2021-02-02 City Council - Full Agenda-27801.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
FEBRUARY 2, 2021, 7:00 PM
DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING
PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN
ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART
PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE
ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE
AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND.
WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED
LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Edmonds City Council Agenda
February 2, 2021
Page 1
3. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Kathleen Barrett and Raphael & Marieka
Miller
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment (45 min)
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. Recognition of Housing Commission's Work (10 min)
2. Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel" as a
Permitted Use in the CW Zone (30 min)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
February 2, 2021
Page 2
6.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/2/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2021
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
01-26-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
6.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
January 26, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Council President Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection
with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 6.4, Council Code of Conduct, be removed from the Consent
Agenda and added to Unfinished Business as Item 7.2.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
6.1.a
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Marlin Phelps said he was making audience comment to warn the people of Edmonds about the
affiliation with the Western District of Washington FBI. When he learned in 2015 what he being set up
for, he began an email campaign to CNN.com which was the anthesis for a podcast by the president of
CNN.com and former U.S. Attorney about the murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Wells, a coverup.
Episode 3 details Scott Lee Kimball. He encouraged the Council to watch it, it takes less than 10 minutes
to learn what the FBI and the Western District of Washington is truly capable of. Scott Lee Kimball,
while being paid by the FBI, murdered four people. The podcast doesn't say that he pled guilty to those
murders in a court of limited jurisdiction in Bolder County, Colorado and likely is not in prison. He
encouraged the Council to understand what the FBI and people affiliated with FBI are capable of doing.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ROBERT
SCARR AND ERIK MORRISS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is the employment agreement that she referenced at the
last Council meeting that addresses compensation for Acting Chief Lawless. The current policy does not
provide him a step increase and only provides 5% over his base wages. He is topped out in his normal
salary and is not due to receive a step increase. The employment agreement would provide him a step
increase in the Police Chief wage range where he is currently placed.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked the date that Acting Chief Lawless was appointed Interim Chief. Ms.
Neill Hoyson answered his current interim appointment ended January 22nd and the newest interim
appointment started January 23'. The prior appointment would have begun six months prior to January
22nd; she did not have the exact date. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the interim appointment began
with a 5% increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained acting duty pay provides a 5% increase over an
employee's current wage.
Had Acting Chief Lawless been confirmed by the City Council after the Mayor appointed him,
Councilmember K. Johnson said he would have received a six month step increase. Therefore, had the
Mayor appointed him, he would be at a higher level than his current appointment. Ms. Neill Hoyson
answered it would have depended on what he negotiated for his pay if he had been the appointee. She
assumed it would have been close to what he's making out of class. She agreed any employee hired into a
new position receives a step increase after six months. Councilmember K. Johnson observed going from
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
6.1.a
Assistant Chief to Police Chief would not have been lateral; he would have received some increase. Ms.
Neill Hoyson agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson said six months later, he would have had another
increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed the policy provides a step increase after the six month probation
is completed.
Councilmember K. Johnson said six months after that, having been in the position for a year, he would
have received another increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered potentially; if someone is hired in the
first half of the year, they receive the step increase on January 1 of the subsequent year. If someone is
hired in the second half of the year, they do not receive a step increase until the following January 1.
Councilmember K. Johnson summarized the idea is after six months, an employee receives one step
increase and at the end of the year, depending on the point in the year they were hired, they receive
another increase. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that was accurate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said theoretically if Assistant Chief Lawless had been hired for this position
he would be three steps higher at the end of the year that he was appointed and confirmed. Ms. Neill
Hoyson agreed he would potentially be three steps higher. The salary ranges only go up to Step 7 and he
is currently at Step 5. The proposed wage increase would place him at a Step 6. Councilmember K.
Johnson said she will make a motion once other Councilmembers have had their questions answered.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the policy for a temporary or conditional job offer,
observing Acting Chief Lawless is a temporary employee and there is a separate policy related to step
increases. She commented the power was out at her house and in the neighborhood. Ms. Neill Hoyson
said the Acting Duty Pay Policy provides that any employee working in an acting capacity in a
classification that is higher than the one they currently hold receives a 5% increase in pay. If for some
reason their current wage on the salary schedule is so significantly below the acting range, they would at
least get the first step in the pay range which can be more than a 5% increase if the employee moving into
the acting position is in a much lower band.
Ms. Neill Hoyson explained that was not the case with Acting Chief Lawless. The band for Deputy Chief
is 19 and the Police Chief band is 21. Acting Chief Lawless was topped out on the Deputy Chief pay band
at a Step 7 which equated to a Step 5 in the Police Chief band with a 5% increase. The language doesn't
provide for a step increase as it does not contemplate that someone would get a step increase that's
outside of policy. If someone is in an acting capacity and they received a regular step increase in their
base pay, they would also receive a step increase in their acting duty pay to maintain the 5%.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Acting Chief Lawless had only two steps to go to be at the top
of the Police Chief band. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed; he is currently at 5, it is proposed to provide him a
step increase to Step 6, leaving only one more step as there are a total of 7 steps in the pay range.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Councilmember was interested in creating three steps
which was not within the band. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed.
Councilmember Olson commented an important facet for the Council to know and consider is the pay is
not retroactive so there is some value in expediency and moving forward tonight as the new appointment
has already started.
Council President Paine asked if Acting Chief Lawless received a pay increase in his existing range,
range 19, during this time frame. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered he has been topped out on that range for
many years so he is not due any step increase in his regular base pay range. He has been a Deputy Chief
for many years so he is topped out on that band. On January 1, he received the 2% wage adjustment that
all Non -Represented employees received.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 6
6.1.a
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING
COMPENSATION FOR ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS DURING THE REMAINING DURATION
OF HIS ACTING ASSIGNMENT.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to make a different motion. City Clerk Scott Passey said if
the motion is vastly different it may be considered a substitute motion, but if it is a minor amendment, it
would be an amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson said it would be a substitute amendment.
As Councilmember K. Johnson began to make her motion, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point
of order, stating a motion could not be made when there was already a motion on the floor. The Council
would need to vote down the original motion first. Mr. Passey advised another motion could be made that
was a substitute for the original motion. Discussion returns to the main motion and any amendments,
discussion then occurs on the substitute motion and the Council votes whether to substitute it for the main
motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson made the following motion in light of the fact that Acting Chief Lawless has
performed his duties in an exemplary way during the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the fact that he
has conducted himself in a calm, confident, and professional manner during the Police Chief recruitment:
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, THAT ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS BE AWARDED A MINIMUM OF A TWO
STEP SALARY INCREASE.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmember Distelhorst' restate his motion
as she had not heard the entire motion due to interruptions.
Councilmember Distelhorst restated his motion:
TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING COMPENSATION FOR
ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS DURING THE REMAINING DURATION OF HIS ACTING
ASSIGNMENT AS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA PACKET TONIGHT.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many steps were in the current employee agreement. Ms.
Neill Hoyson answered it was one step which equals a 5% increase in pay.
Mayor Nelson asked about the process. Mr. Passey said if the motion to substitute is not changed or
amended, the Council would vote whether to substitute Councilmember K. Johnson's motion for the main
motion. If that motion failed, the main motion stands.
Council President Paine said some fast math regarding the second motion indicated it be an additional
$4,000-$4,500 for the remaining six months, the difference between Step 6 and 7 of Range 22 according
to the employment agreement. Ms. Neill Hoyson offered to calculate the exact difference.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether there were any issues with proposing something like this. She
assumed it was a little unusual but asked if it was so out of the ordinary that issues may be discovered
later. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered Mr. Lawless is not required to serve as the Acting Chief if he
is not paid a wage he is willing to work for. If he were unwilling to work for a particular wage and the
Council approved the wage he was asking for, there was nothing improper about that.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there were any issues with the two-step amendment. Mr. Taraday
answered there was no cap; other than staying within the approved salary scale, he was not aware of any
City policy that prevented the Council from approving the substitute motion. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 7
6.1.a
with Mr. Taraday; there is nothing the Council would run afoul of as far as policy. What the Council is
considering is outside of current policy which is why the Council is addressing it via an employment
agreement rather than current policy. The Council can choose to compensate Mr. Lawless in the manner
they wish to and there is no issue as long as it is within the pay band established for the Police Chief.
With regard to Council President Paine's question, Ms. Neill Hoyson said the additional compensation for
6 months for 2 steps rather than 1 step would be $4,187.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of Councilmember K. Johnson's motion was to
increase Acting Chief Lawless from Range 22 Step 5 to Range 22 Step 7. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that
was how she understood Councilmember K. Johnson's motion, rather than a 1-step increase to take him
to Step 6, a 2-step increase to Step 7. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for that motion.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if he could withdraw his motion or should it be handled in the way Mr
Passey previously stated. Mr. Passey advised it would be in order to withdraw the motion.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she believed this Council owed a debt of gratitude to Acting Chief
Lawless. This would be one way in which the Council could express that gratitude while still
acknowledging that the City was headed on new path for a Police Chief.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES.
2. COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.2)
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND 6.2.A TO REMOVE "AVOIDING AGGRESSIVE" SO THAT THE SECTION READS
"USING RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE AND AATOIDING AGGRESSIVE TONES."
Council President Paine recalled this had been voted on at the last meeting and questioned what had
changed. Councilmember Buckshnis answered nothing had changed, she and Councilmember Olson
discussed this due to her concern this was extremely subjective and Councilmember Olson suggested she
present it to Council for consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said aggressive tones can be defined in
many different ways. She was concerned the new code of conduct was very subjective and the most
subjective was aggressive tones. She observed Councilmembers, the Mayor and others can say someone
is using aggressive tones because it is a question of definition.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said use of aggressive tones has been one of issues the Council has had
in the last I1/2 years. She agreed it was subjective, but it would be up to Council to decide whether they
believed an aggressive tone was used or perhaps it was the individual themselves. She did not support this
amendment to the code of conduct.
Councilmember Olson recalled one of things the subcommittee discussed and was included in the
finishing language of the code of conduct was that it be something the whole body was behind. In the
final analysis, if this such a sticking point and something that members were significantly opposed to, it
would be better for the order to remove that item. She expressed support for removing the language.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the phrase begin with "use" rather than "using" as that was correct
grammar. She preferred the statement read, "use respectful language." Unless someone can provide an
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 8
6.1.a
example of an aggressive tone used in the last year or the problem this language seeks to solve, it was her
opinion that no one had been beyond the range of appropriate behavior.
Council President Paine pointed out the Council had just approved the minutes that included the
discussion from last week; there was a 3-4 vote on this same amendment last week. She questioned
whether this motion was proper. She heard what Councilmembers were saying, but the Council voted to
include "avoiding aggressive." Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Passey if the motion was proper. Mr. Passey
advised Councilmember have the right to pull items from Consent because it implies unanimous consent;
items can be pulled for a separate vote.
Councilmember Olson asked for clarification, if a specific element had been voted on during a previous
meeting, it can be revisited by pulling it from the Consent Agenda and voting again. Mayor Nelson said
that was his understanding.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he hears the conversation and was surprised. Being respectful and civil
along with other language in the code of conduct about inflammatory and insulting language, conduct and
decorum was expected of the Council, in business or in a volunteer organization. He hoped that everyone
could follow that language and decorum. He worried when conversations strayed into what has happened
in the past, as one of the goals of the subcommittee was to have a global document that was not based on
past experience but a document that would apply now as well as in the future and keep Council in its
conduct focused on policy, decorum and working toward solutions. He was struggling slightly, especially
with the self -enforcing nature of the document; he did not expect that Councilmember would continually
be sending emails entitled code of conduct reminder, but rather that this would be a self -reference guide
much the same as the Council uses Robert's Rules of Order.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this new code of conduct is too subjective, it sets the stage for retribution
by a simple majority and can create a tribunal setting. Resolution 1306 that covered the Mayor, Council,
boards and commissions and working groups was sufficient despite the fact the reason for this new code
of conduct was never stated. In her opinion, the reason to divert to this very subjective and expansive
code of conduct was to define that Councilmembers can put themselves in jeopardy, particularly those in
the minority and she has seen that happen. She did not support this code of conduct because it was far too
subjective and the biggest issue was the reference to aggressive tones. She pointed out that is not
addressed in Robert's Rules and she preferred Resolution 1306.
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out Robert's Rules of Order, which the Council has previously
adopted, includes a chapter on tribunals and trials of Councilmembers and, therefore, it was not
contemplated in the code of conduct. The subcommittee had not considered that other than recognizing it
existed in Robert's Rules.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO STRIKE "THE CITY ATTORNEY" IN THE CHAPTER HEADING OF 6.2,
SO IT READS, "CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNCIL
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she thought that had been done last week. Councilmember
Distelhorst answered it was removed from 6.2.1), but not from the title of 6.2.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 9
6.1.a
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO STRIKE UNDER 6.E THE LAST WORDS, "OR OTHERWISE INTRUDING
ON THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS."
Councilmember K. Johnson said this was too broad a statement. It is the Mayor prerogative to tell the
Council what they can and can't do.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this language provides clarity to the Council's responsibilities. She
received more complaints last year regarding Council's abrupt interaction with staff such as walking into
offices and demanding staff do certain things. This clarifies for Council that that is not their role. She
encouraged Councilmembers to vote against removing this language.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO STRIKE 6.3.E, THAT DISCUSSES WHEN ATTENDING A NON -CITY SPONSORED
EVENT, MEETING, CONFERENCE OR OTHER ACTIVITY, COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL DO
SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ONLY.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained when she attends many events, she is there because she is a City
Councilmember and is expressing that point of view. She is not there as Kristian Johnson, citizen of the
City of Edmonds, but as an Edmonds City Councilmember. She said her experience should provide some
weight to this. Due to COVID, many Councilmember have not had the experience of going to meetings,
conferences or other activities, but she guaranteed when they attended, they were there as a
Councilmember, not as an individual.
Council President Paine commented she reads 6.3.E differently, to her that sentence means a person is
acting as their own self as a Councilmember and not representing the full Council and she believed that
was the interpretation during abundant discussion last week. This same motion was made last week and
the situation has not changed. She did not support deleting that section.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he had the same understanding, recalling a lengthy discussion last week
where the section was reworded to make it clearer. Including "Councilmembers shall do so" clarified that
a Councilmember was representing themselves as an individual Councilmember and not the Council as a
body. What the maker of the motion stated is consistent with the language in this section; a
Councilmember represents themselves as a Councilmember, but were not representing the Edmonds City
Council.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO AMEND 6.3.E, TO READ "...SHALL DO SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL
COUNCILMEMBER CAPACITY ONLY...".
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING
YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
6.1.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented during the BLM rally, a Councilmember spoke and
indicated they were representing the City which can lead to a dangerous situation. This amendment may
resolve that.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE CODE OF CONDUCT AS AMENDED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT #2
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is an amendment to the employment agreement with
Maureen Judge that addresses her continued employment for 2021. As with past renewals of this
employment contract, it goes from February 1 of the current year through January 31 of the following
year. Her evaluation may have been completed; if not, the Council can still choose to proceed with the
agreement.
Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated administration drafting the employment agreement and asked
whether that was a legislative role that should be handled by the Council President. Council President
Paine explained said she asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to put this on the Council's agenda and make the
presentation about the changes to the contract to ensure it was in compliance with standard practices for
Non -Represented employees.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled as a contract employee previously, Ms. Judge did not have benefits.
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she is a full-time regular employee and receives benefits in the same manner
as other Non -Represented employees. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was proposal, and asked
whether she received benefits in the past or was she strictly a contract employee without benefits. Ms.
Neill Hoyson answered it appears she has always had access to City benefits. The one difference in her
contract is she accrues vacation leave at a higher rate than a Non -Represented employee based on years of
service; she accrues leave at 10 hours/month which is higher than she would receive based on her years of
service if she were a regular Non -Represented, non -contracted employees. There is no proposed change to
that in the proposed agreement amendment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council previously agreed to provide the
legislative/administrative assistant a higher leave rate versus a higher salary. Her evaluation has not been
completed but is in process. She has heard only good things about the Council's legislative/administrative
assistant. This last year has been monumental due to her assisting with the training of four new
Councilmember during a pandemic. Ms. Judge has put energy into making everyone feel welcome and
assisted and her evaluation will reflect that.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR
LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INTRODUCTION DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE
AMENDMENT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 11
6.1.a
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien commented this is the long awaited tree regulation update.
He reviewed:
Urban Forest Management Plan
0 2014/2015 Tree Code Update
■ Did not have policies in place to support code update
0 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan
Tree Regulations Update Goals
o Improve tree retention with new development on private property
o Implement low impact development principles
o Establish a Tree Fund
o Other updates
■ Definitions
■ Existing permitting process
■ Penalties
Related UFMP Goals
o Goal 1 —Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
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. These tree regulations in and of themselves will not
meet the no net loss policy.
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
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
o Goal 3 - Incentivize planting trees on private property
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
Draft Tree Regulations
o New Chapter 23.10 ECDC
■ Exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement,
violations
o New Section 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
o New Chapter 3.95 ECC Tree Fund
ECDC 23.10.020 - Definitions
o Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) -Diameter of tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground
o Significant tree —A tree with at least 6-inch DBH
o Protected tree —A tree identified for retention and protection, or a replacement tree required
during development of a site
ECDC 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development
o Short Subdivision (up to four lots)
o Subdivision (five or more lots)
o New multi -family development
o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-
family house
o Tree removal on developed site not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040
ECDC 23.10.040 - Exemptions
o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas
o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means
o Removal of trees for utility maintenance
o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park's Department
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 12
6.1.a
o Routine landscaping and maintenance
■ Trees previous topped can be topped to previously topped level
o Exemption with supporting documentation
■ Hazard Tree Removal
■ Nuisance Tree Removal
ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited
o Removal of protected trees unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees
o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless trees are determined to be
hazard or nuisance trees
o During permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct
demolition activity
o Trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in Chapters 23.40 —23.90
ECDC
Trees and Development
o First retain existing trees
o Second replace trees that are removed
o Third pay for trees removed but not replaced
ECDC 23.10.060.0 — Tree Retention Requirements
o ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Requirement
New single family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, or unit lot subdivision
site
o Retention Priority
■ Priority 1 —Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and
critical areas, trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH
■ Priority 2 —Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a
screen function, other significant native and nonnative trees
■ Priority 3 —Alders and cottonwoods
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement
o Replacement required for each significant tree removed
o Number of required replacement based diameter of trees removed:
■ 6 inches to 10 inches DBH —1 replacement tree required
■ 10.1 inches to 14 inches DBH —2 replacement trees required
■ Above 14 inches —3 replacement trees required
• ECDC 23.10.080.E — Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu
o A fee -in -lieu may by allowed after consideration of all other options
o $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees required to satisfy the replacement requirement but
not planted
o Paid into the City's Tree Fund
• ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title
o The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an
approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently
protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance,
record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the
Snohomish County auditor's office.
• ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design
o Provide flexibility during subdivision design to aid in tree retention
o Setbacks
■ No street setback less than 15 feet
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 13
6.1.a
■ No rear setback less than 10 feet
■ No side setback less than 5 feet
o Lot size may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed
by the zone
o Coverage on individual lots may be increased as long as the overall coverage allowed by the
zone is not exceeded
o Allow variations in access widths
Chapter 3.95 ECC — Tree Fund
o Funding Sources
■ Revenue from Chapter 23.10 ECDC: fee -in -lieu or civil fines
■ Civil penalties from critical area violations
■ Donations or grants for tree purposes
■ Other monies allocated by the City Council
o Funding Purposes
■ Tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds
■ Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional
■ Paying for services that support urban forest management and health
■ Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City
■ Purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes
o Funds from fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting (added by
Planning Board)
ECDC 23.10.030 - Permits
o Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 processed as Type I permit
o Planning Board receptive to the Council referring consideration of allowing a certain number
of trees to be removed from a single family lot without critical areas in a given period.
(Removal of trees on private property a controversial topic during previous Tree Code
proposal and will require more staff to administer such a policy)
o Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision or other
land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate
tree removal permit.
ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
o Civil Penalties
■ Economic benefit derived from violation
■ Appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or larger
■ $1,500 for trees less than 12 inches DBH
o Aiding and Abetting: Tree cutter equally liable as property owner
• Development Examples
o Next five slide are examples of implementing the draft regulations
o Compare the fee -in -lieu tree fund payments with other development fees
o City Impact Fees
■ Traffic - new single family residence $6,249.14
■ Parks - new single family residence = $2,734.05
o Utility Charges
■ Water — %" meter = $5,050
■ Sewer — new single family +$4,417
o Credit is given for existing development
1. New Single -Family Development
0 15 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 5 Trees
o Tree Retained — 6 Trees
o Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 14
6.1.a
o Required replacement trees not planted 22
o Tree Fund Payment $22,000
o Retain one additional tree and plant three more
■ $16,000 Tree Fund Payment
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450
2. Short Subdivision — Four Lots
0 41 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 12 Trees
o Trees Retained — 13 Trees
o Assume 3 Trees/lot — 12 Trees
o Required replacement trees not planted — 58 Trees
o Tree Fund Payment - $58,000
o Retain 8 additional trees
■ $37,000 Tree Fund Payment
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $55,351
3. Subdivision —Ten Lots
0 90 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 27 Trees
o Trees Retained — 20
o Assume 3 Tree/lot — 30
o Required replacement trees not planted — 98
o Tree Fund Payment - $98,000
o Retain 1 additional tree and plant 4 per lot
■ $85,000 Tree Fund Payment
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $129,151
4A. Conservation Subdivision Design (Standard)
0 153 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 46 Trees
o Trees Retained — 15 Trees
o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees
o Required Replacement trees not planted — 315
o Tree Fund Payment - $315,000
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801
4B.Conservaton Subdivision Design (Flexible)
0 153 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 46 Trees
o Trees Retained — 62 Trees
o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees
o Required Replacement trees not planted — 202)
o Tree Fund Payment - $202,000
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801
5. Multi -Family Development —10 Unit Apartment
0 8 Trees Predevelopment
0 25% Retention —2 Trees
o Trees Retained — 0 Trees
o Required Replacement Trees —18 Trees
o Tree Planted — 36 Trees
o Tree Fund Payment - $0
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $38,595
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 15
6.1.a
Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board talked a lot about the fee -in -lieu program including changing the
replacement ratio or the dollar value per tree to be paid into the fund. The Planning Board felt it was
important to have a higher cost as an incentive; if there is a cost for trees not planted, developers will
make a greater effort to retain trees rather than pay the fee into a tree fund. The Planning Board
considered different levels of flexibility, but forwarded a recommended with a higher dollar value.
Mr. Lien advised a public hearing on the tree code is scheduled for February 2nd.. The Planning Board
minutes are included in the packet. The Planning Board forwarded other recommendations along with the
tree code. Comments raised at the Planning Board included view issues which are not addressed in this
code and removal of trees on developed properties without critical areas.
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers
asking one question during their turn.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating many people have stated the round robin format
is inefficient and ineffective. The Council just passed a code stating Councilmembers should not
dominate a meeting. She suggested the Council vote whether to do round robin or not. There may be
Councilmembers who do not have questions and it is an ineffective method of handling Zoom meetings.
Rather than taking time to ask if Councilmembers have questions and some replying they do not have a
questions, she preferred Councilmembers ask questions and not use the round robin format.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the round robin format was presented to Council during training on
Robert's Rules of Order. Further, it keeps one or two Councilmembers from dominating the conversation
and not allowing others an opportunity to speak. She concluded round robin was a fair way to allow
everyone to participate and not be dominated by Councilmembers who get their hands up quickly and
have multiple questions.
Council President Paine preferred round robin for at least the first round of questions to ensure all voices
were heard.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Council President Paine, doing round robin for the first round of
questions followed by Councilmember raising their hands to ask questions.
Mayor Nelson concluded the format would be round robin for the first round and then try individual
Councilmembers and see how that goes.
Councilmember Olson thanked staff, recognizing that this has been a huge project and the proposal is a
great start. She was surprised at the tree retention; she thought if the 30% was met, there would not be fee
versus the proposal which includes a fee even if the retention requirement was met and exceeded. She
asked Mr. Lien to address that as well as comment on what other cities have done. Mr. Lien displayed the
following:
• Other Jurisdictions Retention and Replacement Requirements
o Lynnwood
■ No specific retention requirement
■ Replacement based on "tree units" derived from diameter of tree cut
■ Fee -in -lieu option:
■ $187 per tree
■ $106 per tree if site cannot support required number of replacement trees
o Shoreline
■ 20% of significant trees required to be retained, 30% if critical areas are present
■ Replace required if more required percent of trees are not retained
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 16
6.1.a
■ Up to three trees are required for tree removed depending on tree size
■ No Tree Fund or Fee -in -lieu option
o Redmond
■ 35% of significant trees required to be retained
■ One to one replacement required for each significant removed, except landmark trees
(30" dbh) required to be replaced at 3:1
■ No tree fund, but fee -in -lieu to cover the cost of tree replacement
Mr. Lien explained other cities have fee -in -lieu of programs but it was more tied to when the tree
retention requirements were not met. Tree requirements vary from coverage, percentage of significant
trees, and tree units cut. In the proposed code, the fee -in -lieu is for any tree cut. The Planning Board
discussed that and the reason they had a fee for every tree not replaced was the overall no net loss goal in
the UFMP. Trees are removed with development, if only 30% are retained, 70% are being cut. When a
tree is cut, it should be replaced and larger trees replaced with a different ratio. The intent behind the
Planning Board direction was by requiring a fee -in -lieu and those funds used to purchase trees for
planting in the City of Edmonds, that was one way to help achieve the no net loss goal.
Councilmember Olson recalled in one of the examples a higher number of trees needed to be replaced
than had existing on the lot before it was developed. That seemed extreme and almost punitive. She
understood development was taking down big trees and replacing them with smaller trees, but to expect
the developer to have more trees than were on the original lot seemed a little odd. Mr. Lien said in every
instance more trees were required to be replaced than existed previously due to the replacement ratio. On
most of the examples, a lot of the trees were over 14 inches in diameter; for every tree 14 inches in
diameter, 3 replacement trees are required to be replanted. Councilmember Olson asked if that was done
in other cities or was it only in Edmonds. Mr. Lien said for the fee -in -lieu of for trees that cannot be
planted, the proposed flat fee was different than other jurisdictions. Lynnwood has a flat fee of $208. In
most other jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu of was the cost of purchasing and planting the tree. Parks
indicated the cost to purchase and plant a tree is approximately $350.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Lien, Ms. Hope and the Planning Board; any time there is a 275
page agenda item it is clear a lot of work across many months has gone into it. Observing a public hearing
was coming up, he highlighted things he appreciated such as all the comparisons of different types of
properties and developments from single family to multi -family to apartments and how those impacts are
handled, low impact development, and creative solutions that work for both housing and the environment.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the desire was to get some code in place and then look at the other
issues or include regulations for existing developed properties now. Mr. Lien said he will take direction
from the Council, but when this started the largest complaint was clearcutting when properties are
developed so that was addressed first. Removal of trees on all properties was a point of contention during
the last tree code update so the first step was to address tree retention with development via this code, but
the Planning Board's recommendation indicted a desire to have that issue forwarded back to them. More
will need to be done to meet no net loss. Other things to consider next include a heritage tree program
which would recognize significant trees throughout the City, looking into incentives — financial incentives
that can be provided to property owners to retain trees on a site such as reduction in the City's portion of
property tax, reduction in stormwater utility fees, etc.
