2019-08-28 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
August 28, 2019
Board Member Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers,
Public Safety Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair (excused)
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair (excused)
Todd Cloutier, (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. 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.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Board Member Monroe 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.
ROAD MAP TO WASHINGTON'S FUTURE PROJECT — UPDATE ON RUCKELSHAUS CENTER REPORT
Joe Tovar, Project Co -Lead, said he is an Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington College of Built
Environment and an Adjunct Professor at Washington State University. For the past two years he has been working with the
William D. Ruckelshaus Center, which is a neutral resource for collaborative problem solving, 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 the University of Washington and Washington State University. The
Center's mission is to help parties involved in complex public policy challenges in the State of Washington and the Pacific
Northwest tap into university expertise to develop collaborative, durable and effective solutions.
Mr. Tovar advised that 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. At that time, it had been 25 years since the Growth Management Act (GMA) had
been adopted, and no one had done a detailed look at how well it was working and what changes might be needed. To
understand how the GMA 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 over 2,500 individuals,
including about 400 elected officials. Over the course of two years, the team conducted 67 workshops in 26 locations across
the state, as well as 75 individual interviews that involved representatives from a broad range of sectors (public, non-profit,
private, elected officials, real estate, tribes, etc.). They also used an on-line questionnaire that received about 1,600
responses, as well as research projects with students and faculty from the University of Washington, Western Washington
University and Eastern Washington University. They also engaged with all 29 Tribes via a letter of invitation. The focus of
the outreach was a series of questions that centered on the following: What is the desired future for the State of Washington
and how is the existing system of laws, institutions and policies helping the State move in the direction of the desired future?
Mr. Tovar explained that, as they talked to the stakeholders (cities, counties, businesses, developers, tribes,
environmentalists, state agencies) early in the process, it became clear that people wanted to talk about more than just the
GMA. They wanted to talk about everything that provides either direction, resources or constraints on what local
governments are expected to do under state law (i.e. Shoreline Management Act (SMA), Revised Code of Washington
(RCW), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), annexation statutes, etc.) While the GMA and most other State laws apply
equally throughout the entire State, it was important to understand the differences amongst the various parts of the State. The
workshop discussion and interviews allowed the Project Team to solicit specific feedback about what was important to
individual areas of the State. Summaries of each of the workshops was included in Volume 2 of the final report
Mr. Tovar reported that the final report was issued in June of 2019, and an Executive Summary and all four volumes of the
final report are available online. The report identifies six transformational and systemic changes the State might want to
consider, as well as a number of key reforms that are smaller scale things that are doable in the near term. He explained that
the six transformational changes are big and will take quite a bit of effort, additional discussion and consensus building to
achieve change. He reviewed the six transformational changes and accompanying actions as follows:
1. Funding and Revenue Generation. Throughout the entire state, there is a concern that much of what State law
requires cities and counties to do in underfunded. People talked about the tax code and limitations on how the State
can raise money that do not exist in other states. They agreed that the current system is not working. The State
population is now 7.6 million people compared to 4.2 million when the GMA was adopted in 1990. The State has
grown by about 2.7 million people, and growth predictions do not indicate any sharp decline in the population
increase over the next couple of decades.
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. There was consensus that the current system is
not working and does not adequately pay for what needs to be done.
2. Adaptive Planning at a Regional Scale. Rather than focusing plans solely on a 20-year planning target, it is
important that plans have the ability to respond and adapt to market changes, climate changes and other things that
intervene during the 20-year timeframe. They heard that plans and policies need to be more flexible and less rigid in
dealing with changes that come up. The idea of operating on a regional scale came up frequently. Only cities and
counties are required to plan under the GMA, yet much of what happens in housing, environmental quality,
transportation, employment, etc. is on a regional scale. For example, cities must deal with affordable housing in a
housing market that includes several counties and dozens of cities.
