained that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. The properties would revert back to the apparent abutting property owners. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the 40% who object could end up with a higher tax bill for property they didn’t want. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is possible, but the likelihood of that being a significant amount of money is small. Vice Chair Robles thanked City Attorney Taraday for clarifying that a property owner would not be forced to purchase a street vacation. As far as unjustly receiving a windfall,
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 5
citizens are already subjected to windfalls and judgment through the course of rezones, code changes, etc. He is not sure that argument would be strong in this case. Vice Chair Robles asked if fair market value assumes that anyone could bid on a 10-foot strip of right-of-way. City Attorney Taraday answered that an appraiser would define fair market value as the price at which a reasonable, willing and able buyer and a reasonable, willing and able seller are likely to enter into a transaction. This is typically determined by looking at comparable sales in the area. The properties are analyzed and a judgment is made to come up with a price per square foot for the land. Vice Chair Robles questioned how the fair market value would be established for a 100 square foot area in the middle of property abutted by two unwilling owners. It’s attached to someone’s property, which gives it value. A 100 square foot peace of land does not have any value on its own. City Attorney Taraday said it would have some inherent value, but Vice Chair Robles’ question is more about whether an appraiser in this context would look at an assemblage premium. For example, an owner of a lot that is 9,500 square feet in size might request a street vacation because he/she needs an additional 500 square feet in order to subdivide the property into two, 5,000 square foot lots. The City would expect an appraiser to take into consideration that the street vacation would enable the property owner to get another lot worth of value. On a per-square-foot basis, 501 square feet might not be a lot of money. However, a vacant, buildable lot in Edmonds is worth quite a lot. Vice Chair Robles asked if an abutting property owner could list the street vacation as an amenity to the property when it is sold in a real estate transaction even if he/she has not exercised that right. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City Council has complete and total discretion to approve or deny a street vacation, and there are no criteria. The City Council does not have to provide a reason for the denials, either. He does not think anyone would want to stake a real estate purchase on this potential opportunity. Vice Chair Robles commented that the appraiser would also be making a speculative argument that the 80 square feet of land has value. City Attorney Taraday responded that, once an appraisal comes back, a property owner can decide to pay the compensation to have the extra land added to his/her lot or leave the land as is. Vice Chair Robles acknowledged that a property owner would not be forced to pay the compensation, and he asked if having a third-party appraiser to identify a transaction’s value, who it is valuable for, and how the money is assigned would be a positive thing or confuse the matter more. City Attorney Taraday said he views the independent appraiser as being a key part of ensuring fairness. When appraisals come in for street vacations, City staff has noted there is too much variation in terms of what the City will receive. It is unfair that some people are submitting junk appraisals and paying hardly anything, and other people are doing it right and paying a fair amount of compensation. That disparity should not exist. The City can create a system where everyone is playing by the same rules and the appraisals are being done the same way. This provides confidence that a disparity in price is not because a completely different methodology was used. This is preferable to letting property owners choose whoever they want to do the appraisal. He said he and Ms. McConnell have given some thought to a process that would allow a property owner to have a second appraisal if they don’t like the initial one. Ms. McConnell continued her presentation by pointing out that most of the street vacations that come before the City are initiated by private citizens versus the City Council. Petitioners understand that an appraisal is required and that compensation could potentially be necessary for the vacation to be completed. State Law requires compensation to the City in an amount equal to one-half or the full amount of the appraised value, which means that an appraisal needs to be done. In the existing code, an appraisal is the minimum application requirement and the appraiser is selected by the petitioner. As discussed at the last meeting, having that be a minimum application requirement means that the appraisal is being done before the City Council has determined it would even consider the property for vacation and before any easement requirements have been identified that would devalue the property. The proposed code moves the appraisal requirement to later in the process after staff has completed review and the City Council has approved a Resolution of Intent to Vacate. A requirement for a third-party appraiser was incorporated into the code, and the petitioner would be responsible for covering that cost. She noted that the current code also requires the petitioner to cover the cost of the appraisal. Ms. McConnell shared some ideas for how to address situations when a petitioner does not agree with the independent appraisal. The ideas include:
• The petitioner could select an alternative appraiser from a list provided by the City. The list would have at least three names on the list.
• The petitioner would pay for the alternative appraisal, as well as the initial independent third-party appraisal.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 6
• Both appraisals would be included in the City Council packet, along with the street vacation ordinance and the City
Attorney’s analysis of the differences between the two appraisals.
• The City Council would decide the compensation amount using the two appraisals as brackets for their discretion. Ms. McConnell explained that RCW 35.79.030 states that compensation to the city or town shall be in an amount equal to one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated or at an amount not to exceed the full appraised value, which applies if the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty five years or more or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense. The City’s existing code states that the City can accept monetary compensation or reservation of an easement to the City. The proposed code would state that monetary compensation and allowance for reservation of easements are both possibilities. The current code limits the compensation amount to one-half the appraised value, and State Law allows the City to accept the full appraised value. Ms. McConnell said that, as per the existing code, certain conditions can be placed on the City Council’s approval of a Resolution of Intent to Vacate such as reservation of certain easements. The code requires that the conditions must be met within 90 days of approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment still has a 90-day requirement for compliance, but adds a provision that allows some flexibility if otherwise stated in the resolution. If there are extenuating circumstances, it might take more time for a petitioner to comply with the conditions, and the proposed amendment would allow the City discretion to grant an extension. As requested by the Board, Ms. McConnell briefly reviewed the 2018 compensation history, noting that one street vacation was initiated in 2018 by an abutting property owner. The owner paid half of the appraised value, which was $28,800. The property owner approached the request knowing about the compensation requirement. They fell under the existing code, which meant an appraisal had to be done before an application was made. This is indicative of the types of street vacation requests the City receives. Ms. McConnell reviewed that the proposed amendments were introduced to the City Council Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee on July 9th and the Planning Board on July 10th. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing tonight and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing and final decision by the City Council on September 17th. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that the discussion about the “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights” did not included a discussion about opened and unopened easements. When an easement is not being used by the City to open up a street or
alleyway, the fee title owner of the property has rights to use the property. Mr. Taraday read about those rights in court case Nystrand vs. O’Malley. He said there are numerous examples all over the City where property owners use the right-of-way when the City hasn’t put in a street or alley yet. He specifically referred to a situation where someone sold their servient estate ownership interest to a neighbor, which is another bundle of sticks. He summarized that the rights of the two are not absolute. The servient estate also has rights, and that’s really important to appreciate.
Mr. Reidy recalled that when the proposed code amendment was introduced to the Board on July 10th, City staff did not mention that the 2012 Planning Board was tasked by the City Council on two occasions to review this same item. Amendments were needed to clarify certain parts of ECDC 20.70 and make the wording consistent with State Law. He spoke at both of those public hearings (May 9, 2012 and November 14, 2012). The end result of this effort was that the City Council adopted Ordinance 3910, which made the City’s laws more consistent with State Law (RCW 35.79.030). He questioned why the Planning Board is now being asked to consider a major rewrite of this code section. He said he is
unaware of any changes to State law that makes this necessary. He asked who is pushing this effort that changes laws adopted by a previous City Council. For example, the either/or provision is legal under State Law, and the City Council made a legislative choice to establish that law. Why is staff now proposing that the either/or law be eliminated. It is good law that the citizens support. He asked that the Board recommend that the either/or provision be left intact. Mr. Reidy asked why the proposed code amendment has been in the works since at least May 3, 2018 without an opportunity for property owners or citizens to be involved in the process. He noted that Ordinance 3910 clarifies the type of easements the City may retain when deciding to vacate a street or alley easement. The City Council may reserve rights for the City for construction repair and maintenance of public utilities and services, which is consistent with State Law. Ordinance 3910 does not say that the City Council may require property owners to grant rights to third parties, yet the Edmonds City Council
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 7
has required property owners to grant easements to third parties during the last three street vacations. Instead of correcting their historical acts, he fears the City is attempting to change the code to promote similar acts in the future. He said he is not aware that any property owner has asked for this change. He pointed out that Ms. McConnell’s reference to a recent street vacation that required a $28,800 compensation failed to mention that the property owner was also required to grant an easement to the Edmonds School District for an unpermitted pipe they had put in years ago. He cautioned against the City elevating third-party rights above those of the property owner. Mr. Reidy referred to the proposed language in ECDC 18.55.140.B.3, which states that, “Any challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in its entirety.” He said RCW 35.79.030 does not say anything about a 30-day challenge period. It simply says that “such ordinance may provide that the City retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services.” Mr. Reidy stated that it is not the property owner’s job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced; that is the Mayor’s job. Shifting the burden to others by giving them 30 days to challenge the City Council’s required conditions is very wrong and unfair. It should be kept simple to comply with State and City Laws. The City Council can retain an easement or rights. Retain means to keep possession of, but it does not mean that the City can require property owners to grant easements to third parties. Mr. Reidy pointed out that street vacations are legislative acts. He asked what would be the next legislative act that someone tries to make subject to a 30-day appeal period to Snohomish County Superior court if the proposed amendments are adopted. He commented that the courts do not want to be involved in the legislative process. Legislative acts are the City Council’s responsibility and the City Council should be able to act within the law without involving the Superior Court. Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board’s July 10th meeting, City staff explained that if there was thought to be value to the land and an appraiser found value to the property, the City would not be able to just gift public land to an adjacent property owner. However, Ordinance 4143, effective February 20, 2019 did not require compensation even though the related appraisal showed the property had value. This was perfectly legal, as requiring compensation is permissive. The statement about gifting of public land is alarming for several reasons. It shows that City staff tasked with updating the code section may not have a complete understanding of this area of law. History shows that the City has not required compensation on many occasions. If gifting public land was not something the City was able to do, why would it have done so earlier this year? He suggested that gifting is not an issue because the property owner almost always owns the title. If the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for less than 25 years, State Law allows the City the option of requiring compensation in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. He questioned why the other half wouldn’t be considered a gift of public funds or a windfall? Resolution Number 1145 documents that the City Council voted to credit back costs, including the cost of the appraisal, to the abutting property owner by reducing the required compensation by $3,750. Should this be considered a gift or a windfall? He asked the Board to appreciate that compensation is permissive. He asked why City Attorney Taraday is talking about a potential windfall if payment is not required. The City Council has great legislative discretion, and they don’t have to require compensation ever. In fact, since 1998, the City Council has not required compensation for most street vacations. For example, there were 15 street vacations in 1998 and none required compensation. History proves that it can be a public benefit to vacate streets without the need to require compensation. Mr. Reidy referred to City Attorney Taraday’s memorandum, which also states that payment for a street vacation would benefit the general public. He questioned if the general public would have legal standing to contest a street vacation if the City Council did not require compensation? He referred to Grays Harbor 2000 vs. the City of Seattle, in which the City of Seattle vacated 15.2 acres of streets and did not charge compensation. Citizens appealed the decision, saying they were harmed as part of the public because the City did not charge compensation, but the judge ruled that they didn’t have standing to contest the decision. He emphasized that the City and property owner have higher rights than the general public. Mr. Reidy commented that State Law is clear that the respective rights of the City and property owner are not absolute, and case law is clear that the property owner, and not the general public, has the right to use unopened streets and alleyways. In conclusions, Mr. Reidy expressed his belief that staff’s comment that the City would not be able to just gift public land to an adjacent property owner indicates that they do not have a keen understanding of the las. If such a major code rewrite was needed, he asked why the citizens were not made aware of it? He recalled that in late 2016, he pointed out in a public hearing
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 8
on a street vacation that acquiring an appraisal so early in the process was wrong. He is glad the proposed amendment will address this issue, but in general, the existing code is good. It was just reviewed in 2012 and it remains solid. He suggested the best approach would be to leave the recently updated code as is, with just the one change to move the appraisal requirement to later in the process. He asked the Board not to move away from the legislative intent of the City Council that adopted the either/or law and compensation law that didn’t go for the full appraisal value. There is no need to change the choices that were made in 2012. At the request of Board Member Pence, Mr. Reidy submitted his statement in writing. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 39 years and his property was part of George Brackett’s original plat. His northern boundary line was the northern boundary of the City, and there is a 7.5-foot undedicated alley easement in his backyard. He noted that the street code requires 15 feet, but when the City annexed the Holy Rosary property to the north of his property, it did not require them to dedicate the other 7.5 feet. If you view the property on Google Maps or the City’s GSA maps, you will see that almost every property owner has put up a fence and incorporated the 7.5 feet into their lots. In the 39 years he has lived in the City, he has witnessed many street vacations, especially in his neighborhood. For example, some of 8th Avenue that was never going to be opened because of a stream was vacated. A 7.5-foot easement between 8th and 9th Avenues was also vacated with no compensation required. Mr. Tupper referred to Mr. Reidy’s earlier question about why it would be okay to give away half of the public’s funds by not charging the full amount. It is just not a valid legal argument. He said he watched the July 10th Planning Board Meeting on Channel 21 and was flabbergasted at some of the testimony that was provided by staff. He visited the Municipal Research Service Center’s (MSRC) website (www.msrc.org) for additional clarification. The MSRC is a non-profit organization that helps local governments across Washington State to better serve the citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. He learned that a public right-of-way is generally an easement, and when the right-of-way is vacated, the fee title to the property underlying the right-of-way held by the abutting property owner becomes unencumbered by the easement. What the vacation accomplishes is extinguishment of the right-of-way easement. Ms. McConnell said that abutting property owners cannot use the easement because the City has jurisdiction over it. However, per the MSRC, if the right-of-way has not been opened and is not improved, the obstruction of public travel is not an issue and the property owner is not subject to the same restrictions as when it is opened and improved. Typically, property owners can use the unopened, unimproved right-of-way as they can the rest of their property, but it is subject to the possibility of it being opened and improved at some point in the future. Mr. Tupper also referenced Ms. McConnell’s statement that if there was thought to be value to land and an appraiser did find value to the property, the City could not just gift it to an abutting property owner. However, it is important to note that the City does not have title to the property. It only has an easement right, which is just one stick (right) in the bundle. Mr. Tupper said that about six years ago he discovered that the Lighthouse Law Group’s corporate registration with the State had lapsed and hadn’t been paid for or renewed. After discovering that, he went to the City of Seattle’s website and found that the law firm, which had been formed about five years earlier, had never applied for a City of Seattle business license or paid City of Seattle taxes. He asked Mr. Taraday for a copy of his business license, and he told him it had lapsed. However, the following day he was down at the City of Seattle applying for the license. There is something about integrity and truth, and telling him that the license had lapsed was very untruthful. Michelle Dotsch, said she was present at the last meeting and heard Mr. Reidy address the Board. She was born and raised in Edmonds and knows there are a lot of alleys that people walk and bike through. She recalled that City staff displayed a map at the last meeting that showed an alley in just one area, but a short Google search located a variety of Google Map photographs of local streets with unopened easements. In many of these situations there is landscaping, buildings, fencing, etc. She submitted maps showing where all of the easements are located, noting that some have access to driveways to actual parking garages on the backside with no access for vehicles on the front side. The owners of these properties would be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments, yet there are only two public hearings during the summer when people are out of town. It is easy to do a Google Map search to find the property owners. She expressed her belief that the process needs more time and attention. The City needs to reach out to the public by mailing notices to affected property owners. Chair Cheung closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 9
Board Member Monroe advised that Board Member Rubenkonig was unable to attend the meeting but submitted a written comment asking about the impetus of staff’s proposal to update the street vacation provisions. City Attorney Taraday explained that as staff has worked through street vacations over the past few years, it noted provisions that were either not as clear as they needed to be or not as helpful to the City as allowed by State Law. He disclosed that he represents the City of Edmonds and his responsibility is to advance the interest of the City of Edmonds and not individual property owners. If he sees that State Law allows the City of Edmonds to collect more money for a street vacation than it is currently collecting, it is his job, as the City Attorney, to make that option available to the policymakers and let them decide whether or not they want to amend the code. The City is leaving money on the table right now. He feels an obligation to bring that forward and let the policymakers make a decision about whether that is a good thing or not. Board Member Monroe noted that, as proposed, the city attorney would provide an analysis of an appraisal. City Attorney Taraday said that is one option. He spent a lot of his career doing imminent domain work and deposing appraisers. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the proposed amendment does not say that Jeff Taraday will provide an analysis, it simply says that whoever is the city attorney would do the analysis. City Attorney Taraday expressed his belief that most city attorneys would be able to do that work. Board Member Monroe observed that, as per his earlier statement, City Attorney Taraday is charged with advancing the City’s interest and not that of private property owners. City Attorney Taraday said he would provide an analysis to the City Council, and the City Council Members are also tasked with representing the City of Edmonds and looking out for the City’s interest. He asked who better to advise the City Council than the person who has the fiduciary duty to look out for the interest of the City of Edmonds. Ms. McConnell explained that the proposed amendments are intended to clarify and address issues that have come up over the past few years as staff worked through street vacation applications. As proposed, the restructured process would be smoother to follow and easier for the staff and public to understand the requirements. Moving the appraisal to a later point in the process after the Resolution of Intent to Vacate has been approved will benefit petitioners so they don’t spend money up front on something that may have no traction. The provisions were looked at holistically and are intended to address issues that kept coming up as staff dealt with residents coming to the front counter. In an effort to be transparent, City Attorney Taraday said the intent behind the current either/or provision is unclear to him. They could review the legislative history and try to identify the intent, but there is not always a clear answer for why a provision was adopted into the code. However, it is completely arbitrary to try and equate the reserving of a simple easement to the City on one hand and fair market value payment for the street vacation on the other. For example, you could have a huge street vacation worth a lot of money, but if the City happens to have a small water line there that requires the preservation of a small easement, the existence of the water line could create a completely arbitrary condition where the City either needs to vacate the street cost free, reserve the easement or deny the street vacation. Denying the street vacation request is not in the property owner’s best interest. It is important to create conditions that allow street vacations to come forward, and the either/or provision forces the City to make a difficult choice between three options that are not good. Eliminating the either/or provision could create a situation where a reserved easement could end up reducing the amount of compensation that a property owner is required to pay. On the other hand, retaining the either/or provision would prohibit the City from requiring compensation if any portion of the easement is reserved. Board Member Crank said her initial understanding was that the proposed amendments were intended to catch the City’s code up with the State Law, but it appears that has already been done. She asked if the true intent is to collect the money that is being left off the table and put it into the City coffers. If that is the case, itis important that the intent is clear so that the Board doesn’t continue its conversation thinking they are trying to catch up with something that they have already caught up to. Secondly, she asked if there is a timing issue that requires that the Board’s recommendation be forwarded to the City Council for a September public hearing. City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the focus of the 2012 update was fairly narrow and not intended to be a full rewrite of the street vacation code. One reason it has taken so long to bring the proposed update forward is that, frequently in City government, there is too much to do and not enough time and resources. Projects end up getting re-prioritized. It took a while for staff to realize that the full appraised value provision was not in the code. Rather than doing piecemeal amendments to the code, staff felt it was better to wait until they could do a complete rewrite of the entire chapter.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 10
Ms. McConnell said that once staff starts a project, they try to keep it moving. They are pulled to a variety of different projects, and staff availability to work on projects is limited. The larger the gap is in between, the more time it takes staff to sync back into the project and bring it forward again. The tentative public hearing before the City Council on September 17th is purely an effort to keep the amendment moving forward while the issue is fresh on everyone’s mind. Regarding the issue of retained easements by either the City or another agency, Board Member Pence commented that petitioners are asking the City to give the bundle of sticks back to the abutting property owners. The retention of an easement is the City merely saying that one of those sticks will have to be retained in the public interest. The petitioner would still have all the rights to use the land subject to the easements that are retained, and this will have an impact on the appraised value of the parcel. He doesn’t see retained easements as an issue at all since they are part of the reality of the process. Board Member Pence questioned the use of the term “third-party appraiser,” since it has not been referenced in the conversation. Currently, the appraiser is chosen by and becomes a client of the petitioner. Under the proposed amendment, the City would select the appraiser and that appraiser would be a servant of the City. There would be no third-party involvement in the proposed process. However, there may be some merit in having third-party appraiser who is truly independent of both the City and the petitioner. He said he has been involved in public property acquisition issues through condemnation, and the agency has its appraiser and if the unwilling seller doesn’t like the appraisal, he/she hires a different appraiser. The issue goes to court and the differences are adjudicated. He suggested that for smaller-scale issues, it would be more appropriate to have just one appraiser that both sides select from a list of qualified appraisers. This would save expense, if nothing else. Again, he said the use of a third-party appraiser is not properly chosen in the proposed amendments. Board Member Rosen asked if he understood correctly that, as proposed, the petitioner would be required to pay for the appraisal. If the petitioner disagrees with the appraisal, he/she would be required to pay for the second appraisal, too. City Attorney Taraday said that is one of the options for addressing the Board’s initial concern about the appraisal process. From his perspective, it would not make sense for the City to pay for an appraisal unless the street vacation was initiated by the City Council. Board Member Rosen suggested that the better distinction would be for whoever initiates the street vacation to pay for the appraisal. Board Member Rosen voiced concern that the proposed amendments might set the City up for some unintended consequences. He asked how the City could reduce that risk. City Attorney Taraday responded that the proposed amendment would not have any impact on rights that abutting owners have to use streets, whether opened or unopened. From his perspective, it has always been the case that if you want to build something in a street, you have to get an encroachment permit from the City. They are not making any changes regarding City policy on that issue. Board Member Monroe asked if the conditions attached to a street vacation approval could require a petitioner to obtain an agreement from a third-party utility. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City can never be compelled to approve a street vacation. It can deny the request at any time for any reason. In addition, the City is a code city organized under Title 35.A, which is different than other types of cities that exist in the state. Code cities have the broadest possible powers under the Washington State Constitution. Code cities are home ruled cities in that they don’t need to point to something that is expressly stated in State Law to authorize their actions. They just can’t contradict State Law. As long as they aren’t violating the statute, they are good. He cannot point to a specific State Law that requires petitioners to obtain agreement from third-party utilities, other than Title 35.A, which grants code city home rule authority. Board Member Monroe summarized that the answer to his question is yes, the City can require a petitioner to obtain agreement from a third-party utility. Board Member Monroe asked why the timeline for challenging a street vacation is 30 days and not a longer time period. City Attorney Taraday referred to the case, King County vs. Federal Way, where a street vacation was challenged. The issue in that case was whether or not the challenge was timely. The court determined that when challenging a street vacation under a declaratory judgment action, the action must be brought within a reasonable period of time. The court ultimately held that 30 days was the appropriate time period. He expressed his belief that it is not fair to citizens to make them guess about how much time they have to file a challenge. It is a lot more transparent to put the timeline in the code. Because a timeline is not set forth in the RCW, the City has the authority to decide what the reasonable time period is, but it must be a reasonable period of time to get something before the court and before a street vacation has been finalized and the ordinance adopted. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that it might be difficult for a property owner to get everything in order in that short amount of time.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 11
Board Member Monroe reiterated that the City takes all but one of the sticks when a property is subdivided. If a property owner asks for them back, the City will determine what they are worth and require the property owner to provide compensation. In addition, the City may decide to give only some of the sticks back and hold onto others sticks for some type of public use. The petitioner would have 30 days to challenge the City’s decision. Again, he asked if the City would require a petitioner to obtain an agreement with a third-party utility if an easement is to be retained. Ms. McConnell answered that the petitioner would be responsible for contacting the utility and working out the easement agreement and this would be spelled out as part of the condition process. That is why 90 days might not be enough time, and the ordinance might establish a longer time period as appropriate. Board Member Monroe commented that City Attorney Taraday and Ms. McConnell are doing a great job of maximizing City revenue wherever possible, and that’s what the amendments are about. However, that is not something the Planning Board is has to do. City Attorney Taraday cautioned that this is not a type of taxation. In the case of a street vacation, the City is transferring valuable property rights at a price that has been agreed upon by a professional appraiser. It is not an unfair transaction. Board Member Monroe observed that the City has a lot of power and discretion in these transactions. City Attorney Taraday agreed, but in all of his years doing imminent domain and other types of appraisal work, he has never seen a situation where a city tries to low or high-ball an appraisal. In the grand scheme of the budget, the City won’t be motivated to game the appraisal process to get an extra amount of money. Money matters a lot more to the smaller guy. Board Member Monroe referred to City Attorney Taraday’s earlier comment that sometimes the City receives a low-ball appraisal, and he would provide an analysis to the City as to what appraisal is the most accurate. City Attorney Taraday said his analysis would be informed by many years of working with appraisals. Board Member Monroe commented that as long as necessary easements are retained, the City would not be impacted by a street vacation. The land belongs to the property owner and not the City, and the City needs to show a reason to use it. If the City isn’t using it, the rights, by default, should be given back to the property owner. As long as the City would not be damaged by the transaction, it is incumbent on the City to make it easy and cheap. He said he likes the current either/or language, which protects the City from damages, and he also likes the proposal to move the appraisal to later in the process. All of the other amendments are unnecessary, especially if the primary intent is to get more revenue for the City. In particular, he does not like the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, and he does not like the proposed appraisal process. City Attorney Taraday said he understands that the appraisal language is controversial, and a policy decision will need to be made. The Board’s task is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the policy question, and the City Council will make the ultimate decision. However, aside from this policy question, the other proposed amendments are needed to clarify the process and should be considered on their merit. Regarding the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, City Attorney Taraday suggested that it is better for the City Council’s constituents to know what the timeline is rather than having to guess. He recommended that a timeline be clearly established in the code, and he suggested the Board discuss what might be a better period of time. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that the timeline should be longer to allow sufficient time for a petitioner to gather the needed information to issue a challenge. Vice Chair Robles said he really appreciates City Attorney Taraday’s transparency that his job is to represent the City. However, the Board’s job is to represent the citizens. He also appreciates the working relationship that exists between the staff and the Board. However, if the Board advised the citizens that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to raise revenue for the City, he suspects that people who aren’t land owners would support the change, but those who own land would not. There are too many questions at this time for him to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. It will take more work to get enough information to get to the right solution. The City’s broad powers need to be carefully checked to figure out how they impact the citizens. He voiced concern that the proposed amendments are based upon the Fee Simple Bundle of Rights analogy, which cannot be codified. There needs to be a basis of logic for the code, and if they need to have a valid analogy to explain a proposed code amendment, it needs to be reconsidered. Board Member Rosen summarized that the City Council is looking to the Board for guidance. It appears that the Board agrees with the following:
• Retain the current either/or provision.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 12
• Change who pays for the original appraisal based on who initiates the request.