Development Services Director Hope said staff considered the most critical issue; the thing that came up
most was what happens with trees as development occurs. Staff focused primarily on that and closely
related issues such as a tree fund, recognizing that rather than take another 6-10 months to address all the
other issues that could be included in a tree ordinance, focusing on the critical issue, recognize there are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 17
6.1.a
more issues, but adopting these regulations that focus on concerns that have been raised and direction
Council has already given staff.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the team that developed the code as well as for the packet, noting the
Planning Board minutes are extremely valuable. She was hopeful some things could be remanded back to
the Planning Board. Private property is a hot topic, but consideration needs to be given to tree canopy and
no net loss. In Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery, the tribes are talking about net ecological gain.
She asked what percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property would be considered. Mr. Lien
answered this code does applies to development on private property. Councilmember Buckshnis
recognized the code applied to development, her question was in regard to existing homes. Mr. Lien
answered his research found there have been an average of 10 subdivisions (short subdivisions and formal
subdivisions) per year over the last 10 years. He did not now how many vacant properties had been
developed with a single family home. There has been a lot of redevelopment that this code would apply to
as well. to He displayed a table from UFMP that shows the existing canopy coverage as of 2015:
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)
Mr. Lien noted private residential properties have most of the canopy (81%), followed by public (12.9%)
and commercial (4.1 %).
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the examples in the presentation, expressing hope that when the
housing stock changes, instead of 10 big houses, there would be more. She was hopeful LID will also
have a positive impact on tree canopy.
Council President Paine said she was on the Tree Board during the last effort that included single family
residential option; the joke was people were out with pitchforks or chainsaws. She was glad this was
being presented to Council. One of the things that most concerned her and others in the conservation
community was the loss of canopy cover, the loss of contiguous canopy cover and wildlife corridors. She
asked if better protections for groves and contiguous canopy cover were added along with elements in
draft code, would that put the brakes on having this coming together. She asked how adding protections
for groves and the understory rather than just single specimen trees would change the draft tree code. She
recalled the UFMP called for maintaining 30% canopy cover. She expressed interest in an annual update
on the canopy cover to provide metrics to judge against. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.060.C, Tree
Retention Requirements, commenting retaining trees in a grove is better from an ecology standpoint as
well as survivability of those trees (less subject to windthrow). He referred to the retention priority in
ECDC 23.10.060.0 noting on some sites, all the trees are in the developable area. When developers are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 18
6.1.a
looking at a site and working with the City, the highest priority is given to big trees and trees that form a
continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical area as well as larger trees. Priority 2 is small tree
groupings, trees within setbacks or around the perimeter, trees that perform a screen function. Priority 3
are the non -desirable urban trees (alder and cottonwoods).
With regard to wildlife corridors, Mr. Lien said most are associated with other critical areas such as
streams which are protected by the CAO. In the RS-12 and RS-20 zones in north Edmonds, there are
larger properties due to the presence of critical area slopes. The tree code together with the critical area
code provides more protection for habitat corridors.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked staff for the presentation and for their dedication to updating this
code. She appreciated many part of the draft, particularly the prioritization of LID. This has been a long
process and during that time a lot of tree canopy has been lost. Edmonds prides itself on its climate action
goal of 1.5% or less from preindustrial levels and trees play a critical role in carbon sequestering. Instead
of no net loss, she suggested a goal of net ecological gain. To meet the 1.5% goal, the City will have to
gain back some of what has been lost. She suggested this code mirror other efforts by setting a higher
goal. Mr. Lien referred to the development of the UFMP which includes a no net loss goal as well as
discussions around what the City's goal for an overall canopy cover should be. The City was at 30% in
2015; should that be the goal or should it be 40%. If the goal is higher, that policy needs to be established
by Council before code is drafted. If the Council wanted to retain trees on developed single family
property, the Planning Board has discussed a coverage requirement. The way the code is currently
drafted, a site with no trees is not required to retain any trees and they do not have a replacement ratio.
Mr. Lien explained at least one Planning Board Member was interested in establishing a coverage
requirement. For example, should there be a 30% coverage requirement versus a 30% retention
requirement. There are many ways jurisdictions establish coverage, some do tree credits based on the size
of trees, basal areas, density, etc. If the Council wanted to consider a net ecological gain or a specific
canopy coverage goal for the City in the future, the policy would need to be established first and then
consider code language to meet that. In addition to code, consideration should be given to incentives to
encourage people to retain trees on their sites. Education is a big part of that; for example, a large healthy
tree within a certain distance of a house is not necessarily a hazard tree. A more holistic approach that
includes education, incentives, tree vouchers, etc. will be required for a net gain.
Ms. Hope said the goal for the canopy matters less than the actions taken to improve the situation. It is
impossible to determine the exact canopy, but there can be a goal to do better. It can be addressed by code
as well as incentives, special programs, planting the right tree, etc. It needs to be looked at holistically,
recognizing this is an important start but it is not the end.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for the much anticipated tree code, commenting staff and
the Planning Board have done an excellent job. She asked how it was envisioned the tree fund would be
spent, where and on what. Mr. Lien displayed the slide regarding Chapter 3.95 ECDC - Tree Fund which
identified funding purposes such as tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds, paying for
services provided by a qualified tree professional, paying for services that support urban forest
management and health, acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City and
purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes. He noted the addition by the Planning
Board that funds for the fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting, was added before
he prepared the examples. There could be a significant amount of money paid into the tree fund if the fee -
in -lieu of program was structed the way it was proposed. If there continues to be ten subdivisions per year
that are similar to the examples, there could be $200,000 in the tree fund in a given year which equates to
a lot of tree purchases. He suggested the Council consider whether those funds could be used for
preserving wooded areas as well.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 19
6.1.a
Mr. Lien said he understood the Planning Board's intent to require funds from the fee -in -lieu program be
used to purchase trees for planting, but that could be a significant dollar amount and there were only so
many places to plant trees within the City. He recalled some citizens commented on the importance of
tree canopy in the northwest and suggesting rather than only using the funds in Edmonds, they could be
used to participate in other programs such as Mountain to Sounds Greenway. He was uncertain restricting
the fee -in -lieu of program to purchasing trees for planting was realistic. Councilmember K. Johnson liked
the idea of acquiring, maintaining and purchasing wooded areas as that may create opportunities over
time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Lien's comments about civil penalties and his reference to a
clearcutting incident that occurred on a weekend. It was her understanding that that landowner never paid
a civil penalty. Mr. Lien said they paid at least $100,000 for that tree cutting. A settlement agreement was
reached with the developer on that site. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled it was considerably less
than what the current policy required. Mr. Lien answered not with the policy that was in place at that
time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the landowners were charged the value required by the policy in
place at that time. Mr. Lien answered he was not 100% sure, that occurred in 2003 before he came to the
City and he did not recall exactly what the fines were or how many trees were cut. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas recalled it was in 2011. Mr. Lien said Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may be recalling
a different incident than he was.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her question was whether landowners were charged for the cost of
clear cutting. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties slide, noting
the penalties are not a straight up flat fee. Civil penalties are determined by the economic benefit derived
from violation, appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or higher, and $1,500 for tree less than 12 inches DBH.
Assessment of fines in the past was not simply the maximum; a number of things are considered when
assessing fines such as did the property owner know it was a violation. If they were told they could not
cut a tree(s) and did it anyway, that property owner might get a higher fine. If a property owner flat out
did not know what they were doing and they were responsive to staff when they were made aware of the
violation, they would receive a lower fine. There is some subjectivity in fines. The fines listed in ECDC
23.10.10 are the maximum fines but each situation is different.
With regard to tree replacement, Councilmember Olson said the Planning Board also considered a tree
bank option, trees could be planted elsewhere if there was not a place within Edmonds. She recalled a
Council comment about obtaining an annual tree canopy assessment, pointing out that is a big expense
and was probably too often for the City to afford. The moratorium that the Council put in place awaiting
the tree code puts a great sense of urgency on the Council. There is more than one way move forward and
lift the moratorium which was motivated by development; one way would be to support the proposal
related to development and then develop a plan for addressing other issues and modifying the code in the
future.
With regard to tree replacement, Council President Paine asked when a large Doug fir or big leaf maple in
good condition was removed, were equivalent trees supposed to be planted or could it be a tree like a
dogwood which would not provide the same canopy. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree
Replacement, explaining if a 30-inch Douglas fir was cut down, there was no equivalent replacement tree
which was the reason for different replacement ratios; the larger the tree, the more replacement trees.
Over time the trees will grow into big trees but whatever is planted to replace a large tree will not be the
same. He compared it to mitigation ratios within wetland and critical area, an impact to a wetland is
required to be replaced at a higher ratio. For example, the proposed code requires 3 replacement trees for
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 20
6.1.a
the removal of one tree above 14 inches. He concluded there was not a straight apples to apples
comparison because a big tree cannot be planted.
Council President Paine agreed a big tree could not be planted but pointed out planting two small
dogwoods would not result in the same canopy as if a large tree were retained. She noted the replacement
tree list encouraged planting of native trees. Mr. Lien said the tree code does not mention what type of
tree should be planted. The concept of right tree in the right place was discussed during adoption of the
UFMP. If a 100-foot tree is cut in a view area, the residents uphill may not be happy if a 100-foot tree is
replanted and a 25-foot tree may be the right tree in that situation. The code could state native trees are
preferred, but not everyone wants native trees when landscaping their property.
Council President Paine commented replacement trees planted as part of redevelopment or new
development may not provide similar canopy. Mr. Lien said this code is based on numbers not coverage
ratios. A developer retains 30% of the number of trees on the site. That somewhat equates to coverage,
but different tree species provide different coverage. For example, a big leaf maple may not grow as tall
as a Doug fir, but the coverage of a big leaf maple is times a Doug fir. Conversely an evergreen weeping
Alaskan cedar hardly provides any canopy and will add little to the coverage. Snohomish County has a
coverage requirement that requires calculating the coverage in 20 years based on the species of tree
planted. That type of code is more difficult to implement. Ease of implementation of the code needs to be
balanced with understanding. There are many ways to look at it, the proposal is a straight retention
requirement.
Ms. Hope said sometimes replacement trees provide more canopy. There are a lot of considerations,
whether the trees are in the right place to avoid interference with utilities, etc. Rather than micromanage
each site, it seemed if there were good incentives, education and a requirement to plant trees, a reasonable
balance could be found. Council President Paine said she truly understood the importance of placement.
She had house fire because a tree rubbed on the power line and caused an electrical fire. With regard to
replacement trees, Mr. Lien recalled the Tree Board has been working on a tree list that can be provided
to property owners with tree heights, canopy spread, etc. That is one of the education pieces for right tree,
right place.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to packet page 130 under exemptions, Item E states "Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for
these trees alone." If a tree had been topped improperly, for safety reasons it may need to be topped back
to the previous point; she asked if that was "may" or "must." She suggested rather than providing a flat
exemption, there could be an incentive to regrow topped trees. She asked if that was a possibility. Mr.
Lien provided an example of a single stem evergreen tree such as Doug fir or hemlock; when those trees
are topped, they do not grow back the way they should and there are large lateral branches that are not as
secure and become a safety issue. That is why trees that have been previously topped can be topped to the
previously topped level. If a tree has not been topped and it is on a property that is not exempt it cannot be
topped; that is considered cutting a tree. There are a number of trees in the City that have been topped and
re -topped and it is a matter of safety and health of the tree to maintain it at that height.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this area grows a lot of evergreen trees and few of them have
actually been planted. They self -seed sometimes in the wrong place, but they are magnificent, grow well,
and love the soil, conditions and rain. She supported encouraging native trees whenever possible.
Ornamental trees are no comparison for the height, coverage or beauty of a native tree. She expressed
concern with ECDC 23.10.040 exemptions that allows for the removal of trees on an improved single
family lot without critical areas. She frequently hears chainsaws in her neighborhood where people are
removing trees on improved single family lots and she wanted that practice to be controlled.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 21
6.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson's comment about getting something
approved. She was also interested in getting a timeline from the administration about working on other
aspects such as no net loss. Since the last tree canopy assessment occurred in 2015, she knew of at least 7
pocket forests of Doug firs that had been removed. She expressed interest in having a new tree canopy
assessment done. She also had concerns with some of the exemptions such as nuisance trees and the
director being allowed to make decisions. For example in tree replacement, the direction may consider
smaller -size replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited. This is a
good start, but the City's tree canopy needs to be monitored and hopefully enhanced and the ecological
net gain improved.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the timeframe for addressing other aspects of the code to address
no net loss, tree canopy, etc. Mr. Lien advised that was not on his schedule yet. Councilmember
Buckshnis commented that needed to be figured out. Although the priority was tree retention with
development, she wanted a promise from the administration on a timeframe for other aspects of the code.
Ms. Hope answered staff will be working on that, but had prioritized the most crucial things.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the housing issue will also play a part in this.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
3. TITLE 19 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES
Development Services Director Shane Hope commented there is a lot of technical information on this
subject. She explained the building codes are updated approximately every three years. The City follows
the state rules and guidelines and are very similar to other cities.
Building Official Leif Bjorback
• Adoption of 2018 International Codes
o Building and Fire Codes are contained in Title 19 of the ECDC
o Building code updates normally on 3-year cycle
■ Delay due to state integration with national code
■ Delays due to COVID19
0 2018 building and fire codes effective statewide February 1
• Edmonds building and Fire Code
o Objectives of the update
■ Maintain compliance with state requirements for adoption by February I
■ Maintain alignment with the base (national) codes
■ Align with the standards and practices of mybuildingpemit.com
■ Provide minor clean-up
Sample Code Changes
0 19.00 International Building Code (IBC)
■ Requirements for medical gas rooms moved from the Fire Code into the Building Code
■ New requirements for Mass Timber construction
■ Gender neutral restroom facilities allowed in lieu of separate facilities per Washington
state amendment
0 19.05 International Residential Code (IRC)
■ Heat detectors now required in garages in new homes
■ Washington state adopting Appendix Q, standards for tiny houses
■ City of Edmonds adopting Appendix E, standards for manufactured homes
19.10 Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA)
o Minor modifications to clarify the applicability of this chapter to only the North Edmonds
ESLHA
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 22
6.1.a
o Clarifications to project posting requirements
Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer reviewed the following sample code changes:
o 19.25 Fire Code (IFC)
■ Minor changes to sprinkler room access
■ No significant changes to fire sprinkler requirements
■ Clarification of high rise definition
Mr. Bjorback continued his review of sample code changes:
o 19.30 Energy Code (WSEC)
■ In general, buildings will be required to be more energy efficient
■ State energy code is moving toward achieving the legislative goal of 70% reduction in
fuel consumption in buildings by 2030
Ms. Hope advised staff is seeking Council adoption of the ordinance so the City is in line with the state
requirement of February 1st
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Bjorback for answering the questions she emailed. She did not
see anything about tiny homes in the code, only manufactured and mobile homes. Mr. Bjorback referred
to 19.05, the adoption language for the IRC includes an adoption of Appendix Q which is newly adopted
language regarding tiny homes. Ms. Hope assured it did not change the zoning code, only the building
code.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the ESLHA in north Edmonds. Mr. Bjorback displayed a map of
the North Edmonds ESLHA that has been in the development ordinance for many years. The last time
that ordinance was revised was 2006 or 2007. The update did not change the regulations, it was just
clarifying the application of that chapter and minor clean-up. The map of neighborhood in the northern tip
of Edmonds encompasses 100-110 residential properties.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the definition of a high rise building, a building with an occupied
floor or rooftop located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of a fire department vehicle access. She
asked if that was a regular fire truck. Fire Marshal Fitterer answered it was a ladder or fire truck.
Occupied floor can be confusing; if there is a roof top garden and/or a gathering area on top of a building,
that top floor is an occupied floor. Even if there are no actual rooms on the top floor, if it can be occupied
by the public, it is an occupied floor.
With regard to energy savings, Council President Paine asked what that meant when building a new home
or multi -family complex. Mr. Bjorback answered in every 3-year cycle, developers are required to build
to higher efficiency standards. This time it will encourage developers to use things like heat pumps for the
heating system. The thermal envelope of a house can only be insulated so much or the air leakage tighten
up. In addition to the prescriptive minimums, the code now looks for additional energy credits that can be
achieved by picking from a list of options such as a heat pump, having heating equipment within the
thermal envelope, high efficiency plumbing and fixtures, etc. The mandate established around 2005/2006
by the legislature was by 2030, a 70% reduction in energy use would occur in new homes and other
buildings. This is related to realizing that goal.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented there appeared to be significant changes in the international
swimming pool and spa code as there was a lot of new language. Mr. Bjorback answered there was new
language in the ordinance, however, there was really no change in the requirements for swimming pools.
The language comes from the state adopted language so it was included in Title 19. Including that
language makes it clearer where find to regulations for swimming pool facilities.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 23
6.1.a
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CITY'S BUILDING AND
FIRE CODES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REPORTS
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson relayed the Snohomish Health District reported yesterday that for the first time since early
November, case counts have dropped from the highs of 400+/100,000 to 253/100,000 in a two week
period. That is good news, but unfortunately because Snohomish County is linked with other counties in
the state recovery plan where hospitalization numbers have gone up, there would not be any change in
reopening. The governor announced today the federal government pledged a 16% increase in vaccines
coming to Washington. Approximately 1.5 million Washingtonians quality for the vaccine but do not yet
have access because there is not yet enough available. Work continues at all levels to get more vaccines
sooner.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was elected vice chair by the bipartisan Snohomish Health
Board. One of their goals will be to continue to fight the pandemic and continue to provide information to
the public. Today the new President signed an executive order for racial equity and justice. That sets the
tone for a better future as a community. There are a couple of groups in Edmonds who continue to spew
hate and misjustice by putting signs on telephone poles, yard signs, threats, comments on social media,
letters to the editor, etc. The message from President Biden is about everyone working together to move
forward in a progressive manner. She read a quote by John F. Kennedy, "Let us not despair but act. Let us
not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the
blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future." She encouraged everyone to move
forward into the future as has been seen in national politics to provide a working together approach to get
out of the pandemic.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Dean Olson and the Diversity Commission for captions on the
meeting display, a welcome addition for anyone hard of hearing. She thanked Dave Rohde for bringing
her a new and improved iPad today; for the first time in two months she can read from her iPad. She
thanked Council President Paine along with everyone else who made this accommodation possible,
commenting she was very grateful.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was very happy with what President Biden was doing. She
acknowledged several first including Kamala Harris, the first woman, first African America and first
Asian American Vice President; Senator Maria Cantwell became the chair of Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, impressive in a male dominated senate; Janet Yellen was
confirmed as the first female Treasury Secretary; Arvil Haines was selected as the Director of National
Intelligence; and Lloyd Austin was the first African American appointed to Secretary of Defense. As
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said, change is coming and it is wonderful that people who have worked
so hard for so long are being recognized. She summarized she was hopeful for 2021.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 24
6.1.a
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' message, not the Republican
answer, not the Democratic answer but the right answer, commenting that was a great motto for the
Edmonds City Council.
Councilmember Olson offered her condolences to members of the community who have suffered as
family members and friends of young people who have committed suicide. The isolation of the pandemic
has exacerbated life's challenges and mental illness. She hoped everyone was doing their best to keep
each other safe from the pandemic and as safe as possible from the downfalls of isolation. To anyone
listening who might be in that circumstance and feeling isolated, she assured people were thinking and
caring about them and hoping sooner rather than later that with the news of the vaccine and it's
availability things will get better.
Councilmember Olson encouraged people not to volunteer for additional stress or self-imposed stress. As
a liaison to the Housing Commission, she appreciated their hard work, but it was true that due to COVID
there had been less engagement that would have been ideal and the City will do its best during the next
phase to engage and communicate. It is not a finished process; the Housing Commission's
recommendation will come to Council to be vetted. She thanked everyone for participating at the Housing
Commission and she looked forward to participating in the next steps and hearing from the public.
Council President Paine expressed appreciation for everybody's comments. She reminded that the state
legislative session begins tomorrow and she encouraged the public to contact legislators about the issues
they were passionate about. Because the legislature will be meeting remotely, there is an electronic
system for the public to express their thoughts and interest on bills. Spring is around the corner and there
is a lot of renewal going on. In her circle of friends, five babies have arrived plus another in two weeks. A
lot of good things are happening that may be surprising because people have been sticking close to home.
She expressed her appreciation for staff s dedication and diligence, commenting tonight was the
culmination of a lot of hard work.
Councilmember Distelhorst said seeing the case rate drop is definitely encouraging; seeing new strains
show up is a little discouraging. He urged the public to be as diligent as ever by staying home if possible,
masking or double masking and using KN95 masks on essential trips, and staying 6 feet away even
outside wearing masks. It is encouraging to hear that more vaccines are coming but the rollout is bumpy.
For the sake of your neighbors and businesses, play your part in getting us back on track.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported on the Recovery Taskforce meeting; the City will be sending out
more multi-lingual information to businesses in the City to promote federal funding they may have access
to as well as distributing more compostable containers to food establishments to help support takeout for
local restaurants. He thanked Councilmember Olson for her comments, pointing out that a major part of
staying healthy is mental health, especially for children. This Saturday Sno-Isle Libraries has a free online
event, "How to Recognize Anxiety and Depression in Kids." Further information is available by googling
Sno-Isle Libraries and "Issues That Matter." For anyone with youth in their home who are struggling, he
assured support is available. The City's WeCare.Edmondswa.gov webpage is still available and has free
24/7 online, phone and text message resources. He urged everyone to look out for their children and their
friends and neighbors' children and to stay safe and healthy.
Councilmember L. Johnson said it was recently brought to her attention that the local girl scout council is
struggling during these times and have made a number of sacrifices including selling certain properties to
stay afloat. Even though they're struggling, they have prioritized the public and the scouts' health by have
choosing to forego door-to-door or onsite cookie sales that fund girl scout programs. As a long time girl
scout, former leader, daughter of a girl scout leader and the wife of a boy scout leader, she knew the value
of those programs. Scouts are doing all they can to continue to offer programs to kids safely during these
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 25
times. If girl scout cookies, boy scout popcorn or other club sales were something people would expect
during normal times, she encouraged those who are able to search out those programs and make a
purchase or donation to help youth and to help programs continue. She questioned who could not use
something as small as girl scout cookies showing up on their doorstep via a no contact delivery.
Student Rep Roberts urged the public to be safe, practice social distancing and wear masks to ensure the
case counts continue to drop. Recovery from the pandemic depends on us all and we must all work
together for our future.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 26
6.1.a
Public Comment for 1/26/21 Council Meeting:
From: joe scordino
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:37 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>;
Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment on Draft Tree Code
1. First and MOST OBVIOUS Comment - WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?
Trees are an integral part of our natural environment and any/all decisions (i.e., codes,
ordinances, regulations) on removal and/or replacement should be based on BEST
AVAILABLE SCIENCE!!
The draft rule has percentages, diameters, etc. with NO scientific or societal basis for
those metrics. What are the metrics in the draft code based on? Where is the rationale
and calculations that resulted in the metrics chosen in the draft tree code? What tree
protection and canopy goals/objectives will or will not be achieved? How will the level
of tree removals authorized by the draft code affect the ecological services that native
trees provide?
2. Will the "Intent and Purposes" of the draft tree code be achieved by the prohibitions set
forth in the draft tree code, or will the exemptions and replacement requirements (as drafted)
make that impossible?
Is it really the intent of this draft rule to implement the City's Urban Forest Management Plan?
One of the goals of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan is "no net loss to overall
tree canopy." Unless there are analyses (as stated above) that indicate otherwise, the
draft tree code appears to fall way short of that goal and will more likely result in
continued significant loss of tree canopy.
3. Is this draft code consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan?
Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under Environmental Quality, states:
"Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and
reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to
wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and
absorbing carbon dioxide."
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 27
6.1.a
"So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non -sustainable
approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple
throughout the system."
Any/all allowances in the code for tree removal must take into account the "ripple effect." We
are already seeing the "ripple effect" in the Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek watersheds where
land development practices have caused HUGE erosion and flooding problems in our creeks.
4. What percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property in Edmonds could
potentially be removed under this draft tree code?
The Council and the public must be provided the answer to this question before it
proceeds to a public hearing on the draft tree code.
5. Starting off the draft code with "blanket exemptions" to all of the prohibitions and
requirements is BAD NEWS for trees in Edmonds. The entire exemptions section should be
DELETED.
If there are necessary exemptions for social or safety reasons, they should be specifically
described under the appropriate provision in the code. Further, there should be an
accompanying document that explains exactly why and where the exemption is
necessary and how such exemption affects achievement of the goals of the UFMP and
Comp Plan.
6. "One size does NOT fit all" - the draft rule needs to address differences between the
watersheds in Edmonds.
More tree protection should be provided in environmentally sensitive watersheds (such
as Perrinville and Shell watersheds) that will be further damaged with every large tree
removed (i.e., the ripple effect mentioned above). Further, the remnant wildlife
corridors provided by trees and tree canopy in Edmonds should be afforded more
protection to preserve the wildlife.
Thank you to those Council members that are actually listening to public comments and making
informed decisions by requesting additional information from staff and asking staff to make
necessary changes to the draft code BEFORE it goes to public hearing.
From: STEVE WAITE
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:15 AM
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code, City Council Review (2/26)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 28
6.1.a
Hello Kernen,
Might you include my comments below for the City Council 2/26/21 meeting:
City Council Members,
The Draft Tree Regulations do not consider the accommodation of solar access, either passive
or active, on a single developed lot, *.
Sustainable energy practices should not be mutually exclusive of the natural environment.
Adopting solar access will allow reasonable use of property, while still balancing holistic
ecological concerns. I ask that you consider this issue for inclusion into the Tree Code.
Thank you,
Steve Waite, Edmonds
*The concept of solar easement was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes (10/18/20), but
that referenced only adjacent properties with no further discussion or consideration.
From: Bill Phipps
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:43 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code
Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson;
The proposed tree code that you will hear about tonight is a good start. It covers about one
third of what a good tree code should cover. The proposed tree code does a good job of
addressing private undeveloped lots when they come up for development.
But, the proposed code does nothing to address the already developed residential lots. That is
where most of our forest canopy grows and where it is being cut down. Little cuts lead to big
tears.
I hope the Council will take the time to fix this proposed code. Get it right. Address all the trees
in Edmonds. Get a sustainable self funding tree planting program set up. Tree replacement
planting is the key to a good tree code.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 29
6.1.a
We gotta realize that more and more trees are gonna come down; for all the usual
reasons. Our commitment should be to planting replacement trees for every significant tree
lost. Any tree, any place, at any time for whatever reason should have multiple replacement
trees planted.
I've looked at other tree codes in neighboring cities. They all try to control and/or mitigate the
loss of tree canopy on private land.
The attempts at "control" include: fees, permits, inspections, penalties, "fees -in -lieu -of", and
endless enforcement issues. Attempted control of privately owned trees leads to public
resentment because of added expenses and hassles. It leads to cries of "private land rights!".