There was a lot of interest in the condition of the Sound. Edmonds has one of the most progressive Shoreline
Master Programs (SMP) and most progressive and effective Critical Area Regulations (CAR) in the state, but the
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 2
system says each of the counties that front on the Sound and each of the cities that empty into the Sound have the
ability to adopt their own version of Best Available Science (BAS), CARS, SMPs, etc. The system is fragmented
down to the City scale to address an ecosystem that is much larger than any one single city or county. While a lot of
money has been spent, there has been very little progress. The conclusion is that they really need to think about
alternatives and actions that have a regional perspective.
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 the guidance detailed in the Road Map to Washington's Future Report. While the tribes are
not subject to State law, State Law can direct counties and cities to figure out how to communicate and collaborate
with the tribes. Currently, cities and counties can voluntarily include the tribes in planning and policy development,
but they are not mandated to do so. Consequently, it doesn't happen very often.
3. Resilience to Changing Conditions and Disasters. There was a lot of discussion about the environment and global
weather patterns and what is happening at the local levels. People along the coast are very concerned about sea level
rise and tsunamis and people in the center of the State are more worried about wildfires and drought. People use the
instances they are familiar with to notice changes that are happening as a result of global warming. They want to
have a plan in place that allows them to be resilient and recovery quickly from these events.
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. While local governments can have plans
that talk about climate change and ways to adapt and mitigate, it is not a requirement of GMA. The consensus was
it would be a good idea to think about how the whole system could do a better job of integrating strategies, policies,
plans and funding for climate adaptation and education.
Action 3.2: Integrate disaster preparedness and emergency and recovery planning with growth management
planning and policies. In addition to a changing climate, natural disasters also occur. Disaster preparedness
planning happens around the state that is funded by the Federal government. Some cities have good relationships
between land use planning and people who deal with emergency management and disaster planning, but that is not
the case everywhere. The State should think about ways to better integrate disaster preparedness into
comprehensive plans, development regulations, etc.
4. Statewide Water Planning. Water is a controversial issue in the State and there is currently no statewide water
plan. There are some laws related to water and there are some unadjudicated water rights around the State. A recent
Supreme Court decision placed the duty on counties to ensure that water was available to serve properties in the
rural areas before permits are issued. The legislature made some changes and allocated some funds to address the
concerns related to this decision, but they did not initiate a statewide water plan to look at what water is available
and who needs it.
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. It took California 10
years to adopt a statewide water plan. It can be done, but it will take a lot of time and money. Without a statewide
water plan, the issues won't get any simpler to resolve in the future.
5. Equity. The goal is to figure out how to integrate equity as a planning goal under the GMA.
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. Cities are required to have comprehensive plans and development regulations that are consistent with
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 3
and implement the GMA's 14 planning goals. The recommendation is to add another GMA goal that integrates
equity in all growth planning, policies, strategies, etc.
6. Economic Development. The Department of Commerce has plans and programs that are administered throughout
the State to help communities with economic development. However, there is no statewide economic development
strategy. Many areas in the state are not struggling to manage growth, but they are interested in investment,
retention, population, etc. There has been a lot of discussion about broadband and the Legislature took some steps
in the last session to try and increase access to broadband in rural parts of the State. Broadband is important to
public health, education, and retaining businesses that require high -capacity internet.
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. Economic development throughout the state needs to be better coordinated
via a statewide economic development strategy.
Action 6.2: Integrate the capital facilities and economic development planning of ports with local and regional
capital facilities, regional management and transportation planning. This issue was primarily raised by some of
the large industrial ports in the State who have had issues with local land use plans encroaching upon the industrial
manufacturing and transportation needs of ports. There are some interesting parallels between port districts and
their facilities on one hand and the tribes on the other. They are fixed in place and aren't going anywhere and they
cannot expand, but they both have a certain economic development rationale. Tribes are very concerned about
environmental stewardship, climate change and water quality, and they are also very interested in economic
development and prosperity. Economic development is a common thread that is very important to both the tribes
and port districts. It will be important to integrate what ports are expected to do with their capital facilities with
local and regional capital facilities and transportation planning.