• Move the appraisal to later in the process.
• Increase the timeline for challenging a street vacation to something greater than 30 days. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board had reached a consensus on who would choose the appraiser, the petitioner or the City. Vice Chair Robles responded that the City cannot expect to clean the process up with a third-party appraisal. It will be a messy process and negotiations will be required. If there is an appeal, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be possible to give the petitioner the option of either finding his/her own appraiser or using another appraiser from the City’s list. Board Member Crank asked if there are other cities in Washington State that have addressed the appraisal issue. It might be helpful to find out what processes other cities are using as opposed to grasping for their own ideas. City Attorney Taraday agreed that staff could research the processes employed by other cities and report back. Chair Cheung commented that the person who is asking for the street vacation will obviously be interested in a lower appraisal. On the flip side, the City will pick an appraiser that will identify the highest value for the property. Because the authority is already with the City, if the applicant had an unreasonably low appraisal, the City could simply deny the petition. He said he doesn’t see why the City needs to require a petitioner to choose an appraiser on the City’s list. If they come in with an appraisal that is incorrect, the City can simply deny the petition, and the petitioner could then appeal the decision and select a different appraiser from the City’s list. Vice Chair Robles pointed out that appraisers are all licensed and should be unbiased. City Attorney Taraday responded that appraisers are trained in different specialties, and the proposal is for the City to have a list of qualified appraisers who are trained to do street vacation work. Board Member Rosen suggested the Board could forward the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval with the following exceptions:
• Retain the either/or provision.
• Change who pays for the initial appraisal based on who initiates the request.
• Change the timeline for challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days.
• Request that staff come up with a recommendation for alternatives to the appraisal process rather than requiring a petitioner to choose from the City’s list of qualified appraisers.
• Encourage the City Council to specifically reach out to any resident who borders a project that might be impacted, notifying them of the upcoming public hearing.
Vice Chair Robles suggested that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council should also make it clear that the
objective of the proposed amendments is to raise additional funds for the City. Board Member Crank agreed that additional revenue is an underlying element the proposal, but not necessarily the intent.
Board Member Monroe suggested that the timeline for challenging a street vacation should be increased from 30 days to 90
days. City Attorney Taraday commented that, whatever the timeline is set at, the City won’t be able to adopt street vacation until 30 days after the timeline has expired. Some constituents will want a street vacation to happen more quickly. Board
Member Rosen asked if a petitioner could waive his/her right to appeal, which would then shorten the process. City Attorney Taraday agreed this is an interesting concept. He can imagine certain street vacations where it would be clean and easy for a
petitioner to waive the right to appeal, but if several property owners are involved in the petition, it could be more difficult. The Board agreed they would like to add an option to waive the right to appeal if possible.
The Board discussed retaining the current code language that would allow the City to accept either monetary compensation or
reservation of an easement. The proposed new language would allow the City to require both. Board Member Monroe commented that a street vacation would not damage the City in anyway, as long as the necessary easements are maintained.
City Attorney Taraday clarified that the current code only prevents the City from collecting compensation if the easement is for the City, but if the City directs a petitioner to work out an easement with a utility, the City can collect compensation, too.
Board Member Monroe suggested this provision needs to be changed. From the petitioner’s point of view, it shouldn’t make any difference whether the easement is for the City or a utility. City Attorney Taraday agreed it doesn’t make sense, but
rather than treat all easements equally, the intent of the amendment is to evaluate the effect of the easement on value and subtract that amount from the required compensation. He cautioned against a provision that would result in the City’s
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 13
inability to collect compensation if there is any condition involving retention of an easement for any party. Currently, only an easement to the City would ban other compensation. He explained that, currently, it is difficult for appraisers to take easements into account because appraisals are done before easement conditions are imposed. The proposed amendment would move the appraisal to later in the process so that easements can be taken into account when determining the correct compensation. Board Member Pence summarized that, if a petitioner does not get all of the sticks (rights) back and some are being reserved for a public purpose, it really shouldn’t matter whether that public purpose is the city or some other public entity. The sticks (rights) that don’t get turned back to the petitioner can all be accounted for in the appraisal. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City needs some motivation to approve a street vacation. He explained that it is not possible for the Board to know what the City’s future needs will be with respect to all of the streets and easements. He said he considers easements to be valuable rights, and simply giving them away could result in significant public cost in the future. Chair Cheung commented that if the City wasn’t able to collect compensation for street vacations, perhaps it would be more cautious about giving up easements. Board Member Crank commented that recognizing the monetary aspect of street vacations is neither good nor bad, it just is. You always need to know what something is valued at whether you end up giving it away for free or not. She recommended against spending too much more time talking about this aspect of the proposal. She suggested they move forward with discussions on the other elements of the proposal and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair Robles expressed his belief that the City Attorney’s position regarding the monetary aspect of the proposal should be articulated to the public. Board Member Pence said he would like staff to provide feedback in writing, responding to the public comments and the Board’s conversations. The proposed amendments could be tweaked to represent more of a consensus and the Board could discuss the updated proposal at their next meeting. He said he is not comfortable sending a recommendation to the City Council now. Chair Cheung agreed and noted that the Board is particularly interested in increasing the timeline for challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days and perhaps adding a provision that would allow a petitioner to waive the appeal period. There are also some outstanding questions regarding the provision that would allow the City to collect compensation and require that an easement be reserved. City Attorney Taraday agreed to work with staff to prepare an updated version of the proposed amendment that incorporates the thoughts expressed by the Board. However, it will take more time for staff to update the document. He summarized that there are some items that appear to have majority support. Where there are still issues, he agreed to provide alternative language for the Board’s consideration. The Board could continue their deliberation in October based on an updated draft. Chair Cheung closed the public hearing. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung advised that the August 28th agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies and a presentation on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report). The September 11th meeting is scheduled as a joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board and an update on the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Board will continue its deliberations on the Street Vacation Code Amendments on October 9th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung announced that some parking issues will be coming before the Board, so it is important for them to keep apprised of what is happening with the parking study, etc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe reported that he attended the kickoff meeting for the parking study, which was well attended and informative. At this time, they are working to identify a framework for the study.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 14
The Board Members expressed appreciation for staff’s hard work on the street vacation code amendments and their desire to represent the City’s best interest. Board Member Crank reported that there were public comments at the last Airport Commission meeting regarding noise. She predicts that noise will continue to be a topic since it was just announced that a new flight would be added from Everett to Spokane. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019)
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/28/2019
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Development Services Director will give an update on the Housing Commission.
Attachments:
Director.Report.08.23.19
5.A
Packet Pg. 17
1 | Page
D8
Date: August 23, 2019
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
“It is time for us all to stand and cheer for the doer, the achiever – the one who
recognizes the challenges and does something about it.”
– Vince Lombardi
Next Planning Board Meeting
The next regular Planning Board meeting is August 28. It will feature updates to the Urban Forest
Management Plan and Roadmap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report).
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
VISION 2050 (Puget Sound Regional Council)
PSRC has been seeking input on the Draft VISION 2050 plan, which provides guidance for
growth and livability in our region out to the year 2050. Information on this will be
provided at a future Planning Board meeting. However, it’s fine to learn more and
provide individual input sooner. An online open house is a good way to do that.
Our four-county region gained about 368,000 people in the last five years. That’s half of
the current population of Seattle!
LOCAL PROJECTS
Housing Commission
Appointments to the Citizens Housing Commission are nearly complete. A press release will be
sent to the media and a copy provided to the Planning Board. The new Commission is likely to
have its first meeting in late September.
MEMORANDUM
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Director.Report.08.23.19 (Development Services Director Report)
2 | Page
OTHER LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB held a Special Meeting on August 21 to continue the discussion on specific role in design
review and its broader role in developing the guidance and standards necessary to guide building
design in Edmonds.
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board met on August 15: Items of discussion included:
Sales, burials and financial report
Walk Back in Time review/changes
Themes for Memorial Day and Walk Back in Time 2020
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission meets next on September 4. An agenda will be posted online when
available.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC August 21 meeting was cancelled. The EDC will meet next on September 18. An agenda
will be posted online when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner meets next on September 12. An agenda will be posted online when
available.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The HPC meets next on September 12. An agenda will be available online when available.
Mayors Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee meets next on September 5. An agenda will be available
online when available.
Tree Board
The Tree Board meets next on September 5. An agenda will be available online when available.
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission met on August 21. Items of discussion included:
Climate meeting statement
What’s happing in Edmonds
Quarterly Youth Forum: Homework topics
City Council
The August 5 City Council meeting included:
Climate Goals Project and next steps
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Director.Report.08.23.19 (Development Services Director Report)
3 | Page
Authorization for contracts related to the Waterfront Redevelopment (Community/Senior
Center project) and the Dayton Street Pump Station
Crumb Rubber Moratorium extension
Confirmation of the City’s new Human Resources Director (Jessica Hoyson)
Presentation of a new “Financial Intelligence Tool” to assist local governments.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• August 24: Moonlight Beach Adventure, Marina Beach, 7:30 pm
• August 29: Low Tide Beach Walk, Olympic Beach Visitor station, 10 am
• September 8: Classic Car & Motorcycle Show 2019, Downtown Edmonds, 10 am
• September 13 - 15: Puget Sound Bird Fest
• September 19: Edmonds ART Walk, Downtown Edmonds, 5pm
What happened on this day in History (August 28)?
1830 – 1st American built locomotive, “Tom Thumb” races a horse-drawn car from Stockton
and Stoles Stagecoach Company from Baltimore to Elliott Mills. Let history record that
due to mechanical problems the horse won!
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Director.Report.08.23.19 (Development Services Director Report)
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/28/2019
RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Sometimes people think of the Growth Management Act as being the main law in Washington state that
guides land use and infrastructure issues. It's an important law, but in reality, Washington has a variety
of laws that guide planning and practices for land use, infrastructure, environment, etc. These laws
have been adopted and amended over time. In 2017, the Washington State Legislature allocated funds
to study what needed to be done to update laws and/or provide a more coherent framework. The
resulting two-year study, a "Road Map to Washington's Future", was undertaken by the William D.
Ruckelshaus Center.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the information and discuss or ask any questions
Narrative
For the study, the Ruckelshaus Center established a Project Team that traveled all over the state to talk
with people and get their perspectives. From this effort, a 3-volume report was issued on June 30, 2019.
An Executive Summary (attached) was also produced to highlight key information. The Road Map
Report is intended to lead to legislative solutions and other actions that could update and better
integrate certain laws or practices.
At the Planning Board's August 28 meeting, one of the staff from the Project Team will make a
presentation about the report.
Attachments:
Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary
5.B
Packet Pg. 21
A Road Map To Washington’s FutureFinal Report Volume 1. June 30, 2019 Executive Summary
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
The William D. Ruckelshaus Center is a neutral resource for collaborative problem solving in the State of
Washington and the Pacific Northwest, dedicated to assisting public, private, tribal, non-profit, and other
community leaders in their efforts to build consensus and resolve conflicts around difficult public policy
issues. It is a joint effort of Washington State University, hosted and administered by WSU Extension and the
University of Washington, hosted by the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance.
For more information visit www.ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS CENTER
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98164-2040
-and-
Hulbert Hall, Room 121
Pullman, WA 99164-6248
DISCLAIMER
The following report was prepared by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center, a joint effort of the University of
Washington and Washington State University whose mission is to help parties involved in complex public
policy challenges in the State of Washington and Pacific Northwest tap university expertise to develop
collaborative, durable and effective solutions.
University leadership and the Center’s Advisory Board support the preparation of this and other reports
produced under the Center’s auspices. However, the key themes, findings, and proposals contained in this
report are intended to reflect the opinions of the participating parties. This report provides a collective
reflection of the views and experiences of over 2,500 participants who gave their time and talent to this
inquiry. The role of the Ruckelshaus Center’s Road Map Project Team was to listen to and collect multiple
viewpoints with neutrality, and then to consolidate, synthesize, and communicate the array of ideas
shared by identifying themes and, ultimately, proposals to consider for action. Those themes, findings, and
proposals for action do not represent the views of the universities or Advisory Board members, nor do they
represent the personal views of Project Team members.
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
ROAD MAP TO WASHINGTON’S FUTURE
Final Report - Executive Summary
In 2017, the Washington State Legislature allocated funds to the William D. Ruckelshaus Center for
a two-year project to create a “Road Map to Washington’s Future.” The purpose of the project was to
articulate a vision of Washington’s desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to
the state’s growth management and planning framework needed to reach that future.
To understand how the framework aligns with, creates barriers to, and/or supports the desired
future of the communities it is meant to serve, the Project Team traveled across the state, gathering
information and hearing from ~2,500 individuals, which included nearly 400 elected officials
(Appendix A).
The Project Team is deeply grateful to the many individuals who gave their time, talent, and energy to
participate in workshops, interviews, questionnaires, and to otherwise inform this report.
Project Team and Support Staff
Amanda Murphy, Project Co-Lead. Ruckelshaus Center Senior Project Lead; Assistant Professor,
Washington State University Extension
Joseph Tovar, Project Co-Lead. Affiliate Associate Professor, College of Built Environments, University of
Washington
Phyllis Shulman, Ruckelshaus Center Senior Facilitator, Special Projects
Molly Stenovec, Ruckelshaus Center Project and Program Manager
Michael Kern, Ruckelshaus Center Director, Associate Professor, Washington State University Extension
Chris Page, Ruckelshaus Center Project and Development Lead, Assistant Professor, Washington State
University Extension
Amy Burkel, Ruckelshaus Center Project Intern
Marcus Chaffee, Ruckelshaus Center Project Intern
Shelby Thomas, Ruckelshaus Center Project Intern
Benji Rinehart, Ruckelshaus Center Project Coordinator
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LISTENING
The Road Map to Washington’s Future project was about listening. The voices of participants were heard through 67 workshops in 26 locations across the State, 147 individual interviews, questionnaires, letters, reports, and other documents. Participants included more than 2,500 people (Appendix A.). These participants shared their stories, lived experiences, ideas, and recommendations about a desired future, and what parts of the growth planning framework are working or not working in their communities, regions, and the State.
Participants identified key historical events (social, cultural, economic, and ecological) that have influenced the patterns of community identity, development, engagement, and challenges and opportunities. They discussed what their communities need to thrive, and what contributes to their quality of life. Across the state, participants expressed their deep attachment to place (whether that is a neighborhood, a town, a river, or many other types of place), and gave examples of what contributes to the character of these places to which they are profoundly connected. Participants reflected on the value of the growth planning framework and shared examples of what has worked well, including the protection of farmland and forestry resource lands, reduction of sprawl, concentration of growth in urban areas, and public engagement.
Stories were told of challenges and uncertainties brought on by unprecedented and rapid changes, economic downturns, complex social and public health issues, and climate impacts. Participants spoke of coastal erosion due to intense storms, and destruction of forests and infrastructure from wildfire. They described three-hour commutes due to the cost of housing, and a lack of housing due to residential units being used as short-term rentals. The talked about areas that have not recovered from the last decade’s recession, and other areas that are feeling overwhelmed by rapid growth. In doing so, participants shared an astute awareness of the difficulty of creating plans and policies that fully account for the unique nature and circumstances of the places they call home. For some, there was fear of change. For others, there was grief due to loss—loss of lifestyles, loss of property from fires, loss of local businesses, loss of community gathering places, loss of housing opportunity.
Evident in the comments and stories were the interrelationships between economic, social, and ecological vitality. Participants shared that environmental protection, economic development, and personal and community health were at the core of their desired future. Many said they want more control over their lives, and to have their basic needs met. In both rural and urban areas, the seven most common concerns expressed were (not in order of priority):
• Availability and affordability of housing for the current and next generations
• Transportation choices and mobility
• Impacts of a changing climate, and the ability and resources to mitigate and adapt to those impacts
• Income availability and inequity
• Maintenance of community identity, character, and sense of place
• Protection of the environment, access to nature, and outdoor recreation
• Control over their lives and livelihoods
SYNTHESIZING
The Ruckelshaus Center’s Road Map Project Team (Project Team) synthesized the wealth of information and insights collected from participants, in order to develop and communicate potential pathways to the
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 5
future. Regardless of participants’ specific interests and orientation, there were some common threads in their views: that issues need to be addressed as systems and not silos; that political will and leadership across political boundaries is needed to respond to change and consider new approaches; that the diverse regions of the State are actually interdependent and significantly impact each other; and that greater understanding of these impacts and interdependence is needed.
Participants were asked to describe their desired future. The purpose of asking this was to understand those desires and expressed values and use them to guide any recommended additions or modifications in how growth management planning and implementation is achieved in the State. Implicit in this effort to provide a “Road Map to Washington’s Future” were a number of core questions: Does the collection of growth management laws, policies, and institutions developed over decades equip communities to address current and changing conditions? What new or modified approaches are needed to address the unique conditions around the state? What is restraining the ability of communities to thrive? Are there limits to growth? How can people have their needs met without compromising future generations? How can decision-makers best identify appropriate trade-offs, and make informed decisions?
The Legislature asked for a Road Map to Washington’s Future. What became evident is that, while people wish to shape the future, it cannot be entirely predicted or mapped. The future that emerges will be the result of the dynamic interplay between historic and current forces and events, the choices of individuals, as well as political, ecological, social, technological, and marketplace dynamics.
So why plan or regulate? A number of participants stated that the fundamental value of the growth planning framework is to compel people, especially decision-makers, to stop and think before taking action. The hope is that policies and plans provide a framework for choices and actions that can help lead to a preferred future. However, many participants commented that planning and policies alone cannot assure reaching that future. They emphasized that essential to successful outcomes will be the ability to implement, monitor, evaluate, and adapt plans and actions as the future unfolds. A number of participants shared that central to successful outcomes is the ability of communities to develop inclusive collaborations that create a desired community/regional vision and make policy decisions based on that vision.