Whereas, "mitigation" recognizes and acknowledges the loss of forest canopy, which leads to
action. Positive and cooperative action. We can all agree to the idea of planting new trees, just
as long as they're not in my way ! We all recognize the environmental benefits of forests. And
it's a lot less hassle and cost to City staff.
I encourage the Council to not "kick this can down the road." Let's just do it right the first time.
(Oh, no wait, the second time!) Let's take the time to institute an all encompassing and self
sustaining Tree Code that actually fulfills the UFMP goal of "no net loss."
Let's institute a "Lost Tree Notification" system. You just notify the City of when you are cutting
down trees. Then the City can replant multiple "of kind" tree saplings. We can advertise this
program through the City water bills, local media, pamphlets and city groups.
All tree replanting and retention efforts should occur in Edmonds first; through tree vouchers
and lower storm water bills.
But it may require us participating in a local tree preserve, such as the Snohomish County
Healthy Forest Initiative, in order to fulfill our obligations.
It will feel good to do it right. We need it. A sense of accomplishment. Let's do it!
An all encompassing, self sustaining and meaningful Tree Code.
For our future.
Thank you for your consideration;
Bill Phipps
Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 30
6.1.a
From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 7:55 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: The proposed Tree Code Update
In order to have an effective overall tree code, special emphasis needs to be placed on sites
that are unique in topography, have steep slopes, deep ravines, wetlands, and more
importantly are the headwaters and drainage system of a local stream. With that in mind, my
focus was to review the proposed code in that context.
The following is a summary of conclusions with respect to the proposed Tree code update.
1. The "Conservation Subdivision Design" regulation on page 13, references20.O75, the
ECDC chapter on Subdivisions. As currently written, there are no provisions indicating
that the 30% tree retention limit and all other tree related regulations in the proposed
tree code are applicable to this section.
The Conservation Subdivision should be included with other subdivisions on page 7 where
retention requirements are listed.
2. There are no provisions for any of the following monitoring plans that are necessary to
verify compliance of the tree related regulations.
a. Construction phase monitoring to assure all tree retention and protection plans are
being followed.
b. Tree replacement monitoring plan to assure compliance of the tree replacement plan.
c. Post development inspection plan to assure the replants are being properly maintained
by the applicant and to check for trees that have not survived and need replacement.
Semiannual monitoring should be conducted for at least the first two years after planting
occurs.
3. The monitoring of the construction site, pre -development, during development, and post
development needs to be done by a qualified professional.
4. Monitoring by a licensed arborist is warranted for any development requiring a tree plan.
An arborist should be onsite to make certain all the tree related regulations are being followed
5. Any Tree Replacement Plan needs to include the number of replacement trees, size and
species being planted, and a " tree spacing" requirement to avoid over planting. If the replant
site is over planted the survival rate will be adversely affected.
The size of the replacement tree at maturity is an important spacing factor. Tree
replacements should be of same species removed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 31
6.1.a
6. Item 4 "Property lines" of the Tree Protection Measures should include the statement that
the applicant shall be required to install a fence barrier along the adjoining property line to
cordon off and protect those trees on the adjoining property.
Verification of this protective measure needs to be included in the pre -construction site
meeting.
Thank you,
Duane Farmen
Seaview resident
From: Shannon Roeder
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 6:53 PM
Subject: Edmonds Tree code being discussed 1/26/2021
To: <council@edmondswa.gov>, <publiccomnent@edmondswa.gov>
I am writing to the Edmonds City Council to provide input regarding the Tree Code that is being
discussed 1/26/2021. 1 have lived in Edmonds since 1986 when I purchased my home in the
Seaview neighborhood. One if the reasons I purchased a home in Edmonds was due to the
extensive canopy of trees especially in the wooded areas near my home. I want to make sure
that the Edmonds City Council takes the right actions to preserve our wooded areas, keeping
our urban forests, especially the Seaview / Perrinville Wood.
As I understand it, one of the original tasks of the Edmonds Tree Board in 2010 is to, "preserve
and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees in parcels
where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur", and encourage Edmonds
citizens to become "active stewards of the urban forest."
Moving to the Urban Forest Management Plan the focus should be to "maintain or enhance
citywide canopy coverage" through updated tree regulations. I fully support and urge the
Edmonds City Council to adopt a policy of no net loss to overall canopy coverage, ensuring
protection of trees in environmentally critical areas, and establish a "tree bank" fund to cover
the costs of plantings and other tree programs. I believe that Seaview/ Perrinville Wood fits
the description of an area needing protection in a critical area. Please do not waste any time in
preserving Seaview/ Perrinville Wood and other such areas within Edmonds. Thank you for
considering my input regarding the Edmonds Tree Code.
Sincerely,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 32
6.1.a
Shannon L Roeder
Norman J Hawker
From: ACE President
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:07 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: From the Board of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds
As the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission concludes this Thursday, the Alliance of Citizens
for Edmonds (ACE) thanks the Commissioners and alternate Commissioners, for volunteering
their time, committing to this aspirational process. Understandably, the process was made
more difficult for all involved due to Covid-19 restrictions, mandating virtual meetings and
eliminating the original promise of neighborhood meetings throughout all of Edmonds.
The Commission did, however, offer one in -person Open House and survey before Covid
restrictions, followed by 3 more surveys combined with 3 prerecorded virtual Open House
viewing options, and one Zoom Webinar. ACE followed with optimism and had high hopes for
this 16-month process. However, we are concerned that input the Commission received at
each public engagement touchpoint, in the form of hundreds of questions, comments, emails
and feedback from local folks, was disregarded. Edmonds' citizens were not given their
promised place at the table in this citizen -driven process.
The Edmonds City Council formed this Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) via Resolution No
1427 which stated in part:
"...options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation." In
addition, an expanded timeline was created "to enable direct citizen involvement in this
important process."
Neither Edmonds' Development Services Director Shane Hope, who is in charge of this
Commission, nor the contracted consultant group, prioritized citizen input although it was
solicited by the Commission as each round of its proposed policy ideas were put forward.
Commissioners should have been better directed to consider and incorporate citizen feedback,
particularly as it often overwhelmingly contradicted policy ideas put forward, such as adding
duplexes, triplexes, and townhome developments into single-family neighborhoods citywide,
local sales tax increases, and most disturbingly, the elimination of current single-family zoned
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 33
6.1.a
neighborhoods. CHC policies will be voted on this Thursday. We are concerned that, if these
policies receive the votes in the Commission to move forward, the Planning Board and City
Council will be asked to vote on many policy ideas that discounted and ignored community
input throughout the process.
Examples of lack of response to questions/comments by the public are as follows:
26 families in one neighborhood targeted as a "Transition Zone", wrote a letter to the
Commission, Council, Mayor and Tree Board, outlining concerns about losing the single-
family character of their neighborhood. They were told their concerns would not be
discussed openly by the CHC, with one Commissioner saying: "Historically inequities
develop because you have a group of people that feel more privileged to be vocal for
multiple reasons... holding a special discussion on letters we received not in the context
of all of the feedback that we've gotten feels like we're perpetuating that sense of
privilege."
• The above example, coupled with the 78% in the first survey who agreed that it is
important to preserve single-family zoning, is evidence that citizen input has, selectively,
been dismissed by the CHC.
• The above further indicates that one Commissioner's use of the subjective term "sense
of privilege" has influenced how citizen input is addressed by the Director, who
controlled the public engagement process with the paid public engagement consultant.
• Although there were 68 citizen questions and comments posed live by written option
only at the January 7, 2021 online Open House public outreach event, only 8 questions
from the attendees were selected by the Staff/consultant to be discussed.
• There is no indication that there has been, or ever will be, a public response to any of
the remaining 60 questions/comments.
• Before Covid restrictions, Edmonds' citizens were encouraged to make in -person
comments on record at live meetings. After Covid restrictions, citizens were instructed
to engage with this Commission's process only via email to the CHC. These emailed
comments were seldom discussed during CHC meetings, resulting in no transparent
public record of these emails, not even in the meeting packet or notes.
Examples of citizen input being discounted or ignored are significant enough to red flag
unanswered questions about CHC recommendations to Council, to be finalized at their January
28, 2021 meeting. Some of ACE's clarifying questions are:
Where is the evidence that urbanized density in single family neighborhoods will drop
property values and thus create more affordability?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 34
6.1.a
• Has the CHC received significant feedback and support from our community to justify
citywide up -zoning of all single-family zoning in Edmonds, as their specific "Inclusionary
Policy" recommends?
• Why, under the Director's leadership, have they facilitated a discussion by the CHC of
relaxing State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) guidelines in the context of
developing affordable housing options in Edmonds?
• In support of relaxing SEPA thresholds, one Commissioner stated: "SEPA is used by
people who don't want housing built in a location. It's weaponized by people who don't
want housing and poor people, or people who aren't homeowners, or whatever other
NIMBYBS." How are the biased terms "weaponized" and "NIMBY" of use in a
thoughtful discussion of SEPA thresholds?
• What evidence has been presented to the CHC that the Multi -Family Tax Exemption
(MFTE) project at Westgate has provided affordable housing that justifies 12-years tax-
free on ALL 81 residential units, in exchange for 20% so-called "affordable" units?
• Given the fact that our code has been in need of a re -write since 2000, why is the
Development Services Director facilitating introduction of "policy options" that would
require drastic alteration of existing inadequate code?
• What evidence has been provided by the Director/Staff that our existing Chapter 20.21
Accessory Dwelling Units code, is insufficient to both retain single family quality and
provide additional affordable housing?
There are points where Edmonds' citizens agree with the CHC, such as concentrating density
closer to transit and conveniences, simplifying code language, creating low-income home repair
programs and other creative ideas. Greater collaboration between Edmonds' citizens and the
Housing Commission should have been facilitated by the Director, Staff, and the consultant
group to have further developed those common ideas. As we move forward, ACE encourages
open, transparent processes -a true back and forth discussion -about this critical issue: what is
the best way to add additional types of housing in Edmonds and what will Edmonds look like in
the future?
ACE recognizes the hard work of the Citizens Housing Commission. We sincerely hope that
there will be further extensive citizen engagement as the Commission's final recommendations
move to the Planning Board and City Council. We also ask any steps taken by Council on this
issue be paused until we can again gather in person.
Board of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds
CC: Citizens Housing Commission, Development Services Director, Edmonds City Council,
Planning Board, Edmonds Tree Board, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 35
6.1.a
"References:
Resolution 1427: Resolution+1427+(1).pdf (squarespace.com)
Code 20.21 ADU: Chapter 20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (codepublishing.com)
WA State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA): Chapter 220-600 WAC:
Link to CHC 1/14/21 meeting SEPA discussion begins at 1hr26min: Video Outline - Edmonds,
WA (iam2.com)
From: Will Strong
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 1:00 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Trees
Please remove all unstable trees on Olympic view drive , also on 80th ave from 18100 block to
186th total hazard .Consider this a formal notice of unsafe road to travel on from 184 th and
80th to 186th as there are many trees that are about ready to fall on to road.
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 6:28 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>;
Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff
<jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: Public Comments for January 26, 2021 City Council meeting
Please see below a June 13, 2012 email that informed that ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error.
I informed that: This Code section states that:
A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries
of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a
professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined
with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 36
6.1.a
The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. 1 informed that: I've actually
witnessed a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC
20.75.060 (i.e. location of tree covered areas) on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC
20.75.040.C. I said: This must be fixed!
In April of 2012, 1 had emailed City Attorney Jeff Taraday that:
3. ECDC 20.75.040(C). A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the
exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and
signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can
be combined with the preliminary
ECDC 20.75.050http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds2O/Edmonds2O75.htmi plat at
the applicant's option. Section 20.75.050 does not discuss a preliminary plat map. It discusses
lot line adjustments. The reference should be to Section 20.75.060.
Here we are in 2021 and ECDC 20.75.040.0 still contains the same error. Why aren't citizens
respected and listened to when citizens try to help?
Subject: My General Requests of the Tree Board
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:29:18 -0700
To the members of the Tree Board,
Thank you very much for allowing me to discuss the City's Code related to trees during last
week's meeting.
Much was discussed, but I believe the main point is that there is often a conflict between
development rights and tree protection under the City's Code.
I believe that accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the
development application process coupled with proper application and enforcement of the
City's Code by Mayor and staff will greatly assist the protection of valuable trees in Edmonds.
As such, my general request of the Tree Board is twofold:
1. Please strongly encourage the City Council to closely review the City's tree related
Code and make corrections and IMPROVEMENTS where necessary. I believe that the
Code needs to be strengthened related to accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and
tree covered areas during the development application process.
For example, ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. This Code section states that: A
survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior
boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature
of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be
combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. The
reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. I've actually witnessed a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 37
6.1.a
developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC
20.75.060 on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. This must be
fixed!
A second example is found in ECDC 20.75.060.N. This Code Section states that the
following shall be shown on the plat: The location of tree -covered areas, with the
location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the
planning director. There are two problems here. First of all, there is no such position
as planning director. Secondly, even if there was a planning director, why should the
disclosure of the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas be
subjective? I believe leaving such an important Code requirement optional and
subjective gives the applicant and the City a potential excuse for failure to disclose trees
on preliminary plats.
I believe the more accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during
the development application process the better! I think accurate, detailed disclosure of
trees and tree covered areas on adjoining properties is also very necessary.
2. Petition and respectfully request that the Mayor and his staff be diligent in
the application and enforcement of the City's Code related to trees. For example,
valuable healthy trees located in critical areas should not be lost to development
because the trees weren't disclosed during the application process. Vesting is supposed
to be based in equity. It is not equitable to gain vested development rights as a reward
for not disclosing trees as required under the City's Code. For example, development
applications should be deemed incomplete if the application fails to disclose the
required trees and tree covered areas.
Thank you very much for your hard work as members of the Tree Board. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Ken Reidy
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 38
6.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/2/2021
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #245927 through #246014 dated January 28, 2021 for $997,675.29 and wire
payments of $626.46 and $417.67.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claims 01-28-21
wire 01-28-21
wire 01-29-21
Packet Pg. 39
6.2.a
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245927 1/28/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun vi
INV-2-7745
INV-2-7745 - EDMONDS PD - STRAP
y
JUMPSUIT NAME TAPE
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
8.0( a
2 PATCH INSTALL/ REMOVAL
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
6.0( '3
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.4'
INV-2-7952
INV-2-7952 - EDMONDS PD - MCIN7
N
Y
DANNER KINETIC BOOTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
169.9E u
10.1 % Sales Tax
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
17.1('sa
INV-2-7953
INV-2-7953 - EDMONDS PD - TRIMB
BAYLY HAT RAIN COVER
O
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
4.0( >
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
0.4( a
INV-2-7954
INV-2-7954 - EDMONDS PD - STRAP
Q
JUMPSUIT - BADGE VELCRO
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
r
10.0( N
PATCH INSTALL
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 3.0( c
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.3" •9
INV-2-7955 INV-2-7955 - EDMONDS PD - SUTT(
U
BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
880.0(
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
E
t
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
80.0(
TRAUMA PLATE
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
20.0(
EXTERNAL CARRIER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
200.0(
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245927 1/28/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
245928 1/28/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( y
HEAT PRESS EDMONDS PD
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( a
2 NAMETAPES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0( .3
2 VELCRO
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
RADIO CASE
Y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
35.2,1
CUFF CASE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
34.0( E
TOURNIQUET POUCH
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
_M
36.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
134.4E
INV-2-7956
INV-2-7956 - EDMONDS PD - SUTT(
o
5.11 ATAC BOOTS
a
a
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
99.9� Q
10.1 % Sales Tax
r
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.1( N
INV-2-7957
INV-2-7957 - EDMONDS PD - T. SMI
N
INSTALL CPL CHEVRONS - 3 SHIRT
c
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
18.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.8, 2
INV-2-7958
INV-2-7958 - EDMONDS PD - DISPC
};
DISPOSABLE CUFFS 100/BOX
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
120.5( E
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
12.1;
Total :
1.949.5: Q
41000 WWTP:1/20/21 PEST CONTROL SEI
1/20/21 PEST CONTROL SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0(
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245928 1/28/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
245929
245930
1/28/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
138111387
138111388
138111389
138111390
138111393
139111391
139111392
1/28/2021 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 138087-2113
6.2.a
Page: 3
PO # Description/Account Amoun
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
7.5E E
Total:
80.55 a
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
3
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
27.5E
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
y
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
27.5E U
ALARM MONITORING - FS #16
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
34.1, •�
ALARM MONITORING - FS #17
U
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST,
o
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
78.3< '@
ALARM MONITORING FOR MUSEU
0
ALARM MONITORING FOR Museum
a
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
129.0E Q
FIRE INSPECTION - FS #17, MUSEI
fire inspection for fire station #17,
N
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
55.4, N
Fire Inspection - Museum
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
35.0, N
Fire Inspection - Public Safety
E
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
153.3z 2
ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT
U
ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
a�
50.7' E
ALARM MONITORING FOR PUBLIC
ALARM MONITORING FOR PUBLIC f°
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 112.5( Q
Total : 703.71
APA-MEMBERSHIP (MCLUGSTON)
APA membership (MClugston)
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
245930 1/28/2021 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (Continued)
328906-2113
245931 1/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1992074497
1992079733
6.2.a
Page: 4
PO # Description/Account Amoun
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
533.0(
APA-MEMBERSHIP FEES
E
APA Membership ($424) & Subscriptii
a
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
468.0(
Total:
1,001.0( 3
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
c
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
y
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0,
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
E
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6" p
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
'@
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1 " o
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
a
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1 " Q
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1 " N
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
N
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1 "
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
N
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0E E
10.4% Sales Tax
'6
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1;
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z E
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 5
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245931 1/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6' E
1992079734
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
a
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� 3
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1(
10.4% Sales Tax
N
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
Y
0.9 1
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9£ E
1992083792
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
61.1E o
10.4% Sales Tax
�a
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.3E o
1992088977
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
Q
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6' r
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
N
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1' N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
c
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1' N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1 u
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
};
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1 -
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0£ um
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1 ;
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245931 1/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
245932 1/28/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 6
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
N
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6, ED
10.4% Sales Tax
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.61 a
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6, .3
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6" cm
1992088978 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
Y
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2�
FLEET DIVISION MATS
E
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9; o
10.4% Sales Tax
�a
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9E o
Total:
233.7, a
Q
120038 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing713
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
49.8E N
UB Outsourcing area Printing713
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
49.8E N
UB Outsourcing area Printing713
E
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
51.4( 2
UB Outsourcing area Postage 713
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
139.1,
UB Outsourcing area Postage 713
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
139.1
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
5.0, Q
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
5.0z
10.1 % Sales Tax
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 7
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245932
1/28/2021
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
5.1
Tota I :
444.7 ,
245933
1/28/2021
001527 AW WA
7001874308
W WTP: 3/1 /21-2/29/22 PRANDOLPF-
3/1/20-2/29/21 PRANDOLPH MEMBE
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
242.0(
Total :
242.0(
245934
1/28/2021
002100 BARNARD, EARL
8
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
617.000.51.589.40.23.00
1,576.5�
Total:
1,576.55
245935
1/28/2021
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
1221246
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 411.40 GA
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 411.40 GP
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
426.4<
1223591
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 765.40 GF
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 765.40 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
814.9z
Total :
1,241.3 ,
245936
1/28/2021
075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT
122020
PUBLIC DEFENSE FEES
DECEMBER PUBLIC DEFENSE FEE
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
716.6,
Total:
716.6,
245937
1/28/2021
077243 BPAS
1000771291
BPAS PARTICIPANT FEES - JANUAF
JANUARY FEES
001.000.39.518.61.49.00
324.0(
JANUARY FEES
111.000.68.542.61.49.00
139.5(
JANUARY FEES
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
27.0(
JANUARY FEES
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
31.5(
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
245937
1/28/2021
077243 BPAS
(Continued)
JANUARY FEES
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
JANUARY FEES
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
JANUARY FEES
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
JANUARY FEES
001.000.41.521.22.23.00
245938
1/28/2021
076378 CAMFIL USA INC
30205729
WWTP: PO 477 FILTERS
PO 477 FILTERS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
245939
1/28/2021
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
26024232
CANON 5250
contract charge 01/2021
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
contract charge 01/2021
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
contract charge 01/2021
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
bw meter usage 12/2020
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr meter usage 12/2020
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr meter usage 12/2020
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr meter usage 12/2020
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
Total
Total
6.2.a
Page: 8
Amoun
31.5( E
�a
a
58.5(
3
31.5(
c
�a
243.0( Y
886.5( U
t
E
M
2,111.7E Z
0
219.6, �a
2,331.31 o
L
Q
Q
167.6� N
0
N
20.9E
0
0
20.9E E
2
9.2£ U
c
a�
62.3, E
t
U
7.7�
.r
a
24.8�
7.7�
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 9
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
2.9£ 5D
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.9f a
26024234
CANON 2501 F
contract charge 01/2021
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
26.4z
bw meter usage 12/2020
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.8f Y
clr meter usage 12/2020
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
18.4,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
26024235
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
o
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
307.5< �a
26024237
BLDG - MONTHLY COPIER CONTR/
o
Bldg copier (SN: QNR12044)-
L
a
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
35.5E Q
10.4% Sales Tax
T
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
3.6� N
26024238
PLANNING DEPT MONTHLY COPIEI
c00.i
Planning Dept Copier (SN: QNR1186:
0
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
44.4( N
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
4.6" U
26024239
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
};
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
114.1 £ E
26024240
PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
Q
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
62.7�
26024242
CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC
contract charge/meter usage
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
580.9(
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 10
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
(D
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
60.4, E,
26024243
FLEET COPIER
a
Fleet Copier
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
50.1; 3
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
5.2'
26024245
CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC
contract charge/meter usage
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
22.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
26024246
COUNCIL CANON MONTHLY LEASE
Monthly contract
o
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
26.4, �a
Color Meter Usage
o
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
3.2E 0-
B/W Meter Usage
Q
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
1.2, r
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
3.2, N
26024248
WATER SEWER COPIER
c
Water Sewer Copier
N
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
69.3, .
Water Sewer Copier
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
69.3< };
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
7.2' E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
7.2' Q
26024249
PW ADMIN COPIER
PW Office Copier for
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
91.2,
PW Office Copier for
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245939 1/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
245940 1/28/2021 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
245941 1/28/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 11
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
N
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
51.7,
PW Office Copier for
E
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
51.7, a
PW Office Copier for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
36.5" .3
PW Office Copier for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
36.5"
PW Office Copier for
Y
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
36.4�
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
9.4� E
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
_M
5.3f
10.4% Sales Tax
o
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
5.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
o
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
3.8( a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
3.8( r
10.4% Sales Tax
N
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
00
3.7� N
Total :
2,197.2F c
N
001
STATE LOBBYIST JANUARY 2021
State Lobbyist January 2021
_E
2
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
U
3,750.0( };
Total:
3,750.0(
E
6165188
HP 80OW HOT PLUG POWER SUPF
HP 80OW Hot Plug Power Suppy Kits
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
521.1( Q
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
54.1
6425359
ADOBE ACROBAT PRO DC
Adobe Acrobat Pro DC - city 70
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 12
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245941
1/28/2021
069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
(Continued)
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
7,700.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
800.8(
6635953
SYMANTEC FILE SHARE ENCRYPT
Symantec File Share Encryption 1/11,
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
976.11
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
101.5,
Total :
10,153.7;
245942
1/28/2021
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY299052
WATER - COMPRESSED CARBON [
WATER - COMPRESSED CARBON 1
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
76.7,
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
7.9E
Total :
84.7(
245943
1/28/2021
066134 CITY OF ARLINGTON
1/15/21 EVOC
FEE FOR ARLINGTON AIRPORT - M
AIRPORT RENTAL FOR EVOC 10/1 E
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
144.6(
Tota I :
144.6(
245944
1/28/2021
069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC
3-M019
E182PO - 2021 FORD POLICE INTEI
E182PO - 2021 FORD POLICE INTEI
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
45,539.0(
8.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
3,825.2E
Total:
49,364.21
245945
1/28/2021
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
21-4064
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1/12 ,
council meeting minutes 1/12 and 1/1
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
734.4(
Total :
734.4(
245946
1/28/2021
071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS
FY 2021
2021 ECA SUPPORT
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
245946 1/28/2021 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS (Continued)
245947 1/28/2021 060401 EDMONDS HARBOR INN INC
245948 1/28/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
PO # Description/Account
2021 ECA Support
001.000.39.575.20.52.00
Total
623 WWTP: DKORSTAD 1/13/21 1 NIGH
DKORSTAD 1/13/21 1 NIGHT STAY
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Total
0I�
2017
2036
gik3I
2044
WWTP: PO 481 STAPL 3.25"
PO 481 STAPL 3.25"
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
WWTP: PO 481 ADHESIVE
PO 481 ADHESIVE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: BIT DRILL, TAPS
PM SUPPLIES: BIT DRILL, TAPS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
WWTP: PO 481 SPRAY PAINT
PO 481 SPRAY PAINT
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: BRUSH, STAKE FLA
PM SUPPLIES: BRUSH, STAKE FLA
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.2.a
Page: 13
Amoun
m
50,000.0( E
50,000.0( a
a�
3
118.9(
118.9( N
U
as
4.5� E
U
0.4E o
�a
0
8.5E a
a
Q
0.8�
N
0
12.1;
0
E
23.1,
2.4-
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
245948
1/28/2021
076610
076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued)
245949
1/28/2021
008705
EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808
3-03575
3-07490
3-07525
3-07709
3-09350
3-09800
3-29875
3-38565
6-00025
6-00200
6-00410
6.2.a
Page: 14
PO # Description/Account Amoun
Total :
66.8(
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S
m
E
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
�a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
58.6(
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
=
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
3
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
471.8( c
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
N
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
Y
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
109.8,
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.9z 2
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
o
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
'@
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.9z o
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
a
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
Q-
Q
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
109.8, "
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
N
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
ao
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
N
58.6(
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
c
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.9z
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
_M
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
53.9z E
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
MARINA BEACH PARK
tea,
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 207.7E Q
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,007.2E
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 15
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245949 1/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
428.7� E
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
a
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
804.9, .3
6-01127
WWTP: 11/15/20-1/14/21 METER 2D
11/15/20-1/14/21 METER 2088: 200,
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
203.0�
6-01130
WWTP: 11/15/2-1/14/21 METER 94"
11/15/2-1/14/21 METER 9439: 200 ,
t
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
23.7.E
6-01140
WWTP: 1/15/20-1/14/21 METER 501
1/15/20-1/14/21 METER 5010484: 20
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
2,068.2E o
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
�a
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
o
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
203.0� a
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
Q
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
.r
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
T
1,652.0( N
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
00
N
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
0
315.6E N
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
E
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
2
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
U
354.9z };
6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.6E
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
fd
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.6<
6-02745
VETERANS PLAZA
VETERANS PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
254.0,
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245949 1/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 16
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
6-02885
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
430.9, a
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
FAC SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.6:
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
611.8z
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
t
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
203.0(
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
p
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
382.0E �a
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
o
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.6' Q
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
.r
SEAVIEW PARK
04
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
689.2- N
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
T-
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
c
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
460.5" E
6-06040
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
@
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
53.9z
6-07775
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
E
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
402.5"
6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
Q
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,566.0E
6-08525
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 17
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
245949
1/28/2021
008705
EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
315.6E
Total:
14,902.2°
245950
1/28/2021
074437
EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION WA
2021-01-COEDRETMED
01 RETIREE DUES
Q1 RETIREE DUES
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
1,530.0(
Total :
1,530.0(
245951
1/28/2021
064079
EVERGREEN FIRE & SAFETY INC
94460
WWTP: PO 476 EYE WASH, BURN I
PO 476 EYE WASH, BURN PUMP S
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
32.8E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3.4,
Total :
36.2
245952
1/28/2021
078281
FRITCHMAN, TIFFANY
2005706.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
64.0(
Tota I :
64.0(
245953 1/28/2021 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 162168 UNIT 86 - TIRE
UNIT 86 - TIRE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
WA STATE TIRE FEE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
245954 1/28/2021 012370 GREENSHIELDS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 1-101218 PM SUPPLIES: HI -LIFT JACK, SLINC
PM SUPPLIES: HI -LIFT JACK, SLINC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245955 1/28/2021 074804 HARLES, JANINE
245956 1/28/2021 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN
245957 1/28/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
5277295
7
245958 1/28/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7024299
245959 1/28/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET
245960 1/28/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
0551893666
0551895111
0551902310
3439124
PO # Description/Account
PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES FOR Jf
Photography Services for January 20;
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Total
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
Tourism Promotion & Marketing, Web
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Total
PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE
PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
COVID TESTING SITE HONEY BUCI
COVID TESTING SITE HONEY BUCI
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE'
FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE'
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
Total
PRINTABLE MULTIPURPOSE CARD
Neenah Paper Printable Multipurpose
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
6.2.a
Page: 18
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 19
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245960
1/28/2021
073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
2.8'
Tota I :
30.0'
245961
1/28/2021
076828 INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC
W210114
WWTP: TRACEABLE SCALE/BALAI`
Traceable Scale/Balance Calibration
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
260.0(
Total :
260.0(
245962
1/28/2021
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
300-10081789
FLEET - WORK LIGHT
FLEET - WORK LIGHT
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
49.9(
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
5.1
Total :
55.05
245963
1/28/2021
015280 JONES, KENTON
6
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
2,595.3<
Total:
2,595.1
245964
1/28/2021
068677 KONECRANES AMERICA INC
154418349
2021 INSPECTION
2021 INSPECTION
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
850.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
88.4(
Tota I :
938.4(
245965
1/28/2021
017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
01112021-01
01112021-01 - DEC 2020 - EDMONE
DEC 2020 CAR WASH CHARGES
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
45.6'
01112021-02
DECEMBER 2020 CAR WASHES
UNIT 15 CAR WASH DECEMBER 20
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
5.01
Tota I :
50.7(
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245966 1/28/2021 078282 LAFON, SARA
245967 1/28/2021 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING
245968 1/28/2021 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER
245969 1/28/2021 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER
245970 1/28/2021 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
245971 1/28/2021 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 20
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
2005707.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
(D
001.000.239.200
60.0( E
Total:
60.0( a
4865034
SHREDDING SERVICES 12/20
shredding services for december 202
3
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
17.9E
shredding services for december 202
y
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
17.9E U
Total :
35.9( t
80500317918
UNIT 66 TIRES
E
UNIT 66 TIRES
f6
U
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
2,862.4E o
WA STATE TIRE FEE
'@
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
6.0( o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
297.7( Q
Total :
3,166.1E "
February Cigna
FEBRUARY 2021 CIGNA PREMIUM;
T
00
February 2021 Cigna Premiums
N
811.000.231.550
13,085.6� c
Total:
13,085.65 E
51911740
WWTP: PO 500 EYEBOLTS, GASKE
U
PO 500 EYEBOLTS, GASKET TAPE
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
c
160.2(
Freight
E
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
17.6z
Total : 187.Z
71162 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES & Pl.