Mr. Tovar reviewed just a few of the key reforms outlined in the plan that will be of particular interest to Edmonds:
• 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.
This issue was talked about by county and city representatives, as well as representatives from special districts and
environmentalists. There was a lot of discussion about how the State's current annexation laws do not appear to
serve one of the major policy directions in the GMA, which is that urban areas should receive their services from a
city rather than a county or special district. Prior to adoption of the GMA, more than half of the citizens in the state
lived outside of cities in unincorporated parts of counties. Now about two-thirds of the citizens live in cities. About
80% of the people in King County live in a city. The trend towards cityhood has been amazing over the past 25
years, with 14 new incorporations and a number of annexations, but there are still many areas throughout the State
with unincorporated islands. It is problematic for cities to have unincorporated clientele within their broader
jurisdictions using their facilities. There are a number of equity and efficiency issues around annexation, and many
counties are not well suited to provide urban services. However, because of the way the State's tax structure
operates, every annexation has a fiscal consequence for the county government. If annexation laws are improved to
make them easier to happen, the State needs to pay attention to the fiscal consequences for counties. They need to
keep annexations from being a big hit on county governments.
• Permit Processes. 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 a new development. GMA Goal 7 states that local government regulations should be designed to
allow permits to be processed in a timely, fair and predictable manner. They heard concern that the way State laws
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 4
are currently written and the way they are administered locally makes it hard to see that this goal has ever been
implemented. There were numerous discussions about the need to shorten the permit timeline, increase
predictability and achieve better outcomes for applicants and neighbors. It was discussed that plans provide
direction to guide regulations and projects, but development regulations control permits. A lot of cities have
implemented a form -based code that dictates everything from building height, setbacks, street walls, frequency of
openings, materials, etc. Creating a form -based code involves a lengthy public process at the front end, but it serves
both the applicant and the community if more attention is paid to the code.
Review of State Statutes. 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 and redundancies. It was suggested that there needs to be better ways of regulating with SEPA to receive
better retention of vegetation, less impact on the environment, etc. In the past, SEPA was the only way to deal with
these issues, but now there are more specific tools. Some people felt that SEPA should be required if there is
disturbance of an archaeological site. They liked that SEPA allows an opportunity for public comment and for local
jurisdictions to place conditions on a project to mitigate impacts, but SEPA only applies to projects that exceed a
certain threshold. It was suggested that there might be other ways, apart from SEPA, to more comprehensively
protect archaeology and historic resources.
Mr. Tovar advised that 75 bills related to the GMA were proposed by the Legislature in 2016, but none of them passed. The
Legislature funded the study to find out where there is agreement on what needs to be fixed and why so that appropriate
legislation can move forward. The next steps in the process include:
• Continue to convene parties to discuss the findings, changes and reforms identified in the report.
• Collaboratively craft legislation where there is some agreement.
• Share success stories and potential best practices. A number of success stories are included in Volume 3 of the
report.
• Identify target research done by universities and others. Volume 2 of the report includes six papers done by students
and faculty at three state universities on three topics. More research could be done by coordinating with faculty and
programs to match a research task with an interested student to do a capstone project.
• Consider regional visions when updating local plans. Legislators should consider the input they received from
people throughout the state regarding specific issues.
Board Member Crank thanked Mr. Tovar for his presentation. She noted that the term "LatinX" was used in the PowerPoint
presentation when describing the different workshops that were held. However, he described the group as "Spanish
speaking," which is not necessarily LatinX. She suggested that the term be changed to more accurately reflect the makeup of
the group.