The comments from participants suggest that all levels of government have an important role to play in influencing the future, and that it is also important to recognize the role of the marketplace in influencing the quality of life. Participants called out the need for the actions of government and the actions of the marketplace to be better aligned, through the development of shared goals, values, and partnerships.
GUIDING
Through all of the information gathering, the Project Team was tasked with identifying common themes that help articulate a vision of Washington’s desired future. The Project Team was also tasked with analyzing interests, finding connections between issues, and identifying common concerns, in order to “identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the State’s growth planning framework of laws, institutions, and policies needed to reach that future.” The resulting guidance to decision-makers is communicated in three ways:
1.Participant Perspectives
Perspectives and ideas, as shared and recommended by individual participants or groups, are included in
the following places:
Volume 1: The Road Map to Washington’s Future Report
•Section IV. Key Findings: Participants’ Responses
Volume 2: Workshop Summaries and Online Questionnaire Summary
Volume 3: University Partners Research and Data Inventories
Volume 4: Formal Letters Received
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 6
Key Findings:
ParticiPant PersPectives
•PromotesDeliberativeDecision-Making
•PrioritizesResources, ReducesSprawl
•Promotes GoodGovernance
•Creates Structure,Consistency,and EncouragesCoordination
•Protects CriticalAreas, Agriculture,and ForestResource Lands
•Requires PublicParticipation
Purpose and Value of Growth Planning
•Protects Critical Areas, Agriculture,and Forest Resource Lands
•Reducing Sprawl
•Shoreline Management Planning
•The Voluntary StewardshipProgram
•Public Participation
•Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination
•Regional Coordination andCollaboration
•Requirement to Identify OpenSpace Cooridors
•Essential Public Facilities Provisions
•Growth Management AppealsProcess
•Regional Transportation PlanningOrganizations
Working Well in the Growth
Planning Framework
•Community and Civic Life
•Independence, Self-Determination,and Self-Reliance
•Identity
•Equity and Diversity
•Economic Opportunity andProsperity
•Connection to and Protection ofNature
•Viable Agriculture
•Change
•Resilience, Adaptation, andSustainability
•Growth and Development
•Infrastructure, Transportation,and Mobility
•Housing
•Health and Safety
•Education
•Government, Governance,and Coordination
Visions of a Thriving Future
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 7
•Existing Growth PlanningFramework: “One Size Fits All”
•Tax Structure and RevenueGeneration
•Alignment and Coordination ofState Laws and Growth Planning
•Housing
•Economic Development
•City, County, and StateCoordination with TribalGovernments
•Planning for a Changing Climateand Natural Disasters
•Annexation Laws and Processes
•Economically Viable NaturalResource Industries
•Transportation and OtherInfrustructure
•Ecosystem Protection
•Enforcement and DisputeResolution
•Equitable Growth Planning andImplementation
•Strategic Water Planning
•Regional Planning
•Monitoring and Evaluation
•State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)
•Coordination with Special PurposeDistricts
•City, County, and StateCoordination with Federal MilitaryInstallations
•Leadership, Engagement, andAccountability
•Development Regulations andPermit Processes
•Density and Community Character
•Integrating Health into GrowthPlanning
•Comprehensive Plan UpdateCycles and Time Horizons
•Urban Growth Areas
Key Findings:
ParticiPant resPonses cont.
Not Working Well in the Growth Planning Framework
and Ideas for Improvements (Vol. 1. pgs. 42-74)
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 8
2. Guiding Principles
The second form of guidance is contained in principles that could be used by decision-makers at all levels to help
guide the direction and implementation of new actions, and future planning and policy-making efforts. Over the
course of the Road Map project, through listening, reading, and synthesizing the vast amount of input received,
the Project Team identified key common principles that emerged. Reflected in these principles (listed below) are
underlying values and approaches that can serve as a foundation for the next generation of growth planning efforts.
Respect that place matters. Each community and region of the state has a unique social, political, ecological,
and cultural history that creates the story of that place. It is critical to understand the social and ecological dynamics
and identity of each place, in order for growth to contribute to the health of its environment and people. People
often develop strong emotional, spiritual, and cultural connections to place, to other people, as well as to lifestyles.
Disruption of these connections can impact the quality of community life and human health.
Maximize flexibility, adaptation, and innovation in the development and implementation of growth management plans and policies, as the future is highly uncertain, and the pace of change is rapid. Creativity, innovation, and collaboration are needed to
address the impacts of change. Economic and ecological conditions are very different across the state. In order to
meaningfully address the unique circumstances of place, communities need the capabilities to adapt.
Align economic development with ecological resilience. Collaborate on approaches that move
away from compromising the health of one system for another. Instead, consider how to develop and integrate
approaches that support both the health of the environment, and the health of people and the economy.
Use a systems approach to identify, plan, design, implement, and evaluate efforts and policies. A systems approach includes:
• Taking a long-term, multi-generation view of planning horizons and desired outcomes; • Identifying interconnections; • Identifying influences and trade-offs;• Considering patterns, trends, and changing conditions; • Challenging individual and group assumptions; • Not being bound by how things were approached in the past; • Breaking down silos and working across disciplinary and sectorial boundaries;• Addressing multiple objectives whenever possible; and • Considering the appropriate scales to address issues, which in some cases will not correspond to political boundaries.
Recognize that healthy ecosystems transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Maintenance and restoration of the health of ecosystems are foundational to thriving people and communities. It is important, when designing approaches to planning and implementation, to consider natural ecosystems, bioregions, and watersheds.
Rethink the concept of land use in planning, to account for the interdependency and relationship of people with the land. It is the relationship of people with the land that is the basis for social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Land use often focuses on the adaptation, management, or utilization of land for human needs. Thinking more in terms of relationship allows for greater harmony between human activity and ecological vitality, and the potential that outcomes have multiple and mutual benefits.
Consider all elements needed to create thriving communities. Planning and policy goals are often siloed and reduced to narrow indicators (for example, number of units of housing built may be a goal for housing availability). The nature of development, and the range of outcomes that development can serve, may be different if the focus is on building community.
Focus on creating conditions for collaboration versus adversarial approaches. Given the complexity and challenges of managing growth and/or creating thriving communities, maximize opportunities for collaboration, and provide technical support, to achieve desired outcomes.
Recognize that financial resources are required to achieve successful outcomes. Without sufficient resources and capacity, the best-laid plans will not come to fruition.
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 9
A Road Map
3. Transformational and Systemic Change and Key Reforms
The third form of guidance synthesizes the wealth of participant perspectives and ideas, and applies the
guiding principles, to identify six actions that could create transformational and systemic change and
twenty eight key reforms that could improve the current growth planning framework. Over recent
decades, much has changed in the State of Washington, and with these changes, new challenges have
arisen. Communities in Washington also now have decades of experience implementing elements of the
existing growth planning framework, experiencing and observing what is working and not working to
achieve desired outcomes.
Becoming more evident is the complexity and interrelationships of the issues involved in growth
management, and the inadequacies of trying to address them in silos and without adequate resources.
This is compounded by uncertainty and significantly-changing conditions brought on by, for example,
advances in technology, a changing climate, persistent economic distress, rapid population growth,
widening disparities in income, and threats of natural hazards. Participants emphasized the need for new
ways of thinking, more adaptive approaches, securing adequate financial resources, as well as increased
opportunities for collaboration, in order to meet the needs of their communities.
Even though the future can’t be precisely mapped, actions can be taken that increase the likelihood that
Washington’s people, communities, and environment will thrive. The guiding principles provided above, and
the six actions for transformational change provided below, can provide pathways to systemically address
core challenges and gaps in the present growth planning framework. Transformational changes take time to
manifest and require leadership, inclusive and authentic community engagement, and political will.
Participants also identified numerous elements of the existing growth planning framework that could be
improved in the short-term and offered many ideas for how those improvements could be made. Where
there was widespread interest in change, the Project Team focused on these areas and distilled participants’
ideas into a number of key reforms to improve the existing growth framework. Although participants
provided many different ideas for how to address these issues, there was common interest, and often
urgency, in trying.
Participant perspectives detailed in Section IV and Volume 2 provide additional comments and ideas
related to each of these key reforms. While there are connections between some of these topics and the six
transformational changes, it would be possible to move forward in the near-term to build agreement on
these reforms or other actions. This could take many forms: convene interested parties to share information
and refine options for further work; create collaborative work groups to build agreement for shared
legislative or other solutions; and identify areas for potential further research by the universities or others
(including, but not limited to, the issues preliminarily investigated in Volume 3).
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
10The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary
Actions:
transformational & systemic change
1.funding and revenue generation
Action 1.1: Focus legislative efforts on enhanced state funding and new fiscal tools that enable cities,
counties, regions, and state agencies to address needs and manage growth.
2.adaPtive Planning at a regional scale
Action 2.1: Convene a collaborative process to explore how best to achieve the goals of the GMA
through the development of an adaptive management and regionally-based approach that provides
flexibility, coordination, and creates opportunities to address local and changing conditions and needs.
Consult with tribal governments, to determine if and how they may want to be involved in such a
process.
Action 2.2: Initiate government -to -government consultation with tribes in Washington State, to
discuss the key questions asked, and guidance detailed, in the Road Map to Washington’s Future Report.
3.resilience to changing conditions and disasters
Action 3.1: Develop comprehensive and integrated strategies, policies, implementation plans, and
funding for climate adaptation and mitigation on the local, regional, and state level.
Action 3.2: Integrate disaster preparedness, and emergency and recovery planning, with growth
management planning and policies.
4.statewide water Planning
Action 4.1: Establish a collaborative process to develop a statewide water plan for sustainably
protecting, managing, and developing water resources in the state, for current and future generations.
5.equity
Action 5.1: Integrate equity as a goal in growth planning, policies, strategies, and implementing
actions, including adopting it as a goal of the GMA and an adaptive management regionally-based
approach, if developed.
6.economic develoPment
Action 6.1: Develop and implement a statewide economic development strategy that builds on
the unique assets and needs of the diverse regions of the state. Place emphasis on improving rural
economies and slow-growing cities. Identify in the strategy what is needed to support local economic
development plans, including state agency programs and state investments.
Action 6.2: Integrate the capital facilities and economic development planning of Ports with local and
regional capital facilities, growth management, and transportation planning.
Road Map to Washington’s Future 5.B.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 11
Key ReFoRms: to imProve the existing growth Planning framework
state agency coordination with, and suPPort for, regional Plans
•Integrate State agency planning into the GMA and consider how to improve coordination in theimplementation of regional growth management plans.
funding and caPacity for Planning and imPlementation
•Increase grants for cities and counties to plan under the GMA.
•Align funding of county government with the realities of implementing GMA.
monitoring and evaluation of comPrehensive and regional Plans
•Fund and develop guidelines and methods for performance monitoring and measurement ofcomprehensive and regional plan implementation.
education
•Incorporate into already existing required training for elected officials an understanding of policiesin the growth planning framework; the roles of state, regional, and local governments and theresponsibilities of elected officials as policy makers, related to growth management.
•Identify opportunities to strengthen civic education throughout the state and across all sectors,including K-12, as well as community-based programs.
health of the environment
•Add a Planning Goal to the GMA - Resilience to climate change and natural disasters.
•Convene a collaborative process with, at a minimum, representatives of cities, counties, tribes, stateagencies, ports, business, development, planning, and environmental organizations to identify areasof agreement for reforming the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
human health and well-Being
•Add a Planning Goal to the GMA on Human Health and Well-Being. Elevate and fund theimplementation of human health and well-being as a goal in growth management planning andimplementation, including the design and location of transportation and other infrastructure, landuse plans, and development regulations.
•Prepare a “comprehensive planning and civic design for public health” guidebook to assist stateagencies and local governments on ways they could factor human health and well-being intoupdating their comprehensive plans, and the design and implementation of capital facilities suchas state highways, county roads, city streets, and public parks. This could be a joint effort of theDepartments of Commerce and Health, in consultation with tribal governments, state agencies, localgovernments, public health professionals, and county public health departments.
housing
•Develop funding strategies and new fiscal tools for cities and counties to implement the housingelements in their Comprehensive Plans and monitor achievement of housing targets.
•Address availability of middle- income housing, low and middle-income homeownership, and theimpacts of short-term rentals and investment homes on housing availability and affordability.
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Road Map to Washington’s Future
The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 12
annexation
• Convene a collaborative process(es) with, at a minimum, representatives of cities, counties, special districts, boundary review board, planning and environmental organizations to identify areas of agreement for reforming annexation laws in a way that streamlines the process and removes barriers to annexation of land adjacent to existing cities, maintains the fiscal sustainability of counties, clarifies the role of special districts, and reduces conflicts.
economic viaBility of agriculture and other natural resource industries
• Support policies and programs that enhance the economic and environmental viability of agriculture and identify and develop strategies and programs that address the needs of farmers.
• Undertake an assessment that looks at the cumulative impacts of laws and regulations on the ability of agriculture and other natural resource-based industries to be economically viable and to achieve desired environmental outcomes.
transPortation
• Clarify how the six chief goals of the Washington State Transportation Plan can be achieved in context with GMA Planning Goals.
• Provide funding support for WSDOT, WSTC, RTPOs, and local governments to monitor and evaluate how well their plans, policies, and systems are working, in order to enable them to consider appropriate course corrections.
• Consider strengthening the requirements and incentivizing the use of multimodal performance measures within urban growth areas.
• Consider strengthening and funding local planning requirements for freight.
• Integrate state highways into the GMA transportation concurrency system.
coordination with military installations
• Coordinate planning between federal military installations and regional, county, and city governments.
other gma modifications
• Convene multi-sector urban and rural summits to dialogue and help identify priorities for modifications of the GMA that would improve planning and implementation for rural and urban communities.
• Consider revising the update cycle for comprehensive plans from every eight years to every ten years. Begin this process in phases, starting with moving the next update deadline for the four Central Puget Sound counties from 2023 to 2025, in order to synch with population data from the 2020 Federal Census.
• Convene a collaborative process to identify areas of agreement for improvements to the statewide planning framework’s development regulations and permitting processes to shorten the time needed to issue permits and increase predictability and achieve better outcomes both for permit applicants and residents in the vicinity of new development.
• Convene a process to gather additional information and research and to identify areas of agreement for improvements to the GMA provisions for LAMIRDs.
• Integrate school district capital facilities planning, including school siting, with the land use policies and capital plans of local governments.
• Integrate water and sewer districts, school districts, and port district planning into the GMA.
• Initiate a review of State statutes, beginning with the SMA and SEPA, to identify major conflicts or disconnects with the goals and requirements of the GMA, and undertake efforts to reduce gaps, conflicts, or redundancies.
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report))
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/28/2019
Update on Urban Forest Management Plan
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
In 2016, a proposed tree code by the City's Tree Board was considered by the Planning Board at a public
hearing and recommended to not go forward at that time. The City Council concurred. Development of
an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) began in 2017, to have a major focus on City properties,
along with ideas for addressing trees on private properties.
The public process included open houses, website information, press releases, various public meetings
and two public hearings. A first draft of the UFMP was reviewed by both the Tree Board and Planning
Board. Some revisions were made, after which the City Council reviewed the new draft and requested
several other changes. These changes were made and reviewed by the City Council on August 7, 2018.
After further discussion at the Council meeting, a supplemental process began that included a small
informal team of City staff, Tree Board members, a Planning Board member, and one or two active
citizens. The process resulted in another round of edits which were then incorporated by the consultant
into a new ("May 2019") revised draft UFMP. The new version was reviewed by the Tree Board and the
City Council. Ultimately, the Council adopted it on July 16, 2019. A final version of the UFMP--with the
new date of "July 2019"--is attached.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
In the past, certain questions have come up about the purpose of the UFMP and how it compares with
other cities' UFMPs. Below are brief explanations.
1. Does the Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) deal with public properties or
private properties?
The UFMP focuses to a great extent on things the City can do to manage trees on City-owned
property and the public rights-of-way. For private property, it largely focuses on education,
incentives, and information that can be provided to residents to encourage planting the “right
tree in the right place” and using best practices to manage trees on their property. But it also
goes further to say that the City should continue its process to update the code regarding tree
management, especially for development.
2. Is the UFMP similar to an Environmental Impact Statement?
No, the Urban Forest Management Plan is intended to be a plan or policy guide about how trees
7.A
Packet Pg. 34
should be managed/encouraged within Edmonds. An Environmental Impact Statement, on the
other hand, is an analysis of certain impacts of a chosen project or proposal.
3. Is the UFMP for Edmonds similar in scope to the UFMPs of other cities?
Yes, it is similar in scope to the UFMPs of some other jurisdictions, though different in detail.
Examples of other UFMPs in our area include those of Kirkland and Shoreline. (Everett has a
forest management plan but it is only for public trees.)
A new revised draft UFMP (attached) has been adopted. It includes changes that reflect key public
comments, for example:
· More attention to native trees of our area
· Re-write of Diseases and Pests section
· Removal of map & references to specific tree planting “opportunity areas” (but still encouraging
planting)
· Modification of statements not backed by scientific findings for our region
· More background discussion of tree issues
· Additional information about City regulations for development and permitting
· Additional information on selecting trees (“right tree, right place”)
· Information on trimming trees
· Caveat about applicability of a public survey that had been done early in the UFMP process
· Removal of references to specific dollar amounts represented by tree functions (but still
recognizing value of trees in many ways)
The revised UFMP keeps the same five key goals and the actions recommended to achieve
them. (The goals and actions are identified in a section called “How Do We Get There?”)
They are repeated below:
1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage (Note: The original version only said
“Maintain…”)
2. Manage public trees proactively
3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property
4. Provide resources to community to educate/inform on tree planting & care
5. Promote “right tree, right place”.
The UFMP, as adopted, will help the City move forward to implement the document’s
recommendations, which include important actions, such as:
· Updating the tree code
· Utilizing a city arborist
· Updating the Street Tree Plan
· Providing tree incentives
· Establishing a tree bank.
At the Planning Board's August 28 meeting, features of the new UFMP will be highlighted.
Attachments:
Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019
7.A
Packet Pg. 35
Urban Forest Management Plan
City of Edmonds
July, 2019
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Prepared for:
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A
Atascadero, California 93422
Phone: 805-461-7500
Toll Free: 800-966-2021
Fax: 805-461-8501
www.davey.com/drg
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Management Plan
July, 2019
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS
Shane Hope, Director, Development ServicesCarrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Services
Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Diane Cunningham, Administrative AssistantTerri Arnold, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Department
CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair
Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair
Gail Lovell, Position 2William Phipps, Position 4
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - ChairMatt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair
Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1
Daniel Robles, Position 2
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Position 2 – Council PresidentDiane Buckshnis, Position 4 – Council President Pro Tem
Kristiana Johnson, Position 1
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3
Debra Dill, Parks Senior Laborer, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Jennifer Leach, Environmental Education &
Sustainability Coordinator, Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services Department
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager,
Development Services Department
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager,
Public Works Department
Barbara Chase, Position 5
Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6
Vivian Olson, Position 7Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt.
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5Alicia Crank, Position 6
Todd Cloutier, Position 7
Mike Rosen, Alt.
Dave Teitzel, Position 5Thomas Mesaros, Position 6
Neil Tibbott, Position 7
Acknowledgments
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation1
Introduction
Community
Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest8
What Do We Have?
Edmonds’ Urban Forestry History
Regional Plans and Legislation
Urban Tree Canopy Analysis
Existing Urban Forest Practices
What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and Community Input51
How Do We Get There?
Goals and Actions of the Plan57
How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and Measuring Results64
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Appendix C: Community Survey Responses
Appendix D: Open House Summary Report
65
E
Regulatory Framework
Regional Urban Forestry Resources
Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies14
E
Table of Contents
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
1 Scope & Purpose
Background &
Purpose
Urban forest simply means the trees in an urban
area. An urban forest management plan is a long-
term plan for managing trees in a city.
The purpose of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest
Management Plan is to provide guidance for
managing, enhancing, and growing trees in the City
of Edmonds over the next 20 years. Special emphasis
is placed on managing trees on public property and
along the public rights-of-way.
Public Involvement
in Process
Public involvement has been part of developing and
finalizing the Urban Forest Management Plan. The
involvement has included open houses, website
postings, informal survey, press releases, and
submitted public comments, as well as formal public
meetings by the Tree Board, Planning Board, and
City Council.
Plan Overview and
Conclusions
Edmonds, like many cities in the Pacific Northwest,
once had large stands of old-growth trees that
included Douglas fir and Western red cedar. Most of
these were logged off years ago and development of
streets, homes, businesses, schools, churches, and
additional settlement followed. In some places, new
trees have grown up or been planted. For Edmonds
today, tree canopy coverage is estimated to be about
30.3% of the total city area.
Trees have many benefits, but also some challenges.
Selecting the right tree for a particular location
makes a difference in how the tree will perform and
thrive. Appropriate planting methods and tree care
are important too.
The Cty has a program of planting and caring for
trees in public places—such as City parks and along
various streets. In addition, the City has regulations
about certain aspects of trees on private property.
Notably, Edmonds is certified as a “Tree City USA”
city and supports an active Citizens Tree Board. The
Tree Board, as well as City staff, helps provide public
education and participation in volunteer events
to plant trees. Throughout the community, many
residents also value and take care of trees on their
property.
To promote future sustainability and urban forest
health, thoughtful planning and actions are needed.
The Plan identifies five long-range goals to help the
City move forward. The goals are:
1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
2. Manage public trees proactively
3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on
private property
4. Provide resources to the community
to educate/inform on tree planting and care
5. Promote “right tree, right place”.
Specific action strategies are identified to address
each of the Plan’s long-range goals. These would be
implemented over time, as resources are available,
to address priority needs. Furthermore, the Urban
Forest Management Plan should be reviewed every
five to ten years and updated as needed.
Executive Summary
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
What
Do We
Have?
What
Do We
Want?