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 21
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
245971
1/28/2021
020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC
(Continued)
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES & PL
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
882.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
91.&
Tota I :
974.7f
245972
1/28/2021
078118 N.NAOJ
OTF NAOJ
OTF N.NAOJ CONTRACT FOR ARTI
OTF N.NAOJ CONTRACT FOR ARTI
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
500.0(
Total :
500.0(
245973
1/28/2021
067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS
6001917
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
218.8E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
22.7E
Total :
241.6'
245974
1/28/2021
024001 NC MACHINERY
SECS0704382
UNIT 57 - PARTS/ STEERING CYL
UNIT 57 - PARTS/ STEERING CYL
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
732.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
76.1 E
Total :
808.4'
245975
1/28/2021
024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
S010627993.001
WWTP: PO 489 REACTOR
PO 489 REACTOR
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1,695.1 E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
176.3(
Total :
1,871.4E
245976
1/28/2021
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
3169608-00
CITY PARK BUILDING - AIR COMP F
CITY PARK BUILDING - AIR COMP F
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
414.6(
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 22
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245976
1/28/2021
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
43.1 ,
Tota I :
457.7,
245977
1/28/2021
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 774
PLANNING -PROF SVCS
Planning Board Minutes-
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
456.0(
Total :
456.0(
245978
1/28/2021
070306 OBERG, WILLIAM
4
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
1,828.8f
Total:
1,828.8f
245979
1/28/2021
076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA
68767021
PRE -PLACEMENT DRUG TESTING
PRE -PLACEMENT - REYES
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
49.0(
69683185
DOT PHYSICAL RECERT
PHYSICAL RE-CERTS (REYES, BRC
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
309.0(
PHYSICAL RE-CERTS (REYES, BRC
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
103.0(
69999972
DOT PHYSICAL RECERTIFICATION
DOT RECERT - CRAWFORD
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
103.0(
Tota I :
564.0(
245980
1/28/2021
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
3685-111796
E176PO - PARTS/ BOLT
E176PO - PARTS/ BOLT
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
6.9f
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
0.7'
3685-111869
UNIT 51 PARTS/ FUEL CAP
UNIT 51 PARTS/ FUEL CAP
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
13.7z
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
245980
1/28/2021
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.4'
Tota I :
22.85
245981
1/28/2021
064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO
100400246738
PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR
PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
3,951.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
411.0(
Total :
4,362.9E
245982
1/28/2021
002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
00100429
UNIT 66 - PARTS
UNIT 66 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
572.5z
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
36.1-
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
63.3(
Total:
671.9°
245983
1/28/2021
046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
220023412418
WWTP: 12/21-1/21/21 METER 0003�
12/21-1 /21 /21 METER 000390395 20
423.000.76.535.80.47.63
2,788.8'
Total :
2,788.&
245984
1/28/2021
076935 PULSE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC
3504
INV 3504 - EDMONDS PD
P-3 RADAR - GHD-20922
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
625.0(
Tota I :
625.0(
245985
1/28/2021
075770 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC
7900 0440 8030 3286
QUADIENT MAIL POSTAGE
mail postage
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
4,000.0(
Total:
4,000.0(
245986
1/28/2021
075822 QUADIENT INC
16263296
QUADIENT POSTAGE SUPPLIES
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 24
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
245986
1/28/2021
075822 QUADIENT INC
(Continued)
ink and solution for postage machine
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
364.9(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
37.9E
Total:
402.8E
245987
1/28/2021
078283 REINTEGRADO PHOTOGRAPHY LLC
1,492
LIVESTREAM SERVICE - 1/21/21 M�
Livestream Service - 1 /21 /21 Mayor's
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
250.0(
Total :
250.0(
245988
1/28/2021
078279 SALVINO, RONALD
CPLREFUND
CPL RENEWAL REFUND - EDMONE
CPLREFUND
001.000.322.90.000.00
21.0(
CPLREFUND
001.000.237.190
21.0(
Total :
42.0(
245989
1/28/2021
078280 SANDSTROM, KIM
2005704.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
64.0(
Total :
64.0(
245990
1/28/2021
066918 SEDOR, NORMAN
5
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
1,735.0(
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
5,700.0(
Total :
7,435.0(
245991
1/28/2021
071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP
B12878758
DEC-2020 CLOUD SERVICE CHARC
Dec-2020 Cloud Service Charges
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
698.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
72.6<
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
245991 1/28/2021 071655 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP (Continued)
245992 1/28/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-408889
245993 1/28/2021 036955 SKY NURSERY
T-1705920
245994 1/28/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3264
245995 1/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200202547
200260271
200398956
200611317
200651644
6.2.a
Page: 25
Description/Account Amoun
Total :
770.95
UNIT 86 - PARTS
E
E
UNIT 86 - PARTS
�a
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
383.7,
10.4% Sales Tax
L
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
39.9- 3
Total:
423.6: r-
�a
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM SOIL
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM SOIL
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
t
860.0( U
10.4% Sales Tax
E
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
89.4, 2
Total:
949.4' o
PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT
>
DECEMBER PUBLIC DEFENSE COP
o
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
CL
29,548.4,
Total :
29,548.4, Q
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
T
N
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
N
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
18.8� c
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
604.0( 2
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
};
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,102.2E E
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
U
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
Q
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
211.1 ,
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 781.2�
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245995 1/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 26
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
200714038
SEAVIEW PARK
(D
SEAVIEW PARK
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
20.6" a
200723021
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
28.5z
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
21.5� u
201184538
HICKMAN PARK
t
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
32.1(
201197084
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
p
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
89.1 z �a
201327111
PINE ST PARK
o
PINE ST PARK
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.8� Q
201431244
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
.r
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
04
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
18.8� N
201441755
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
N
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
271.7E E
201453057
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
@
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
68.0(
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST /
E
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3,498.&
201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 103.0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 391.4'
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245995 1/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 27
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
391.4( E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
391.4<
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
3
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
391.4<
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
391.4( Y
202250627
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
17.7z E
202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
99.1; o
202291662
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
7a
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
o
L
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
5,926.7z a
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
Q
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
.r
T
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3,242.9' N
202540647
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
00
N
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.3, N
203652151
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
E
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
2
U
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
400.4, };
204425847
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
118.0z
220216386
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF Q
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 125.61
222704280 WWTP: 12/17/20-1/19/21 METER 1(
12/17/20-1/19/21 METER 10001353
423.000.76.535.80.47.61 31,022.3<
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
245995 1/28/2021 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
245996 1/28/2021 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1
245997 1/28/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1900077925
2020-6633
245998 1/28/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Release of Lien
245999 1/28/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Purser, Rob
246000 1/28/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE Feb-21
6.2.a
Page: 28
PO # Description/Account Amoun
Total :
49,817.41
ACCT# 30000075
E
E
Advanced Contact fee on jointly owne
512.000.31.518.87.41.00
244.7E
Total :
244.71 .-
3
INV 2020-6633 - DEC 2020 - EDMON
c
178 BASE RATE DAYS @ $103.25EA
fd
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
N
18,378.5(
39.83 BOOKINGS @ $126.97EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
5,057.2-
49 MED SPEC HOUSING @ $59.33E
E
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
2,907.1,
27.33 MENTAL HEALTH @ $143.25
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
0
3,915.0, '@
13.5 VID CT HRS @ $199.29EA
o
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
2,690.4, a
Total :
32,948.3: Q
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR FINANCE
r
release of lien
N
ao
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
180.0( N
release of lien
o
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
180.0(
Total :
360.0(
SHORT PLAT: ROB PURSER FOR P
short platt: rob purser for planning
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
192.0( E
Total:
192.0(
FEB-2021 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA
Q
Feb-2021 Fire Services Contract Payi
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
654,236.4,
Total :
654,236.4,
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 29
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
246001
1/28/2021
038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
101908/4
WWTP: LKRESTEL2021 UNIFORM.
LKRESTEL 2021 UNIFORM ALLOW/
(D
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
239.1.E E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
24.8,
Total:
L
264.0, '3
246002
1/28/2021
074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC
8679
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR JAI\
c
Social Media Services for January
y
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
550.0( U
Total :
550.0( t
246003
1/28/2021
076324 SUPERION LLC
305422
SUPERION FUSION ANNUAL MAINI
E
Superion Fusion Annual Maintenance
f6
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
2,205.0( o
10.4% Sales Tax
'@
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
229.3E o
Total:
2,434.3: a
a
246004
1/28/2021
072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY
127555
DEV SVCS MONTHLY COPIER CON
Q
Dev Svcs Monthly contract charge for
N
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
175.0( ao
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
18.2( c
Total:
193.2(
246005
1/28/2021
078203 TOTAL TESTING
54232
MICROSOFT CANDIDATE TESTING
U
ENGINEERING ADMIN TESTING
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
c
400.0( a)
Total:
400.0( E
246006
1/28/2021
071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC
48899618
WWTP: PO 478 - 1/8/21 SOD. BISI.
PO 478 - 1/8/21 SOD. BISULFITE
Q
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
1,840.5(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
191.4-
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246006 1/28/2021 071549 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC (Continued)
246007 1/28/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9871156173
PO # Description/Account
C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Total
Total
246008 1/28/2021 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8803412513
WWTP: PO 480 STATICMASTER
PO 480 STATICMASTER
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
8803483540
WWTP: PO 480 TOT SUSPENDED
PO 480 TOT SUSPENDED SOLID Sl
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
246009 1/28/2021 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 213063
INV 213063 - CS 21-919 - EDMOND,'
TOW PASSAT - CS 21-919 - 1.51-IRS
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
213073
INV 213073 - CS 21-1938 - EDMONE
TOW BLACK FORD - CS 21-1938
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
6.2.a
Page: 30
Amoun
2,031.91
C
m
E
�a
121.6E
L
324.6-
c
�a
10.2E N
Y
10.2E
41.0( •�
507.71
0
�a
0
508.8E a
a
Q
52.9, "
N
0
70.0,
0
7.2E E
639.0E .M
z
c
a�
276.0( t
�a
28.9E Q
184.0(
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.2.a
Page: 31
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
246009
1/28/2021
067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
19.3,
Total:
508.3(
246010
1/28/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
12043650CR
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES (RETURNEI
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES (RETURNEI
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-105.6(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-10.9£
12078282
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4,486.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
466.51
12101442
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
68.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.1
Total :
4,912.0F
246011
1/28/2021
064800 WEHOP
643569
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
191.&
10.4% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.9E
Total :
211.7E
246012
1/28/2021
051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D
7
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
167.5E
Total :
167.5E
246013
1/28/2021
070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
21-EDM0001
JAN-2021 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
18,062.5(
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
246013 1/28/2021 070432 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC (Continued)
246014 1/28/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-007-4989
N*&1 iYW*K1.11
253-014-8062
253-017-4360
425-712-8347
425-776-3896
88 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
88 Vouchers in this report
6.2.a
Page: 32
Description/Account Amoun
Total :
18,062.5(
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
E
E
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
>'
�a
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
31.1, c
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
=
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
3
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
162.7- c
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
y
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
302.1
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
t
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.8 � .
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.9( p
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
'@
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
>
0
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
47.0z a
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
Q-
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
N
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
74.8-
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL,
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
N
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
141.1( 2
Total :
903.1(
c
Bank total :
997,675.25
t
Total vouchers :
997,675.25
a
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
01 /28/2021 8:37:35AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
6.2.a
Page: 33
Amoun
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 72
6.2.b
vchlist
01 /28/2021 10:03:08AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
1282021 1/28/2021 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
0091 US BANK - EMILY
c
WWTP POSTING
E
423.000.76.535.80.41.40
200.0(
AMAZON PRINTERS
a
001.000.22.518.10.35.00
198.4E .�
AMAON - HR SUPPLIES
3
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
371.9, c
EMILY IPHONE COVER
ca
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
14.3,
FMSCA D&AANNUAL FEE
aD
t
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
62.5( u
0091 US BANK - EMILY
E
AMAZON SUPPLIES - NOT NEEDEE
2
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
-220.7E c
Total:
626.4E
Bank total :
626.4E o
a
Q.
Total vouchers :
626.4E Q
N
00
N
O
L
3
r
c
m
E
U
�a
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 73
6.2.c
vchlist
01/28/2021 10:19:09AM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
1292021 1/29/2021 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
Feb 2021 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN(
c
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - FebruE
E
E
001.000.39.542.64.45.00
417.E
Total :
417.61
a
a�
L
Bank total :
417.61
3
Total vouchers :
417.6
M
U
a�
t
U
E
2
U
4-
0
�a
0
L
Q
a
r
N
N
O
L
3
r
c
m
E
U
�a
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 74
6.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/2/2021
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Kathleen Barrett and Raphael & Marieka Miller
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Kathleen Barrett and Raphael & Marieka Miller by
minute entry.
Narrative
Kathleen Barrett
410 Dayton St
($272.00)
Raphael & Marieka Miller
110 Pine St
($30,260.84)
Attachments:
Claims for Damages - Miller Marieka Raphael - for council
Claims for Damages - Kathleen Barrett - for council
Packet Pg. 75
CITY OF E DMON [lS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
6.3.a
.CE I ED
JOIN 25 2021
Date Claim Form
J)j-V�; Iec1*ed bytj st}(
Please take note that �h� l rxlil� j` !�4{ 1 lei- , who currently asides at
mailing address
home phone,_ work phone # and who resirjed at
.�i p �t at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against -e— M4 rst C 3Kr►�r�[�CS in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: (�LI iZI I � j�jjrr (,TIME: �f]�f 2IQyA
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: lI D �i 1l�- J-' V-C�YYI.D�G[J a ��
1114*01 :112 1 W0 I
Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the,occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
•ram AL �.. i i � .. _ „_ .
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4.
Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? �11Y_
*-flooA 1 50 Jo;n -��s no+& �Y
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
License Plate #
Type Auto:
Yes No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 76
6.3.a
* * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
I, t�41 C�cZ- lam" U41 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that and
information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.
x
Signature of Claimant(s
State of WashingtonCounty of Sdsa�wkh
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that M.-A. t �A : U41 is the person who appeared before me, and saic
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses an(
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated:
FMy
REW MAHINAY
S� nature Notary Public
X lie," e of Washington
Title �� pointment Expires
My appointment expires: '7-1-21 Jul 1, 2021
Please present the completed claim form to:
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Forth Revised 05/06/14
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 77
6.3.a
Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also
describe the injury or damage.
On December 21 st, 2020 our finished garage/basement was substantially
flooded from overflow in the streets of Edmonds and the surrounding storm water
drainage that was "backed up"/clogged. In the afternoon, at around approximately
2pm, my husband (Raphael Miller) was screaming to me from outside, "Help! This is
N
bad, this is really bad!"
Approximately five minutes prior to this moment, Raphael was working at his
E
desk in his make shift (covid-19 times) office located in the garage/basement area. He
c
was on a Zoom meeting when he notice water coming into the garage, he then noticed
it rising a couple feet up on each side fo the garage door and flowing in. He
immediately got off his Zoom meeting and went to the door to see what was
M
happening. He opened the door and was met with a burst of water (up to his shins). He
U
slammed the door shut repeatedly, with his shoulder, numerous times to get it to shut
(in a panicked state, trying to determine his next steps). He then grabbed his drill, in the
c
event that one of our property manholes and irrigation was clogged, so that he could
L
work quickly to unclog it. Once ready, he opened the door quickly again and tried to
,2
shut it behind him, but the water rushed in approaching waist height at this point and
he could not get the door closed. Water quickly filled the garage, but he was able to
get out.
1 then joined him (after he called out to me), to help him. Our first thought was to
unclog our manhole (which had been cleaned out only 2 weeks prior, so we were
puzzled by this), but while attempting to open the top of it (which was already 6 inches
under water) we looked over at the corner of our property and saw water coming in
from the creek below and roads beside it. (It should be noted, that upon inspection
=
after water had drained our property manhole was clear and unclogged as anticipated).
At this point the water level in the area below (creek just West of our property)
had risen approximately 15 feet to flood up into our yard and garage. We panicked
after realizing how bad this actually was and raced to gather.any valuables possible
o
from the garage. We managed to retrieve some electronics, and quickly turn off the
`o
electricity to the building. We were very lucky that we used surge protectors for every
y
device plugged in on the ground and that Raphael was able to climb over various
floating pieces of our garage to get to the power box.
We were frozen by that point and began reaching out for help. We called 911
and they sent a police officer out, but he was unable to help us with our situation. We
E
called thew City of Edmonds multiple times to request assistance. They sent a single
employee out with one long metal hooked pipe to be used to dislodge any debris
a
blocking the drainage. By this point, Pine St. was flooded and you could not longer
have any visual of where a drain might be located. Firefighters arrived and they told us
there was nothing they could do because if they pumped out any water it would flow
right back into our home. We are across from the City Park, so one park employee
spoke with us and suggested we get someone with better equipment to determine
where the drain was located and free it. The gentleman from the City told us someone
was coming with a boat to see if that would help them get close enough to the drain to
Miller 110 Pine St. Page 1 of 3
Packet Pg. 78
6.3.a
clear it. We later saw someone drive to the flooded area with a boat secured on the
back of their truck, but they never unloaded it or used it in the previously discussed
way.
We continued to call for help, but the City of Edmonds told us they were
inundated with calls and that there was nothing they could do for us, except provide us
with empty sand bags (which was obviously not useful for our current situation, so we
declined). I left a message asking if I could send pictures or video to show them what
we were experiencing, but did not receive a call back.
I then called flood remediation companies for help. They stated they could not
help us until the water had receded, but we were placed on a waitlist and they would
be ready to help as soon as that occurred. By the next day, the water had receded (the
city drains located West of our property was draining, at least partially). and we began
remediation immediately.
The damages to material items were extensive, which I will list below:
Garage/basement office area (see attached cost breakdown: $10,700
Hot water heater - $500
Leather Couch - $500
Punching gloves - $60
Gym mats - $200
Side tables (2) - $80 each = $160
Side chair - $500
Vintage Secretary Desk - $400
Children's clothing and shoes - $500
Mac Computer - $3,000
Freezer - $300
Small custom refrigerator - $300
PS4 - $400
Office chair - $100
Frames - $300
Artwork - $400
House paint buckets - $200
Christmas gifts: quad, hoverboard, children's toys - $1,000
Skill Saw - $300
Fans (4) - $100
Dehumidifier - $300
Small vacuum - $130
2 Car Garage Door - $2,000
External Garage Door - $400
Flood remediation - $4,348.78
Flood demolition - $1,962.06
Snohomish PUD increase for remediation service (24 hours per day x 7 days) - $150
Loss of wages from disaster-$1,050
Non -monetary valuables:
Family photo albums - 20 total
Miller 110 Pine St. Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 79
6.3.a
Work files - 6 bankers boxes
Estimate of Toal Loss (thus far): $30,260.84
We have requested the City of Edmonds look into the drainage in this location
due to this horrible incident. Our initial contact has been promising, and we are
awaiting further information from the storm water engineer manager. We have seen
crews out at this drainage location clearing away debris (blackberry bushes) and
unclogging the drain, which they stated, "Was partially clogged." We requested
maintenance records, and as residents have not ever seen maintenance crews in that
particular run off area. I have attached the email exchanges for your review.
We moved to Edmonds approximately 5 years ago and have worked with the
city's guidelines on our property as they pertain specifically to irrigation. We never
imagined or anticipated the extent to which we would be required to irrigate our
property, in fact we joked that we would have the driest grass in Edmonds due to the
extent of work done. In short, we have abided by all of the requests, guidelines, and
extensive work that has been performed on OUR property, therefore we expect
surrounding roads and storm water drainage be held to the same rigorous standard to
ensure nothing like this ever happens again. We were very lucky that my husband was
able to get out safely, but things could have been different or it could have been any of
our children in that position at that time without the quick thinking or same instincts
which would have been devastating.
We appreciate your time and consideration regarding this claim and are happy
to answer any further clarifying questions if this seems helpful or necessary.
N
CU
E
M
0
L
.0
N
E
M
U
0
L
.0
a
o:
Miller 110 Pine St. Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 80
RECEIV
CITY OF EDMONDS JAN 2 0 2021
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Received by City
Please take note that /\C�`i h 1 e_e..i, L - 3 a Yr a ++ who currently resides at_
mailing address, Same
home phone # work phone # IV ZA , and who resided at S Ci. M e-
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against ,� lk�Nj 0(r e&yyXP&S�— in the sum of $ 72 o c arising out of the following circumstances listed below, m
a�
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: I - `26?0 TIME: 'l to RM
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: �S. &Z- aC-ze, a�
rn
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or dams e. �?
V,,kk1 k,i nc� nmI r a K o Ci � % fo r ��c� air. Soak% e is - �--r 17r •ri�A `..s� ZA ok
LJ���Cv —
t4k�. Uta,tr ^r-z ii1[7ll�c _ i17ILQ) iw7� ty'ip_ ki-riXte'r- rM ` \e- -;'Lvne `.7,IC
D11 G . + .z r ui c Li
JAN LV"k.r--S i7w
_ ['Alto- f rd4Lky1'-%w (attach an extra sheet for additional informati if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, Jo the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
s - 351
o�
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes —k- No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
License Plate #
Type Auto: _
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Form Revised 07/16/09
Driver License #
Page t of 2
Packet Pg. 81
* * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
1, OL being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true.
WA N
X
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washington
County of St-ItDi--41 15 �-t
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that J�aTi4t-e)--6 L J�0-4-RMis the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (hel h�C jsigned this. ail tl►girfi�acknowledged it to be (hisdM) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument. �� � OSTRAW41 1. r
I
Dated: ��Li;oMrt `i
Signature A +'
Title .� grj�►=�`
My appointment expires: 1 Z'�' ' D(F W P ��
14mu��w``�.
Please present the completed claim form to
Form Revised 07/16/09
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 51h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Page 2 of 2
m
a�
E
L
4-
1n
E
V
Packet Pg. 82
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/2/2021
Public Hearing Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree code since September 2020, specifically at the
September 9, October 14, October 28, November 12, and November 18 Planning Board meetings. The
Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree code on December 9, 2020 and completed its
review on January 13, 2021 with a recommendation to the City Council. Minutes from all the Planning
Board meetings where the tree code was discussed are provided in Attachment 4.
The City Council received an introduction to the draft tree regulations at the January 26, 2021 Council
meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing and provide staff direction on any amendments to the draft regulation.
Introduction
The City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) in July 2019 which included
goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City (Attachment 2).
Goal 1 of the UFMP is to maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage which included the following
actions to achieve this goal:
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
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree
programs
Goal 3 of the UFMP is to incentivize protection trees on private property which included the following
action:
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
Packet Pg. 83
7.1
In 2020 a code update process started to begin implementing these goals of the UFMP. On September
1, 2020, staff presented an outline of topics and possible concepts that will be explored during this
update of the City's tree related regulations (Attachment 3). These broad topics include:
Tree retention during development - Including: exploring low impact development principles
that may provide more flexibility in development in order to retain trees, specific tree retentions
standards during development, and providing incentives for tree retention
Establishing a tree fund into which development contributions or tree penalties can be tracked
and the proceeds spent on tree planting and preservation
Reviewing penalties for illegal tree cutting
Moving the main tree regulations for private property into the Natural Resources title of the
City's development code
Reviewing the existing permitting structure and exemptions for tree removal on currently
developed property
Draft Tree Regulations
The primary focus of this tree code update is to develop regulations that will result in more trees being
retained when properties are developed and requiring replanting for the trees that are removed. The
Planning Board has been reviewing the draft tree regulations since October including a public hearing on
December 9, 2020 and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council following the January 13tn
Planning Board meeting. Attachment 1 contains the Planning Board recommended tree code.