Board Member Crank referred to Recommendation 5 related to equity. She voiced frustration with the growth targets
assigned to Edmonds as mandated by the GMA. She questioned how the numbers were derived and where the City would
accommodate all of the additional people. Equity involves finding a way where all of the local jurisdictions can figure out
what makes sense as opposed to trying to shoehorn a number and figure based on what the GMA says. She asked if the
project team heard this same concern from other communities. Mr. Tovar answered affirmatively. He said the original 1990
law outlined a bottom -up process, with cities and counties doing the planning. However, the growth projections come from
the top via a 20-year forecast and then counties have to collaborate with their cities to figure out how to accommodate that
number. Level of Service must also be considered as part of the equation, since funding is required to provide the
infrastructure needed to support growth. The GMA requires that cities and counties establish level of service standards for
transportation. While it doesn't tell local jurisdictions what the level has to be, cities and counties must accept lower level of
service standards if there are insufficient resources to construct additional infrastructure.
Board Member Pence said that whenever he encounters a subject of vast magnitude, he tries to think of how to frame and/or
describe it in a way that makes sense to ordinary people who do not have an in-depth planning background. There is no way
he can fathom to give a 90-second answer to a layperson about what the report means to them and the City of Edmonds. Mr.
Tovar agreed the report contains complicated information, and it is human nature to want to put things in silos so you can
wrap your brain around them (i.e. housing, transportation, environment, etc.). But the report discusses how all of the various
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 5
elements are connected, which makes it harder for laypeople to understand. Planning bodies must wrestle with a lot of
decisions, and it would be unreasonable to expect the general public to understand the information in as great of detail.
Board Member Pence commented that it is difficult to ask citizens to trust elected officials to do the right thing based on a
report they don't understand. Mr. Tovar said he does not recommend that citizens trust elected officials because they know
more, but it is accurate to say that elected officials have a duty, under the public participation requirements of the law, to do
their best to inform the citizens of the choices and alternatives before them and solicit their feedback as much as possible.
Board Member Pence pointed out that there is an area of unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance) in the middle of the
City of Edmonds, and the property owners have rejected annexation at least three times in the not too distance past. Based on
City calculations, it would cost more to service this area than the City would get back in tax revenue, so there is not a lot of
eagerness to annex Esperance into Edmonds. He asked Mr. Tovar to share his thoughts on this situation. Mr. Tovar
suggested that the first step would be to start a broad and candid conversation with the residents about what they want long-
term and what they don't have now that they might have if they were part of the City. Change happens over time and people
may be really vested in their opinions for a good reason. It is important to talk to them and try to understand and address
their concerns so they might be persuaded to a different outcome. Board Member Pence said he likes the idea of talking to
the residents first rather than a top -down effort. Mr. Tovar commented that it is all about building relationships. People tend
to resist more when they haven't been respected or listened to. If they don't feel respected, it is virtually impossible to get
them to collaborate to find a middle ground. On the dollar side, unannexed areas typically operate with semi -rural
infrastructure because counties do not have the resources to address all of the deficiencies. It is expensive to bring newly
annexed areas up to city standards for stormwater, sidewalks, parks, streets, etc. The legislature could help by reforming how
infrastructure is paid for. He recalled that several years ago, the legislature passed a bill that made it possible for Kirkland to
annex the Finn Hill Neighborhood by providing a percentage of the State's sales tax revenue to the City for taking on that
annexation and paying for the needed infrastructure. However, this funding source is no longer available. State funding will
be needed if the legislature expects cities to annex unincorporated urban areas and retrofit them with the needed
infrastructure.