How
Are We
Doing?
How Do
We Get
There?
2Scope & Purpose
Overview
The plan includes long-range goals and action
strategies to promote sustainability, species diversity,
and greater canopy cover. Publicly-managed trees
along streets, in parks, and at City facilities are
collectively referred to as the community urban
forest. Privately owned trees are also considered
part of the urban forest in this plan because of their
function and contribution to the sustainability of the
overall urban forest in Edmonds; however, the City
recognizes that it has a limited role in the care of
private trees.
Recognizing the significance of environmental and
socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their
relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP
aims to:
Illustrate the value and benefits of trees.
Promote shared vision and collaboration
between community residents.
Establish benchmarks and metrics to monitor the
long-term success of management strategies.
Enhance the health and sustainability of the
community urban forest.
Increase the vital benefits that the trees provide
to Edmonds and the region.
Ensure that resources are in place to support the
care and management of the community’s trees.
This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for
the long-term and short-term in support of this
purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to
adequately manage community trees. It is intended
to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the
exploration and implementation of the actions as
funding and resources permit.
The development of the UFMP included a
comprehensive review of existing policies and
regulations, current funding and maintenance levels,
analysis of the extent, condition, and composition
of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns,
and community input.
Plan Foundation
Spending any amount of time outdoors in Edmonds
will reveal the abundant and diverse natural
resources found within City parks and surrounding
residences and businesses. Besides the obvious
amenities available to a city on the coastline of the
Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder
in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the
buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the
shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help
people achieve the unique experience referred
to as; “an Edmonds kind of day.” All of the trees
in Edmonds make up the City’s urban forest tree
resource. Without active management, this urban
forest is at risk.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
3 Scope & Purpose
In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan that formally recognized that the community
places a high value on the conservation of the urban
forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
is intended to be an element that aligns in support
of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP
aligns with the intentions of, “providing a framework
for moving the Edmonds community toward a
sustainable future that integrates and responds
to environmental, economic, and social needs in a
way which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (Comp Plan, 2016).
The following principles for urban forest management
set the framework for the UFMP:
Optimize the ecosystem services provided by trees.
Control tree maintenance costs to the community.
Create pathways to stable and predictable funding.
Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with trees.
The structure and organization of the UFMP are
based on the understanding of what we have, what
we want, how we get there, and how we are doing.
This structure, referred to as adaptive management,
is commonly used for resource planning and
management (Miller, R.W., 1988) and provides a good
conceptual framework for managing community
forest resources.
The plan development process involved a
comprehensive review and assessment of the
existing community tree resource, including
composition, value, and environmental benefits.
The process explored community values, existing
regulations, and policies related to community
trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders,
internal and external, who played a role in the
planning, design, care, and advocacy around the
community forest. These stakeholders include the
general public, City departments, the Citizens’ Tree
Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD).
Each of these stakeholders contributed to the
development of this Plan.
What Do We Have?
Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget
Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region,
Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and
waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown
in population, the forest has been urbanized and
divided for parks, homes, and businesses. Recognizing
the role of trees in the community and the necessity
to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape
Plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines
as part of the general aesthetic goals for the
community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015,
elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy
that has since been the source for many of the City’s
tree management decisions.
In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest
is generally understood to be required by the Growth
Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
4Executive Summary
Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the
Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents
define the reach of existing regulations and policies
within which care for the urban forest is mandated:
Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental
Quality Goal A - “…Protect environmental
quality within the Edmonds community
through the enforcement of community-based
environmental regulations.”
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016)
- Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation
Goal 4 – “Preserve and provide access to
natural resource lands for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education.”
• Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest and
increase tree canopy in Edmonds.
• Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban forest using
appropriate maintenance of street and park
trees, clear removal and replacement policies
and providing information about urban forestry
to property owners.
Streestcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate
Sustainable Practices. In redesigning the corridor,
it is critical that the new interventions improve the
street’s performance. This includes enhancing the
street environment and gateways for pedestrian
benefits through an Urban Forestry program in
the Downtown/Waterfront area.
The urban forest is a combination of both public and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct control of and responsibility for are defined as the community tree resource. This includes public trees in parks, along rights-of-way, and around City facilities. Managing any resource begins with defining what is being managed and establishing benchmarks along with clearly defined goals and expectations. While public trees along major arterials and high-profile areas are well-known and routinely cared for by City staff, other public street trees are expected to be maintained by the adjacent property owner. Aside from individual development applications, the
City does not have a method to take an inventory
or track the history, status, or location of public
trees. In addition, providing adequate care for trees
requires a level of knowledge and a skill set that
many property owners do not have.
The planning process for this UFMP included an
assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study
provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution
of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the
average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of
historical change estimates that the City has lost 114
acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there
was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%.
The primary challenges and opportunities for urban
forest management are:
Private owners control the majority of tree
canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit
tree removal, except when the trees are
associated with development or are within an
environmentally critical area.
There is limited knowledge about the condition
of trees in the urban forest.
There is an estimated 1,651 acres is
theoretically available for planting to expand
the urban forest canopy1.
The views of scenic places are fundamental to
Edmonds’ identity as a community and require
balanced consideration with the care of the urban
forest. Scenic views are highly valued in long-
established development. At the same time,
appreciation of trees—especially “the right trees in
the right place”—is a value shared by most residents.
1 This estimate is partly based on an analysis of low-lying
vegetation areas.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Canopy
30%
Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation
27%
Bare Soils2%
Water7%
5 Executive Summary
Figure 1: Land Cover
Figure 1: Land Cover
Land Cover
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
6Executive Summary
What Do We Want?
The plan development process included substantial
outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and
non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad
perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds’
urban forest. Through open house forums and
public meetings, the City has found an engaged
set of residents with varying opinions on matters
pertaining to the care of the urban forest.
City Staff were also consulted during plan
development, with City code and public safety
being the main considerations when making tree
care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive
approach to tree management by performing work
on trees as problems are discovered, but they also
look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic
public places.
In general, stakeholders from both the community
and City Staff share the following desired outcomes
for the UFMP:
Preservation and Enhancement of Tree Canopy
Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the
Community Tree Resource
Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and
Habitat
Increased Outreach and Education
Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and
Non-profit Groups
Strategies and Policies to Minimize Potential
Tree Conflicts
Open house forums and public meetings provided perspective on community interests and concerns about the urban forest.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 1 - Maintain citywide canopy coverage
Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro-actively
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
Goal 5 - Promote “Right tree, right place”
7 Executive Summary
How Do We Get
There?
The long-range strategic goals provided in this
Plan are proposed to address the three components
of a sustainable urban forestry program through
specific actions:
Urban Forest Asset Actions - which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest.
Municipal Resource Actions - which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments.
Community Resource Actions - which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban
forest stewardship.
How Are We Doing?
The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the
urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching
framework for urban forestry operations, policies,
and programs. It presents a high-level review of
urban forest management in the City, including
historical context and an exploration of the benefits
of Edmonds’ trees. Building upon that information,
the Plan connects the community’s vision for the
urban forest with appropriate goals and actions.
This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a
20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short
and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting
the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of
operational objectives. The success of the UFMP
will be measured through the realization of goals
and will be demonstrated through the health of
the urban forest and increased environmental
benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement
of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore,
the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP
will be how successful it is in meeting community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
community tree resource.
Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
8Introduction
Trees play an essential role in the community
of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and
intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring
communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research
demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve
the local environment and lessen the impact resulting
from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees can improve
air quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage
stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat
for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature.
In addition to these direct improvements, healthy
urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a
community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were
found to add an average of $8,870 to homes’ sales
price as well as reduce time on the market for home
sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies
on the business benefits of trees have shown how
retail districts promote longer and more frequent
shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban
trees support a more livable community, fostering
psychological health and providing residents with a
greater sense of place (Kuo, 2003). Community trees,
both public and private, soften the urban hardscape
by providing a green sanctuary and making the City
of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work,
and play. The City has emphasized the importance
of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so
much so that public trees are defined as a valued
community resource, a critical component of the
urban infrastructure, and a part of the City’s identity.
Community
Early settlements were built in the City to access
natural resources, where shingle mills became the
primary industry. Although construction of the
Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was
expected to be the main source of growth in the
City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to
Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the
town grow and prosper.
Edmonds’ population, from 2017 State estimates, is
41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square
miles. It is the third largest city in the county after
Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is
expected to be 45,550.
The urban forest in this community is defined by its
public and privately managed trees. Through parks
and public rights-of-way, the City maintains a diverse
population of trees intended for city streetscapes
(typically nursery grown hardwoods), as well as
native trees (naturally regenerating conifers and
deciduous trees). Privately managed trees may be
remnant forest trees connected with early logging
history, naturally growing native trees and even
invasive hardwoods.
Community Vision for the UFMP
Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of
the City as an attractive, sustainable community for
all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees
as contributing to that vision and directs that an
urban forest management plan be used as a guide for
decisions on managing the forest resource, especially
focusing on public land and rights-of-way. For private
lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives
to encourage good tree management practices.
Edmonds’ trees are a valued community resource
Introduction
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
9 Introduction
Benefits and
Challenges of the
Urban Forest
Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate
the effects of urbanization and development, which
protects and enhances lives within the community.
In general, there are five (5) important ways in
which trees provide benefits: Water Quality, Carbon
Sequestration, Energy Savings, Air Quality, and
Socioeconomic benefits.
Water Quality
Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of
contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian
areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human
health and wildlife, including salmon populations.
Requirements for surface water management
are becoming more stringent and costly for both
developers and the City.
By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into
stormwater management planning, runoff volumes,
peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all
be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need
for constructing stormwater management facilities
and the cost of treatment to remove sediment and
other pollutants.
Trees improve and protect water quality by:
Intercepting Rainfall – Trees intercept rainfall in
their canopy, which act as a mini-reservoir. Some
water evaporates from the canopy and some
slowly soaks into the ground, reducing the total
amount of runoff (Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy
interception also lessens soil compaction, which
in turn further reduces runoff.
Increasing soil capacity and infiltration –
Root growth and decomposition increase
the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by
rainfall and snowmelt resulting in slower
percolation rates and increasing the filtration of
contaminants (Xiao, et al., 2007).
Reducing soil erosion – Tree roots reduce
the flow and volume of stormwater runoff,
avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and
other pollutants from entering streams, rivers,
Lake Washington, and the Puget Sound (WA
Department of Ecology, 2011).
Providing salmon habitat – Shade from trees
helps to cool warm urban runoff, which poses a
threat to anadromous fish, like salmon. Shade
from trees provides lakeside and riparian habitat
for salmon and cools water temperatures,
increasing dissolved oxygen, which is essential to
salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012).
Typical overview of waterfront homes in Edmonds.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
10Introduction
Stormwater runoff from streets needs to be controlled. Trees
will slow and intercept stormwater, reducing the burden on stormwater infrastructure.
Carbon Sequestration
As environmental awareness continues to increase,
governments are paying particular attention to global
warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes
the Earth’s surface it is reflected back into space as
infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb
some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in
the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the
Earth’s surface. Many chemical compounds in the
Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), water
vapor, and human-made gases/aerosols. As GHGs
increase, the amount of energy radiated back into
space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the
atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature
of the earth is resulting in changes in weather, sea
levels, and land-use patterns, commonly referred
to as “climate change.” In the last 150 years, since
large-scale industrialization began, the levels of
some GHGs, including CO2, have increased by 25%
(U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces
greenhouse gases. The carbon-related function of
trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored
in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption
rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways:
Directly – Through growth and the sequestration
of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass.
Indirectly – By lowering the demand for air
conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions
associated with electric power generation and
natural gas consumption.
Energy Savings
Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation
solutions to keep rates low for their customers,
reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately,
to be good environmental stewards. Energy services
delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by
Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD).
This organization recognizes how trees can reduce
energy consumption and encourages Edmonds
residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy
for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017).
Urban trees and forests modify the environment
and conserve energy in three principal ways:
Shade dwellings and impervious surfaces –
Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed
as 34% of the total land base (Edmonds,
2017). Shade from trees reduces the amount
of radiant energy absorbed and stored by
these impervious surfaces, thereby reducing
the urban heat island effect, a term that
describes the increase in urban temperatures
in relation to surrounding locations (Simpson
& McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also
reduces the amount of energy used to cool a
structure (Simpson, 2002).
Transpiration – Transpiration releases water
vapor from tree canopies, which cools
the surrounding area. Through shade and
transpiration, trees and vegetation within
an urban setting modify the environment
and reduce heat island effects. Temperature
differences of more than 9°F (5°C) have been
observed between city centers without canopy
cover and more forested suburban areas
(Akbari, et al., 1997).
Wind reduction – Trees can reduce wind speeds
by up to 50% and influence the movement
of air and pollutants along streets and out of
urban canyons. By reducing air movement into
buildings and against conductive surfaces (e.g.,
glass, metal siding), trees can reduce conductive
heat loss.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
11 Introduction
Air Quality
Urban trees improve air quality in five
fundamental ways:
Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and smoke)
Absorbing gaseous pollutants
Shade and transpiration
Reducing power plant emissions
Increasing oxygen levels
They protect and improve air quality by intercepting
particulate matter (PM10), including dust, ash, pollen,
and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in
the tree canopy where they are eventually washed
harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb
harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (O3), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Shade and
transpiration reduces the formation of O3, which
is created during higher temperatures. Scientists
are now finding that some trees may absorb more
volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) than previously
thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010).
VOC’s are a class of carbon-based particles emitted
from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other
human activities.
By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce
emissions from the generation of power. And,
through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase
oxygen levels.
Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic,
and Health Benefits
While perhaps the most difficult to quantify, the
aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from trees may
be among their greatest contributions, including:
Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics
Shade and privacy
Wildlife habitat
Opportunities for recreation
Reduction in violent crime
Creation of a sense of place and history
Reduced illness and reliance on medication and
quicker recovery from injury or illness
Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage
of property values, through higher sales prices where
individual trees and forests are located.
In addition, trees and forests have positive economic
benefits for retailers. There is evidence that trees
promote better business by stimulating more
frequent and extended shopping and a willingness
to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf, 2007).
Trees and forestlands provide important habitat
(foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals,
birds, and fish and other aquatic species, along
with limitless opportunities for recreation, offering
a healthful respite from the pressures of work and
everyday stress.
The needles of these douglas fir trees help improve air quality.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
12Introduction
A mix of large and small trees in a park.
Tree Selection related to
Location and Other Factors
Selecting tree species that are appropriate for the
expected functions, maintenance requirements, and
locations in which they are planted is important.
Generally, native trees should be considered for
planting or replacement whenever practical.
Along City streets, relatively compact trees that
add color and interest, without tending to upheave
pavement, are typically desirable. An example is the
Bowhall maple, which has been used in numerous
street-side locations in Edmonds. When street
trees are planted on the same side of the street as
SnoPUD overhead power lines, additional caution
is needed in selecting appropriate species. These
poles also usually carry major communication lines.
Such facilities are often located at the very edge of
the City’s rights-of-way or in planter strips between
the sidewalk and the curb. Trees should be selected
that do not result in the need for frequent topping
or heavy pruning to keep them underneath the
communication space on PUD poles, which can be
as low as 15 feet above ground level.
In large spaces, native coniferous trees may be very
appropriate. Some of these species (such as Douglas
fir) can grow very tall (up to 200 feet) and wide (30
feet). They are well-suited to the Pacific Northwest
climate and have needles year-round. Also, various
types of deciduous trees, including maple and oak,
may be appropriate in large spaces.
In view areas and in many relatively small spaces,
lower-growing or less-spreading trees may be a
good choice. For example, vine maples have colorful
leaves in autumn and at mature height are generally
no more than 15 feet tall. However, the branches of
this species can spread wide, up to 20 feet. Other
species, even fruit trees and small specimen trees,
may fit well in settings where tree height or width
needs to be limited.
In critical areas where wildlife habitat exists, native
trees should generally be chosen for planting.
Depending on the type of habitat and space
availability, such trees could include Western red
cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and dogwood.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree roots lifting a sidewalk.13 Introduction
Trees in streetscapes can grow into conflict with sidewalks.
Right tree, right place
Planting a tree is something that provide a sense
of accomplishment and something to admire for
decades. However, it is not a decision that should
be made without careful consideration. When
considering what tree to plant and where to plant it,
one should remember the widely used phrase “Right
Tree, Right Place.” Choosing the right tree depends
on many factors including soil type, climate, and the
amount of space the tree will have both underground
and overhead.
It is important to choose a tree that does not require
more space in the future than a site can provide. To
avoid any conflicts with overhead obstructions (e.g.,
power lines, utility poles, buildings) or underground
obstructions (e.g., pipes, building foundations),
consider the tree’s height, root growth, and shape
at maturity. While above-ground growth is a little
easier to envision, a tree needs plenty of room to
grow underground too; tree roots can extend up
to two to three times the width of the crown (the
leaves and branches of the tree).
Apart from the physical space available for a tree to
grow, one may consider whether the property is in a
view shed and how the tree at maturity will impact
the views.
Factors to consider when selecting a tree to plant.
1. The tree’s purpose will impact the suitability of
different tree species, whether used for shade,
aesthetic beauty, wind protection, screening, or
other purposes.
2. Size and location of the tree, including available
space for roots and branches, affects the decision
on which species to plant.
3. Crown form or shape varies among species,
including round, oval, columnar, V-shaped, or
pyramidal shapes. Consider how the shape of the
tree works in the space available.
Note on Native Trees: Edmonds was once covered in
forests of old growth Douglas fir, western red cedar,
and western hemlock. While these trees were once
the right tree in the right place, they often may not
be appropriate for urban environments. In natural
conditions, a Douglas fir can grow to more than
200 feet in height with a diameter of five to eight
feet. While the City’s parks and the larger zoned
properties (12,000 – 20,000 square foot minimum
lot size) primarily located in north Edmonds may
provide sufficient growing space for these large native
species, they may not be appropriate landscape
trees within the Edmonds “bowl area” with its more
dense development and view concerns.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
An example of skirting-up; the lower limbs on this tree have
been removed to provide drivers with a clearer view. 14Introduction
weakened top as the side branches all try to grow
up. In addition, the cut top often becomes an entry
site for decay organisms that weaken the tree and
increase the danger of a top breaking in high winds.
For broad-leaved trees such as maple, madrone or
oaks, severe topping is even more damaging. It can
seriously harm the tree’s health and cause various
safety hazards.
While views are important, other factors such as critical
areas must also be taken into consideration. The north
Edmonds view shed is associated with significant
slopes (potential landslide hazards are slopes 40%
and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that
has specific regulations that apply to development
in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC – Earth Subsidence
and Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical
area regulations. The mechanical and hydrogeological
benefits which trees and other vegetation provide
to maintain slope stability and reduce erosion are
well documented. Tree maintenance activities that
maintain the health of existing trees will also help
maintain slope stability.
A landowner should explore alternative options to
tree removal or topping. Below is a list of several
trimming practices derived from Vegetation
Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property
Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in
combination to create views without compromising
tree health or slope stability.
View-enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers
1. Windowing
2. Interlimbing
3. Skirting-up
Note: In any pruning practice or combination,
60% or more of the original crown should be
retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The
removal of too much live foliage can reduce
the tree’s ability to supply food to the roots,
thereby weakening them.
Windowing. This pruning practice allows a
view “window” through the existing foliage of
the tree’s canopy. In pruning major limbs and
Trees and Views
To some people, trees are the view and to others, trees
block the view. The City of Edmonds is blessed with
magnificent views of Puget Sound and the Olympic
Mountain range. These views add to the quality of
life here, as well as to property values. When views
become obstructed, enjoyment of one’s property as
well as property values may be impacted. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan has many policies recognizing
the protection of public views (views from parks or
view corridors down streets and at street ends), but
does not specifically address private view protection.
Not all areas of Edmonds have views of Puget
Sound and the Olympics. While a view shed study
of the City of Edmonds has not been completed,
the primary view areas are located in the Bowl and
the properties on the west facing slopes of north
Edmonds. When considering planting trees in these
view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve
the views of neighboring properties.
Topping of trees for views is often the first
consideration of landowners. However, topping is not
generally recognized as good arboricultural practice.
A topped tree requires periodic maintenance to
maintain its reduced size. That can become expensive
in the long-term. Also, conifers will often form a
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
A tree with multiple stems may become a hazard without
proper care.15 Introduction
Challenges
Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest
requires the coordination of many different
stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated
resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with
many other elements of the city. This can result in
conflict or challenges including:
Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure -
Roots and branches of trees can damage nearby
sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings.
Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to the
community. Storm events, accidents, improper
maintenance, and the natural death of trees can
all create structural weaknesses for trees and the
surrounding area.
View Issues - Edmonds is known for the
majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is possible
for trees to block these views if they grow too
large or were planted in improper locations.
Maintenance - Trees are living infrastructure.
As such, they require active and regular
maintenance. Structural pruning, irrigation, and
the management of pests and diseases are some
critical maintenance practices that must occur to
ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest.
Choice of Tree Species - Different tree species have
different needs, growth patterns, and resistances
to pests and diseases. A diverse palette of species
improves the resilience of the urban forest.
branch whorls, sections that obscure a view are
removed. Many people find that this technique
creates an aesthetically pleasing effect.
Interlimbing. The removal of entire branch
whorls or individual branches throughout the
canopy allows more light to pass through, as
well as reducing wind resistance of the tree.
This practice can be used in conjunction with
windowing to improve views.
Skirting-up. Limbing the tree up from the bottom
allows a clear line of sight. Instead of an obscuring
mass of foliage, the tree trunk is the only object
between you and the view. This technique is
useful when the tree in question is located high
on the bluff face or upon the tableland. Relatively
more branches can be removed with this
technique because the lower branches contribute
less nutrients to the tree than higher branches.