The draft tree regulations include:
New Chapter 23.10 ECDC which includes exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention
requirements, tree replacement requirements, tree protection measures, and violations.
New Section within the subdivision Chapter 20.75 ECDC for conservation subdivision design
which implements low impact development principals to aid in the preservation of more trees
when a site is subdivided.
New Chapter 3.95 ECC which establishes a City of Edmonds Tree Fund.
Some highlights of the draft tree regulations include:
Development single family properties not capable of being subdivide are exempt from the tree
code, unless there are critical areas on the property
Tree retention requirements for new development. The retentions requirements apply to
(ECDC 23.10.060):
o Short subdivision and subdivision application
o New multi -family development
o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of an
existing single-family house
o Tree removal not exemption by the tree code (ECDC 23.10.040)
Retention and Replacement Requirements
o New development must retain 30% of significant trees on site (ECDC 23.10.060.C)
o Replacement is required for every significant tree that is removed (ECDC 23.10.080)
o A fee -in -lieu program established if site will not support required replacement tree at a
cost of $1,000 per tree (ECDC 23.10.080.E)
Flexibility is proposed for subdivision design to aid in the retention of trees during
development (ECDC 20.75.XXX)
A Tree Fund is established (Chapter 3.95 ECC)
o Tree Fund is support by the fee -in -lieu programs, penalties, or monies allocated by the
City Council
o Tree Fund may be used for:
Packet Pg. 84
7.1
§ Providing vouchers to individuals for purchasing and planting trees
§ Acquiring and preserving wooded areas within the City
Public Comments
All the written public comments received as of January 28, 2021 are provided in Attachment 5.
Urban Forest Management Plan and Additional Tree Measures
This tree code update is a first step in implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan. As noted
above, the focus of this tree code update is to develop regulations that will result in more trees being
retained when properties are developed and requiring replanting for the trees that are removed. These
regulations are not intended to implement every goal identified in the UFMP and by themselves will not
result in no net loss of tree canopy within the City of Edmonds. More actions by the City will be needed
to implement other goals of the UFMP and move towards no net loss of tree canopy.
The City is also in the process of updating its Street Tree Plan and conducting an inventory of street
trees. Another next step that has been identified is establishing a Heritage Tree Program to retain
exceptional trees throughout the City. Other future actions will include pursuing possible incentives for
property owners who retain trees on their property. This could include property tax rebates (applicable
to the City portion of property taxes), stormwater utility fee reduction, and/or other techniques that
provide financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection.
In forwarding its recommendation, the Planning Board recognized additional tree related code
amendments may follow. Within the Planning Board minutes provided in Attachment 4, the Planning
Board included other recommendations for the City Council's consideration beyond the tree regulations
provided in Attachment 1. While recognizing this round of tree code update was focused on tree
retention with development, the Planning Board also wanted to acknowledge the public comments
received during the Planning Board's review (Attachment 5), particularly in regard to tree removal on
already developed property and view related issues.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations Planning Board Recommenation
Attachment 2: Urban Forest Management Plan
Attachment 3: Edmonds Tree Regulations Update Topic Matrix
Attachment 4: Planning Board Minutes 09.09.20 through 01.13.21
Attachment 5: Written Public Comments as 01.28.21
Attachment 6: Council Public Hearing Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 85
7.1.a
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
23.10.020
Definitions
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
23.10.090
Bonding
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.110
Liability
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the protection,
enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees. This
includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
C. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the
residents of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the
prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or
partially improved property;
D. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
E. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
F. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
G. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of
development.
Planning Board Recommendation
Page 1 of 14
Q
Packet Pg. 86
7.1.a
H. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic
and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease,
danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover;
Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
23.10.010 Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.020 Definitions
A. Caliper —The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH.
C. Developable Site — The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
E. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
F. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by
recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
G. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
H. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
I. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
J. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan,
replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or
covenant restriction.
L. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
Planning Board Recommendation Page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 87
7.1.a
M. Qualified professional — An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track (or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
N. Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
O. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional..
P. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries
Q. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
T. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.
23.10.030 Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
Planning Board Recommendation Page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 88
7.1.a
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal
permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for:
1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:
1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths.
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
for these trees alone.
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8
23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
Planning Board Recommendation Page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 89
7.1.a
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC
23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except
as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree
replacement may be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
City requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-
family house, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before
removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish
tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate
preservation of viable trees.
B. Tree Retention Plan
An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that
complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain
components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense.
Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following
information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
corresponding tags on trees);;
Size (DBH);
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
Planning Board Recommendation Page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 90
7.1.a
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed
improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is
required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be
required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out;
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
those in a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current
phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as
more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to
all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
Planning Board Recommendation Page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 91
7.1.a
1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, or unit lot subdivision
site
2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area
hazard tree.
3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
4. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space,
wetlands or creek buffers.
Planning Board Recommendation
Page 7 of 14
Q
Packet Pg. 92
7.1.a
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to
utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may
be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting
the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity.
23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following
standards:
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the
applicant shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum
"Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for
code enforcement to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the director authorizes their removal.
Planning Board Recommendation Page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 93
7.1.a
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
Planning Board Recommendation Page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 94
7.1.a
F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.080 Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
For each significant tree greater than 14 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are
required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor.
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval
by the director after 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 off -site location.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the
tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
Planning Board Recommendation Page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 95
7.1.a
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved
tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title
of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's
office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this
provision.
23.10.090 Bonding
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements
and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following
required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to
ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The
maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in
subsection B.
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
buffers.
23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
C. Penalties:
1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
2. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
Planning Board Recommendation Page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 96
7.1.a
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree
Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar
growing conditions.
The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in
the absence of the violation(s).
f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified
arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and required tree replacement.
3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require
necessary corrective action within a specific time.
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC.
23.10.110 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
Planning Board Recommendation
Page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 97
7.1.a
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that:
a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet;
b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet;
c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and
d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced.
Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling
units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and
widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements
of the zoning district in which it is located.
Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total,
coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for
the zoning district in which it is located.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city codes and standards.
C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with
design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC
23.10.085.
3.95 Tree Fund
Planning Board Recommendation
Page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 98
7.1.a
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund."
3.95.020 Funding Sources
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources:
A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC.
B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC.
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and
D. Other monies allocated by the City Council
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the
city:
1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds;
2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional;
3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health;
4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational
purchases;
6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the grantee.
C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in
23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting.
Planning Board Recommendation
Page 14 of 14
Q
Packet Pg. 99
� -
L
f.
: pw
- r1-
I �IMde
I4W
' y`�� - r rT tie• - u :i r
k ��i_ •lJY� � �� � i•ar i F .
Urban Forest Mana'gement Plan
July, 2019 A& Ho"I'l =k
7.1.b
a
Packet Pg. 101
7.1.b
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Management Plan
July, 2019
'11C. 1 Sa"
DAVEY#.
Resource Group
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
Packet Pg. 102
Acknowledgments
CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS
Shane Hope, Director, Development Services
Carrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Services
Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Terri Arnold, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Department
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
CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD
Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair
Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair
Gail Lovell, Position 2
William Phipps, Position 4
Barbara Chase, Position 5
Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6
Vivian Olson, Position 7
Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt.
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - Chair
Matt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair
Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1
Daniel Robles, Position 2
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5
Alicia Crank, Position 6
Todd Cloutier, Position 7
Mike Rosen, Alt.
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Position 2 — Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Position 4 — Council President Pro Tem
Kristiana Johnson, Position 1
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3
Dave Teitzel, Position 5
Thomas Mesaros, Position 6
Neil Tibbott, Position 7
OF EDP
0
DAMEY
Resource Group
I
')C. 18`)V
Q
Packet Pg. 103
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation
Introduction
Community
Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest
What Do We Have?
Edmonds' Urban Forestry History Regulatory Framework
Regional Plans and Legislation Regional Urban Forestry Resources
Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies
Existing Urban Forest Practices
What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and Community Input
How Do We Get There?
Goals and Actions of the Plan
How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and Measuring Results
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Appendix C: Community Survey Responses
Appendix D: Open House Summary Report
r
Q
Packet Pg. 104
7.1.b
Executive Summary
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.
1 Scope & Purpose
Packet Pg. 105
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, currentfunding 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.
What What
Do We Do We
Have? Want?
How How Do q
Are We We Get
Doing? There?
c
a
c
as
E
c
L
0
U_
c
c�
2
L
D
N
r
c
a
a�
E
M
U
a
r
r
Q
Scope & Purpose 2
Packet Pg. 106
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).
Thefollowing principlesfor 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)
The City
Acres 6,095
Population 41,8
Land Cower
Tree Ca nopyr
30%
brass & Vegetation
27%
1 m pervio us Su Ffaces
34%
Bare Soils
2%
Open Water
7%
Tree Canopy CDyer
Maximum Potential Canopy S 7%
Investment
Tree Care Pigr Capita
714
.3 Scope & Purpose
Packet Pg. 107
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 canopy'.
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.
Q
Executive Summary 4
Packet Pg. 108
Land Cover
7.1.b
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
Grass/Vegetation
27%
Figure 1: Land Cover
City Limits
Tree Canopy
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation
Impervious Surfaces
Bare Soil
Open Water
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Figure 1: Land Cover
a
Jr Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 109
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.
Open house forums and public meetings provided perspective
on community interests and concerns about the urban forest.
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
Executive Summary.,
Packet Pg. 110
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.
Goal 1- Maintain citywide canopy coverage
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.
Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro -actively
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on ovate p
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management.
r
Q
7 Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 111
Introduction
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
greatersense of place (Kuo, 2003). Communitytrees,
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.
Edmonds' trees are a valued community resource
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.
r
Q
Introduction 8
Packet Pg. 112
7.1.b
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.
Typical overview of waterfront homes in Edmonds.
9 Introduction
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).
Packet Pg. 113
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
(CH), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO), 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.
Stormwater runoff from streets needs to be controlled. Trees
will slow and intercept stormwater, reducing the burden on
stormwater infrastructure.
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 97 (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.
r
Q
Introduction 10
Packet Pg. 114
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 (0), nitrogen
dioxide (NO), and sulfur dioxide (SO). Shade and
transpiration reduces the formation of 03, 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.
The needles of these douglas fir trees help improve air quality.
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.
r
Q
11 Introduction
Packet Pg. 115
7.1.b
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.
A mix of large and small trees in a park.
Introduction 12
Packet Pg. 116
Right tree, right place
Factors to consider when selecting a tree to plant.
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.
Trees in streetscapes can grow into conflict with sidewalks.
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.
Tree roots lifting a sidewalk.
13 Introduction
Packet Pg. 117
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
An example of skirting -up; the lower limbs on this tree have
been removed to provide drivers with a clearer view.
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, otherfactors such as critical
areas must also betaken 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
2
Management: A Guidefor Puget Sound Bluff Property
a
Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in
combination to create views without compromising
a
tree health or slope stability.
as
View -enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers
1. Windowing
2. Interlimbing
r
L
3. Skirting -up
0
c�
• Note: In any pruning practice or combination,
D
60% or more of the original crown should be
ii
retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The
a
removal of too much live foliage can reduce
E
the tree's ability to supply food to the roots,
thereby weakening them.
a
• Windowing. This pruning practice allows a
view "window" through the existing foliage of
the tree's canopy. In pruning major limbs and
r
Q
Introductior
Packet Pg. 118
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.
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.
A tree with multiple stems may become a hazard without
N
r
c
as
E
a
c
m
E
U
a
r
r
Q
15 Introduction
proper care.
Packet Pg. 119
What Do We Have?
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 beingconsidered 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.
Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement.
c
FL
c
as
E
as
c
c�
m
L0
a_
c
c�
L
D
N
c
as
E
0
a
c
a�
E
U
0
r
Q
Introductior 16
Packet Pg. 120
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.
The state of Washington
requires the City of Edmonds
to manage and protect it's
critical areas.
cif
Common ground vegetation in wetland 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 qualitygoals
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.
r
Q
Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas.
17 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 121
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 forshaded buildings, acquiringcarbon 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.
r
Q
What Do We Have? 18
Packet Pg. 122
7.1.b
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 alignmentwith 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.
19 what Do we Have?
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.
Packet Pg. 123
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.
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. Publictrees
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.
c
IL
c
m
E
as
c
R
L
0
U_
c
cC
D
N
c
as
E
0
a
c
a�
E
U
0
r
r
Q
What Do We Have? 20
Packet Pg. 124
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.
N
r
c
as
E
a
c
a�
E
M
U
a
r
Q
21 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 125
7.1.b
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
Ak
� yr� i f f � y �•
lee
J! ,y
' y 41-- 4 x*i. +r ,;' �Y + '�r-
1� — #—
„�r7ir y�
71."'' a
Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds "bowl" area.
• 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)
What Do We Have? 22
Packet Pg. 126
Land Cover
7.1.b
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
Grass/Vegetation
27%
Figure 1: Land Cover
City Limits
M Tree Canopy
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation 22
Impervious Surfaces
Bare Soil
Open Water ,
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
2.3 what Do we Have?
Figure 1: Land Cover
a
Packet Pg. 127
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 i mportance 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
7.1.b
c
aD
c
aD
E
Q
a�
y�
lie I
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.
# 2
F* ' ... - E
{ + ,1 S * CU
LL
CM
_
` •+`', +�*-,.. 'fir
Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy
categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest.
- � Q
What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 128
Forest Fragmentation
P;;trh Forest
/0
Core Forest
10%
Perforated
Forest
8%
Edge Forest
26%
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Ifs
I : -;. : .
Pt" ;A I DR
DAYT NST, MAIN Si
"A"i T S T
City Limits V
Core Forest 2XTHST 1 8
Edge Forest W
Patch Forest
Perforated Forest
xien+sT
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
2.5 What Do We Have?
-i
!7CJH ST
I Packet Pg. 129
7.1.b
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 (Piceo sitchensis), western red cedar (Thujo
Canopy cover in Post Park.
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 .
r
a
What Do We Have? 26
Packet Pg. 130
Tree Canopy By Park
Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
=011
i
..
.
Southwest
Ikunty Park
118.55
117.05
Yost Memorial
44.14
41.28
93.53 97.45
Park
ach Padrale
ii 54
25.16
98
Southwest -
County Park
Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66
Edmonds Marsh
23.37
5.66
24.21
Hutt Park
Hummingbird
Hill Park
Yost Park.
Edmonds
City Park
Edmonds
Marsh
Under IS%
15% - 30%
30% - 45%
45% - 60%
_ Over 60%
0
27
1, i
N tj
A
Miles
Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park
What Do We Have?
Meadowdale
Beach Park
-'-Seaview Park
v' Sierra Park
*
Maplewood
Park
—Pine Ridge Park
r
Q
Packet Pg. 131
7.1.b
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:
• 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
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor
251.82
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. 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
What Do We Have' 28
Packet Pg. 132
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
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
N
r
C
m
E
a
c
m
E
U
a
r
r
Q
29 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 133
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 23.90.040.0 (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.
Park trees in Edmonds.
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.
r
Q
What Do we Have? 30
Packet Pg. 134
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
Table 5: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest
Management in Edmonds
tnL
Permits for Tree
Removal
Trees on Private
Development
Permits for Tree
Property
Services
Pruning
Permits for Tree
Planting
Hazardous Tree
Parks,
Inspections
Trees in Parks
Recreation and
Tree Pruning
g
Cultural
Tree Removal
Services
Tree Planting
Public Works
Hazardous Tree
Trees within
and Utilities
Inspections
City Rights -of-
(with Parks'
Tree Pruning
Way
assistance in
Tree Removal
mmmng�'
downtown)
Tree Planting
,
31 what Do we Have?
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.
r
Q
Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for
public safety.
Packet Pg. 135
7.1.b
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.
Table 6: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures
Urban Forestry Items MR Expenditure
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance
$79,779
T
Management
$62,771
Volunteer Activities JL _M
$134,579
TOTAL
$319,542
Vdget Per Capita $7.74
UTC Estimate of Benefits
$1,567,000
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 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and
Staffing Levels
City Services
UrbanCommon
Related Activities
Hours per
Development plan review for
Permit Intake
compliance with tree
protection codes
2
and Review
Public inquiries (online,
phone, and counter)
Code
Investigating and resolving
Enforcement &
tree complaints
Complaint
Investigating and resolving
2
infrastructure damage
Investigation
complaints
Tree planting and
Parks & Public
establishment
Tree
Structural pruning on smaller
40-60
Maintenance
trees
Inspection and identification
of hazardous trees
Contract
Managing contract tree crews
1
Management
Emergency
Community Service Requests
0
Response
Response Management
Urban Forest Management
Comprehensive
Plan stewardship
(Long-range)
Federal, state grant
<1
Planning
procurement
Tree City USA applications
Volunteer events
Community
Coordinated tree planting
Education Action
Neighborhood association
1
and Outreach
support
Website content and public
education
Tree Board
Addressing public issues
1
Meetings
related to trees
r
Q
What Do We Have? 32
Packet Pg. 136
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).
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.
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. a
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 `o
a_
member who has an advanced degree in Forest
Ecology who works with citizen groups on tree
planting and stewardship projects. D
N
r
Tree Acquisition and Quality
Control
The City's approach to acquiring trees is not guided a
by any formal standard practices that ensure the a
quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are M
planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties r
managed with new trees. Q
33 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 137
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.
Cone from a douglas fir. (Photo by Peter Stevens CC BY)
An example of some native trees for the Pacific
Northwest include the following,:
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
Leaves of a big leaf maple.
What Do We Have? 34
Packet Pg. 138
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
m
many tree hosts, but is especially problematic
on Maple species. Verticillium dahliae is a a
soil -borne fungus that persists in the soil for
a
decades. The fungus infects roots and grows
L
into the xylem where it colonizes the vascular a
elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores) _
plus defense compounds produced by the Z
host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the a
flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting
results, and is exacerbated during periods of a -
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 o
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). N
r
c
• Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the E
foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused by the
fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. a
SNC is known as a "cast" disease because it
causes the premature shedding of needles (or E
casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree U
crowns and reduced growth. Although it is Q
35 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 139
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).
r
Q
What Do we Have? 36
Packet Pg. 140
• 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).
Symptoms of BBB Include Dying Top
37
What Do We Have?
• 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
r
Q
Packet Pg. 141
7.1.b
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.
What Do We Have' 38
Packet Pg. 142
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.
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 a
in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an
update to consider may include evaluating the
required width of access easements. M
r
r
Q
39 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 143
Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations
7.1.b
L
Qi
Q
0
a-
0)
M
a
Developed single-family
property, no critical areas
present
Developed single-family
property, critical areas
present
Removal of hazard trees in
critical area
Prune or trim trees
Multi -family property
and Planned Residential
Developments with
approved landscape plan
Commercial Property
Tree removal with
development
Trees in right-of-way
Street trees
No review, no permit
required
Yes, review and permit
required if tree in critical
area or critical area buffer
Review required, but no
permit
No review, no permit
Yes, review and permit
required
Yes, review and permit
required
Yes, review included with
land use or development
permit.
Yes, review and permit
required
Yes, review and permit
required
Prune or removal of park I No permit
trees
No notification required, but suggested
to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement
Response
Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff
decision with notice)
Documentation of hazard tree
by certified arborist, or clear
documentation of dead tree. Replanting
required at 2:1 ratio
Topping considered same as tree
cutting or removal unless retopping of a
previously approved topping
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice)
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision no notice)
Tree protection measures required for7
trees to remain
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
Design review against landscaping
requirements. Type I decision (staff
decision, no notice) 7
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 Citv's critical area regulations
a
What Do We Have? 40
Packet Pg. 144
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.
Edmonds' community volunteers helping to remove ivy and
improve forest health.
VITA HNGTON
COMMUNITY
FORESM
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.
N
c
as
E
a
c
m
E
U
a
r
r
Q
41 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 145
FORTSRRA
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.
im rFO' S C
LocalGoverTueTt
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.
A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars.
r
Q
What Do We Have? 42
Packet Pg. 146
7.1.b
future
wise
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.
Wetland stream flowing through Edmonds.
w
COLLEGE
of the
ENVIRONMENT
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.
* ;4,�-11,
43 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 147
7.1.b
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-
Forested park canopy in Edmonds.
Forested park canopy in Edmonds.
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.
r
a
What Do We Have? 44
Packet Pg. 148
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 (orfee 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 orfinancial
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
Q
45 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 149
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.
The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of a tree removal Permit.
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
Community volunteers pulling weeds and improving forest
health in Edmonds.
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/RentonO4O4/
Renton0404130.html
r
Q
What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 150
City of Port Angeles
7.1.b
City of Seattle
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?nodeld=TIT11STSl_
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
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 similarto other cities, theirspecific 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).
47 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 151
Arborist Business Licenses -
City of Lincoln
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&catl D=547).
Community engagement on urban forestry is important to
encourage tree retention on private properties.
• 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://Iincoln.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:H
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/
What Do We Have? 48
Packet Pg. 152
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 E
become available.
a
c
m
E
M
U
a
r
r
Q
49 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 153
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%ofthe 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.
Q
What Do We Have? so
Packet Pg. 154
7.1.b
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.
51 what Do We want?
Packet Pg. 155
Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for
community engagement. — —
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 156
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
40 %
35%
30%
25 %
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Improved Air Quality
Edmonds' fountain and traffic circle trees.
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).
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Carbon Storage Energy Savings
Quality/Reduced
Stormwater Runoff
Environmental Benefits
Other
53
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 157
7.1.b
View of street trees at 5th Avenue South and Main Street.
On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees
as the most important intangible benefit, followed
by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then
40
35
30
25
20
15%
10%
attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded
parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic
benefit (Figure 5).
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
50
■
■
■
■ ■
0/o
Beauty/Aesthetics
Shaded
Attractive to
Shaded Improve retail Increased Property Passive recreation Shaded Parkin
Trails,sidewalks,
Residents
streets/Buffer areas and Values
and bike trails
from vehicles neighborhoods
Intangible Benefits
c
M
a
c
W
E
0
c
CU
r
Cn
L
0
U-
c
M
L
N
r
c
0
E
t
R
r
c
m
E
L
V
R
Q
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 158
7.1.b
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 seethe 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%).
Street tree along Main Street.
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the
(Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear)
but not necessarily every
tree)
Maintenance Expectations
55 what Do we want?
None -Keep them natural
Packet Pg. 159
7.1.b
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.
Private property trees have canopy that can shade public streets.
Street trees along 5th Avenue.
r
Q
What Do We Want? 56
Packet Pg. 160
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 anotherten (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.
N
c
as
E
a
c
a�
E
U
a
r
r
Q
57 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 161
Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can
obstruct the view, but can also be the view.
How Do We Get There? 58
Packet Pg. 162
Urban Forest Management Plan
Goal 1
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
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)
7.1.b
Goa
E
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
r
Q
59 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 163
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 2 Time
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
On -going
and ROW
B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to
On -going
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,
On -going
along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk
D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically
5-10 Years, On -going
E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the
On -going
health of public trees
F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff
On -going
person to guide approach and activities
G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to
3-5 Years, On -going
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,
3-5 Years, On -going
consistent with best management practices
I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property
1 Year, On -going
and rights -of way
J. As part of City -sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate
On -going
trees in rights -of -way and on City properties
K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management
On -going
for City properties and right-of-way (ROW)
r
Q
How Do We Get There? 60
Packet Pg. 164
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 3
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
Time
3-5 Years, On -going
3-5 Years, On -going
1 Year, On -going
61 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 165
Urban Forest Management Plan Goal
s
Goal 4 Time
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 1 Year
B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to: 1 Year, On -going
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 1 Year, On -going
and to provide guidance on tree selection and management
How Do We Get There' 62
Packet Pg. 166
Urban Forest Management Plan
Goal 5
Goal 5 - Promote "Right tree, right place"
Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when o balanced combination
of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees ore 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
7.1.b
Goa
E
Time
1 Year
1-3 Years
On -going
On -going
1-2 Years
r
Q
63 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 167
7.1.b
How 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 Doina'
Packet Pg. 168
7.1.b
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/Agri I us_a nxi us_1326203.j pg
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.
65 Appendices
Packet Pg. 169
7.1.b
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:gapps.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.
a
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.
a
Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
c
E
http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/
a,
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org
y
The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/
m
o
a_
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.
N
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown
a�
E
Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded
Q
Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast.
http://sncc.forestry.oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17
t
PNW Plant Disease Handbook
r
Q
PNW Insect Handbook
Appendice- 66
Packet Pg. 170
7.1.b
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-pol lution.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 I Residential I 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
Elementl).
Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing,
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/ebl380e/ebl380e.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
67 Appendices
Packet Pg. 171
7.1.b
Appendix B9. Table of Figures
F'iures
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
Appendice- Oa
Packet Pg. 172
7.1.b
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):
Improl' Quality
Energy Savings
FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage
Wildlife Habitat
Other
69 Appendices
Packet Pg. 173
7.1.b
Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Strongly Agree
74.86%
131
Agree
21.71%
38
lisagree
2.29%
Strongly Disagree
0.57%
1
kot sur
°
Not Sure
0.57%
1
ther (please specify)
0.00%
0
Question 2 (Extended)
36.W
4.57%
21.715/o
64
8
38
5.14%
9
13.71 /
24
14.29%
26.86%
-M
47
36.57% 64 25.71% 45 9%
18
8.57%
15
8.57%
15
17.14%
30
36.00%
63
28.57%
50
25.71%
45
22.29%
39
12.57%
22
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
49.71% 87
P175.71% 10
29.71% 52
10.86% 19
0.00% 0
175 2.88
175 3.3
0 0
C
0
IL
C
a�
E
a�
C
0
U.
C
N
C
0
E
t
V
r+
Q
�.i
C
d
E
t
t1
a
Appendices 70
Packet Pg. 174
7.1.b
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):
Attractive to Residents
14.86%
26
21.71%
38
16.00%
28
13.14%
23
Beauty/Aesthetics
34.29%
60
21.14%
37
14.86%
26
14.29%
25
21.71%
38
17.14%
30
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails
24.00%
42
11.43%
20
2.86%
5
Shaded Parking
3.43%
6
8.57%
15
9.71%
17
rove r reas and neighborhoods
4%
9
104k29%
18
12.57%
22
13.71%
24
Increased Property Values
4.00%
71
5.14%
9
5.14%
9
9.71%
17
Passive recreati
4.00
9
6.86%
12
12.00%
21
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles
13.14%
23
16.00%
28
12.00%
21
16.00%
28
Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds'
public trees.
Answered 60
Skipped 115
Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City's urban forest program? Please check all that
apply.
have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City
Other (please specify)
71 Appendices
Packet Pg. 175
7.1.b
Question 3 (Extended)
rGIF1•
15.43%
27
9.71%
17
6.86%
12
2.29%
4
1 --
5.39
7.43%
13
2.86%
5
2.29%
4
2.86%
5
-15
6.29
9.71%
17
9.71%
17
4.57%
8
1.71%
3
17.71%
31
29.71%
52
8.57% 15
19.43% 34
175
3.03
43%
34
18.29%
32
14.29%
25
6.29%
11
175
4.25
10.29%
18
13.71%
24
22.86%
40
29.14%
51
175
3.05
3%
27
20.00%
35
21.