Board Member Rosen said he supports collaboration, but some of the issues (environment, water quality, access to water)
that the cities, counties and State are facing do not have a long-term horizon. There needs to be a sense of urgency, and
people have to perceive the personal benefits. He noted that New Zealand banned semi -automatic weapons in a matter of six
days, and South Africa eliminated the Mesquite tree species after learning that it was consuming up 185 trillion gallons of
water a year. Based on the report and his personal experience, he asked Mr. Tovar to share his thoughts on how to advance
recommendations in a way that will have a significant impact and on a timeline that make sense. Mr. Tovar observed that the
report does not contain words like "crisis," or "urgent." However, the housing crisis and environmental crisis are significant
and important concerns that can't wait 10 years to be addressed. He learned from this process that when you take the time to
talk to people in a respectful and noncondescending way, they can grasp that there are some profound implications of what is
going on now and that addressing them in any meaningful way will take fairly dramatic and bold actions. He cautioned
against trying to scare people into doing something. Addressing these problems will require a lot of patience, leadership and
humility on the part of citizens, community leaders and elected officials. A follow-up recommendation in the report is to talk
with the Association of Cities, Association of Counties, Association of Business, and other groups that are interested in the
long-term big picture. Issues related to housing, water quality, transportation and the environment matter to all of these
groups.
Mr. Tovar observed that a lot of attention has been paid to homelessness and low-income housing, and rightly so. However,
middle -income housing has been left out of the discussion. He referred to a recent report done by Challenge Seattle, a group
made up of representatives from the 16 largest corporate entities in the state and two philanthropies, called "An Abysmal
Crisis of Middle -Income Housing." The report discusses how the housing crisis is impacting everyone. He acknowledged
that addressing the problem will take a lot of work, but there seems to be a broader sense of the seriousness of the situation.
Board Member Rosen shared three anecdotal stories:
• When recycling was first introduced, it was free and people supported the idea of materials such as paper being
recycled into other uses. More than 50% of the waste that is generated is recycled, but now they are generating
more waste than ever before. They didn't say don't use it if you don't need it, and they didn't say make sure it is
made out of recycled content. They got exactly what they asked for, but not what they wanted.
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 6
• People were encouraged to reduce their use of electricity and water to save money. Rather than emphasizing how
precious water is, they made it about economics. This ended up being a false story because the infrastructure costs
so much to run that rates have to be raised when people save too much.
• To get people to purchase front -load washing machines, they had to point out they would save as much water as they
drink in a lifetime in one year.
Board Member Rosen suggested they need to apply the lessons learned on how to do market transformations by making the
ethic so strong that it doesn't become about what is the value of a starfish. Mr. Tovar commented that it doesn't work to
shame or scare people to implement change because people tend to act out of self-interest. The better approach is to seek buy
in for the broader interest of public good. A lot of psychology needs to go into the message to engage the public at a level
where they feel respected and convey information that they can understand. It can't be just government policy; there needs to
be a certain amount of cultural adjustment.
Board Member Rosen commented that the report is amazing.
Mr. Chave provided a summary of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which points out that the region was once
largely forested and outlines what the City has attempted to do in terms of regulating and managing its urban forests,
especially in the parks and rights -of -way. He recalled that the City's Tree Board presented a draft Tree Code to the Planning
Board and City Council in 2016 that emphasized the regulation of trees on private property. The City Council chose not to
adopt the Tree Board's recommendation and instead initiated the UFMP process in 2017. The UFMP process included
extensive public outreach via press releases, open houses, surveys, and multiple public meetings with the City Council, Tree
Board and Planning Board.
Mr. Chave advised that, between November of 2018 and June of 2019, the document was tweaked to be more specific to
Edmonds. In addition to providing more information about native trees, some of the scientific statements were refocused to
be more specific about what is going on in Edmonds as opposed to the more general statements in the original draft. A lot
more information was provided on tree maintenance and how to select the right tree for the right place. The current plan that
was adopted by the City Council in June describes the plan's background, context and purposes; outlines the public process;
discusses tree selection and the benefits and challenges of having an urban forest; talks about the state and city regulatory
and planning framework; addresses tree canopy; identifies opportunities for planting new trees; discusses urban forest
management practices; outlines the major emerging diseases and challenges; provides resources and case studies; and
recommends goals and actions.