Pruning Broad-leaved Trees
Pruning and trimming of broad-leaved trees is usually
more complicated, especially for trees grown in the
wild. Generally, short-lived species such as alder,
willow and Bitter cherry are not worth pruning,
while trees like madrona, white oak, bigleaf maple,
and vine maple will warrant the expense. Crown
reduction is one of the most common methods that
arborists use to control the size of the tree and keep
its shape perfect. This method involves reducing the
foliage of the tree while still preserving the general
structure of the crown; doing this successfully trims
the overall shape of the tree and controls its size.
In a general sense, limbs that are located on the
uppermost portion of the tree canopy are cut shorter
in order to decrease the tree’s height. However, they
are only removed to the next lateral growth to be
able to ensure that they heal faster and grow again
properly. It is highly recommended that only 20%
or less of the tree’s canopy should be cut at once in
order to avoid the tree from suffering.
Properties owners should consult a certified arborist
prior to undertaking any tree maintenance activity.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement.16Introduction
To effectively manage the urban forest, it’s essential
to have knowledge and understanding of what exists
today. This section lays the groundwork for the
UFMP with historical context, current policies and
practices and understanding about the existing state
of the urban forest.
History of Urban
Forestry in Edmonds
Trees have been an important part of the City’s
character and economy since its founding. However,
to understand and manage the urban forest has
depended upon which trees are being considered and
where the trees were located. This is evident from
the various locations where trees are referenced in
the City code as well as the variety of departments
whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds
had been designated by the National Arbor Day
Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has
had city staff in different departments managing
tree issues within the City for decades.
Recognizing the role of trees in the community and
the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a
Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting
guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of
the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015,
elements of this plan introduced tree care policy
which has been the source for much of the City’s
tree management decisions ever since.
In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens’
Tree Board to assist in the development of tree
ordinances and to encourage the planting and
maintaining of trees. This is an early example of
the City taking steps towards management of tree
resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public
and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this
board was a proposal to the City for updated tree-
related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree
codes, through a public comment period, were
rejected in part due to public concerns about private
property rights, but also because the City felt that it
had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the
recommended codes.
From these related events, it’s clear that the
community has assumed an increasing level of care
for the urban forest that would benefit from long-
term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from
the State and Federal Government for environmental
stewardship requirements have also played a
significant role in defining the level of care for the
urban forest that exist in Edmonds today.
Of special note are three policy sources that directly
influence the management of urban forestry
and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State
Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The
PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive
Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on
the development and operation of Edmonds urban
forest are discussed below.
What Do We Have?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common ground vegetation in wetland areas
The state of Washington
requires the City of Edmonds
to manage and protect it’s
critical areas.
17 What Do We Have?
Growth Management Act (1990)
In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the
Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated
and unplanned growth posed a threat to the
environment, sustainable economic development
and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique
among states, the Act requires that municipalities
prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide
for growth and development in a manner that is
locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and
affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are
required to adopt critical areas regulations by the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines
critical areas as:
“Critical areas” include the following areas and
ecosystems:
a. Wetlands;
b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers
used for potable water;
c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
d. Frequently flooded areas; and
e. Geologically hazardous areas.
Cities are required to include the best available
science in developing policies and regulations to
protect the functions and values of critical areas.
Further to that end, jurisdictions must review,
evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas
ordinances per an update schedule.
Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical
areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps
with the protection of the urban forest. The trees
in the urban forest increase soil security to protect
wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the
branches and canopy provide ample real estate for
wildlife to call home. It is important that the City
plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole,
not just critical areas.
This notion is reinforced in Washington
Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which
specifies when classifying forest land resources
that “Cities are encouraged to coordinate their
forest resource lands designations with their county
and any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities
should not review forest resource lands designations
solely on a parcel-by-parcel basis.”
Edmonds has established environmental quality goals
in support of the legislation and in order to protect
critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying
policies for the jurisdiction’s critical areas program.
Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
18What Do We Have?
The Comprehensive Plan (2016)
As an overarching guiding document, the
Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions and
plans into one cohesive document. The Comprehensive
Plan is structured by element, then goals, then policies.
The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These
elements include goals and policies that can be
directly supported through this UFMP. These are the
community sustainability elements of the plan and
include goals and policies associated with:
Sustainability
Climate Change Goals and Policies, including
support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US
Mayor’s Climate Change Agreement
Community Health
Environmental Quality
The urban forest is a key component of the community
sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks to
protect environmental quality and sets the first policy
(A.1) as to: Ensure that the city’s natural vegetation,
especially native vegetation, associated with its urban
forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are
protected and enhanced...” A.2 sets to protect and
retain the urban forest, native vegetation, and wildlife
habitat areas. This includes techniques such as tree
retention, which should be integrated into land use
and development codes. As the urban forest grows,
so too does the habitat and environmental quality.
The community culture and urban design element’s
implementation involves tree policy as well. In this
element, the streetscape section defines the many
ways that trees enhance the community: “Trees are an
asset to the community. They help absorb stormwater,
provide habitat for wildlife, clean pollution from the air,
and give both summer shade and aesthetic pleasure.”
In this way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the
policy commitment to Community Health, through
the preservation and expansion of the urban forest.
Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape
Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and
Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006.
The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for
the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a
“Complete Streets” program which accommodates
the needs of all users along streets, including a safe
space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree
management component. This section concludes
with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds
should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an
Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
The community sustainability element also includes
two other sections that are interconnected with the
urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas.
Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues
surrounding the environment and climate change,
the City of Edmonds formally expressed support
for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No.
1129, and joined the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No.
1130. A crucial component of these climate change
policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with
several benchmarks:
1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green-house
gases in the state to 1990 levels;
2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse
gases in the state to twenty-five percent below
1990 levels;
3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global
climate stabilization levels by reducing overall
emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels,
or seventy percent below the state’s expected
emissions that year.
The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of
meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon
through many ways including; reducing energy
demand for shaded buildings, acquiring carbon dioxide
for the photosynthesis, and sequestering carbon. The
potential for carbon sequestration is determined
by maximum tree sizes, lifespans, growth rates, and
tolerances to urban stress. Therefore, growing long-
lasting and healthy trees directly contributes to the
success of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan climate
change goals.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
19 What Do We Have?
The PROS Plan (2016)
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the
management and development of Edmonds’ parks,
recreation and open spaces, and the services
provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department. The PROS plan has been
regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to
remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves.
Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community
Cultural Plan on a six-year cycle, in alignment with the
requirements of the Washington State Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility
for federal and state grant programs. To this end,
the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous
species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is
also an important tool in meeting Washington’s
Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and
achieving the important citywide goals outlined in
the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan
defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically
addresses urban forestry.
Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat
Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access
to natural resources for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education. The
eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting
areas with critical habitats and natural resources.
Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective
4.5, which states “Expand the urban forest and
increase tree canopy in Edmonds”. Under each
goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and
initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal
4 is: “Steward the urban forest using appropriate
maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal
and replacement policies and providing information
about urban forestry to property owners.” This
demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the
people of Edmonds as manifested through existing
official documents addressing the urban forest and
urban tree canopy.
Purchasing of Forested Properties
The City’s policies with regard to the acquisition
of open space (including the potential purchase of
forested properties) are contained with the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land
acquisition is included in the capital project budget
and the PROS plan notes that “expansions of the
parks system will target the gaps identified in this
plan and take advantage of opportunities as they
emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds,
this approach will require vigilance and proactive
pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities
for both parks and open spaces. The City’s inclusion
of this item in the capital projects list recognizes
the importance of swift action when rare property
acquisition opportunities become available.” A
specific policy addressing the purchase of forested
properties could be considered for adding to the
PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining
the City’s tree cover through the selective purchase
of forest properties as opportunities arise.
Forested properties can be valuable acquisitions to maintain
City’s tree cover.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
20What Do We Have?
Community Tree
Resource
Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights-of-
way and around City facilities are the community tree
resource. These trees can be the most actively managed
population by the City and provide the best indicators to
showcase its vision of a well-managed and sustainable
urban forest condition. A well-managed urban forest
is healthier and more resilient to pests, disease, and
climate fluctuations. As a result, a well-managed urban
forest is also more cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve
over time, managers revise their strategies for individual
tree species based on past performance and emerging
prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived
organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds, are
often a combination of well-adapted, high-performance
species mixed with some species that may be less
desirable and require more attention.
There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree resource
management that no single species should represent
greater than 10% of the total population, and no single
genus more than 20% (Clark et al, 1997). Achieving
a diverse population of trees can help to minimize
detrimental consequences in the event of storms,
drought, disease, pests, or other stressors that can
severely affect an urban forest and the flow of benefits
and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such
as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald
ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) are both examples
of unexpected, devastating, and costly pests and
pathogens that highlight the importance of diversity
and the balanced distribution of species and genera.
Current operations in the City that care for the
community trees do not keep suitable records of their
tree resource to summarize within this UFMP. Public trees
along major arterials or high-profile areas of the City are
well-known and routinely cared for by City Staff, but as
an overall management tool, the City does not maintain
data about these trees as a collective inventory of their
green infrastructure assets. Managing for appropriate
tree species can help control maintenance costs, reduce
damage to infrastructure, and manage the need for pest
and disease control measures.
Summary Considerations for
Planning
These documents demonstrate the existing
regulations and policies within which care for the
urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope
defined within these documents that the values of
the Edmonds community, and Washington State at
large, require that urban forest management include
strategies to improve the care and conservation
of all trees. This includes updating the Street Tree
Plan, consideration for improving and preserving
trees near waterways, critical areas, habitats,
and on private parcels. Equipped with this policy
background and mandate to manage the urban
forest, it’s essential to plan with as much knowledge
about the community tree resource as possible.
The PROS plan (2016) has specific goals for the City to steward
the urban forest.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
21 What Do We Have?
Tree Canopy Cover
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is
the driving force behind the urban forest’s ability
to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al,
1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits.
Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and
stems of trees and other woody plants that cover
the ground when viewed from above.
Understanding the location and extent of tree
canopy is critical to developing and implementing
sound management strategies that will promote the
smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds’ urban
forest and the invaluable benefits it provides.
In addition to understanding the tree canopy as a
whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is often
categorized by the amount of fragmentation. Often,
the health and diversity of the overall canopy will
vastly improve when there is less fragmented canopy,
and there are more linkages between multiple patches
of forest. These categories of canopy include:
Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists within
and relatively far from the forest/non-forest
boundary (i.e., forested areas surrounded by
more forested areas).
Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that defines
the boundary between core forests and
relatively small clearings (perforations) within
the forest landscape.
Patch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small-forested
area that is surrounded by non-forested land cover.
Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the
boundary between core forests, and large
core forests and large non-forested land
cover features, approximately 328 feet. When
large enough, edge canopy may appear to be
unassociated with core forests.
The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment
in June 2017 using a heads-up digitizing approach
and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf-on aerial imagery
captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall assessment
does not distinguish between publicly-owned and
privately-owned trees because trees provide benefits
to the community beyond property lines. The results
of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and
distribution of tree canopy within Edmonds.
The data developed during the assessment becomes
an important part of the City’s GIS database. It also
provides a foundation for developing community
goals and urban forest policies. With these data,
managers can determine:
The location and extent of canopy over time
(tracking changes)
The location of available planting space
(potential planting area)
The best strategies to increase canopy in
underserved areas
The data, combined with existing and emerging
urban forestry research and applications, can
provide additional guidance in two ways:
Finding a balance between growth and
preservation
Identifying and assessing urban forestry
opportunities.
An example of perforated canopy in a park setting.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
22What Do We Have?
Canopy Cover Summary
The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of
9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of
tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9
square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water.
By analyzing high-resolution aerial imagery, Davey
Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land
cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds:
30.3% existing canopy, including trees and
woody shrubs (525 acres)
1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground
6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy
is unfeasible
27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying
vegetation
34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads,
parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres)
From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from
32.3% to 30.3%
Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering
suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the
existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of
3,495 acres
Private residential properties have most of the
canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and
commercial (4.1%) properties.
Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County
Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres)
followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and
Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres)
Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds “bowl” area.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Canopy
30%
Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation
27%
Bare Soils2%
Water7%
23 What Do We Have?
Figure 1: Land Cover
Figure 1: Land Cover
Land Cover
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
24What Do We Have?
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to
improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top)
leads to isolation and declining habitat quality.
Canopy Fragmentation
As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds’ existing
UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the
distribution of canopy (Figure 3). The overall health
of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the
ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and
humans to interact collectively as a whole.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
will vastly improve by creating linkages between
multiple patches of forest.
Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable
management tool due to the importance of Edmonds’
critical areas and environmental stewardship. The
analysis found that Edmonds’ urban forest includes
the following:
10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy
8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy
55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy
26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy
Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy
categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Patch Forest56%
Edge Forest
26%
Perforated Forest8%
Core Forest
10%
25 What Do We Have?
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Forest Fragmentation
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
26What Do We Have?
Park Canopy Cover
The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344
acres (5.6% of all land area) (Figure 4). Edmonds’
parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%.
Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site
and size. Edmonds’ largest park, Southwest County
Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and an
average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second-largest,
Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres of canopy
cover, which represents 93.5% of the land area. The
high canopy cover of Yost Memorial Park reflects
that it is one of the few areas of native vegetation
that remain in Edmonds. The park contains mixed
stands of douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), sitka
spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja
plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural
history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest
park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy
(9.9 % canopy cover).
Of the four largest parks (Southwest County, Yost
Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all
have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%).
However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not
currently near maximum potential canopy.
An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the
parks where there is a much larger gap between
current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. The
5 biggest parks are listed in Table 7 of this section .
Canopy cover in Yost Park.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sierra Park
Pine Ridge Park
Maplewood
Park
Seaview Park
Hutt Park
Hummingbird
Hill Park
Yost Park
Edmonds
City Park
Edmonds
Marsh
Park Name Total
Acres
Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
% Potential
Canopy
Southwest
County Park 118.55 117.05 98.73 99.47
Yost Memorial
Park 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45
Meadowdale
Beach Park 25.54 25.16 98.50 99.77
Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66
Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 24.91
27 What Do We Have?
Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park
Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Tree Canopy By Park
Meadowdale
Beach Park
Southwest County Park
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sensitive Area Total
Acres
Patch
Forest
Acres
Edge
Forest
Acres
Perforated
Forest
Acres
Core Forest
Acres
Non
Forest
Acres
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 1.35 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 10.52 35.32 4.61 16.53 51.36
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21
Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 0.51 1.76 59.36
28What Do We Have?
Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding and
Refuge)
Nesting Habitat (great blue heron)
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon)
Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle)
Wetlands Area
Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are
areas of habitat that are relatively important to
various species of native fish and wildlife. In Edmonds,
most of the biodiversity areas and corridors are in
core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest. This is congruent
with what theory would suggest, because corridors
are continuous areas of habitat.
Nesting habitat for the great blue heron is comprised
of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round
and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre-
nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area,
habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the
outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests.
In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to reduce
human noise pollution during the breeding months
(February - September). Nesting habitat in Edmonds
is located primarily in non-forest areas (58%). This
value warrants further investigation to determine
optimal canopy levels.
Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Critical Areas
The Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in
Washington are required to adopt critical areas
regulations. The GMA states that critical areas
include the following categories and ecosystems:
Wetlands
Areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Frequently flooded areas; and
Geologically hazardous areas
Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree
canopy can reveal the important relationship that
trees provide in the conservation and protection of
these environments. Two critical area designations
are especially important to urban forest management
in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep
slopes (Tables 8 & 9).
Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority
habitats and species that have been identified for
conservation and management.
DRG analyzed the relationship between forest
fragmentation and the following priority habitat and
species list categories:
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sensitive Area Total
Acres
% Patch
Forest
% Edge
Forest
%
Perforated
Forest
% Core
Forest
% Non
Forest
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 0.54 21.42 10.76 58.64 8.65
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97 43.40
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80
Wetlands Area 80.65 6.79 16.81 0.63 2.18 73.60
29 What Do We Have?
Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in-stream
physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water
quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.).
However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly
influenced by watershed processes beyond the
waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian
condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces
and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road
location and maintenance, watershed hydrology,
and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of
sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non-forest areas.
The second largest forest fragmentation category
for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%).
Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined by
areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies of
water and generally buffered from human activity
(Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting
behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area
located in edge type forests of Edmonds.
However, nest trees are often among the largest
trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in
18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest.
Around wetlands, the Washington Department of
Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic
resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from
adjacent land uses (Washington Department of
Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some
of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland-
dependent species that require both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers could
be described by their canopy fragmentation, where
73.6% of wetlands were classified in non-forest
areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge forest, with
only 2.2% in the core forest.
The protection of steep slopes against landslides and
erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington
Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several
benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the
prevention of soil erosion:
Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing absorptive
and evaporative losses that reduce rainfall
available for infiltration.
Roots extract moisture from the soil which is
lost to the atmosphere via transpiration, leading
to a lower pore-water pressure.
Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear
strength.
It is important to understand the significance of steep
slopes because of their influences on local wildlife
and habitat quality. For example, increased erosion
can negatively impact spawning salmon by increasing
sediment and particulates in streams and other water
bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation that prevents
erosion protects critical habitat for wildlife.
Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree
canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as
trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing
erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees,
66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious,
19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil.
Table 4: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
30What Do We Have?
Considerations for Planting
Opportunities
Edmonds’ existing tree canopy covers 30.3% of the
City, and decision-makers can set a target canopy
cover goal to pursue. Regardless of the canopy
coverage goals established by the City, the following
are planting opportunities that may be pursued
in order to maintain and potentially increase the
existing canopy coverage:
Incentivize tree planting on private property.
Increase canopy with tree planting in areas of
patch and fragmented canopy to reduce forest
fragmentation and improve wildlife habitat and
corridors.
Conducting outreach to the community as an
important tool for engaging public interest and
support.
Define goals and identify actions that will support
these goal(s).
Develop clear policies and standards to meet
the 30% native vegetation requirement codified
by ECDC 23.90.040.C (Retention of Vegetation
on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels) in
undeveloped (or redeveloped) subdividable lands
zoned as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream or
stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland buffer.
Currently, forestry operations in the City do not
document the community tree resource according
to industry best management practices. A public
tree inventory is important because it provides
information on species diversity, forest age, and
relative performance of different tree species. An
inventory that is maintained with continued updates
also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree
maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban
forest managers have the following opportunities:
Establish and continually update a public tree
inventory.
Integrate maintenance cycles with the public
tree inventory database.
Study genus/species compositions to ensure
best-management diversity recommendations
are being followed.
Park trees in Edmonds.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Locations City Department Actions
Permits for Tree
Removal
Permits for Tree
Pruning
Permits for Tree
Planting
Hazardous Tree
Inspections
Tree Pruning
Tree Removal
Tree Planting
Hazardous Tree
Inspections
Tree Pruning
Tree Removal
Tree Planting
Trees on Private
Property
Development
Services
Trees in Parks
Parks,
Recreation and
Cultural
Services
Trees within
City Rights-of-
Way
Public Works
and Utilities
(with Parks’
assistance in
downtown)
31 What Do We Have?
Existing Urban
Forest Practices
There are three departments within the City of
Edmonds that have influence over the management
of the urban forest; Development Services (DS),
Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services (PRC). Although they share
and communicate any issues related to tree care
and urban forest management, decision-making
authority is determined based on the location of the
trees. There is no specific staff person or leadership
team with overarching responsibilities for guiding the
management of the entire urban forest in Edmonds.
Tree Maintenance
Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree
life, but is especially critical for young trees as they
benefit from early structural pruning and training.
Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders
or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground
level with minimal cost when a tree is young.
However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into
very expensive structural issues and increase the
risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may
be impossible to correct the issue without causing
greater harm.
Over-mature trees require more frequent inspection
and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the
risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget
for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan
the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage
when it is most beneficial and cost-effective.
At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most
frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related
to trees are identified by City Staff, work is
prioritized based on existing and available budgets.
Planning associated with tree management on
public properties is minimal with priority attention
given to ensuring the successful establishment of
new tree plantings and responding to hazardous
tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department
performs certain routine tree inspections and
provides limited proactive maintenance activities
(typically associated with the care of trees after
planting to encourage successful establishment).
Within City rights-of-way, tree issues are uncovered
as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks
and streets, where trees are only identified when
infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree
hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly,
in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance
when safety concerns are observed through routine
park maintenance activities.
Table 5: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest
Management in Edmonds
Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for
public safety.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Urban Forestry Items Expenditure
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance $79,779
Tree Removals $37,565
Management $62,771
Volunteer Activities $134,579
TOTAL $319,542
Budget Per Capita $7.74
UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000
City Services Common Urban Forestry
Related Activities
Estimated
Hours per
Week*
Development plan review for
compliance with tree
protection codes
Public inquiries (online,
phone, and counter)
Investigating and resolving
tree complaints
Investigating and resolving
infrastructure damage
complaints
Tree planting and
establishment
Structural pruning on smaller
trees
Inspection and identification
of hazardous trees
Contract
Management Managing contract tree crews 1
Community Service Requests
Response Management
Urban Forest Management
Plan stewardship
Federal, state grant
procurement
Tree City USA applications
Volunteer events
Coordinated tree planting
Neighborhood association
support
Website content and public
education
Tree Board
Meetings
Addressing public issues
related to trees 1
Comprehensive
(Long-range)
Planning
<1
Community
Education Action
and Outreach
1
Permit Intake
and Review 2
Code
Enforcement &
Complaint
Investigation
2
Parks & Public
Tree
Maintenance
40-60
Emergency
Response 0
32What Do We Have?
Tree Maintenance Budgets
The majority of tree maintenance costs are
accounted for as general line items through the
parks department budget. As part of the annual Tree
City USA application, departments will summarize
their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds’ urban forestry
expenditures were $7.74 per capita, which is more
than the minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA
designation and more than the $7.50 national average
reported by the National Arbor Day Foundation.
Documented Edmonds’ expenditures have been in
the range of $3 per capita in prior years.
Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment
as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds’ urban forest
produces about $1,567,000 in environmental
benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of
approximately $319,542.