14.86% 26
13.71%
24
13.14%
23
9.71%
17
6.29%
11
175
4.89
Answered
175
Skipped
i
Question 5 (Extended)
36.69% 62
23.67% 40
52.07% 88
14.79% 25
12. o
AnswereT .•
Skipped
Appendices 72
Packet Pg. 176
7.1.b
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.
Daily AM
13.02%
22
Weekly
11.83%
20
10.65%
18
Severa I Times A Year
34.32 %
58
Never IL30.18%
1
Answered
1691
Skipped
61
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?
wx,-- & IWL9-
Weekly 4.14% 7
onthly % 5
Several Times A Year 41.42% 70
Never 46.15% 78
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?
L. :: ° 9
Weekly 2.96% 5
Monthly 5.92% 10
Several Times A Year 43.20% 73
Never 42.60% 72
73 Appendices
Packet Pg. 177
7.1.b
Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds'
public trees.
Strongly agree
10.65%
18
Agree
59.17%
100
Disagree
11.83%
20
Strongly Disagree
8.88%
15
Not Sure L
9.47%
16
Answered
169
Skipped
61
Appendices 74
Packet Pg. 178
7.1.b
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)
None -Keep them natural
Best possible care (all trees should look good)
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)
Take care of hazardous trees.
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)
Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees.
jjWngly Agree
AMMV.87%
6&
Agree
28.99%
49
isagree
17.16%
29
Strongly disagree
5.33%
9
not sure
ilMEW
Answered
169
Skipped
Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.
a
59.17%
100
Open spaces and Natural Areas
60.36%
102
Sareetscapes
59.17%
100
Golf Courses
11.24%
19
p;ovvWwn 7M.60%
Trails and bike paths
45.56%
77
dmonds has enough public trees
20.12%
34
Other (please specify)
17.75%
30
Answered
.•
Skipped
75 Appendices
Packet Pg. 179
7.1.b
Question 10 (Extended)
3.55%
6
8.88%
15
10.06%
17
25.44%
43
45.56%
77
6.51%
11
169
1.92
15.38%
26
9.47%
16
21.89%
37
26.04%
44
23.08%
39
4.14%
7
169
2.67
6.51%
11
24.26%
41
27.81%
47
26.04%
44
10.65%
18
4.73%
8
169
2.89
52.07%
88
26.04%
44
14.20%
24
5.33%
9
1.78%
3
0.59%
1
169
4.22
21.89%
37
30.18%
51
23.08%
39
12.43%
21
8.28%
14
4.14%
17
169
3.47
_
a�
E
_
a�
E
a
a�
0
U
_
0
2
Z
�a
U)
_
0
R
a�
m
m
m
L
L
_
�L
2
c,>
a
_
IL
_
m
E
0
_
CU
r
Cn
m
L
0
U-
_
R
L
N
r
_
d
E
t
V
fC
r-+
a
_
E
r
r
a
Appendices 76
Packet Pg. 180
7.1.b
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.
Seminars and workshops IL
44.38%
75
Interpretive trails and displays
59.76%
101
62.72%
106
Online videos (e.g. YouTube)
24.26%
41
tree
Informational brochures
43.20%
73
ther (please specify)
11.83%
20
Answered
.•
Skipped
61
Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public
trees.
Answered 40
Skipped 135
Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply)
Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41
Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15
Tree debris i 12.65% ■
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114
Canopy loss IM 57.83% 9
31
Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120
Other Concerns(please specify)
%% Appendices
Packet Pg. 181
7.1.b
Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select
any from this list any statements you agree with.
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
�es nea
59.28%
99
1 want more trees near my property
25.15%
42
have no trees near my property
0.60%
1
1 don't agree with any of these statements.
2.40%
4
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?
'IF Answer ..
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
,reasonably possible. M& 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
a
a�
E
a)
c
CU
r
a�
L
0
LL
0
R
L
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
fC
r-+
a
E
r
r
a
Appendices 78
Packet Pg. 182
7.1.b
Ordinances, Rules or Regulations
Other (please specify)
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.
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
35.33% 59
22.75% 38
Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private
property.
ditional Comments
Answered .,
Skipped 131
Question 20: Which gender do you identify with?
Male
i
Female
Gender Diverse
Prefer not to answer
28.66%
47
59.76%
98
A1.83%
3
9.76%
16
79 Appendices
Packet Pg. 183
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
7.1.b
W
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%
i
56+
61.59 %
101
Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below.
Downtown/The Bowl
Westgate
Five Corners
Perrinville
Meadowdale
40.85% jMjj
7.32% 12
x 8.54%
14
4.88%
8
4.27%
7
Seaview 15.24% 25
Lake Ballinger
HWY 99 3.05% 5
ther (please specify) 14.63% 24
Answered 164
Skipped ill
Appendices 80
Packet Pg. 184
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
7.1.b
M am a resident of Edmonds M
95.12%
156
1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds
10.98%
18
Own a business in Edmonds
6.71%
11
appreciate public trees
72.56%
119
planted public trees as a volunteerAMMIN
18.90%
31
1 help care for a public tree adjacent to my property
10.98%
18
J[have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public
trees X15.85%
26
None of the above
0.61%
1
81 Appendices
Packet Pg. 185
7.1.b
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
Answered 33
Skipped 142
Appendices 82
Packet Pg. 186
7.1.b
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/
rem inder-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/
83 Appendices
Packet Pg. 187
7.1.b
nnininn Rnarrl ffl • \A/hat train hanafitc rin vnii mnct nnnrarinta?
A. Improved Air Quality
1n
MRW
B. Energy Savings
4
0
0
Reduced Stormwater Runoff
14
■
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. �Increasecl prop
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"
0
0
0
don't get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams;
coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland
desertification
City revenue increase with more views
0
0
0
Air quality requires big, tall trees
0
0
1
c
IL
c
m
E
m
c
CU
M
m
L
0
U-
0
R
L
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
fC
r-+
a
E
M
r
r
a
Appendices 84
Packet Pg. 188
7.1.b
Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are
preferred/valued?
A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)
i. Species selection
Tre
iii. Tree pruning
Interactive tree selector
V. Irrigation
olunteer opportunities
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)
Species selectio
ii. Tree planting
Tree pruning
iv. Irrigation
C. Hands-on (Wormshops, seminars)
i. Tree planting
Tree pruning
iii. Irrigation
Volunteer opportunities
2 _0 0
4 0 0
1 0 0
4 1 0
1 1 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
3 0 0
3 1 0
1 0 0
3 = 1 1 0
0 0 0
2
2 0 0
5
0 0 0
1
D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0
Lleighborhoo or education and outreach 0 MTMMT
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 0 0
story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and onlineirc culationl
New name needed 0 0 0
85 Appendices
Packet Pg. 189
7.1.b
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds?
A. Trees blocking my view
11
L-1 9
B. Trees shading my yard
3
0 7
M Tree debris in
a
# 1 5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed
12
0 3
K Canopy loss F1
1 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
1
0 0
(residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban
Fomeone who would be willing to negotiate oTelp mediat
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
1
0 0
to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
0 0 0
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
0 0 0 -
is removed for development
3
This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which
a
are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we
c
a
2 0 0
have chosen to reside- as the "view". Trees are very connected
to the idea of "the commons" in which we have not much
E
a�
I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated
additional concern.
CU
r
a�
L
***Note: for this opinion board:
0
U-
Green dots = concerned
c
Red dots = not concerned
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
fC
r-+
a
E
r
r
a
Appendices 86
Packet Pg. 190
7.1.b
Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer
for Dublic trees?
A. None (keep them natural)
4 2
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)
7 1 3
Mlearan� (keep sidewalk street ear)
—I= 1 1
D. Take care of hazardous trees
10 2 0
lolistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but
not necessarily every tree)
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
0 0 0
process to effectively deal with dangerous trees.
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 tree
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
0 1 0
owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode.
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
Packet Pg. 191
7.1.b
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees
planted?
A. Parks s
10
0 0
B. Open Spaces
10
0 1
C. Commercial proper}
9
2 0
D. Streets and medians
7
3 2
r-
E. Parking lots
0
F. Private properties
8
1 1
F. Additional Ideas
Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all
1
0 0
arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool
a
Appendices 88
Packet Pg. 192
7.1.b
Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree M
planting and preservation on private property?
A. Free (or low-cost) trees
10
- 0 0
B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care
3
0 0
company
C. Education and Outreach
16 0 0
D. Tree planting events
5
0 0
JE. Additional Ideas
Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees
3
0 1
when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot.
Education- slow but steady sot at folk begin to know that alll
the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for "views"
0
0 0
we can cut out our lungs.
Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order
3
0 0
to keep both trees and preserve view.
City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:i
3
0 0
Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and
streamside property management more important than public
0
0 0
meetings for general public)
c
IL
c
m
E
0
c
CU
r
m
L
0
U_
0
R
L
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
fC
r-+
a
E
r
r
a
89 Appendices
Packet Pg. 193
7.1.b
I R +ra
5 1
1, W}�at tree benefits do ynu Trost. What types of outreach and 3. What is Are your biggest
appre[ipte? education are preferred valued? concerns) For trees in Edmovids? F~ E
#G* w*ra#r..#4rrlt•f,r*#dlk+nr,ranrN,rneX A. Eleoii.M. rS•Igr.pni.c t[il W8+ekThrtcrs•eoi3le.i, aLliunks,•
Youtube, ARRO
.A.7-:,
d4-Qe-rr A.aasblockingmy-
view # wa •
0000 060 0
'ZiAq st q a. Trots srodig my yam
QN
Y. Irri�aiq.,• N
a.evwrsl= o*
• ••**a
# � � �# a� '"'�t•di
T
—d
B. Hard Copy {pamphj&s, bteW11eNeFFj#0
i. Sp«.r.Uk", -Oa 6
�r. Inlpunp„
[- Nowts-OnMorkshop . SeminnFF}0•
.. Tr.. PI.."
a hx FL—mp
A rrkwlvP
Iv. NW-1—r
La** -a-- I•s6,r,o lsi h
�rdylyygs 6. Ad d iGgnal Ides
r —
. F
C. Sraa C�fbFjB in my yard 9
0 • •• #
D, Henllhy WOMTUF4 tFdM%baing ramorad * •
00 • # e :1501
F. Canopy loss # 00 iv0a 00
F. lasF atwildlite habiJhM •• • ai*# # a
•09 sib* • 0
# " G. Add Ilional Consamf �
ZZ-7-2
• W LL
�TwF
--------- = - -- "— IV
[areAeilsruty ChF4Yaocli q
ME
4. What level of maintenance would
You prefer for public trees?
A. NoneIKeep fhc—pturalj
i
8. Besrp4fFibl� cure {atkffaas sha,rld lank goad]
•
C. Clearance only Ikaap sidewalks d• i"e+, drar]i
•
D. Yoko Gar¢ 4f I —dosri Ira—
E. Hausa Plant He6l%Cwe1Isnprow the .,bon
reresl, but rat neclFFoAly eresy rreej
##/ # • a IM
F. Add6ona11deas
_ 6. What are the Kest ways to
encourage tree planting and
5. Where would you like to see more preservation on private property?
trees planted? A Fri for low -cosh Trees J�
A. Parks
® #**i #*#+
aP40 Spaces
C. cct x creial Prapwias.
• i# Is •# ##
D. Streeri and Medium
# f# #
E. Parking Lori
% : is #
P0'v #0 • 041
G. Additional ldeaF
•
6L Infarntio6on about how to hire a plrafemskmal
Irea care (crnpany
C. Edsxcdion and Ouhaurh #
D. Tree Plpnl;ng Evenis
#0"•
E. Addiiianalldeas
r
a
Appendice.,, vV
Packet Pg. 194
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 thetn
L
presentation comparing Edmonds with other ,°
cities- does that chart take into consideration
c�
view property- does it differentiate where there
are view properties and where there are not?
cm
Commenter suggested that a significant portion
of the City [of Edmonds] has views. E
a
c
a�
E
U
a
r
r
Q
91 Appendices
Packet Pg. 195
7.1.b
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 SO
Appendice- 92
Packet Pg. 196
7.1.c
2020 Edmonds Tree Regulations Update —Topic Matrix
Topic
Existing Code
Possible Amendment Concepts
Tree Retention
ECDC 18.45.050 notes that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible."
One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are
cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. The City could explore regulations
The critical area code has a 30% retention of native vegetation requirement for
that require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed
properties in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones being subdivided if associated with landslide
beyond an established threshold, developers may be required to pay into the Tree Fund.
hazard areas, streams, or wetlands (ECDC 23.90.040.C).
Apart from the 30% native vegetation requirement in the critical area code, there is no
specific tree retention requirement for properties within the City of Edmonds.
Low Impact Development
Low impact development (LID) in the City development code is primarily related to
One of the primary concerns we've heard with regard to tree removal in the City of Edmonds is when trees are
stormwater management. ECDC 18.30.010 (definitions related to stormwater code)
cleared from a site during the subdivision and/or development of properties. One way to maintain more trees on
defines low impact development as "a stormwater and land use strategy that strives to
the site is to employ LID planning principles in the subdivision process. Current subdivision and zoning standards do
mimic predisturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage,
not allow much flexibility and by the time the required access, setbacks/developable area, and utilities are applied
evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site features, site
to a site, often must of the trees end up being removed. Some flexibility during subdivision design that may be
planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a
explored include flexible setbacks (e.g. modify interior setbacks while maintaining standard exterior setbacks),
project design." However, low impact develop principles may be applied much broader,
cluster developments, flexible lot design (altering lot width and/size requirements while maintaining the underlying
for instance ECDC 24.90.030 (shoreline master program definitions) defines LID
zoning density).
principles as "land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -
site natural features, and site planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native
vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff."
Tree Fund
The City of Edmonds currently does not have a dedicated Tree Fund
Establishing a Tree Fund will be part of the update. Tree Fund management will likely be established in a new
chapter located in Title 3 ECC. How money makes it into the tree fund and what the funds may be spent on will
have to be explored.
Potential funding options include tree cutting violation penalties, dollar amount per tree removed during
subdivisions (see Tree Retention), or deposit for replacement trees not planted to meet retention requirement (see
Tree Retention topic).
Tree fund could be used to issue tree vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in
the City, funding tree education activities, or other tree related activity.
Incentives
There are currently not incentives to retain trees or plant trees within the City code.
The Urban Forest Management Plan included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private
property which included:
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
Allowing more flexibility during development of site, such as discussed in the LID topic, also provides an incentive to
retain more trees during development.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 197
7.1.c
Topic
Existing Code
Possible Amendment Concepts
Tree Definitions
ECDC 18.45.040 currently defines tree as "any living woody plant characterized by one
Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations applied to only certain types of trees. Examples include
main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a
"significant tree", "protected tree", "landmark tree", "heritage tree", or "street tree". Additionally, some
multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown."
jurisdiction except certain species of trees from their tree regulation requirements (such as red alder). Tree
definitions will be explored.
Permits/Tree Cutting Review for
Currently exemptions from permitting requirements are located in ECDC 18.45.030.
The disparity in application fees and process between existing single-family and multi-family/commercial properties
Existing Developed Properties
Generally speaking, developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt
should be addressed.
from tree cutting permits. If there are critical areas present and the tree is not
determined to be a hazard tree (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b) then a permit is required to cut
The current exemption list contains some dated language and inconsistencies with the critical area code. As such
a tree (which includes topping). When a permit is required on single family properties,
the exempt activities should be reviewed. Another exemption consideration should be given to nuisance tree
it is a Type II staff decision with notice. Type II permits cost $1,010 ($970 application
removal. For example, a tree that is not considered a hazard tree but continually damages sewer lines or is buckling
fee plus $40 technology fee). In addition to the application fee additional costs may
a driveway with its roots may be removed without a permit similar to a hazard tree.
include arborist reports and/or critical area reports such a geotechnical report.
For existing multi -family and commercial properties tree cutting is reviewed a Type I
design review to ensure the property would still comply with the landscaping
requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Type I permits cost $315 ($275 application fee
plus $40 technology fee). If critical areas are present, additional reports may be
required.
Hazard tree removal does not require a permit, but does require review by staff. There
are no City fees associated with a hazard tree removal review, however there is cost to
an applicant to hire an arborist to document the tree as a hazard tree.
Penalties/Fines
Violations and penalties for tree cutting violations are currently contained in ECDC
The code currently defines a tree as any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many
18.45.070. Base penalties may be assessed accord to the size of the tree; civil penalty
branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed
in an amount not to exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000
crown. The critical area code also permits the removal of trees less the 4 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) as
for a tree three inches or more. These fines are trebled if the tree is located in a critical
an allowed activity. Given the current code includes penalties for trees that are smaller than the definition of tree
area or the right-of-way for a maximum fine of $9,000 per tree.
and trees which may elsewhere in the code be removed from critical areas as an allowed activity, the penalty
section should be review and evaluated to establish an appropriate penalty for violation of the City's tree cutting
regulations.
Any penalties assessed could be deposited in the Tree Fund account.
Code Location
Tree and vegetation management is spread throughout Edmonds Community
Title 18 ECDC is primarily related to Public Works requirement. Since Chapter 18.45 ECDC is related to tree
Development Code (ECDC). Primary tree code is located in Chapter 18.45 ECDC — Land
regulations on private property and administered by the planning manager, a new chapter (Chapter 23.10 ECDC)
Clearing and Tree Cutting Code. Other tree and vegetation regulations are contained
will be created in Title 23 ECDC Natural Resources to house the main tree related code chapter. Other potential
within Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC critical area code, the Title 24 ECDC — Shoreline
tree related code amendments may be applied to Chapter 20.75 ECDC — Subdivisions that would allow flexibility in
Master Program, and Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements.
subdivision design to encourage more tree retention as noted in the LID and Tree Retention topics.
Page 2 of 2
a
Packet Pg. 198
7.1.d
Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. Ferguson questioned the FIRM, itself, which the Board cannot address.
Ms. Ferguson also went into detail about how the 50% substantial damage rule might impact her property should a major
flood event occur. Her understanding of the current code is that Ms. Ferguson could address the situation via the
nonconforming rules or pre-emptively having her property added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Lien
explained that if the property is certified as a historic structure, the 50% substantial damage rule would not apply. He noted
that certain criteria would have to be met in order for a property to be on the register, and not all old houses are historic.
Board Member Rubenkonig said a financial investment would also be required for Ms. Ferguson to pursue such a process.
Mr. Lien said the application for placing a property on the City's register is free, and there are benefits associated with the
designation. He explained that the register is a voluntary program, and properties that are nominated for the register must
meet certain criteria. If a property on the register does a major renovation, there is potential for tax breaks. However, before
any work can be done, properties on the register must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission to ensure the work does not impact the historic aspects of the structure. Mr. Chave emphasized that the criteria
for inclusion on the register is fairly strict, and age is not a sole determinant.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Ms. Ferguson raised a good point, but it has less to do with the proposed
ordinance. She agreed that the City hasn't assessed the historicity of Lake Ballinger, and she is concerned that this needs to
be attended to. She recognized that is a conversation for another time, but Ms. Ferguson presented some well -stated
concerns. She asked if the Board Members feel that Ms. Ferguson has enough options and is in a position to handle any
future event. Chair Robles expressed his belief that all of the bases were covered regarding this concern.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
TREE REGULATIONS CODE PROCESS UPDATE
Mr. Lien recalled that the Board previously reviewed proposed tree code amendments, but they were tabled until the City
adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He advised that the City adopted the UFMP in July of 2019, which N
included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City. At that time, the City Council authorized staff to hire a
part-time code writer to assist with rewriting the Tree Code. This effort was stalled due to a number of factors, including the
pandemic c
Mr. Lien referred to the table provided in Attachment 1, which outlines the broad topics and possible concepts that will be
explored while reviewing and updating the City's tree -related regulations. He explained that regulations that impact tree
retention are scattered throughout the code, and the items in the table are listed in priority. He reviewed the items as follows:
Tree Retention. One of the primary concerns the City has heard over the years is when properties are subdivided
and/or developed, all of the trees are cut down to accommodate development. Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 18.45.050 requires that trees be retained to the maximum extent feasible, but "feasible" is often
difficult to determine. The Critical Area Regulations is the only section of the code that has a tree retention
requirement. Properties within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that have steep slopes, streams or wetlands associated
with them are required to maintain or establish a 30% native vegetation. The City could explore regulations that
require a certain amount of trees to be retained and/or planted when a site is developed. If trees are removed beyond
an established threshold, developers could be required to pay into a Tree Fund.
Low -Impact Development. Low -Impact Development (LID) in the City's code is primarily related to stormwater
management. However, LID principles may be applied much broader. Other ideas to consider include flexible
setbacks, flexible lot sizes, clustering of houses, reduced road width requirements, etc. For example, you could
allow clustered development or a reduced setback to potentially preserve trees on a site. He shared an example of a
property in Edmonds that was subdivided and explained how the access and utility easements, as well as the
building footprints, impacted the number of trees that had to be removed from the site to accommodate
development. He explained how LID principles could have been used to allow a greater number of trees to be
retained. Staff will be asking the Board to consider what flexibilities could be provided in the code to potentially
result in more trees being retained when a property is developed.
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 199
7.1.d
• Tree Fund. The City doesn't currently have a dedicated Tree Fund. A Tree Fund could be used to issue tree 0
vouchers (money to purchase trees for planting), planting trees elsewhere in the city, funding tree education V
activities, and other tree -related activities. Potential funding options will need to be explored further, but could 0
include tree cutting violation penalties and developer fees based on the number of trees removed for development. 0
=a
• Incentives. The UFMP included a specific goal to incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property. It
included: a program to give away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds; exploring the establishment of a co
property tax rebate, stormwater utility fee reduction or other technique to reward properties that retain a certain
amount of tree canopy cover; and developing a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners
who maintain a certain amount or type of healthy tree. c
• Definitions. Trees may be defined a number of ways and regulations can be applied to only certain types of trees.
Examples include significant trees, protected trees, landmark trees, heritage trees and/or street trees. Some
jurisdictions also regulate certain species of trees (such as red alder) and exempt them from the tree regulation
requirements. i
H
• Permits/Tree Cutting Review for Existing Developed Properties. Currently, permits are required to cut trees in
the City. Developed single-family properties with no critical areas are exempt from tree cutting permits. If there are p`
critical areas present and the tree is not determined to be hazardous, a permit is required. The permit is a Type 11
Permit (staff decision with notice) and the application fee is $1,010. For existing multi -family and commercial L
properties, tree cutting is reviewed as a Type I design review to ensure the property would still comply with the
landscaping requirements. The application fee is $315. The disparity between the cost of tree permits for single-
family versus multi -family and commercial properties should be addressed.
a
• Penalties/Fines. Currently, the base penalty for tree cutting violations is assessed based on the size of the tree, and the civil penalty is not to exceed $1,000 for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree that is three inches or N
more. The fines are tripled if the tree is located in a critical area or the right-of-way. Currently, the code defines a
tree as having a caliper of six inches or greater, but the Critical Area Code permits the removal of trees less than 4
inches as an allowed activity. The tree cutting fines should be evaluated and updated to be more consistent with the
t
definition of trees.
0
L
• Code Location. Currently, the main tree code is in ECDC 18, which is primarily related to Public Works
requirements. Because the tree regulations on private property are administered by the Planning Manager, a new N
chapter will be created in ECDC 23 (Natural Resources) to house the main tree -related code chapter. Other tree c
regulations would also be scattered throughout the code. For example, allowing more flexibility in subdivision 0i
design to encourage more tree retention would be located in ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions). c
Mr. Lien advised that this presentation was intended to provide a broad overview of the project, and the Board will begin its
discussion in more detail on October 14'. He advised that the Citizens Tree Board was briefed on the code update topics at
its August 6' meeting, and it will be consulted periodically as the code specifics are developed further.
Chair Robles noted that the topics of "tree zones" or "tree districts" were not included on the list. He asked if this concept
has been dropped from the discussion or if it would come up later. Mr. Lien said it was not identified as an individual topic
of discussion. However, when they look at tree retention with development, the percentage of trees to be retained might be
different based on the zone or area of the City.
Board Member Cheung observed that trees are a topic the public is passionate about. He suggested that the City advise the
local newspapers and My Edmonds News of the scheduled discussions so that the public is not surprised at the last minute.
He suggested they solicit ideas and comments from the public throughout the process, and the public should also be invited to
all of the meetings where the topic is discussed. Mr. Lien agreed to work with the City's new Public Relations Officer to
outline a public outreach plan that gets the public engaged early in the process.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, generally, an assessment of the health of a tree will be made by a certified
arborist. One of the overriding issues within the different jurisdictions that have tree codes is the dependence on the
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 200
7.1.d
professional field to neutrally make these decisions. She asked if there are codes from other jurisdictions that the Board c
should review as examples. Mr. Lien advised that at the end of 2020 the City hired a firm to review codes from other V
jurisdictions (Kirkland, Redmond, Snohomish County, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Issaquah and Everett), and this information p
will be provided to the Board. Board Member Rubenkonig said from the viewpoint of her land -use consulting business, she .N
is pleased by the direction that Snohomish County has taken to protect trees. She recognized they are now talking about >
saving what trees they can, but they haven't been saving the best of what there was. They are now in a situation of trying to 0
dry a line in the sand. While they don't want to lose more trees, they acknowledge that some will be lost due to other co
considerations. In the future they want to look at replenishing the tree inventory. Mr. Lien said that "no net loss of the
overall tree canopy" is identified as a policy in the UFMP.
rn
c
Chair Robles asked if the discussion would include outlying ideas that have never been done before. He's seen it happen
where someone comes up with an idea that is so unique and/or interesting, but they can't do it because no other jurisdictions
has done it previously. He said he doesn't believe that is a good approach, and he asked how willing the City is to adopt
ideas that come from the brilliance of the citizenry. Mr. Lien responded that he is open to any brilliant idea. All of the W
jurisdictions get ideas from each other, but Edmonds is also willing to go first if a good idea comes up. d
L
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many citizens in Edmonds have spent good money maintaining the tree canopy on
their private properties. The City has discussed potential incentives and an appreciation for what they are doing on behalf of
the City. There are people who are very invested in what the Board will propose, yet others will look at the issue differently. a
The City has an opportunity to improve the percentage of its tree canopy, and she felt they should establish a goal. She L
recalled that the Board previously talked about the need to get a better assessment of what remains of the City's tree canopy.
She asked if that will be part of the process. She likes having a benchmark that enables the City to determine whether or not =
the codes in place are leading the City in the right direction or if other measures are needed.
Mr. Lien said the current benchmark is contained in the UFMP. A coverage analysis based on 2015 Lidar mapping identified a
a 30% canopy coverage in Edmonds. The UFMP notes to report on the canopy coverage at least every 10 years, and Council N
Member Buckshnis has mentioned this recently, as well.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the 30% tree canopy coverage compares to other cities. Mr. Chave replied that the
information was provided in the UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like this comparison to be part of the
discussion. She referred to a recent critique in the local paper saying that, as good as the City's parks are, compared to other
cities, they don't have the percentage of parkland acreage. If the City were to increase its public land, they could more
readily establish a tree program that would increase the tree canopy on city -owned properties.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles referred to a letter the Board received from a citizen regarding Meadowbrook Park. He asked when would be
the best time for the Board to respond to the concern that was raised about people abusing the park. Mr. Chave said the letter
was forwarded to the City Council, and the City Council may direct the Parks Board (Planning Board) to look into the issue
at some point in the future.