Board Member Rosen recalled that the City Council had a discussion about whether the plan should call for maintaining or
enhance the citywide canopy coverage. He asked what their final consensus was. Mr. Chave said the City Council wants to
maintain the existing canopy, but they also want to enhance it as much as possible. That is where the incentive concept
comes into play. Rather than regulating private property owners, the idea is to encourage them to plant trees, especially the
right trees in the right places. When talking about maintaining the existing canopy, the discussion in the plan focuses on
maintaining trees in public spaces such as parks and rights -of -way, but there are also opportunities to enhance the canopy in
these locations. He said he views maintaining and enhancing as two important parts to the necessary program.
Mr. Chave reviewed the five overarching goals contained in the plan, as well their accompanying action items:
Goal 1 — Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage.
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts. Board Member Monroe asked if the
updated regulations would apply to private properties or just City -owned properties. Mr. Chave answered that the
regulations would focus primarily on private properties, particularly when development occurs. For example, rather
than clear cutting a property to accommodate a new development, the City could require a developer to contribute to
an in -lieu -of program so that the trees can be planted elsewhere. Board Member Monroe said he understood that the
UFMP applied to the urban forest and not private property. Mr. Chave responded that most of plan's focus is on
public lands, but it also suggests the need for regulations that impact private properties when new development
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 7
occurs. The plan's recommendations for existing development would be incentive -based rather than regulatory.
Board Member Monroe recalled that people were upset with the Tree Board's proposal because it regulated trees on
private property. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Tree Board's proposal would have required private property
owners to maintain a certain level of tree coverage and replace trees that are cut down. That is very different than a
property that is being subdivided and developed.
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.
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees. This will be increasingly challenging in
the years ahead.
H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist. The City currently has a part-time arborist now, and the idea is to
expand the ability for that person to devote more time to tree issues.
L Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage.
J. Periodically review and, if needed, update the UFMP.
Goal 2 — Manage public trees proactively.
A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties and rights -of -way (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, especially looking at tree condition and the risk
to streets.
D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically. This is a high priority, as the current plan is outdated.
E. Support removal of invasive plants that threaten the health of public trees.
F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff person to guide approach and activities.
The City has already established a multi -departmental, multi -disciplinary team to look at tree management issues.
G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to help ensure age and species diversity
and suitability of species to location.
H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees, consistent with best management
practices.
L Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property and ROW. This could involve a
public information program and/or campaign.
J. As part of City -sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate trees in ROWS and on Cityproperties.
The City has sometimes had a good track record with this, but other times has not. It will be important to provide
more attention going forward.
K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management and ROW.
Goal 3 — Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property.
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds. Other cities have used this
approach successfully.
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of incentives.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or
type of healthy trees. This could be a companion to the Heritage Tree Program.
Goal 4 — Provide resources to the community to educate and inform on tree planting and care.
A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees. Some of this has already occurred with signs
on some of the trees in the downtown.
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 8
B. Provide for the Tree Board, especially to develop community education materials, participate in or initiate tree
planting and tree care activities, including outreach to citizen volunteers, and report annually to the City Council
on Tree Board activities. This will involve City resources, especially staffing and support for the Tree Board.
C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees and to provide guidance on tree
selection and management.
Goal 5 — Promote "Right tree, right place."
A. Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds of local settings. The Tree Board has
already taken this project on.
B. Identify key areas to increase canopy. For private properties, this will involve incentives to encourage tree
retention and tree planting. For public properties, it will involve the City acting appropriately to plant trees or
otherwise increase the canopy. Some of this will occur in the parks and ROW.
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. Sometimes trees have to be removed and replaced
with a different species. The Street Tree Plan needs to be updated to make sure the City is planting the right trees in
the right places.
D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation to be planted in critical areas, especially
near streams and other wildlife habitat areas. The habitat component is very important near streams and other
critical areas.
E. In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should be planted to be compatible with the
street environment. The right tree species will vary significantly depending on the environment.