Service Levels
To assess current urban forest workload and staffing
levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were
identified as persons who work with tree issues on
at least an intermittent basis every week. From those
who are involved with forestry issues or operations
on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were
identified with a quantifiable amount of time each
week working with trees or tree-related issues.
Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental
cooperation. These general conclusions about the
shared responsibilities among staff resources at the
City are very important when the City evaluates
future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently,
no one single position is designated as a Full-Time
Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry.
Table 6: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures
Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and
Staffing Levels
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
33 What Do We Have?
Staff Training
The science of arboriculture, and the management
of urban forests are domains that are increasingly
recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials
are increasingly requested by many municipalities
as evidence of competency. Bachelor’s degrees in
Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences,
and Horticulture are often the base requirements
for leadership roles in urban forest management.
Professional credentials can also demonstrate
competency, with the most widely accepted
credentials in Washington State coming from the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The City provides on-going training to any staff
handling tree maintenance equipment, including
chainsaw, chipper, and lift-truck safety. Stakeholder
interviews revealed that landscape maintenance
workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on
structural pruning or tree care. The following is a
summary description of staff resources and training
within individual City departments:
In Development Services, staff are trained to
interpret ordinances related to trees, but rely on
reports by ISA certified arborists when necessary
to render decisions. Staff within development
services have backgrounds in Urban Planning
and one (1) person with has an advanced degree
in Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists
within development services staff.
The Department of Public Works and Utilities
has a director with advanced degrees in
Biology and Aquatic Biology. In addition, the
department has engineers on staff who can
successfully consider relevant tree issues in
terms of asset and infrastructure management,
but tree care expertise is not required for any
staff in this department. Tree related issues are
resolved based on previous experiences and
through hired consultations with ISA certified
arborists when necessary.
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department has two staff members who
provide expertise on urban forestry topics.
The first is an ISA certified arborist who is
referenced by all City departments and citizen
groups for opinions on the best practices
associated with tree care. There is also a staff
member who has an advanced degree in Forest
Ecology who works with citizen groups on tree
planting and stewardship projects.
Tree Acquisition and Quality
Control
The City’s approach to acquiring trees is not guided
by any formal standard practices that ensure the
quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are
planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties
managed with new trees.
Image of a tree with a co-dominant branch defect (middle
stem). The city has access to trained staff qualified to provide
expertise for identification of these tree safety risks.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
34What Do We Have?
Tree City USA
The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit
conservation and education organization founded in
1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow.
It is the largest nonprofit membership organization
dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers
Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City
USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards
of quality urban forestry management: maintaining
a tree board or department, having a community
tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on
urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day.
Currently, the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542.20
towards total community forestry expenditure, and
with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita
investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has
recognized this per capita investment, as well as
recognizing the City of Edmonds’ community tree
ordinance and observance of Arbor Day.
Native Trees
Trees native to the Pacific Northwest are well-suited
to our climate. They also tend to provide good habit
for local wildlife. Many native trees, both coniferous
and broadleaved, are part of the City’s urban forest.
They are currently encouraged in public and private
plantings but not necessarily required, except in
designated critical areas for wildlife habitat and/or
wetlands. More information about native trees and
their value is likely to be part of an upcoming round
of community education in Edmonds.
An example of some native trees for the Pacific
Northwest include the following1:
Broadleaved Trees
Big-Leaf Maple
Black Cottonwood
Oregon Ash
Pacific Willow
Red Alder
Vine Maple
Conifers
Douglas Fir
Grand Fir
Noble Fir
Shore Pine
Sitka Spruce
Western Hemlock
Western Larch
Western Red Cedar
Western White Pine
1 A more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F
Cone from a douglas-fir. (Photo by Peter Stevens CC BY)Leaves of a big leaf maple.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
35 What Do We Have?
Major and Emerging Diseases
and Pests
Another important aspect to tree maintenance is
staying alert to managing emerging diseases and
pests that can be costly to control with individual
trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest,
addressing both potential and actual problems
is critical. Further information on the pests and
diseases that threaten the forest ecosystems in
Washington can be found at:
USDA’s Forest Service website
Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook
Collier Arbor Care website – Top 20 Tree and
Shrub Problems in the PNW
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Forest Health
Among the many diseases and pests that affect
trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to
the following:
Diseases
Laminated Root Rot (LRR) is the most important
disease affecting Douglas-fir caused by the fungal
pathogen Coniferiporia sulphurascens. In young
stands regenerated following harvesting, dead
or missing trees will be associated with large
stumps. These decayed trees will serve as an
inoculum source for neighboring trees to become
infected, as their roots grow in contact with
infected stumps/roots. Fungal growth invades the
heartwood and sapwood, resulting in reduced
uptake of water and nutrients, with weakened
support of the upper portion of the tree. Infected
trees are susceptible to windthrow, and there
may be trees in a group in various stages of decay
and dying. Live trees with LRR display symptoms
of shortened terminal growth, sparse foliage,
smaller needles, chlorosis (yellowing) and stress
cone crops. Trees can fall over before developing
obvious symptoms, or die standing. The disease is
very difficult to manage in an urban setting
(USFS, 2017).
Armillaria Root Rot (ARR) affects the roots of
numerous tree species, notably Douglas-fir and
other Firs and Pines, as well as many hardwood
species. Armillaria ostoyae is the primary
fungal pathogen in the Pacific Northwest,
although A. mellea can also be involved in tree
decline and mortality. ARR disease is usually
associated with stress conditions, particularly
drought. The fungus survives for many years
in infected stumps, roots and organic matter
in the soil. Honey-colored mushrooms are
typically produced at the base of infected trees
in the fall. Typical symptoms include chlorotic
foliage, distress cone crops, significant resin
flow, decline and death. The fungus typically
produces black shoestring-like structures called
rhizomorphs on the bark at the base of the tree
or in the soil (OSU, 2018).
Verticillium Wilt (VW) is a serious disease of
many tree hosts, but is especially problematic
on Maple species. Verticillium dahliae is a
soil-borne fungus that persists in the soil for
decades. The fungus infects roots and grows
into the xylem where it colonizes the vascular
elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores)
plus defense compounds produced by the
host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the
flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting
results, and is exacerbated during periods of
drought. Leaves on one side of the tree affected
by VW or on one branch suddenly wilt and die.
Subsequently, other branches will wilt as the
disease progresses. Excised branches will have
vascular discoloration which is diagnostic of the
disease. Infected trees may survive for years
or die within weeks. Once infected, a tree will
not likely recover and will require removal. Tree
injections of fungicides are not usually effective
(OSU, 2018).
Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the
foliage disease of Douglas-fir caused by the
fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii.
SNC is known as a “cast” disease because it
causes the premature shedding of needles (or
casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree
crowns and reduced growth. Although it is
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
36What Do We Have?
called “Swiss” needle cast, the fungus is native
to the Western United States throughout the
range of Douglas-fir. SNC disease symptoms
include chlorotic needles and decreased
needle retention, resulting in sparse crowns
and reduced diameter and height growth (OSU,
2017). Mortality from the disease is considered
rare, but tree care and maintenance of this
disease can be expensive and necessary in an
urban setting.
Leaf Blight (LB) is a serious disease affecting
Pacific Madrone caused by the fungal pathogen
Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis. At least a
dozen fungi can cause leaf spots and dead areas
on leaves; this is probably the most significant
cause of damage to the host. Older, lower
leaves are infected by spores disseminated by
wind or rain during wet weather in the fall.
Trees located in creek bottoms, valleys and the
forest understory are most susceptible to LB. If
wet weather persists, infection may be severe
and result in significant defoliation. Under these
conditions, the fungus can also infect green
shoots. Pruning dead branches to provide better
air circulation and raking and destroying fallen
leaves will help to reduce fungal inoculum and
subsequent infection (OSU, 2008).
Anthracnose (A) affects a wide variety of shade
trees, especially Maple, Oak and Sycamore. The
closely related fungi Discula (Maple, Sycamore)
and Apiognomonia (Oak) are the causal agents
of the disease. The disease is favored by warm,
wet springs and several rounds of infection can
occur, each defoliating the tree, resulting in a
tree much more prone to subsequent drought
stress. Lesions on the leaves are typically
associated and limited by the veins, resulting
in discrete necrotic areas. In particularly
susceptible trees under ideal environmental
conditions, twig cankers can also develop. It is
important to rake up and destroy fallen leaves,
prune out twig cankers and water trees during
dry periods (OSU, 2018).
Sudden Oak Death was discovered in
California in the mid 1990’s, has spread
into southern Oregon (2001) and was found
(and has subsequently been contained or
eliminated) in a small area in Kitsap County
two years ago. The causal fungus Phytophthora
ramorum primarily infects species of Oaks, but
can also infect a wide range of other hosts,
including Camellia, Rhododendron, Blueberry
and other landscape plants. The fungus is
waterborne and can be spread in streams or
other forms of moving water. Symptoms on
Oaks include bleeding cankers on the trunk,
dieback of the foliage and mortality. Symptoms
on other plants can vary from leafspots to leaf
blight to twig dieback, but do not usually result
in death of the host. Quarantines are in place
to prevent further spread of SOD, largely from
nurseries (COMTF, 2019).
Insects
Asian Long-Horned Beetle (ALB), is an invasive
insect that feeds on a wide variety of trees
in the United States, eventually killing them.
The beetle is native to China and the Korean
Peninsula. Signs of ALB start to show about
three to four (3–4) years after infestation, with
tree death occurring in ten to fifteen (10–15)
years depending on the tree’s overall health and
site conditions. Infested trees do not recover,
nor do they regenerate. There are a broad
number of tree species this insect will feed in
and most common deciduous trees in Edmonds
are at risk.
Tent Caterpillar (TC) is a serious defoliator of
broadleaf trees and shrubs in most areas of
the western U.S. Tree hosts include Red Alder,
Cottonwood, Willow, Ash, Pacific Madrone, and
many fruit trees. White silky tents appear soon
after bud break. As the larvae grow in size, the
tents also increase in size. Individual branches
near these tents are totally defoliated. Entire trees
may be defoliated by TC. After feeding has been
concluded, the larvae will turn into moths within
a cocoon. Eggs are laid on the twigs and branches
where they overwinter in protected masses.
Individual tents can be physically removed,
preferably in the early morning hours when the
larvae are contained in the tent (USFS, 2008).
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
37 What Do We Have?
Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid (CSGA) is a serious
pest of Spruce and Douglas-fir trees. It swarms
in the spring when the new needles emerge.
Crawler nymphs form galls at the branch tips.
These galls are initially green, becoming red and
eventually dry out. These affected branches cease
their growth, and if enough branches are affected,
the tree may be killed. White cottony specks will
also cover the entire branch. Trees with fewer galls
may be unsightly and foliage can be discolored
and distorted. Most outbreaks of CSGA do not
warrant control measures (NRC, 2015).
Pine Bark Adelgid (PBA) feeds on the bark of pines
and spruce. They form cottony or wooly masses
on the twigs, branches or trunk. Heavy infestations
will turn the entire area white. Small trees will be
severely affected, resulting in chlorotic needles and
stunting or premature death. Small egg clusters are
laid in the early spring by the adults. Crawlers move
to other areas of the tree or to other trees nearby.
PBA can be removed by hand, preferably done when
the infestation has just begun (OSU, 2018).
Bronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging pest in
western Washington that has migrated from eastern
Washington in recent years. Periods of extended
summer drought have weakened birch trees and
made them more susceptible to this pest which can
severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic leaves and
sparse upper branches are the first symptoms that
homeowners usually notice from BBB attack. Close
examination will reveal lumpy bark and half-moon-
shaped beetle exit holes (WSU, 2008).
Douglas-fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a moth
found in Western North America. Its population
periodically erupts in cyclical outbreaks
(Wickman et al., 1998). Outbreaks of the
Douglas-fir tussock moth appear to develop
almost explosively, and then usually subside
abruptly after a year or two. The caterpillars
feed on the needles of Douglas fir, true fir,
and spruce in summer. Forestry management
to prevent tree damage from tussock moth
outbreaks include four activities: early detection,
evaluation, suppression, and prevention. These
four activities must be well integrated to ensure
adequate protection from the pest.
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed hundreds of
millions of ash trees in North America. The EAB is
a destructive, non-native, wood-boring pest that
exclusively kills both stressed and healthy ash trees
2-3 years after infestation (NASPF, 2005). EAB is
a jewel beetle native to Northwestern Asia. EAB
larvae feed on the vascular tissue of trees and
populations grow exponentially. This pest has been
identified as moving slowly into the Western U.S.
and is considered a catastrophic pest for ash tree
populations.
Other Diseases and Pests. Information on specific
diseases and insects that damage trees in our
region have been identified by the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources. Current
online information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/
ForestHealth.
A. Asian Long-Horned Beetle B. Bronze Birch Borer
C. Douglas-fir Tussock Moth D. Emerald Ash Borer
Symptoms of BBB Include Dying Top
A.
C.
B.
D.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
38What Do We Have?
Regulatory
Framework
The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several
components relevant to urban forestry in the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development
Code. These regulations are designed to:
Authorize the power of government to manage
the urban forest
Define street trees and, as appropriate,
municipal responsibilities for their care
Enumerate tree related fees and penalties
Create regulations associated with tree clearing
on private land
Require tree protection during construction
Classify critical areas or buffers
These different regulations cover tree related
topics on a range of land types, and all influence
the direction and management of urban forestry
programs. The following summaries outline the
chapters and sections of city code.
Authorization of Power
The legitimacy of Edmonds’ city government to
manage forestry domains and the definition of those
domains fall under the authorization of power:
Chapter 18.45 provides for the City’s Planning
Division Manager to direct and enforce City
codes related to land clearing and tree cutting
on public land and private property. It exempts
Public Works, Parks and Fire Departments in
specific situations where safety is an issue.
Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director
of Public Works to enforce and inspect work
done to maintain City street trees in healthy
condition, or remove trees from the public
right-of-way as necessary.
Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree Board,
made up of Edmonds City residents in order
to encourage civic engagement for active
stewardship of the urban forest. The powers
and duties of the Tree Board are to advise and
make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council as appropriate on tree related matters.
Street and Public Trees
The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible
for the planting and maintenance of public trees.
These trees are on public property parcels or select
locations in the rights-of-way. Other planting strips
are the responsibility of adjacent land owners:
Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction
and maintenance, declares that the
responsibility is with the abutting property
owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent
planting strips. This includes all tree care.
Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the
regulation of street trees and trees on public
property. All street trees are managed by the
Public Works Department and require permits
for all persons who wish to plant, remove,
prune or otherwise change a tree on a street,
right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, or
other public place. This code chapter also
includes language defining abuse and damage
to street trees.
Tree Related Fees and Penalties
To facilitate compliance and remediation for
disregarding public tree codes, the City provides
penalties as a punitive deterrent:
Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive
discretion for trees that are damaged from
disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for trees
less than 3” and $3,000 for trees larger than 3”.
Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical
areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use,
including public right-of-way.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
39 What Do We Have?
Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections and
management requirements for trees located
near wetlands, streams, or steep slopes. Tree
pruning or removal is restricted or prohibited
without a report from an ISA certified arborist,
ASCA registered consultant, or a registered
landscape architect that documents the
hazard and provides a replanting schedule for
replacement trees.
Challenges
One of the more frequent complaints related to tree
removal in the city is when properties are developed
or subdivided. While a goal of the City’s code is
that “trees should be retained to the maximum
extent feasible,” other applicable development
regulations help determine what is feasible. There
are regulations that prescribe how wide driveways
and roads must be, how far the development must
be from the edges of a property, location of utilities
(water, sewer, gas, and power) that must be installed
underground, and stormwater requirements that
require the installation of stormwater facilities. As a
result, when one of the larger properties in the City
that contains a grove of trees is developed to meet
the many regulations and needs, sometimes only a
few trees are located outside of the development
footprint. Trees that were once stable in their
grove, are susceptible to wind throw and become
hazardous when isolated on their own. Where a
tree was once the right tree in the right location (one
tree protected in a larger grove), it may no longer be
the right tree in the right location (an exposed tree
on the perimeter of a lot) following development.
As the City considers updates to the development
code, updates should provide more ways to
encourage greater tree retention when properties
are developed. An example may be to provide
options for reduced interior setbacks that would
allow houses to be clustered and thus provide
an opportunity to avoid trees where otherwise
development would be placed under the regulations
in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an
update to consider may include evaluating the
required width of access easements.
Private Land Clearing
Land clearing on private property is often a critical
challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry canopy
goals. Individual private property rights and objectives
of private landowners can frequently be at odds with
the community aspirations for the urban forest.
Chapter 18.45 contains regulations associated
with trees on private properties for land
clearing and tree cutting. This code provides for
a variety of purposes that would preserve the
physical and aesthetic character of the City and
prevent indiscriminate removal or destruction
of trees. This chapter also implements policies
of the State Environmental Policy Act. It
provides special exemptions in 18.45.030 for
improved single-family lots, partially improved
single-family lots or certain unimproved lots,
allowing private property owners in these
categories to maintain or remove trees at their
discretion without permits. Additionally, these
land clearing codes provide exemptions for
utility vegetation maintenance or tree work
by City departments when situations involving
danger to life or property are found.
Tree Protection During
Construction
As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific
Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees.
Regulations to protect trees during construction are a
mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are developed.
Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are
being retained during a land development
project are also protected. The codes describe
the protected area on a site as being within
the drip-line of the tree and attempts to limit
damage to trees by controlling the impact to
trees within this area.
Critical Areas and Buffers
Washington State has special laws to protect critical
areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable
and environmentally significant areas.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
40What Do We Have?
Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations
Tree Removal Scenario Review? Permits?Notes
Private PropertyDeveloped single-family
property, no critical areas
present
No review, no permit
required
No notification required, but suggested
to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement
Response
Developed single-family
property, critical areas
present
Yes, review and permit
required if tree in critical
area or critical area buffer
Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff
decision with notice)
Removal of hazard trees in
critical area
Review required, but no
permit
Documentation of hazard tree
by certified arborist, or clear
documentation of dead tree. Replanting
required at 2:1 ratio
Prune or trim trees No review, no permit Topping considered same as tree
cutting or removal unless retopping of a
previously approved topping
Multi-family property
and Planned Residential
Developments with
approved landscape plan
Yes, review and permit
required
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice)
Commercial Property Yes, review and permit
required
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision no notice)
Tree removal with
development
Yes, review included with
land use or development
permit.
Tree protection measures required for
trees to remain
Public PropertyTrees in right-of-way Yes, review and permit
required
A right-of-way construction permit is
required for any party other than the
City of Edmonds to perform any removal
or trimming of trees located within the
City rights-of-way
Street trees Yes, review and permit
required
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice)
Prune or removal of park
trees
No permit The City’s Parks Department maintains
trees within the City’s parks. While no
permit is required, tree removal and
replacement must be consistent with
the City’s critical area regulations
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds’ community volunteers helping to remove ivy and
improve forest health.
41 What Do We Have?
Regional Urban
Forestry Resources
Regional urban forestry resources are organizations
that provide services to aid in the protection,
maintenance, and development of the urban forest.
These range from active volunteer groups in the
City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state
and federal government agencies. Some of the
organizations and programs described below have
been used by the City. Others may be good choices
for the future.
Washington State Urban and
Community Forestry Program
Under the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban
and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides
technical, educational, and financial assistance
to Washington’s cities and towns, counties,
tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and
educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is:
“To provide leadership to create self-sustaining
urban and community forestry programs that
preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for
public benefits and quality of life.”
A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of
financial assistance programs including; Community
Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree
Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree
Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration
Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of
financial assistance, their availability in a given year,
and their associated dollar amounts are dependent
on continued funding through annual grant
allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF
communicates events, educational opportunities,
and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter.
The Washington Community Forestry Council
advises the DNR on policies and programs. The
program does this by teaching citizens and decision-
makers about the economic, environmental,
psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees.
The program also helps local governments, citizen
groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy
trees throughout Washington. The council was
established under RCW 76.15.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars.
42What Do We Have?
FORTERRA Green City
Partnerships
The Green City program helps urban communities
in the Puget Sound region effectively steward
their natural open spaces through best practices.
FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to
develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term
plans, and community-based stewardship programs
to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in
our urban environments. Specific services include:
City-wide forested park and natural area
assessment
Strategic and restoration planning
Volunteer program development and guidance
Education and training for volunteers
Restoration tracking systems
Green City outreach and community
engagement
On- the-ground stewardship projects and
event support
The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core goals:
Improve the quality of life, connections to
nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities by
restoring our forested parks and natural areas
Galvanize an informed and active community
Ensure long-term sustainable funding and
community support
These unique public/private partnerships bring
together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders
to create a sustainable network of healthy forested
parks and natural areas throughout the region.
Municipal Research and
Services Center
The Municipal Research and Services Center
(MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local
governments across Washington State better serve
their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance
on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local
information from parks and recreation departments,
land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations
to promote and manage urban forestry resources.
Example resources include local urban forestry
programs in Washington State, legal references, and
related articles.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
43 What Do We Have?
Futurewise
Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent
sprawl to protect the resources of communities
in Washington State. Futurewise was founded
to help support implementation of Washington
State’s Growth Management Act, and to focus on
preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open
space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions
and development.
Futurewise provides data analysis and research,
community and environmental planning and
policy development, community engagement and
outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy,
legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services
are all provided through strategic collaboration with
businesses, governments, community organizations,
and nonprofit partners.
The University of Washington
Restoration Ecology Network
TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN)
is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional
center to integrate student, faculty and community
interests in ecological restoration and conservation.
Students in the program are required to complete
capstone projects, where students of different
academic backgrounds work together to complete
a local restoration project. Students learn how
to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration
project while working in teams. The Capstone
spans three academic quarters beginning in the
fall. Communities collaborate with the program to
develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the
community and excellent learning experiences for
the students.
Wetland stream flowing through Edmonds.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
44What Do We Have?
EarthCorps
EarthCorps is a human capital development
program where corps members learn leadership
skills by working collaboratively, leading community
volunteers, and executing technical restoration
projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget
Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration
events, monitor plant growth, adapt management
plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps
collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and
communities to offer volunteers who are passionate
about conservation and restoration.
The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was
created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with
the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel
Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on-
going, locally-based, expert care for one of the City’s
key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a
wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater
marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown
to include three more sites: Brackett’s Landing,
Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park.
The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward
program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews
as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and
how to perform actions that improve the ecological
health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to
the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents.
Actions include removing invasive weeds such as
Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas
in need of water retention and weed suppression,
and replanting with native plants to foster greater
biodiversity.
Forested park canopy in Edmonds.
Forested park canopy in Edmonds.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
45 What Do We Have?
Urban Forestry
Practices:
Case Studies
In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry
programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that
there are urban forestry practices emerging from
other municipalities that could eventually add value
if developed within the City. Through stakeholder
interviews and discussions with City Staff, three
urban forestry practices were selected as important
for further consideration in implementation of this
UFMP: Tree Banks (or fee in-Lieu programs), Heritage
Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This
section explores some examples around how other
cities have adopted these programs.
Tree Banks – Fee-based
alternatives to tree replacement
Often in the course of urban forest management,
there can be logistical challenges associated with
replacing trees at the same site where trees are
removed. An increasingly common solution is
to provide developers and residents with the
opportunity to pay fees in-lieu of meeting their
landscaping requirements. Providing a fee or financial
guarantee option creates a system for funding
tree planting projects or even more sophisticated
landscape restoration projects that improve the
overall health and condition of the urban forest.
Precedence for this option can be found at the
National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in-
lieu fee program as:
“A program involving the restoration,
establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation of aquatic resources through
funds paid to a governmental or non-profit
natural resources management entity to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirements... Similar
to a mitigation bank, an in-lieu fee program sells
compensatory mitigation credits to permittees
whose obligation to provide compensatory
mitigation is then transferred to the in-lieu
program sponsor.”
Snohomish County
Here, the government provides options for
permit applicants to engage the county, their own
contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to
ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is
not possible at the proposed project site:
“Applicants may choose to perform the off-
site mitigation work on private property either
themselves or through their own contractor,
subject to all other provisions of Section 30.62
SCC, or applicants may enter into a voluntary
mitigation agreement with the County pursuant
to RCW 82.02.020 under which the County
will perform the mitigation work on public
property within the same sub-drainage basin
or watershed resource inventory area (WRIA).”
(POL-6210 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING
OFF-SITE MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO
CRITICAL AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER
SCC 30.62.330)
The following cities are examples of fee in-lieu
programs related to urban forestry. There is some
variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as
where the funds collected get administered.
City of Redmond
The City of Redmond calculates fee in-lieu to include
the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee also
includes all costs associated with establishment
care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations:
RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement Fee A
fee in- lieu of tree replacement may be allowed,
subject to approval by the Administrator after
careful consideration of all other options. A
tree replacement fee shall be required for each
replacement tree required but not planted on
the application site or an offsite location.
i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base
fee times the number of trees necessary to
satisfy the tree replacement requirements
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
46What Do We Have?
of this section. The tree base fee shall cover
the cost of a tree, installation (labor and
equipment), maintenance for two years,
and fund administration.
ii. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of a tree removal Permit.
iii. Fees collected under this subsection shall be
expended only for the planting of new trees
in City-owned parks, open spaces or rights-
of-way.
http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-
wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid=005.009&fil
e=doc-005.009-pid-80.pdf
City of Renton
The City of Renton has much more limited code
language. Fee in-lieu options are still at the City’s
discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and
installation. No funding for establishment care
is required in this code. However, the code does
directly designate the funds to be allocated to the
Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides more
discretion to the City with how the funds get allocated:
RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When the
Administrator determines that it is infeasible
to replace trees on the site, payment into
the City’s Urban Forestry Program fund
may be approved in an amount of money
approximating the current market value of
the replacement trees and the labor to install
them. The City shall determine the value of
replacement trees. http://www.codepublishing.
com/WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/Renton0404/
Renton0404130.html
Community volunteers pulling weeds and improving forest
health in Edmonds.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
47 What Do We Have?
City of Port Angeles
The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in-lieu
option, but it only appears to relate to street tree
replacement requirements. Another distinction in
this code is the fee is determined by the Community
Forester (a city staff position):
PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree requirements
in previously developed area. In addition to
the above requirements, the following also
apply: Where new street trees cannot be
planted due to portions of rights-of-way having
been previously paved or otherwise rendered
unsuitable to plant trees, a fee-in-lieu of planting
is required. Such fee shall be determined by
the Community Forester per City Policy and
deposited into the Community Forestry Fund.
https://library.municode.com/wa/port_angeles/
codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT11STSI_
CH11.13STTR_11.13.050STTRENRE
Heritage Tree Programs-–
Recognizing Historical
Significance of Trees
In many cities around the nation, trees are often
recognized for their historical significance to the
community. This recognition is commonly referred to
as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These programs
provide communities with a way of officially
recognizing trees, and with the recognition, can offer
a variety of benefits to the community, including:
Increasing public awareness of trees and the
urban forest
Drawing attention to and protecting unique and
significant trees
Reinforcing how trees are a key component of
a city’s character and sense of place
Engaging citizens with the purpose and
activities of a city’s urban forestry program
Encouraging public participation in the
identification and perpetuation of heritage
trees throughout the City
City of Seattle
In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities
have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest
programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when
PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program that
eventually became co-sponsored by the City. Seattle’s
program provides the broadest set of categories for
designating a tree as a heritage tree. Trees can be
designated according to the following categories:
Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form,
or rarity.
Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age,
its association with or contribution to a historic
structure or district, or its association with a
noted person or historic event.
Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a
community.
Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue,
or other planting.
City of Vancouver
The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had
a heritage tree program in place since 1998.
Unlike Seattle, which already regulates the care
of exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on
private property, the City of Vancouver uses this
designation to protect trees on private properties
where tree removal permits would not ordinarily
be required. This is a voluntary program for private
property owners, thus protecting the rights of the
property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/
publicworks/page/heritage-trees).
City of Lynnwood
Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of
Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined
in municipal code. Although many aspects of this
program are similar to other cities, their specific code
language binds all successive owners of the tree to
the protection obligations within this designation.
This language has the added benefit of ensuring
long-term protection and care for the tree unless it
is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070).
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
48What Do We Have?
Arborist Business Licenses –
Ensuring Best Practices in
Tree Care
Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require
a general business license to work as an arborist.
This is not uncommon, but many cities are now
recognizing how the complexity of city codes
associated with tree care and the expectations
of the community necessitate special licensing
for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care
industry professionals and researchers in the
science of arboriculture routinely convene as the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the
Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups
collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care
and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community
has companies that are adequately trained and
qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing
that ties the business with these organizations
is increasingly popular. The following cities were
selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of
different approaches for arborist business licensing:
City of Herrington
Herrington, KY – Businesses that practice
arboriculture must submit an application to
the City for a Tree Contractor license. The
application identifies the business as practicing
arboriculture and requires proof of sufficient
insurance (http://www.cityofherington.com/
pview.aspx?id=32514&catID=547).
City of Lincoln
Lincoln, NE – In Lincoln, applications for tree
services and arborists not only require proof of
insurance, but also proof of ISA credentials or a
tree worker test administered by the parks and
recreation department. http://lincoln.ne.gov/
city/parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm
City of Denver
Denver, CO – Denver has two classes for their
“Tree Service License.” This is a distinct feature
of their licensing process. Licenses can be
issued to businesses working on “Large Trees,”
which require workers to leave the ground,
or an “Ornamental” license, designed for
companies doing landscaping work on small
trees that do not require an aerial lift. https://
www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/
Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-license-
info-packet.pdf
City of Spokane
Spokane, WA – Spokane has a commercial tree
license that businesses must secure if they are
doing work on public property trees (e.g.,street
trees and park trees). https://my.spokanecity.
org/urbanforestry/permits/
Community engagement on urban forestry is important to
encourage tree retention on private properties.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
49 What Do We Have?
Incentives – Encouraging Tree
Retention on Private Properties
From the urban tree canopy assessment, it was
determined that the majority of tree canopy in
the city is privately owned and managed. For cities
to manage their urban forests, collaboration and
voluntary commitments on the part of private
property owners can be a beneficial strategy that
encourages desirable tree care and retention
practices. (Note: In some “incentive programs,”
cities have first established by code minimum tree
density requirements for private properties and
then used incentives to allow property owners some
flexibility in retaining the minimum tree density). The
following are example methods that cities, counties,
and states have used to incentivize desirable tree
stewardship on private property:
City of Portland
Portland, OR – The City of Portland has a
“Treebate” program which provides a one-time
credit on individual utility bills for planting
a tree in a residential yard. The amount of
credit depends on the size of the tree. (Certain
types of trees are excluded from the program.)
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/
article/314187
Brevard County
Brevard County, FL – In Brevard County,
incentives were created to encourage tree
preservation as they relate to landscaping
requirements during development. This code
language incentivizes by providing credits for
exceeding tree canopy density, preserving
native trees of significant size, or vegetation of
special concern. These credits reduce the tree
re-planting requirements otherwise associated
with development projects. (Code Sec 62-4344).
http://brevardcounty.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_
appid32777_ch62_artxiii_div2_sec62-4344
City of Rocklin
Rocklin, CA – In an effort to preserve its
native oak population, the City of Rocklin
established incentives in their code. Projects
that save 25% or more of the surveyed oak
trees receive expedited processing by the
Community Development department. In
addition, development projects can have traffic
mitigation and capital facility fees deferred from
3 months up to 12 months depending on the
trees being saved. http://www.rocklin.ca.us/
sites/main/files/file-attachments/oak_tree_
preservation_guidelines.pdf
State of Hawaii
State of Hawaii – In an effort to encourage the
care and maintenance of trees determined as
“exceptional”, residents can deduct up to $3000
per tax year for their costs associated with
tree care. The code language has an additional
limitation that this tax deduction can only be
allowed once every three years. (HRS 235-19).
http://files.hawaii.gov/tax/legal/hrs/hrs_235.pdf
When the City of Edmonds updates its development
regulations, incentives for tree retention and tree
planting should be considered. These may include:
Tree bank
Tree bank funded by development. Developer
pays X dollar for each significant tree removed
during development into a tree bank. This
“incentivizes” tree retention because the
developer may find ways to maintain trees rather
than pay into the tree bank.
Tree bank could be used to supply property
owners with certificates to purchase trees to
plant on their property.
Tree bank funds could be used towards
purchase of forested properties when they
become available.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
50What Do We Have?
Development flexibility to maintain trees.
Allowing reduced interior setbacks may allow
more flexibility in home placement and provide
opportunities for tree retention.
Allow for deviations from access and road width
requirements to allow more flexibility in design
and home placements.
Encourage low impact development techniques
which promote tree retention.
Heritage Tree Program
Develop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program to
recognize unique or special trees as a way to
recognize stewardship of the urban forest by
local property owners.
Further consideration of the above—and any
additional—ideas should be explored in more detail
as part of the code update process in the near future.
Summary Considerations for
Urban Forest Practices
Historical practices and regulatory requirements
provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the
City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular,
the City has special authority over property it owns
or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no
comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City
also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to
direct the City’s urban forest management activities.
Instead, the City has multiple departments that are
guided by codes and policies for site-specific decisions
without overarching strategic level guidance of the
forest. An example encountered by public works staff
is when a tree removal is being considered. One tree
may need to be removed and replaced for safety
reasons, but additional trees may get removed and
replaced to maintain the aesthetic of the streetscape.
Without overarching urban forest strategies, removals
of trees for simple rights-of-way improvements can be
seen as reactive solutions resolved through political
discourse instead of planned practical decisions for
city managers.
This reactive approach to urban forest management
also extends to the tree care budget. The City does
not maintain sufficient tree related information
(such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget
for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry
benefits models show how trees in Edmonds
provide environmental and economic benefits that
are much greater than their reactive management
costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage
this disparity and direct forest management toward
proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree
maintenance pruning, and tree inspections.
With approximately 13% of the City’s entire tree canopy
in public ownership, other methods to encourage or
require tree planting/protection will be needed for
the community to have influence over tree care in
the remaining 87% of the forest. Some strategies that
have been engaged in at other municipalities include
the fee in-lieu programs to support variances in any
tree replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs
that protect special trees, and arborist business
licensing to encourage best practices in tree care, and
incentive programs.
The City’s policies with regard to the acquisition
of open space (including the potential purchase of
forested properties) are contained with the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land
acquisition is included in the capital project budget
and the PROS plan notes that “expansions of the
parks system will target the gaps identified in this
plan and take advantage of opportunities as they
emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds,
this approach will require vigilance and proactive
pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities
for both parks and open spaces. The City’s inclusion
of this item in the capital projects list recognizes
the importance of swift action when rare property
acquisition opportunities become available.” A
specific policy addressing the purchase of forested
properties could be considered for adding to the
PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining
the City’s tree cover through the selective purchase
of forest properties as opportunities arise.
Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and
nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds
maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued
and greater engagement, the City may realize more
grant-funded opportunities, volunteer resources,
and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve
its urban forest management goals.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
51 What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and
Community Input
Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public
stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency
stakeholders. Connections and relationships that
develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes
of the urban forest outreach process. This provided
a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds’
urban forest. As community awareness and actions
associated with urban forestry move forward, it will
be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the
value of their contributions to their community in
the trees that grow around them.
Stakeholder Interviews
In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey
Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting
met with several municipal and regional urban
forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews
occurred over two days and included urban
planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree
board representatives, and City staff leadership.
Their valuable contributions guided the framework
of the UFMP.
Virtual Open House
Throughout the development process, the City
hosted a website that provided community access
to the planning process. In addition, the website
provided access to videos of public presentations,
surveys, and invitations for public comments. This
approach provided further opportunities for public
input outside of scheduled community meetings.
Community Meetings
The first public meeting was held with the City of
Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board on May 4, 2017.
During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values
about the urban forest were explored with members
and visitors in attendance.
Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted
the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall
to share information about the UFMP development
process and gather input from community
residents. The open house included a presentation
and a brief discussion with the audience to answer
clarifying questions. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster
boards. Each poster board contained a broad
topic followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green = a positive “vote”/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative
“vote”/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color as necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each poster board. In addition,
each poster board provided an area for Additional
Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write
down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions
on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered
to the poster board for other attendees to review
and “vote” on.
A third meeting which was with the Planning Board,
occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity
to solicit public participation early in the UFMP
development process. The results of these public
meetings helped the City to understand the needs
and concerns of the community and guide the
development of the online survey.
What Do We Want?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
52What Do We Want?
Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for
community engagement.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
53 What Do We Want?
Online Community Survey
As part of the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey
was developed with the intention of understanding
and benchmarking Edmonds’ community values and
views on the urban forest. It was not conducted as a
statistically valid study but as one to guage community
values and get public feedback. Survey data was
collected online. The survey platform only allowed
one survey response per household to control for
multiple entries from a single respondent. The survey
closed in September of 2017 with 175 responses
having been gathered through the summer (Appendix
C). Responses increased following the public open
house and a presentation to the planning board.
Although the intent was to gather feedback from a
broad representation of the community, 40.9% of the
respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds
Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the
Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had less
than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3% of the
combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not affiliate
within the survey-defined neighborhood groups.
The results showed how seventy-five percent
(74.9%) of respondents “strongly agree” that public
trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents “agree”
or “strongly agree” that Edmonds needs more public
trees. The most popular location for more trees is
in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed
by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails
and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf
courses (11.2%).
When asked to rank the environmental benefits
most valued from the urban forest, respondents
expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality
benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most
important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and
water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least
important at 4.6% (Figure 4).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Improved Air Quality Wildlife Habitat Protect Water
Quality/Reduced
Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage Energy Savings Other
Environmental Benefits
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
Edmonds’ fountain and traffic circle trees.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
54What Do We Want?
On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees
as the most important intangible benefit, followed
by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded
Trails,sidewalks,
and bike trails
Attractive to
Residents
Shaded
streets/Buffer
from vehicles
Improve retail
areas and
neighborhoods
Increased Property
Values
Passive recreation Shaded Parking
Intangible Benefits
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded
parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic
benefit (Figure 5).
View of street trees at 5th Avenue South and Main Street.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Take care of hazardous trees.Holistic Plant Health Care(Improve the urban forest,
but not necessarily every
tree)
Best possible care (all treesshould look good)Clearance only (keep thesidewalks and streets clear)None-Keep them natural
Maintenance Expectations
55 What Do We Want?
In general, respondents are satisfied with the
current level of maintenance, with 69.8% saying they
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree.” When asked to rank
various options for the level of maintenance that
public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents
indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to
receive hazard maintenance (Figure 6).
Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would like
to see the City help preserve trees on private property.
Education and outreach were considered the best
ways to encourage tree planting and preservation
on private property, with 79.0% of respondents
identifying these as their preferred methods.
Respondents were asked to select the types of
education and public outreach they would like to
see offered by the urban forestry program. The
most popular educational materials were website
resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails
and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks
(55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%).
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
Street tree along Main Street.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
56What Do We Want?
Summary Considerations for
Public Outreach
Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds
residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further
improve the urban forest through increased
public outreach and community engagement.
Public engagement on urban forestry issues has
demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied
with the City’s activities on public property, but
prefers to have the City only provide guidance and
education as opposed to regulation when it comes
to stewardship of trees on private property.
There is general agreement from survey respondents
that trees impact views for many residents, and the
issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue
in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other
scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds’ identity
as a community. Scenic views are also considered
a property right of long-established development.
At the same time, appreciation of trees—especially
“the right trees in the right place”—is a value shared
by almost everyone.Street trees along 5th Avenue.
Private property trees have canopy that can shade public streets.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
57 How Do We Get There?
Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of
Edmonds will be able to enhance management of
the urban forest through implementation of actions
recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop
a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based
on the precedence established by the City with
other long-range planning documents. Additionally,
growing and improving Edmonds’ urban forest are
slow processes. 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. For this additional reason,
it is essential that urban forest planning consider at
least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as
a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired
state of the urban forest.
The five (5) long-range strategic goals provided
in this Plan will guide actions and activities that
address the three components of a sustainable
urban forestry program:
Urban Forest Asset Actions, which are intended
to improve the urban forest resource over the
next twenty (20) years by developing detailed
expectations for the urban forest. To accomplish
this, most activities will increase the amount of
information the City maintains about its urban
forest resource. This includes activities like
routine tree canopy assessments and a public
tree inventory, both of which are fundamental
to management and are substantial expenses to
an urban forestry program requiring significant
consideration.
Municipal Resource Actions, which are
intended to drive improvements in City policy
and practices by developing efficiency and
alignment of efforts within City departments.
The common activities for accomplishing these
goals center around developing policies that
promote routine tree inspection and formalized
tree management strategies for City-owned
trees. The results will encourage the City to
improve its awareness and mitigation of tree
hazards and eliminate barriers to effective
urban forest management.
Community Resource Actions, which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in urban
forest stewardship. The activities coordinate
with the public and encourage the participation
of citizens and businesses to align with the
City’s vision for the urban forest.
The research into current and historical efforts in
urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous
opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the
understanding of the urban forest resource as well as
improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations.
The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al.
(2011) were used as a standard to assess the current
urban forestry practices in the City, and provide
the management reference necessary to frame the
following recommended goals for this plan.
Each action contains time designations which
estimate the anticipated timeframe for completion
of the action/activity once it is started.
How Do We Get There?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
58How Do We Get There?
Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can
obstruct the view, but can also be the view.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
59 How Do We Get There?
Goal 1 - Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success
with this objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees
and a deeper understanding of the population of trees on private property. The
following actions will support this objective:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development
impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement
requirements and penalties for code violations
B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to
enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan.
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
D. Develop a voluntary heritage tree program
E. Enforce city regulations on tree cutting
i. Reach out periodically to tree maintenance and landscaping firms to
make sure they know Edmonds’ requirements for pruning or removing
trees
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree
planting and other tree programs
i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs
G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees
H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist
I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage
J. Periodically review and, if needed, update Urban Forest Management Plan
(generally, every 5-10 years)
Goal 1 Time
On-going
1 Year
On-going
3-5 Years
On-going
3-5 Years
On-going
On-going
10 Years, On-going
5-10 Years, On-going
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
60How Do We Get There?
Goal 2 - Manage public trees proactively
The city has identified opportunities within this plan to improve its risk
management associated with trees and create better pathways for community
engagement. The following actions will support this objective:
A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties
and ROW
B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to
monitor the health of public trees and make decisions on their care
C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example,
along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk
D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically
E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the
health of public trees
F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff
person to guide approach and activities
G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to
help ensure:
i. Age and species diversity;
ii. And suitability of species to location
H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees,
consistent with best management practices
I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property
and rights-of way
J. As part of City-sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate
trees in rights-of-way and on City properties
K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management
for City properties and right-of-way (ROW)
Goal 2 Time
On-going
On-going
On-going
5-10 Years, On-going
On-going
On-going
3-5 Years, On-going
3-5 Years, On-going
1 Year, On-going
On-going
On-going
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
61 How Do We Get There?
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that
voluntary public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will
support this objective.
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore
establishment of:
i. A property tax “rebate” applicable to the City portion of property taxes;
and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of
tree planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property
owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
Goal 3 Time
3-5 Years, On-going
3-5 Years, On-going
1 Year, On-going
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
62How Do We Get There?