Board Member Crank asked how the City prioritizes its maintenance, replacement and tree planting programs. Mr. Chave
answered that it is a combination of things. There are some ongoing programs, but emergency situations also arise that have
to be taken care of immediately. Other projects are included as part of road and sidewalk projects. Also, if the Street Tree
Plan is done properly, it will identify corridors that need to be redone. He suggested this would be a good question to pose
when the Public Works and Engineering Departments presents the Capital Improvement Program for 2020.
Mr. Chave again noted that the UFMP was approved by the City Council and the City has already started the implementation
program. For example, a multi -disciplinary team has already been formed to work on some of the items, and various
departments are working to incorporate implementation into their 2020 budget proposal. A plan of this type needs to be re-
evaluated every five or ten years to note progress and whether or not the plan is doing what is was intended to do.
Mr. Chave advised that a few questions came up during the City Council's review.
• How does Edmonds' overall tree canopy compare to other jurisdictions in the region? He provided a graphic and
explained that Edmonds has a 30% tree cover, and other jurisdictions in the region range between 25% to 40%.
Edmonds is generally in the average range, but there is room for improvement.
• Is there a standard right tree canopy? The answer is no. Tree canopy varies significantly from city -to -city. Much of
it has to do with how communities grow over time.
• What would need to be done to increase the tree canopy by 1%? It would take 64 more acres of tree cover, which is
not a small amount. Board Member Monroe pointed out that this equates to about 50 football fields or about 7,000
20-inch diameter trees.
• What is the timeline for action? The timeline will vary. Some of the actions are short term, while others will
require more time. Some will be ongoing actions. The actions that seem to have immediate attention are the Street
Tree Plan update, cleaning up and clarifying the tree regulations that are scattered throughout the code, creating
some incentives to encourage private property owners to maintain and plant trees, and providing more funding for a
full-time arborist on staff to help push the incentives forward.
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 9
Board Member Pence asked if a City staff person has been identified as the lead for implementing the UFMP. Mr. Chave
said it varies. For example, the Public Works Department generally addresses trees in the ROW, and the Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services Department focuses on trees in parks. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has a
part-time arborist on staff, but the time she can devote to tree issues is relatively small. Board Member Pence noted that she
is an existing employee who received arborist certification. He commented that programs that include categories of ongoing
opportunity often mean things will not move very fast or effectively. Rather than having each department act independently,
an ideal situation would be for the City to have a Tree Czar who has overall authority over trees on public property. Mr.
Chave said that is why the City has established the multi -departmental, multi -disciplinary team to collaborate together.
Board Member Pence suggested it would be appropriate for this group to provide quarterly reports on specific tasks that have
been accomplished. Mr. Chave recalled that the action plan mentions updates and/or reports to the City Council for a variety
of action items.
Board Member Pence commented that there are some magnificent street trees at the major intersections of downtown, but
they haven't been pruned or tended to for too long. Mr. Chave pointed out that tree maintenance and pruning was
specifically called out as an action item in the plan, but Board Member Pence felt the statement was too general. There are
some areas where maintenance is needed now. Mr. Chave said the City is taking a pretty serious look at the situation, and the
multi -departmental team wants to be much more proactive, particularly with more funding for tree maintenance.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Monroe reminded the Board that they are scheduled to meet jointly with the Architectural Design Board
(ADB) on September 111 to discuss the design review process and the ADB's role in design review. The Board will meet
jointly with the City Council on September 241, and their September 25" meeting agenda will include continued
deliberations on the proposed Street Vacation Code Update (ECDC 20.70).
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe reported that he attended the August 27t' City Council meeting where the City Council agreed to
begin reading an Indigenous Peoples Land Acknowledgement Statement during each of its meetings. He suggested the
Board should also discuss whether or not the statement would be appropriate for their meetings.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank announced that the Housing Commission members have been appointed. She reached out to the
Development Services Director with a request for information about the makeup of the group, and she agreed to contact the
Council President to find out when the information would be published. After the Housing Commission gets settles and has
their first meeting, she suggested the Board invite them to meet jointly to share information relative to housing issues.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2019 Page 10