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree
planting and care
The city recognizes the importance of the privately managed tree population in
the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The
following actions will support this objective:
A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees
B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to:
i. Develop community education materials;
ii. Participate in or initiate tree planting and tree care activities, including
outreach to citizen volunteers
iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities
C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees
and to provide guidance on tree selection and management
Goal 4 Time
1 Year
1 Year, On-going
1 Year, On-going
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
63 How Do We Get There?
Goal 5 - Promote “Right tree, right place”
Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when a balanced combination
of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees are growing in suitable
spaces to maintain views, support wildlife (pollinators, birds, mammals, etc) and
provide optimum environmental services. The following actions will support this
objective:
A. Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds
of local settings
i. Indentify: large native tree species that can spread out in large spaces;
low-growing trees in view corridors, trees with appropriate root systems
near sidewalks and underground pipes.
ii. Provide lists of suitable trees to support pollinators and backyard wildlife
habitat.
B. Identify key areas to increase canopy and:
i. For any such private properties, encourage appropriate tree planting or
other techniques; and
ii. for any such public properties, consider and take action to appropriately
plant trees or otherwise increase canopy.
C. Identify and plan for the care of unsuitable trees and, as necessary, for
pruning or removal when they are potentially damaging to people, buildings
or infrastructure
D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation
to be planted in critical areas, especially near streams and other wildlife
habitat areas
E. In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should
be planted to be compatible with the street environment
Goal 5 Time
1 Year
1-3 Years
On-going
On-going
1-2 Years
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
64How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and
Measuring Results
The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring
the success of planning strategies. It is intended
that the Plan serves as a living document. As new
information becomes available, this section of the
UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine
plan updates, annual reports, and community
satisfaction surveys.
5–10 Year Plan Update
(Plan 2023)
The UFMP is an active tool that will guide
management and planning decisions over the next
twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be
reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress
and integration into an internal work plan. The
UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates
are intended to be flexible in response to emerging
opportunities, available resources, and changes
in community expectations. Therefore, each year,
specific areas of focus should be identified. This can
inform budget and time requirements for Urban
Forest Managers.
Annual State of the Urban
Forest Report
This report, delivered annually, should include
numbers of trees planted and removed by the City,
and any changes to the overall community urban
forest. It will serve as a performance report to
stakeholders and an opportunity for engagement.
The report is also an opportunity to highlight the
successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to
inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling
blocks. This information can be integrated into
urban forest managers’ Annual Reports and used to
pursue additional project support and funding from
state agencies and Tree City USA applications.
Community Satisfaction
The results of the UFMP will be measurable in
improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs
for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals
and actions will support better tree health, greater
longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However,
perhaps the greatest measurement of success for
the UFMP will be its ability to meet community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
urban forest resource.
Community satisfaction can be measured through
surveys as well as by monitoring public support
for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan.
Community satisfaction can also be gauged by
the level of engagement and support for urban
forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest
stakeholders will help managers ensure activities
continue to be aligned with the community’s vision
for the urban forest.
How Are We Doing?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
65 Appendices
Appendix A: References
Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings
25:139–148.
American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org
Bennett, M. and Shaw, D. 2008. Diseases and Insect Pests of Pacific Madrone. Forest Health Fact Sheet EC 1619-E.
California Oak Mortality Task Force, 2019. https://suddenoakdeath.org.
Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017.
http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/
CensusScope, 2012, “CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data.” www.censusscope.org
Ciesla, WW.M. and Ragenovich, I.R. 2008. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 119. Western Tent Caterpillar. USFS.
City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens’ Tree Board.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services.
City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/
Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997.
Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/3/3d/Agrilus_anxius_1326203.jpg
Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 2015. Natural Resources Canada.
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313).
Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and Urban Planning.
Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington State Department of Commerce. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_forestry_programming.pdf
Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, “Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?” State
of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using and
Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
66Appendices
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624.
Forest Insect and Disease Leaflets, 2017 - Laminated Root Rot. USDA Forest Service https://apps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot
Heisler, G.M., 1986, “Energy savings with trees.” Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25.
Hartel, D, 2003, “GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets”, 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information.
Hollingsworth, C.S., editor. 2019. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect (accessed 31 March 2019).
i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org
Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of
Environmental Management. 45:109-133
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient
Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. http://www.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816
Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117.
Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special Section. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155.
Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org
The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/
Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
2005. Forest Health Protection—Emerald Ash Border. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection—Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded
Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast.
http://sncc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17
PNW Plant Disease Handbook
PNW Insect Handbook
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
67 Appendices
Pscheidt, J.W., and Ocamb, C.M., senior editors. 2019. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management
Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease (accessed
31 March 2019).
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/
Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com
Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html
Simpson, James, 2002. “Improved estimates of tree-shade effects on residential use,” Energy and Buildings
34, 1067-1076.
Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 2000. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting. In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference; Seattle. Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112.
“Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1.” Trees Near Power Lines | Residential | Snohomish County
PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219.
The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP).
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. “Green Roofs,” Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy Management Program.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2011 – Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control,
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externalreviewdraft_june152009.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/
Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use
Element1).
Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing, http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1380e/eb1380e.pdf
Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth 86.
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
Wolf, K.L. 1998, “Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants”, University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1.
Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers Research
Review. 14, 3:39-43.
Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential scale. Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188.
Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall
interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
68Appendices
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Figures
Figure 1: Land Cover Classes
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
Tables
Table 1: Benchmark Values
Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Table 4: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Table 5: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds
Table 6: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures
Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels
Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations
.
5, 23
24
25
27
53
54
55
.
3
27
28
29
31
32
32
40
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Improved Air Quality 36.57%64 24.00%42 21.14%37 14.29%25 4.00%7 175 4.75
Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71%24 26.86%47 49.71%87 175 2.88
Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71%38 36.57%64 25.71%45 10.29%18 5.71%10 175 4.58
Carbon Storage 8.57%15 8.57%15 17.14%30 36.00%63 29.71%52 175 3.3
Wildlife Habitat 28.57%50 25.71%45 22.29%39 12.57%22 10.86%19 175 4.49
Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0
175
0Skipped
Answered
Total14532
69 Appendices
Appendix C:
Community Survey Responses
Introduction:
The survey questions provided a public feedback
opportunity during the early stages of plan
development. They were designed to solicit
input from residents and businesses in the City of
Edmonds and help guide the plan development
by understanding about how respondents.
The questions were arranged into 4 groups:
How do you value trees?
Your opinion about public trees. (City
managed trees on streets and in parks)
Your opinion about private trees. (privately
managed trees)
Who are you? (Simple Demographics)
While providing valuable information, the results
of this survey should not be interpreted to be a
statistically significant survey representing all
of Edmonds. 175 individuals responded to the
survey (0.4 percent of the Edmonds population)
and the geographic distribution of respondents
was not a control factor, as a result the survey
responses may include an over representation
of view properties. However, these responses
do represent views of many citizens who are
particularly interested in the management of
the City’s urban forest.
Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5)
the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 =
least valuable):
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Strongly Agree 74.86%131
Agree 21.71%38
Disagree 2.29%4
Strongly Disagree 0.57%1
Not sure 0.00%0
Not Sure 0.57%1
Other (please specify)0.00%0
Answered 175
Skipped 0
Responses
Improved Air Quality 36.57%64 24.00%42 21.14%37 14.29%25 4.00%7 175 4.75
Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71%24 26.86%47 49.71%87 175 2.88
Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71%38 36.57%64 25.71%45 10.29%18 5.71%10 175 4.58
Carbon Storage 8.57%15 8.57%15 17.14%30 36.00%63 29.71%52 175 3.3
Wildlife Habitat 28.57%50 25.71%45 22.29%39 12.57%22 10.86%19 175 4.49
Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0
175
0Skipped
Answered
Total14532
70Appendices
Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Question 2 (Extended)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
Attractive to Residents 14.86%26 21.71%38 16.00%28 13.14%23 15.43%27 9.71%17 6.86%12 2.29%4 175 5.39
Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29%60 21.14%37 14.86%26 14.29%25 7.43%13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 21.71%38 17.14%30 24.00%42 11.43%20 9.71%17 9.71%17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74
Shaded Parking 2.86%5 3.43%6 8.57%15 9.71%17 8.57%15 17.71%31 19.43%34 29.71%52 175 3.03
Improve retail areas and neighborhoods 5.14%9 10.29%18 12.57%22 13.71%24 19.43%34 18.29%32 14.29%25 6.29%11 175 4.25
Increased Property Values 4.00%7 5.14%9 5.14%9 9.71%17 10.29%18 13.71%24 22.86%40 29.14%51 175 3.05
Passive recreation 4.00%7 5.14%9 6.86%12 12.00%21 15.43%27 14.86%26 20.00%35 21.71%38 175 3.37
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14%23 16.00%28 12.00%21 16.00%28 13.71%24 13.14%23 9.71%17 6.29%11 175 4.89
175
0
Answered
Skipped
6 7 812345
Additional Comments
Answered 60
Skipped 115
Answer Choices
I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69%62
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67%40
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07%88
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79%25
Other (please specify)12.43%21
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
71 Appendices
Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8)
the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most
valuable and 8 = least valuable):
Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds’
public trees.
Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City’s urban forest program? Please check all that
apply.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
Attractive to Residents14.86%2621.71%3816.00%2813.14%23 15.43%27 9.71%17 6.86%12 2.29%4 175 5.39
Beauty/Aesthetics34.29%6021.14%3714.86%2614.29%25 7.43%13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails21.71%3817.14%3024.00%4211.43%20 9.71%17 9.71%17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74
Shaded Parking2.86%53.43%68.57%159.71%17 8.57%15 17.71%31 19.43%34 29.71%52 175 3.03
Improve retail areas and neighborhoods5.14%910.29%1812.57%2213.71%24 19.43%34 18.29%32 14.29%25 6.29%11 175 4.25
Increased Property Values4.00%75.14%95.14%99.71%17 10.29%18 13.71%24 22.86%40 29.14%51 175 3.05
Passive recreation4.00%75.14%96.86%1212.00%21 15.43%27 14.86%26 20.00%35 21.71%38 175 3.37
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles13.14%2316.00%2812.00%2116.00%28 13.71%24 13.14%23 9.71%17 6.29%11 175 4.89
175
0
Answered
Skipped
6 7 812345
Answer Choices
I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69%62
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67%40
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07%88
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79%25
Other (please specify)12.43%21
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
72Appendices
Question 5 (Extended)
Question 3 (Extended)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Daily 13.02%22
Weekly 11.83%20
Monthly 10.65%18
Several Times A Year 34.32%58
Never 30.18%51
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Daily 5.33%9
Weekly 4.14%7
Monthly 2.96%5
Several Times A Year 41.42%70
Never 46.15%78
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Daily 5.33%9
Weekly 2.96%5
Monthly 5.92%10
Several Times A Year 43.20%73
Never 42.60%72
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
73 Appendices
Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue
with trees in the public rights-of-way.
Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may
be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees?
Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree
care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Strongly agree 10.65%18
Agree 59.17%100
Disagree 11.83%20
Strongly Disagree 8.88%15
Not Sure 9.47%16
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
74Appendices
Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds’
public trees.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88%15 10.06%17 25.44%43 45.56%77 6.51%11 169 1.92
Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38%26 9.47%16 21.89%37 26.04%44 23.08%39 4.14%7 169 2.67
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51%11 24.26%41 27.81%47 26.04%44 10.65%18 4.73%8 169 2.89
Take care of hazardous trees.52.07%88 26.04%44 14.20%24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89%37 30.18%51 23.08%39 12.43%21 8.28%14 4.14%7 169 3.47
169
6Skipped
Not Sure12345
Answered
Answer Choices
Strongly Agree 37.87%64
Agree 28.99%49
Disagree 17.16%29
Strongly disagree 5.33%9
not sure 10.65%18
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Parks 59.17%100
Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36%102
Streetscapes 59.17%100
Golf Courses 11.24%19
Downtown 42.60%72
Trails and bike paths 45.56%77
Edmonds has enough public trees 20.12%34
Other (please specify)17.75%30
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
75 Appendices
Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees.
Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following
options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable)
Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88%15 10.06%17 25.44%43 45.56%77 6.51%11 169 1.92
Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38%26 9.47%16 21.89%37 26.04%44 23.08%39 4.14%7 169 2.67
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51%11 24.26%41 27.81%47 26.04%44 10.65%18 4.73%8 169 2.89
Take care of hazardous trees.52.07%88 26.04%44 14.20%24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89%37 30.18%51 23.08%39 12.43%21 8.28%14 4.14%7 169 3.47
169
6Skipped
Not Sure12345
Answered
76Appendices
Question 10 (Extended)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Seminars and workshops 44.38%75
Interpretive trails and displays 59.76%101
Website resources 62.72%106
Online videos (e.g. YouTube)24.26%41
Guided nature/tree walks 55.03%93
Informational brochures 43.20%73
Other (please specify)11.83%20
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Additional Comments
Answered 40
Skipped 135
Answer Choices
Trees blocking my view 24.70%41
Trees shading my yard 9.04%15
Tree debris in my yard 12.65%21
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67%114
Canopy loss 57.83%96
Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29%120
Other Concerns(please specify)18.67%31
Answered 166
Skipped 9
Responses
77 Appendices
Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban
forestry program? Please check all that apply.
Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public
trees.
Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98%20
Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37%29
Trees near my property block views 29.34%49
Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66%113
Trees near my property are healthy 59.28%99
I want more trees near my property 25.15%42
I have no trees near my property 0.60%1
I don't agree with any of these statements.2.40%4
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
Answer Choices
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
reasonably possible.53.89%90
No. This City of Edmonds should not concern
itself with trees on private property.17.96%30
Not sure. This issue is more complicated.28.14%47
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
78Appendices
Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select
any from this list any statements you agree with.
Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be
impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Education and outreach 79.04%132
Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34%49
Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74%48
Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09%92
Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33%59
Other (please specify)22.75%38
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
Additional Comments
Answered 44
Skipped 131
Answer Choices
Male 28.66%47
Female 59.76%98
Gender Diverse 1.83%3
Prefer not to answer 9.76%16
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
79 Appendices
Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on
private property? Please select as many as apply.
Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private
property.
Question 20: Which gender do you identify with?
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Under 18 0.00%0
18 to 25 1.22%2
26 to 35 4.27%7
36 to 45 11.59%19
46 to 55 21.34%35
56+61.59%101
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
Answer Choices
Downtown/The Bowl 40.85%67
Westgate 7.32%12
Five Corners 8.54%14
Perrinville 4.88%8
Meadowdale 4.27%7
Seaview 15.24%25
Lake Ballinger 1.22%2
HWY 99 3.05%5
Other (please specify)14.63%24
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
80Appendices
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
I am a resident of Edmonds 95.12%156
I am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98%18
I own a business in Edmonds 6.71%11
I appreciate public trees 72.56%119
I have planted public trees as a volunteer 18.90%31
I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98%18
I have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees 15.85%26
None of the above 0.61%1
Other (please specify)4.27%7
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
81 Appendices
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds’ urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Additional Comments
Answered 33
Skipped 142
82Appendices
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
83 Appendices
Appendix D: Open House
Summary Report
On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the
first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City
Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds
Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input
from citizens.
The open house included a presentation by Ian
Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and
A from the audience to ask clarifying questions.
The presentation provided attendees an overview
of Edmonds’ urban forest, an introduction to what
will be included in the Urban Forest Management
Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has
completed to date. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion
boards where a broad topic was introduced on each
board followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green= a positive “vote”/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative
“vote”/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each board. In addition, each
board provided an area for Additional Suggestions
where attendees were invited to write down their
thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note
and adhere it to the board for other attendees to
review and “vote” on, as well. Lastly, a confidential
and anonymous option was provided for attendees
to provide comments and feedback by writing their
thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index
cards that were placed inside a box and not shared
at the public meeting.
The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link
for attendees to give additional feedback through an
online survey. That survey can be accessed via the
home page on the City of Edmonds website, under
the “What’s New…” section:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/
EdmondsUFMP
Local media provided public announcements of the
open house leading up to the event:
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/
reminder-open-house-managing-citys-tree-
cover-set-june-22/
https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/
open-house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city-
s-tree-cover/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines
My Edmonds News covered the open house and
provided a news story and video of the presentation
to the public:
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public-
asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban-
forest/
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now-
video-open-house-plan-manage-edmonds-
urban-forests/
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Improved Air Quality 11 0 1
B. Energy Savings 4 0 0
C. Water Quality/ Reduced Stormwater Runoff 14 0 0
D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0
E. Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0
F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0
G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails 4 0 3
H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4
I. Increased property values 7 2 3
J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0
K. Additional Ideas
Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade-
calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi-class (untreed
neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- “the projects”
don’t get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams;
coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland
desertification
0 0 0
City revenue increase with more views 0 0 0
Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1
84Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are
preferred/valued?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)2 0 0
i. Species selection 4 0 0
ii. Tree planting 1 0 0
iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0
iv. Interactive tree selector 1 1 0
v. Irrigation 1 0 0
vi. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)3 0 0
i. Species selection 3 1 0
ii. Tree planting 1 0 0
iii. Tree pruning 3 1 0
iv. Irrigation 0 0 0
C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars)2 0 0
i. Tree planting 2 0 0
ii. Tree pruning 5 0 0
iii. Irrigation 0 0 0
iv. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0
D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0
Neighborhood meetings for education and outreach 0 0 0
Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0
Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property-
amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which
appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe
story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online
circulation]
0 0 0
New name needed 0 0 0
85 Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9
B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7
C. Tree debris in my yard 1 1 5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3
E. Canopy loss 11 0 3
F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3
G. Additional Concerns
Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows
developers to completely clear treed lots for development
(residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban
1 0 0
Someone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
1 0 0
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests 0 0 0
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
is removed for development 0 0 0
This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which
are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we
have chosen to reside- as the “view”. Trees are very connected
to the idea of “the commons” in which we have not much
2 0 0
I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated
additional concern.
***Note: for this opinion board:
Green dots = concerned
Red dots = not concerned
86Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer
for public trees?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. None (keep them natural)1 4 2
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)7 1 3
C. Clearance only (keep sidewalks and streets clear)7 1 1
D. Take care of hazardous trees 10 2 0
E. Holistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but
not necessarily every tree)8 3 0
F. Additional Ideas
In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous
and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need
process to effectively deal with dangerous trees.
0 0 0
Utilize/ plant and replace trees that “heave” the sidewalks. ie-
avoid trees that interfere with built environment. 2 0 0
Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash trees. 0 0 0
Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property
owner’s views are protected. As a first step/tonight’s meeting
working together to protect environment as well as property
owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode.
0 1 0
There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional
Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote “Agree” directly on
the note itself.
87 Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees
planted?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Parks 10 0 0
B. Open Spaces 10 0 1
C. Commercial properties 9 2 0
D. Streets and medians 7 3 2
E. Parking lots 10 0 0
F. Private properties 8 1 1
G. Additional Ideas
Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all
arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool 1 0 0
Less trees in view areas 1 1 1
88Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree
planting and preservation on private property?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Free (or low-cost) trees 10 0 0
B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care
company 3 0 0
C. Education and Outreach 16 0 0
D. Tree planting events 5 0 0
E. Additional Ideas
Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees
when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot.3 0 1
Education- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all
the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for “views”
we can cut out our lungs.
0 0 0
Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order
to keep both trees and preserve view.3 0 0
City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:3 0 0
Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and
streamside property management more important than public
meetings for general public)
0 0 0
89 Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
90Appendices
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
91 Appendices
Additional anonymous comments:
Change name “Urban Forest”- bad impression,
oxymoron. Suggestion- Best plant/tree for Best
location
Wondering what is/can be done to encourage
people to maintain views for neighbors
around them?
Let’s separate view areas from non-view areas.
Right tree for right location.
I am concerned about safety regarding older
trees in both private and public spaces. We
have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood
that lose branches with most wind storms.
Who watches out for the health of those trees
and probability of danger? Most people would
have no idea where to begin, let alone be able
to afford to do something like hire an arborist.
(signed J Thompson)
Questions from the public asked during the
presentation:
Question regarding how the 30% canopy cover
was determined- comment that that number
seemed really high. Wondering if there is
a uniform process used by all cities. Made
comment that grants were judged by how much
canopy a City had. Asked for clarification on
what the process that was used to determine
30% canopy cover.
Question asking for clarification of the intention
of the UFMP- to handle City trees (as stated
in an early slide) or is it actually expanded to
handle private trees too.
Commenter asked for clarification on defining
“what is a tree”- a 30ft lilac…is that a tree? A
big rhododendron- is that a tree?
Commenter referring to tree planting
suggestions (provided an sign in table on yellow
paper)- had a question about why is there not
any evergreen on that suggestion guide?
Commenter asked question regarding tree
topping being preferable to cutting a tree to
the ground. Expressed concern over making a
“blanket rule” that tree topping is bad or not
preferable.
Question regarding information on what kinds
of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a fir
versus an oak- and where is that kind of data
available at?
Question referring to the chart shown in the
presentation comparing Edmonds with other
cities- does that chart take into consideration
view property- does it differentiate where there
are view properties and where there are not?
Commenter suggested that a significant portion
of the City [of Edmonds] has views.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
92Appendices
Attendance
City of Edmonds:
Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Services Director
Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program
Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff
Project Team Members:
Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group
Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group
Keeley O’Connell, Nature InSight Consulting
Members of the public:
Approximately 50
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan)
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/28/2019
Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting.
Attachments:
08-28-2019 PB Extended Agenda
9.A
Packet Pg. 133
Items and Dates are subject to change
Extended Agenda
August 28, 2019
Meeting Item
AUGUST, 2019
August
28
1. UFMP Update
2. RoadMap Project (update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)
SEPTEMBER, 2019
September
11
1. Joint Meeting with ADB: Design Review discussion
2. Update on Urban Forest Management Plan
September
24 PB/Council Joint Meeting
September
25
1. Continued deliberations on proposed Street Vacation Code Update
Chapter 20.70 ECDC
OCTOBER, 2019
October
9
1. Housing Commission Update
2. VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update (next steps in
PSRC process)
October
23
1.
NOVEMBER, 2019
November
13
1.
November
27
1.
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 08-28-2019 PB Extended Agenda (Review Planning Board Extended Agenda)
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending
2019
1. Community Development Code Re-Organization
2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
Potential for “urban center” or transit-oriented
design/development strategies
Parking standards
3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring
Topics
1. Election of Officers (1st meeting in December)
2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 08-28-2019 PB Extended Agenda (Review Planning Board Extended Agenda)