Chair Robles reviewed that the September 231 meeting agenda will include a report on development activity, a joint meeting
with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee, and a status update and discussion on climate goals planning. The
October 14' meeting agenda will include a discussion on Development Code work (electric vehicle charging infrastructure
and tree codes). The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will present an update to the Board on October
28'. The first meetings in November and December will also include additional Development Code work, and the second
meetings in November and December will be cancelled.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles reported that he and Vice Chair Rosen met recently with the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee. He
recalled Board Member Rubenkonig's recent comment regarding her concern of having City Council Members participate on
the citizen advisory committees and commissions, and observed that the meeting felt different than the Board's joint meeting
with the City Council. He said he believes the Board's role will be to guide the committee as to how it interfaces with other
Planning Board Minutes
September 9, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 201
7.1.d
November 101. The City Council will hold a public hearing, as well, and the goal is for them to be adopted along with the
budget.
Board Member Cheung asked if the City has considered providing power outlets on the fishing pier. Ms. Feser answered that
there are power outlets and lighting on the pier. However, the system can be tripped by large number of squidders on the pier
with powerful lights and heaters. There is limited capacity and access to the outlets, so people do bring small generators.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Planning Board spent a lot of time contributing to the Civic Park Master Plan.
She expressed her belief that the plan is good. However, she asked why the "rain garden" was changed to a "stormwater
garden." Ms. Burley answered that it was simply a designer's interpretation of how the area would function to filter
stormwater. There was no change to the plan.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she loves that the view terraces are still part of the plan for the hillside. This area will
provide a nice, long perspective of being able to look out on Edmonds. However, she asked when the scramble wall was
added. Ms. Burley said the scramble wall was part of the originally -approved master plan. Given that it is one of the more
costly elements of the plan, it is being bid as an alternate to ensure the park can be developed with or without it.
Board Member Pence asked if the City has done a survey of which areas are short of parkland. A survey would allow the
City to target future land acquisitions to address these shortfalls. Ms. Feser said they would use the current PROS Plan as a a
guide. There is information in this plan that reflects the community's priorities for land acquisition. She has also proposed i
that the City adopt a Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan to further identify the community's priorities
for land acquisition. The plan would provide criteria and outline an evaluation process for consideration of potential land =
acquisitions. Geographic distribution of resources should be a key piece of the plan. Edmonds is primarily built out, so there •2
is a lot less opportunity to purchase additional parkland and/or open space. Board Member Pence asked how long it would 3
take to get the Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan in place. Ms. Feser said a chunk of the project a
could be done in house, but statistically -valid community engagement will be a key piece of the project. The community N
engagement piece for the Land Acquisition Strategy could be done concurrently with the PROS Plan update. She estimated it
could take up to a year to complete the community engagement work.
Board Member Cheung voiced concern that a budget of $200,000 per year for land acquisition isn't a lot given the high cost
of land. Ms. Feser agreed. She explained that funding is needed for site surveys, appraisals, and other projects that are part
of the City's due diligence process. The funding could also be used as leverage for grants.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on a Tree Code update in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest
when it was presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning
Board recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to
guide the Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway.
Implementation includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing
street trees in the downtown.
Mr. Lien said the goals for the Tree Code Update are to focus on private property, improve tree retention with new
development, implement low -impact development principles, and establish a Tree Fund. Other updates included in the
process include reviewing the definitions, existing permitting process and penalties. Currently, there is a disparity between
the cost associated with tree -cutting permits required for single-family development versus multi -family and commercial
development.
Mr. Lien referred to UFMP Goal 1, which calls for maintaining or enhancing citywide canopy coverage. Actions related to
this goal include:
• Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider
changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations.
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 202
7.1.d
• Adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the
PROS Plan.
• Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas.
• Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
• Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs.
Mr. Lien referred to the draft Tree Code (Attachment 3). He explained that, currently, the tree regulations are in Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45 (Public Works), and staff is proposing to move the bulk of these regulations
to a new chapter ECDC 23.10 (Natural Resources). This new chapter would address exemptions, permit processes,
definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement and violations. A new section would also be added to ECDC
20.75 (Subdivisions) titled, "Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility." The new section would use the low -impact
development principles as a way to retain more trees with development. Lastly, a new chapter would be added in Edmonds
City Code (ECC) 3.95 (Funding) that would establish the Tree Fund.
Mr. Lien said the Tree Code is scheduled for review at every Planning Board meeting through the end of 2021. A public
hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. His goal is for the Board to focus on two or three sections of the code at
each of the meetings.
Board Member Monroe asked if the intent of the code is to effect only new development or to address how people manage
trees on their own property. He suggested there should be a distinction between a developer who wants to clear cut a parcel
versus a private property owner wanting to cut down a tree he/she doesn't like. Mr. Lien said one of the main purposes of the
Tree Code is to address tree retention associated with development activity. The code would apply to new subdivisions,
multi -family development, new single-family development on large lots, and tree removal on developed sites that are not
specifically exempted. The intent of the code is to retain more trees when development occurs.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled an issue that came up years ago with the Architectural Design Board. A property owner N
on Olympic View Drive wished to harvest a forested property that she owned, and there was nothing in the code to prevent ri
that from occurring. Eventually, the entire property was developed, but no plans were in place when the property was clear
cut. She asked if the draft Tree Code would address situations of this type. Mr. Lien said forest practices are allowed by the
State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. However, you do not typically see forest management in the City of
Edmonds. Provisions in both the current code and proposed code would prohibit clearing of a site for the sake of sale or o
future development. s
Board Member Cheung asked how the public would be informed about the potential changes prior to the public hearing. Mr.
Lien said staff would work with the City's new Public Information Officer to get the news out. The issue could also be raised
at Mayor Nelson's upcoming neighborhood meetings. Board Member Cheung suggested that the City Council should be
advised that the Planning Board will be working on the Tree Code in coming weeks. Mr. Lien said he made a presentation to
the City Council on the broad update and mentioned that the issue would be on the Planning Board's agendas through the end
of the year.
Mr. Chave noted the extensive amount of material that was provided to the Board. He suggested the Board Members could
forward comments and questions they want addressed at the next meeting to staff via individual emails to Ms. Martin and Mr.
Lien.
Chair Robles asked if the Board's discussions should follow the matrix of high-level issues that was provided by staff or the
start by reviewing the highlights and changes to the code. Mr. Lien said the matrix he presented at the Board's September 9"'
meeting identifies the broad topics that are included in the Tree Code. Moving forward, he would rather focus on the actual
draft code language. Chair Robles suggested that the Board should review the draft code language and be prepared to start
discussions at their next meeting. Mr. Lien commented that the Board's October 28' meeting will include a public hearing
on the CFP and CIP, so their work on the Tree Code will be limited. However, their November meeting would focus solely
on the Tree Code. He noted that November I I' is Veteran's Day, so it is likely that the Board would need to hold a special
meeting on November 18'k'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 91h
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 203
7.1.d
Mr. Lien said the City Council is anxious to start their review of the Tree Code. The December 9' public hearing could be an
opportunity to solicit initial comments and ideas from the public, and the Board may want to have another hearing before
making a recommendation to the City Council in early 2021. Chair Robles said he anticipates a great deal of public
participation at the hearings, and he is concerned that there won't be enough time to disseminate the draft code to the public
prior to the hearing. He asked if staff anticipates a lot of opposition from the public. Mr. Lien said he tried to draft a
balanced Tree Code that implements the goals and policies in the UFMP. He was present at the public hearing for the
previous draft Tree Code and heard the comments and concerns that were presented by the public. He suggested that the first
public hearing in December could focus on the concepts in the Tree Code to make sure the Board is heading in the right
direction.
Board Member Cheung suggested that staff prepare a summary of the topics and potential changes that are discussed at each
of the Board's study sessions. This would provide helpful information for the public to review prior to the public hearings.
Given that the public hearings will be virtual, he suggested that publishing summaries of the proposed language and the
Board's discussions and soliciting written comments from the public before the hearings would be appropriate.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, suggested that the City publish articles in the local newspapers to introduce the UFMP goals and
polices and the long-term vision the Board will be working on. The next step could be to publish summaries of the Board's
discussions as they study the issue and prepare for the public hearing. This approach would essentially warm the community
up to the subject, with a big focus on the goals and objectives.
Chair Robles commented that having an adopted UFMP with clear goals and policies in place will be a significant benefit as
the process moves forward. All of the controversial issues that were raised regarding the previous draft Tree Code have been
settled by the UFMP. The only argument that remains is the issue of view versus forest. He supports Mr. Lien's
recommendation to break the discussion into sections. Mr. Lien agreed to meet with the Chair and Vice Chair to establish a
schedule for the upcoming discussions.
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the public hearing on the previous draft Tree Code was very productive. N
The outpouring of concern was made very clear to the Planning Board. The community was listened to, and the Planning
Board learned a lot. The UFMP, which was eventually adopted by the City Council, took form from that engagement. Chair c
Robles agreed that the UFMP was the correct outcome of the previous public process. a
0
Mr. Lien noted that the UFMP was included in the Board's October 141h meeting packet and he doesn't plan to attach it to s
future packets. The actual code language will be the focus of discussions going forward. Chair Robles encouraged the Board c
Members to download the UFMP to their files for future reference as the process continues. N
R
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA o
N
Chair Robles reviewed that the extended agenda for the remainder of the year will focus on the Tree Code. However, a 3
public hearing on the draft CIP/CFP is scheduled for October 28th. The Board agreed to reschedule their November 11`h
meeting to November 18'. �
L
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
00
a
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments.
c
0
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS a
Board Member Pence voiced concern with what happened with the Planning Board recommendations on the Comprehensive r
Plan amendments related to properties on 9th Avenue North and in Perrinville. The Planning Board went through a thorough a0i
process and made recommendations that were different from the staff recommendations, and he assumed that staff would t
present the Planning Board's recommendations to the City Council. Subsequent to the staff's presentation to the City 0
Council, a letter to the editor was published in My Edmonds News on October 31 pertaining to the proposed amendments. Q
There were numerous comments, several of which took the City to task for only presenting the staff s recommendation to the
City Council. The Planning Board recommendations were downplayed or not discussed at all. He reviewed the agenda
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 204
7.1.d
Board Member Monroe summarized that, as per staffs response, he shouldn't be concerned that the $17 million cost of the
project has been allocated to the stormwater fund. Staff will spread the cost out to include regional funding rather than relying
primarily on the stormwater rate payers to foot the bill. Mr. English clarified that it is not the intent that the project be funded
solely by the stormwater fund. While it is a stormwater project, the CFP notes there is unsecured revenue for the project. This
unsecured revenue will come from grant sources, and the project will be funded by multiple sources.
Board Member Rubenkonig concurred with Board Member Monroe's concern about adding burden to the stormwater fees that
the citizens of Edmonds pay for. Board Member Monroe is the point person on the Board when it comes to looking for budget
items for capital projects. She hopes the City Council will consider his comments and particularly look at the burden that is
being placed on the citizens via their stormwater management fees. She understands the staff s point of view, and she trusts
the City staff will continue to pursue grants. But Board Member Monroe's point is well taken and should be carefully
considered. She recalled that the City Council has considered funding options for this project in years past, including whether
or not to float a bond issue.
Board Member Cheung asked staff to respond to the comment letter that was submitted by Mr. Phipps, a representative of Save d
Our Marsh. Mr. English said one of the suggestions was to move the project from the stormwater fund to the park funds. The
other comment was to stop work on the project until the ownership issue is resolved. He explained that the two projects
scheduled for 2021 are small, and there is no proposal to move the design forward in 2021 other than potentially looking at
another alternative alignment. There has been a lot of input from the community about the alternatives that have been a
considered in the past and that perhaps a hybrid alternative would be a better fit. Ms. Feser added that the Marina Beach Park L
and Daylighting of Willow Creek Projects support the marsh restoration project. It will definitely be beneficial for improving
the water quality and restoring the ability for saltwater to come back into the marsh. She would hesitate to pause the project =
when they are at 30% design and have secured a $500,000 grant with the possibility of another $500,000 grant. The Marina •2
Beach Project can progress independently of the marsh project.
a
Vice Chair Rosen said his understanding is the original concept for the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor extended from Main Street N
to 3rd Avenue. However, it now terminates at Daley Street. He asked why this was changed. He said he would prefer that the N
corridor terminate at 3rd Avenue. Ms. Feser suggested there might be some misinformation. She believes the project will
extend to 3rd Avenue, but there was some conversation at the City Council level that it should go further. She agreed to provide c
the Board with background information about the project by the end of the week. a
0
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2021— 2026 CAPITAL s
IMPROVEMENT/CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF c
APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS, N
RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE R
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. o
N
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
c
Chair Robles commented that the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is brilliant in its ability to glean input from the
citizens, the limitations and constraints of staff, and where the City wants to go. It does exactly what the Board was hoping it
would, which is to provide guidance for the Tree Code. He said Mr. Lien did a great job synthesizing the information in the 0
UFMP into the draft Tree Code. a
Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention
with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well
as improving the existing permitting process and penalties. The update also clarifies a number of definitions. He said some of
the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include:
• Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft regulations are
intended to accomplish this goal.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 205
7.1.d
Goal LB — Adopt a policy of o net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according
to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft regulations do not specifically adopt that policy,
but it was taken into consideration when they were written.
Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas.
Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
This goal specifically notes to include tree penalties in the code.
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been c
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.
rn
There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree c
fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). W
Mr. Lien advised that there is some urgency associated with the Tree Code. A development moratorium for subdivisions and
short plats was proposed to be placed on the City Council's October 271 agenda, but it was postponed to their first meeting in �
November. The proposal would place a moratorium on subdivisions until the Tree Code is done. He reviewed the schedule i
for the Board's work on the draft Tree Code, which will involve two work session on October 28t' and November 18t'', and a �
public hearing on December 9th. He is also scheduled to present the draft Tree code to the Tree Board the first week of
November, and the City's Tree Team will continue to review the draft and provide input, as well. p`
a
• ECDC 23.10.000 — Intent and Purpose.
c�
d
Mr. Lien explained that he reviewed tree codes from a number of jurisdictions and picked pieces of each one that he felt would =
fit with the City of Edmonds and then tweaked them as needed. He noted that Items E and F in this section are in the current
tree regulations. He expressed his belief that the 9 items in the section outline the purpose and intent of the Tree Code and a
match up with the goals in the UFMP. They focus on:
N
• Retaining trees with development, preserving the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate.
• Promoting site planning and building development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and
vegetation.
• Avoiding unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural environment.
• Providing landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas. o
• Encouraging tree retention by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements.
• Retaining as many viable trees as possible. N
• Mitigating the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and c
off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy throughout the City. c
• Implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Implementing the goals and objectives of the UFMP.
c
Board Member Rubenkonig said she will submit some edits to staff. In addition, she suggested that the term "aesthetic character
of the City," which is used in Item A, should be defined. She referred to the term, "realization of a reasonable enjoyment of
property," which is used in Item F. While this is likely a legal phrase that the City and developers would use to allow room for m
flexibility, she felt it should be clarified. a
c
Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to send their comments related to topographical errors to him so they can be incorporated
into future versions of the Tree Code. He said he would provide underline/strike out versions to illustrate where changes were f°
a
made.
Mr. Lien reminded them that the Intent and Purpose Section is intended to explain the philosophy behind the regulations and
the definition section primarily focuses on the regulated terms that are within the code. He suggested that it might be difficult
to define "aesthetic character of the City."
Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, because the intent of the Tree Code is to avoid loss of canopy and, in the best of all worlds,
the canopy would be enhanced, it would be appropriate to add "enhance" to the list provided in the opening sentence of ECDC
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 206
7.1.d
20.10.000. This would reinforce that the goal is more than just maintaining the current tree canopy. Also, because Item A
talks about the advantages of trees, it might be worth adding the words "biodiversity" and "environmental health" after the
word "safety."
Vice Chair Rosen asked where the draft provisions address trees that impact neighbors. If they are addressed, he suggested it
might be worthwhile to weave the concept into the Intent and Purpose Section, as well. He understands that view is an important
topic and a leading cause of many neighborhood conflicts. He also asked where this issue is addressed in the draft code. Mr.
Lien answered that none of the provisions in the draft code specifically address neighbor impact and views. These are private
property issues that are difficult to regulate. Some people love trees, but others do not. Some people think trees block views,
and others consider the trees to be the view. Regulating neighbor impact and views is not a role he would suggest the City be
involved in. Public views are mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Comprehensive Plan, but the City doesn't
have any regulations that specifically deal with views. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's position, but he
suggested that it might be worthwhile to find a place to state this position somewhere in the draft Tree Code.
Board Member Rubenkonig requested that a definition should be provided for "aesthetic consequences," which is used in Item
G. She also suggested that Items H and I should be moved to the beginning of the list. She said she would prefer that
implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP are listed first.
Board Member Cheung suggested that Item E could be changed to also promote planting of new trees on developing sites. Mr.
Lien referred to Item G, which talks about mitigating the consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site
and off -site tree replacement to help achieve the goal of no net loss. Board Member Cheung said he is suggesting going beyond
tree replacement for trees that are removed by providing some incentive for developers to plant additional trees beyond what
is required.
Board Member Cloutier reminded them of the City's goals to reduce CO2 emissions and have all operations be carbon free.
While trees remove CO2, they could also hinder the City's goals. He referred to the concept of "solar easement" where a N
property owner establishes a solar array and enters into an agreement with neighbors that their access to light will not be blocked
so they can continue to produce power. He asked if the draft Tree Code addresses this issue. Mr. Lien answered that it is not
addressed in the Tree Code or elsewhere in the ECDC. Board Member Cloutier referred to a concept the Board discussed c
earlier that trees are good, but they must be planted in the right place. Mr. Lien said "right tree in the right place" is mentioned a
in the UFMP, but not everything in the UFMP will be implemented via regulations. Some aspects of the plan will be addressed c
via education and outreach. Board Member Cloutier concluded that it is important than none of the provisions in the draft Tree s
Code hinder the ability to have solar easements, since this would interfere with the City's ability to generate power, etc. c
Board Member Monroe pointed out that the draft provisions exempt a number of things, such as routine maintenance and the
removal of trees on unimproved single-family lots. He suggested that these issues should be addressed in the Intent and Purpose
Section. The more they can define the document in the opening statement, the better. Mr. Lien suggested that these issues are
addressed in Item F that speaks to the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property, which may require the removal of
certain trees and ground cover. The draft provisions do not prohibit tree cutting on private property, and a number of
exemptions are included. Again, Board Member Monroe suggested that this should be stated upfront in plain language.
• ECDC 23.10.020 — Definitions
Mr. Lien said it is important to make it clear when a tree is large enough to be subject to the Tree Code. As proposed:
A. Significant Tree. A "significant tree" is one that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at
4.5 feet from the ground.
K. Protected Tree. A "protected tree" is one that is identified for retention and protection on an approved tree
replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an
easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations.
M. Specimen Tree. A "specimen tree" is a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by
the City's Tree Protection Professional.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 207
7.1.d
Mr. Lien explained that, currently, the City defines "tree" as a "living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk
and many branches having a caliper of 6 inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown."
In this definition, the word "caliper" is used in the wrong place. The term is typical used to identify the diameter at breast
height (DBH). Currently, the new definition does not include the part about a multi -stemmed trunk system, but it is something
the City's Tree Team and Tree Protection Professional will work to include. The issue is about how big a tree must be before
it is regulated. Redmond might drop it down to 4 inches if it is determined to be a significant tree. Kirkland, Lynnwood and
Issaquah all start at 6 inches, but Issaquah bumps it up to 8 inches for Alder and Cottonwood trees. Lynnwood specifically
lists nonsignificant species that are not subject to their tree regulations. Shoreline has an 8-inch DBH requirement for conifers
and 12-inch for non -conifers. The 6-inch caliper at DBH is consistent with the City's current code and with what most other
jurisdictions do. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback about when a tree is significant enough to be subject to
the regulations.
Board Member Cheung asked if staff collect information from other Snohomish County cities such as Marysville and Everett.
Mr. Lien said Everett does not define a significant tree. Instead, they rely on the subdivision code. Snohomish County doesn't
define the term, either.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Lynnwood is a bit more progressive by providing a list of nonsignificant trees
that are exempted from their tree regulations. Her interpretation is that there would be no tree replacement requirement for the
nonsignificant trees that are removed. In effect, they are trying to get rid of them. Mr. Lien clarified that Lynnwood defines
nonsignificant trees that are unsuitable for urban or formal settings. Board Member Rubenkonig said it appears the intent is to
encourage the removal of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien said he placed Alder and Cottonwood trees lower on the priority list
of trees that should be retained. While they serve an ecological function, they probably are not desirable in residential settings.
Board Member Rubenkonig added that these trees are more suited to critical environment areas rather than residential yards.
Chair Robles asked why the code uses "diameter" instead of "circumference" to measure the size of a tree. Mr. Lien answered
that DBH is the standard way to measure. N
CO)
Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate to provide definitions for "tree topping" and "tree pruning." These
distinctions could matter to some people. It would also make sense to provide a definition for "tree retention plan." Mr. Lien c
responded that anything that is mentioned in the code in a regulatory sense should be defined. He agreed that these three a
definitions should be added. He also invited the Board Members to identify additional terms that need to be defined. c
• ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits.
Vice Chair Rosen referred to Item A and suggested the term "excessively prune" is too vague and subjective. Mr. Lien said
cities frequently reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when it comes to tree maintenance.
However, he agreed that a definition for "maintenance" needs to be added to ECDC 23.10.020, and maintenance does not
generally include topping.
• ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions
Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new
multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions
would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas).
B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.).
C. Routine maintenance. A definition is needed, as discussed earlier.
D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable
of being divided into not more than one additional lot, except for that portion of the property containing a critical
area or its associated buffer. This is an exemption in the current code, as well.
E. Removal of nuisance and hazardous trees with supporting documentation. A permit would not be required but
documentation would be required. This exemption for nuisance trees is not in the current code, but staff is
recommending it be included.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 208
7.1.d
Board Member Monroe referred to Item A and suggested the phrase "any other means" should be changed to "this code." Mr
Lien agreed to consider this change.
Chair Robles asked if the City has a map of its critical areas, and Mr. Lien referred to the City's website
(www.maps.edmondswa.gov) that provides a variety of information such as zoning, planning, locations of utilities, critical
areas, etc. However, he cautioned that the map does not show the exact location of all critical areas within the City. It provides
a rough idea of where the critical areas are, and when development is proposed in those areas, the City does a site visit to
determine the exact location of the critical area.
Board Member Cheung requested clarification of Item D. Mr. Lien explained that an erosion hazard (15% to 40% slope) is
considered a critical area. He used the 25% slope that is mentioned in the current tree code, since that is when slopes start to
get steep enough that the exemption would no longer be appropriate. The language is similar to a provision in the SMP.
Board Member Monroe suggested that the list in Item B should include WIFI. Mr. Lien suggested that WIFI would be covered
as a communication line. Board Member Monroe suggested they could keep the language vague to say that any franchise
utility could do what is necessary to maintain their facilities. They don't need to be listed out. Mr. Lien said he prefers to list
them. If they want to include maintenance for cell towers, the language could be changed from "communication lines" to
"communication facilities."
Ms. Feser also referred to Item B and asked if it would be more appropriate to say "city -owned properties" instead of "city -
owned rights -of -way." This would make it clear that the exemption includes maintenance in parks, as well. Mr. Lien said the
exemption was written specifically for utility purposes and not necessarily a park exemption. However, a park exemption
could be added.
• ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited. N
CO)
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree removal would be prohibited for the following:
A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.(E) (Hazard and
Nuisance Trees) or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan.
B. Vacant lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in
ECDC 23.10.040(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees). This is similar to a provision in the existing code.
C. Demolitions. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct
demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees.
D. Critical Areas. In critical areas, critical area buffers and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapter 23.40
Board Member Monroe referred to Item B and asked if using the term "prior to" would be difficult to enforce. It can mean
different things to different people. Mr. Lien reviewed that the current code states that, "There shall be no clearing a site for
the sake of preparing the site for sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pursuant to a clearing permit, which
has been approved by the City." He expressed his belief that the new language in Item D is intended to accomplish the same
thing, and he doesn't foresee an enforcement problem. He explained that the Tree Code is not intended to address forest
practice applications, which isn't something that typically occurs in Edmonds anyway. As proposed, the code would prohibit
someone from clearing a vacant property unless the trees were deemed hazardous or nuisances.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there is a minimum lot size requirement for tree harvesting permits from the State of
Washington. She pointed that developers can assemble properties to create larger areas for development and then take down
trees years before submitting a development proposal. She suggested that Item B be changed by replacing "vacant lot" with
"vacant parcel." If the parcel is of a certain size, it could require a state permit for harvesting timber. This would meet her
concern that clear cutting be addressed. Mr. Lien explained that Item B is intended to prevent vacant properties from being
clear cut, but he could look into including language specifically related to forest practices. He explained that the other sections
of the code provide definitions for both "lot" and "parcel," and they are used interchangeably throughout the code. The
definition could be added to this section of code, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said she tends to think of "parcel" when
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 209
7.1.d
she thinks of clear cutting because they are looking at creating lots out of the parcel. She would prefer the word "parcel,"
because it extends the image of what they are looking at. Because the two terms are interchangeable, the exception in Item B
could also apply to a lot. Mr. Lien said he prefers "lot" because "parcel" refers to a tax parcel. He advised that the County will
draw tax parcel lines anywhere, and it doesn't necessarily mean a developable lot.
Vice Chair Rosen referred to the last sentence in Item C, which states that replacement trees may be required. He commented
that when a very large tree is removed, the replacement tree does not contribute at the same level. If the overall objective is
to be neutral or even enhance the canopy, it is important to recognize there will be a gap. To address this gap, he suggested the
City create a tree credit program that requires applicants to close the gap by supporting the tree fund, which would be used to
replace the canopy in other ways. This concept could advance and fund the objective of making sure the canopy is maintained
and even enhanced. Mr. Lien said they will discuss this idea further when they talk about the proposed language related
specifically to tree replacement and a tree fund.
Student Representative Bryan voiced concern with Item B. The idea of allowing the Director to decide what is reasonably
needed to conduct demolition activities allows too much wiggle room. He suggested that "Director" should be changed to
"qualified arborist." Mr. Lien explained that the Director may require documentation from a certified arborist to justify the
removal, but it would still be the Director's responsibility to approve any tree removal associated with a demolition permit.
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it would be the Development Services Director, and not the developer, who would
make the decision as to what tree removal is reasonable needed. She suggested the language should be amended to provide
this clarification.
• ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity. _
Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all new single- 3
family, short plats, subdivisions or multifamily developments. He noted that Item C requires that for new single family, short a
plat or subdivision development, at least 30% of all significant trees on a developable site must be retained. "Developable site" N
is defined and does not include such things as critical areas. This is consistent with a provision in the Critical Area Ordinance ri
that development in RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with steep slopes, streams or wetlands must have a 30% native
vegetation area. He reduced the number to 25% for multifamily development because it is a denser type of development.
t
a
Mr. Lien advised that, as per Item CA, if a certain retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant would be required to 0
pay a certain amount into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that,
in addition to requiring applicants to retain 30% of the significant trees on the developable site, the City should also require o
applicants to pay a certain amount into the tree fund equal to 100% or even 110% of the total number of trees that were removed N
from the site. The intent is to enhance the tree canopy. Board Member Monroe suggested they go even further and require a R
2:1 replacement ratio. o
N
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the 30% retention requirement is likely lower than what most other c
jurisdictions require, and it sure doesn't help the City maintain its tree canopy. It equates to a 70% reduction in tree canopy.
She said she also believes the 1:1 replacement requirement is low compared to surrounding jurisdictions. This replacement
ratio won't help the City maintain its tree canopy, either. M
0
m
Board Member Monroe said he can understand the intent of the 25% and 30% retention requirement because they need to allow a
developers enough area to build projects. Requiring 100% retention would be unreasonable. However, developers should be
.a
required to plant a certain number of trees elsewhere in the City for each significant tree that is removed. Vice Chair Rosen 0
said this would be consistent with his recommendation that developers be required to pay a certain amount into a tree fund for a
each significant tree that is removed. This would give the power to the City to decide how to replenish the canopy. The
replacement requirement should be equal to the value of the significant trees that are removed. Ms. Feser reminded the Board
that the tree fund would be used to plant trees on City properties, primarily in the parks. She voiced concern about leaving it E
up to a landowner to decide where and what types of tree would be planted. She would prefer that developers be required to t
pay into a tree fund. That way, the City would have the ability to plant the right trees in the right places.
CU
Board Member Monroe said he works for Sound Transit. For their projects in Federal Way and Kent, they have removed Q
15,000 to 20,000 trees and will be required to replant 45,000 more trees, and they are required to purchase property to plant the
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 14
Packet Pg. 210
7.1.d
trees on. They would prefer to pay into a fund, since that is the easiest solution. However, they have found ways to accomplish
the more stringent requirement. The City should ask no less of developers than is being asked of Sound Transit.
Board Member Rubenkonig said there are options for accomplishing a greater tree retention requirement than 1:1 while still
allowing for development. The best way to meet the requirement should be left to the person creating the landscape plan. If
the requirement is too onerous, a developer could approach the City with a request for mitigation. If mitigation cannot be
adequately addressed, and applicant could pay into tree fund. However, the tree fund should be the last option. Applicant's
should be encouraged to do what they can to replace the trees on -site.
Board Member Rubenkonig said that cities often have a minimum height requirement for replacement trees, which results in
more mature trees. Vice Chair Rosen said he is concerned about the gap (value and loss) between a mature tree and an immature
replacement tree. The City's code should require applicants to cover this gap. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that
there are methods for getting more mature replacement trees, but the replacements would not be equal in value to larger
significant trees. She suggested the Board should look in-depth at how other cities regulate tree replacement. Again, she said
allowing applicants to pay into a tree fund should be the last resort. Vice Chair Rosen commented that there needs to be a
variety of options in the toolbox. The end goal should be to require developers to make the City whole when a significant tree
is taken down. This can be done via replacement and/or funding. The funding could be used to offer grants to residents to
encourage tree planting elsewhere.
Mr. Lien suggested that rather than the minimum tree retention requirement in the current draft, another option would be to
base the requirement on zone. A 30% requirement in an RS-6 zone could be very different than the same requirement in an
RS-20 zone.
Board Member Cheung suggested that if they make the requirement so onerous, developers will simply decide to pay into the 3
tree fund and build the cost into the price of the homes. This could have an impact on the cost of housing in the community. a
Board Member Monroe agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that the preferred option would tree retention, followed by N
planting replacement trees on site. The last option should be paying into a tree fund. Rather than putting all of the replacement
trees in parks, the trees should be replaced in zones that are similar to where trees were removed or at least equitably distributed
throughout the City. c
t
a
Mr. Lien said the Tree Board has discussed taking a more global approach. If there isn't space to plant more trees in the parks c
and open spaces, the City could partner with other organizations, such as the Mountain to Sound Greenway, to use the tree s
funds to purchase additional open space in other areas. Also, he suggested that if the tree fund requires a high dollar value for c
each tree that is removed, developers will be encouraged to consider options for either retaining more trees or planting the N
CD
replacement trees on site. However, at this time, he doesn't have a suggestion as to what the dollar value should be. R
CD
0
Board Member Monroe asked how the proposed 25% and 30% tree retention requirement compares to neighboring cities. Mr.
Lien said only one other jurisdiction he reviewed used a percentage requirement. However, he would conduct further research
and report back with additional information.
Board Member Cheung referred to Vice Chair Rosen's point that some trees are more valuable than others. There is nothing R
in the 30% requirement that differentiates between the different sizes of significant trees. Mr. Lien reviewed that the tree m
retention provisions are broken out based on priority. Priority trees to focus on for retention include specimen trees, significant a
trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and
their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. The intent of prioritization is
to make sure developers try to save the more significant trees. Board Member Cheung asked if the priorities are a
recommendations or if developers are required to follow the priorities. Mr. Lien said there is some flexibility. If the only 60-
foot tall tree happens to be right in the middle of the only buildable site on the lot, the City can't require a developer to retain r
it.
E
t
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement.
Mr. Lien summarized that, as currently proposed, a developer would be required to retain at least 30% of the significant trees,
a
and replacement trees would be required for those that are removed at a ratio of 1:1. If the trees cannot be replaced on site, a
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 15
Packet Pg. 211
7.1.d
developer could pay a certain amount per tree into the tree fund. At the next meeting, staff will be prepared to have a discussion
with the Board about what the appropriate tree replacement might be. It could be based on tree size, requiring a higher
replacement ratio when larger trees are removed. He reminded the Board that the last time a draft Tree Code was presented
for public hearing, there was a lot of controversy regarding the idea of basing the replacement requirement on the type of zone
(density). He said he would research what other jurisdictions are doing in preparation for the Board's more in-depth discussion.
Board Member Rubenkonig thanked Mr. Lien for creating the topic matrix, which helped her organize her thoughts. She felt
it helps ensure the Board addresses all of the items. Mr. Lien encouraged the Board Members to submit their comments,
suggestions and typographical corrections to him via email.
• ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility.
Mr. Lien explained shared an example of a subdivision to illustrate why trees are often clear cut. Although there might be a
number of substantial trees on the site, once all of the development standards (access requirements, utility easements, setbacks,
etc.) were applied, only a few trees were left intact. The remaining trees might be exposed and spindly and not necessarily the
trees that you want to retain. At the next meeting, the Board will discuss how to provide flexibility within Development Code
that allows houses to be grouped to one side a bit so more trees can be saved.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles announced that, due to Veteran's Day, the Board's November 11I meeting was rescheduled to a special meeting
on November 181. The agenda for that meeting will focus solely on the draft Tree Code. A public hearing on the draft Tree
Code amendments is tentatively scheduled for December 91
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. M
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Pence observed that this has been a very different kind of year for the Planning Board. Due to the pandemic,
the Board missed a number of meetings prior to starting the Zoom format. The Chair and Vice Chair haven't had an opportunity
to put their stamp on the Board's activities like previous leaders have. It occurred to him that they should re-elected them both
for another year. Chair Robles said they have been able to put a pretty big stamp down, and he believes that Board Member
Rosen will carry forward quite effectively as the chair next year. Board Member Pence commented that he didn't mean to
diminish their efforts, just note that they could have shined even brighter with a regular routine.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 2020 Page 16
Packet Pg. 212
7.1.d
Agenda Item." Mr. Chave commented that the software that is used to create the agendas has limitations about how items
can be named.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding was that tonight's meeting would only be a public hearing on the CIP and
CFP. She thought that the schedule that was agreed to at the last meeting would stand, and the Board would continue its
review of the Tree Code Regulations on November 18tk'. Mr. Lien responded that, because the Board had to add another
meeting for the CIP/CFP public hearing, he thought it would be a good idea for them to also continue their review of the tree
code regulations. However, they do not need to redo their discussion from the last meeting.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Anna West, Edmonds, suggested that some verbiage regarding protecting water views should be included in the intent and
purpose section of the revised Tree Code. It hasn't been included in the draft yet, and the City would be remiss not to include
it. Puget Sound helps define the City of Edmonds, and the water is one of the reasons that new residents purchase homes,
current residents stay, and visitors spend money in the City. Adding verbiage in the Tree Code to protect water views is
important because trees have the potential to block those cherished views. She is hoping the City can work with the citizens
to come up with language that protects both trees and the water.
Chair Robles emphasize that this is a Tree Code and not a View Code. View will not likely be specifically mentioned in the
Tree Code, since it is a different category of regulation. Mr. Chave added that the City has had a number of discussions
about views in its history of policy and codes. Up to this point in time, the City has chosen not to regulate private views.
Ms. West commented that it seems the City is spending a lot of time regulating private trees, and she thought it might be a =
good segway into a piece that really defines the City. The City has a symbiotic relationship with the trees and the water. She 3
supports tree retention, but there needs to be some guidance for residents. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Ms. West is a
requesting that some reference to the City's stance on private view protection be incorporated into the Tree Code. Ms. West
said she would actually like the City's stance to change from what it has been for the past three decades. She is cognizant it N
will be an uphill battle, but it needs to be addressed, as water views play a huge role in the City. She asked that the City have
dialogue with the community on the best way to maintain that piece of the City as it continues to thrive and grow. Board c
Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. West is suggesting that the City consider options for protecting private views. a
Mr. Chave suggested the Board consider this request as they review the draft Tree Code later on the agenda. c
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he serves on the City's Citizens Tree Board. He asked that the Board Members consider his
written comments from two letters he submitted prior to the meeting as they review the draft Tree Code. He invited them to
reach out to him with questions and comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Robles referred to the written Development Services Director Report and noted that it appears to be outdated. There
were no other questions or comments regarding the report.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP)
Chair Robles briefly reviewed the rules and procedures and then opened the hearing.
Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is tied to the Comprehensive Plan and is required by the Growth
Management Act to identify long-term capital projects related to addressing growth and demand. It covers planning horizons
of 6 and 20 years. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is tied to the City's budget and is organized by the City's financial
funds. It includes not only projects that are budgeted for the upcoming year, but also identifies the maintenance and capital
projects anticipated over the next 6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital
projects with funding sources.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 213
7.1.d
• Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations.
• Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks
according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
• Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas.
• Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree
programs.
Mr. Lien referred to Ms. West's comment, made earlier in the meeting, regarding protection of views. He advised that none
of the goals and policies in the Urban Forest Management Plan specifically address views, but views were discussed as they
relate to planting the right trees in the right places.
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.
There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree
fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC).
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board started its review of the draft Tree Code on October 28t''. Following tonight's work, the
Board will continue its discussion at a special meeting on November 18t''. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is
tentatively scheduled for December 91. He advised that the draft proposal will be updated to incorporate the Planning
Board's feedback following the special meeting on November 181.
• ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements
Mr. Lien reviewed that, as proposed, for new single-family short plats or subdivisions, 30% of all significant trees on the
developable site must be retained. This mirrors the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance for tree retention on RS-12 N
and RS-20 sites in critical areas. For multifamily sites, the requirement is 25%. For replacement, the proposed language
would require a 1:1 ratio for tree replacement. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board requested information about
how other jurisdictions address tree retention and replacement requirements, as well as how they determine the appropriate
t
dollar amount per tree. They also raised a concern that the replacement requirement might not be sufficient. He referred to
the memorandum he sent to the Board prior to the meeting, outlining the results of his research that focused specifically on o
what other jurisdictions require for tree retention with development. Some of the jurisdictions have general density
requirements, which isn't something the City is considering as part of the Tree Code update. He briefly reviewed the results N
as follows: ai
o Lynnwood does not have a specific tree retention requirement, but they do require trees that are removed to be
replaced based on the number of tree units, which is derived from the diameter of the trees that are cut. If
applicants choose not to plant trees for the required tree units, they can pay a fee into the city's tree fund at a
rate of $187 per tree. If a site cannot support the required number of replacement trees, the applicant would be
required to pay $106 per tree into the fund.
o Shoreline requires that 20% of significant trees be retained if there aren't any critical areas on the site and 30%
if critical areas are present. They require replacement if more trees are removed than what is allowed by the
retention requirement. The replacement requirement of up to 3 trees is based on the size of the trees that are
removed. They don't have neither a tree fund nor a fee -in -lieu option.
o Redmond requires that 30% of significant trees be retained, and the replacement ratio is 1:1 for each significant
tree that is removed, except landmark trees, which must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. They do not have a tree fund,
but they do have a fee -in -lieu program to cover the cost of tree replacement. They don't specify a specific
dollar value for each tree, but just a cost that covers tree replacement.
o Kirkland has a tree -density requirement based on a tree -credit system. Developments are required to have 30
tree credits per acre, and larger trees are worth more tree credits. They have a fee -in -lieu program that is paid
into a City Forestry Account if trees cannot be planted on site. The dollar amount is based on the current
market value.
o Issaquah requires retention based on zone. In single-family zones, 30% of the total caliper of all significant
trees must be retained. In multifamily zones, the requirement is 25%. While Edmonds calculates percentage
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 214
7.1.d
based on the total number of trees on the site, Issaquah calculates based on the total caliper of all of the trees on
the site. Replacement is required if the retention standard is not met, and they have a fee -in -lieu program that
doesn't identify a specific dollar value for each tree.
o Medina has a fee -in -lieu program that is based on the size of the tree, and the dollar value is based on the
diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH). They require $200 per inch for trees with a DBH up to 20 inches,
which would equate to $4,000 for a 20-inch tree.
Mr. Lien commented that, while Medina's dollar values might be too much, he likes the way their program is structured.
He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board discussed that larger trees should be valued greater than small trees. He
suggested that Edmonds could consider a similar approach, but lower the dollar value. Chair Robles agreed that
Medina's approach is creative, and he suggested the dollar values are not really out of line when you attach them to the
increase in property value associated with improved view. Mr. Lien commented that not all properties in Edmonds have
potential views, so he cautioned against attaching that high dollar value to all properties in Edmonds. Again, he said he
likes the structure, but the dollar values seem excessive.
Board Member Rubenkonig said the principle found in Issaquah's code stands out to her as a clear approach. It requires
replacement if the retention standard is not met, which makes it clear that the goal is retention. She suggested that
Edmonds should also identify a specific principle that underscores its approach. She said she didn't find the other
examples to be as clear. Mr. Lien noted that Shoreline also requires replacement if the retention standard is not met.
The current proposal simply requires a 1:1 replacement, but it could be changed to incorporate this concept.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that Issaquah's replacement requirement is based on caliper (DBH) of the tree. _
Mr. Lien said Shoreline's approach, which is based on "significant trees," would be the easiest to implement. Rather •2
than having to measure the size of each tree, it counts the number of trees that are at or greater than a specific size. Board 3
Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be an acceptable approach, but she still wants language that makes the intended a
principle clear. N
ri
Board Member Monroe asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting the best thing to do is retain the existing trees,
and the next best option would be to replace the trees. If you can't do that, you should pay a fee -in -lieu. Board Member c
Rubenkonig agreed that the best approach is to require tree retention as a first priority. Board Member Monroe agreed, a
as well. He said replacement should be an option, but it should be the second choice. Replacement should be more c
difficult than retention, and it should be more costly still to pay an in -lieu fee. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that s
the first option should be retention, followed by replacement, recognizing there is a lot of innovation available when it c
comes to planting trees. She also supports having a tree bank or fee -in -lieu program in place. N
Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the Board's direction, the tree retention should remain at 30% and 25%, and
replacement would be required if the retention requirement is not met. He will consider options for what the appropriate
replacement ratio should be. As the tree gets larger, the replacement ratio should increase, too. The Board indicated
support for these changes.
Chair Robles suggested they consider the scenario of a tree that is blocking the view of the sound. If the tree is cut
down, the property value would increase substantially. Would the property owner be able to purchase the extinction of
the tree for the property value benefit? Mr. Lien reminded them that, as currently drafted, the Tree Code would apply to
certain new development applications: short subdivision, subdivision, new multifamily and new single-family. The
requirements would not apply to a developed single-family site with no critical areas. Board Member Monroe suggested
that the Purpose and Intent Section should clearly explain when the requirements apply.
• ECDC 20.75.XXX — Subdivision Design Flexibility
Mr. Lien shared a diagram of a sample subdivision application, pointing out how the development requirements (utility
easements, access easements, setbacks, etc.) reduce the buildable area and impact a developer's ability to retain existing
trees. He explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and
natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for
low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, which was discussed at the last meeting, would be applied to
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 215
7.1.d
this section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The
following flexibility is proposed:
1. Setbacks may be reduced up to 20% in all residential zones provided that no side setback is less than 5%. The
required front setback may not be reduced more than 5 feet, but an additional 5-foot reduction may be allowed
for covered entry porches.
2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering so dwelling units can be shifted to the most suitable locations, but
the overall density cannot be increased.
3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do
not exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone.
4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works,
fire and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes.
Mr. Lien advised that, prior to the public hearing, he will create a drawing that illustrates how these flexible options
might be applied on a property that is being subdivided.
Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed flexibility, but he questioned how the City would ensure that the
protected trees are retained after the properties are developed and sold? Mr. Lien said that, as proposed, trees that are
required to be retained with development would be classified as "protected trees, and the term is defined in the Tree
Code (ECDC 23). Chair Robles asked about the administrative cost of keeping a track of protected trees. Mr. Lien
explained that a tree plan would be required when flexibility is granted, and the City would use that plan to track the
trees. There are some other ideas for addressing the issue via the permit process, too. Chair Robles summarized that,
when purchasing a home in Edmonds, due diligence may include going to the City to research the property's tree
liability. Mr. Lien said that if a tree is retained as part of a subdivision, the condition could be specifically listed on the
face of a plat. For multifamily development, a landscape plan would be required.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to record a tree plan as part of a subdivision plan. She agreed N
that it is important that subsequent owners be required to maintain the protected trees per the approved tree plan.
However, without proper documentation, it would be difficult for the City to identify problems. Mr. Lien explained that, c
typically, subdivision approval is based on certain conditions that are listed in the staff report and on file with the City of a
Edmonds. The tree plan could be recorded as one of the conditions, and someone doing due diligence would be able to c
contact the City to find the list of conditions that apply to the property. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example s
of a new development that tied into a regional stormwater system. The water flowed a certain way, and the individual c
yards were designed to assist with the flow. However, the homeowners landscaped their yards in a way that interfered N
0
with the programmed flow. She summarized that, oftentimes, plans look good on paper, but they need to consider what R
the City needs to do to make sure that the plans are maintained and enforced. o
Mr. Lien agreed that, if the City does allow design flexibility to retain trees, it makes sense to ensure that the conditions
are documented, either by recording the tree plan or specifically calling the requirements out on the plat plan. Board
Member Rubenkonig suggested that many people are looking for accountability with the tree code, and accountability is
a big part of making a program successful.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has made a case for the priority of tree plantings the City prefers. In
addition to planting the right tree in the right place, do the regulations stipulate a preference for a grove of trees versus
stand-alone trees. Mr. Lien said that, for retention, this is specifically called out in the proposed language. He referred
to the priority list that was discussed at the last meeting, noting that the grove environment is priority one. Similar
language is also included in the replacement section. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is important to
get the best return for the environment. Mr. Lien said the current proposal does not include a preferred tree list, but it
could be added. The Tree Board is currently working on a list that could be provided to property owners to educate them
on the right tree for the right place. Board Member Rubenkonig said it is important that the list include trees that support
habitat.
Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is interested in adding language to ensure that the protected trees are documented
when this section is applied to a new development.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 216
7.1.d
• ECDC 23.10.060(B) — Tree Retention Plan
Mr. Lien explained that a tree retention plan must be submitted as part of an application for new development. As
proposed, the tree retention plan must include a tree inventory that contains a numbering system of all existing
significant trees on the property and identify the size of all the trees, the proposed tree status (retained or removed), the
general health or condition rating, and tree types or species. The tree retention plan must also include a site plan that
shows the location of all proposed improvements, the accurate location of significant trees, and the location of tree
protection measures. Trees must be labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system, and the limits of
disturbance must be drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances. The proposed tree status
must be identified, as well as the proposed locations of any supplemental replacement trees as needed.
Board Member Rubenkonig said it isn't clear as to which professionals can do each part of the Tree Retention Plan. Mr.
Lien responded that, as proposed, a qualified tree professional may be required to prepare certain components of the tree
plan. For example, an arborist will need to make a determination on the health of the trees, but a surveyor will identify
the location of trees. Like with all development applications, a team of consultants will put together the plan. Board
Member Rubenkonig commented that some jurisdictions are tightening their requirements and specifically calling out
who is qualified enough to develop the tree plan. The Board should discuss how exacting it wants the requirement to be.
Chair Robles said he would be reluctant to get too particular, since it could result in a barrier. He asked if there is any i
incentive for a property owner to submit a tree plan for his/her property, thereby adding to the tree inventory the City can
possess without having to produce. Ultimately, a City's tree inventory will provide the information to make the bigger =
decisions about the canopy going forward. The barrier to this is the resources to count all of the trees. It isn't so much
of a problem if individual property owners submit tree plans. Mr. Lien said this concept is not in the proposed Tree
Code. The City is currently doing a partial inventory of the street trees, and the Urban Forest Management Plan talks a
about a canopy assessment. However, he doesn't know if it would be possible to conduct an inventory of all of the trees N
in the City. Again, he reminded the Board that the proposed Tree Code would only apply to new development. He ri
doesn't know what the City would do with tree inventories submitted by random private property owners. When they
discuss permits, he will highlight some ideas that have come forward that could get to the tracking of trees, what has
been planted, and what has been removed. He summarized that a tree inventory is required with new development a
because there will be a retention requirement. The City will need to know what trees are on the site, so they know how c
many have to be retained to meet the retention requirement. Chair Robles pointed out that 90% of the trees in Edmonds s`
are on private property. He questioned the scope of the tree plan if it only accounts for a small number of trees (10%). o
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the proposed language is not intended to be a tree plan. Instead, it provides regulations ry
that deal with trees that are associated with development. The Urban Forest Management Plan is a tree plan that talks R
about canopy assessment, coverage, tree inventories, etc. However, this information is outside of the tree code, itself. o
Mr. Lien advised that the tree retention plan must also include an arborist report that provides a complete description of
each tree's health, condition and viability, a description of the methods used to determine the limits of disturbance, etc.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that some trees may not be viable for retention because they are in the way of the
proposed development. He asked if these situations are adequately addressed in the proposed code. Mr. Lien referred
back to the priorities for tree retention. There is also language in the code that talks about working in good faith with the
applicant and the City. Obviously, a tree cannot be retained if it is located where a building is proposed. Board Member
Monroe voiced concern that, as proposed, an applicant would be required to provide an arborist report to support this
claim. He suggested that staff review the language and decide if clarification is needed.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the proposed design flexibility that allows structures to be grouped
differently on a site would relieve some of the pressure when it comes to deciding which trees can be retained. She
concluded that, if they allow more flexibility in the design standards, the approach will not be as rigid.
Mr. Lien explained that, oftentimes, when subdivision applications are reviewed, applicants don't know where the actual
buildings will go. This makes it more difficult to do a tree retention plan. As proposed, they can do an initial version of
a tree retention plan as part of the subdivision submittal, and a more detailed plan when the project reaches the building
phase.
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 217
7.1.d
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its work session on the draft Tree Code at their November 18 special
meeting. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. He reminded them that they
will also need to elect new officers for 2021 at their December 9' meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank announced that she was elected to serve as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission, just
in time for the big project the Commission has been assigned, which is the Airport Master Plan. Landrum & Brown has been
hired as the consultant for this project, and a special virtual meeting is scheduled for November 19' at 6 p.m. She invited
those interested to tune in.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
N
CO)
T-
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 218
7.1.d
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
November 18, 2020
Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty,
their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Barbara Chase, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Tree Board, and was present to follow the Board's work on the Tree
Code.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he is also a member of the Tree Board. He said he submitted written comments to the Board just
prior to the meeting regarding the Tree Code Regulations. Vice Chair Rosen confirmed that the Board received the letter.
The Board confirmed that they also received a letter from Duane Farman regarding the Tree Code Regulations.
N
CO)
Packet Pg. 219
7.1.d
Vice Chair Rosen asked staff to respond to the question that was posed by Board Member Pence about why the Planning Board c
did not review the street vacation application that was recently approved by the City Council, even though it involved trees. V
Mr. Chave explained that street map amendments are a Planning Board legislative recommendation to the City Council, but p
street vacations are decided only by the City Council, without Planning Board involvement. Occasionally, a street map A
amendment is also a street vacation. In these situations, the Planning Board holds a public hearing and makes a >
recommendation to the City Council on the street map amendment, but it still does not make a recommendation on the street M
vacation application, itself co
c
Board Member Pence asked how they could change the code to include the Planning Board in street vacation applications.
This seems equally as important as some of the other issues the Board deals with, including the street map changes. Mr. Chave c
explained that the street map is a planning document, and street vacations are technical documents dealing with public works
and rights -of -way. Street vacations are covered in Title 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), and the City Council
has never chosen to have these standards come under the purview of the Planning Board.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE d
L
Chair Robles referred to the Staff Report, which notes a number of goals and actions in the Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP) related to tree retention. He asked that Mr. Lien identify when a proposed Tree Code amendment meets one or more
of those goals. Mr. Lien agreed to circle back to the UFMP goals and actions as part of his presentation. a
c
•L
Mr. Lien reminded the Board and members of the public that the City has created a website for the Tree Code update
(www.treecode.edmonds.wa.gov) that provides links to all of the Planning Board's agendas, videos and minutes. It also =
provides a link to the latest version of the draft Tree Code.
Mr. Lien reported that written comments been received since the last Planning Board meeting on November 121 were included a
in the Planning Board's packets. Those that were received today will be included in the next Planning Board packet. All of N
the written comments will be attached to the packet that is prepared for the Public Hearing on December 9m N
Mr. Lien advised that the official notice for the December 9' public hearing will be published on the website. The hearing will
also be published in THE EVERETT HERALD and posted at the Public Safety Building, City Hall, and the Library. In addition,
he will write a press release prior to the public hearing. To raise awareness of the Tree Code update, staff presented the concepts
table at a City Council meeting that was broadcast on the local television. Staff also issued a press release for the new website
that was published in My Edmonds News and announced on the City's website. The Tree Code update has been mentioned
twice in the City's news bulletin that goes out every other week, as well. He acknowledged that public involvement has been
more difficult due to the pandemic, and the City has had to rely on technology to allow people to participate. In addition to
participating via Zoom, citizens can use their phones to listen to and speak at the meetings. He summarized that staff is doing
the best it can with technology given the current situation.
Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention
with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well
as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are
addressed in the draft update include:
Goal 1— Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage.
• Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft code currently
before the Board addresses all of these topics.
• Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according
to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft code does not adopt this policy. However, the
Planning Board recommended that language should be added to the "Purpose" section. This additional language will
be inserted prior to the public hearing.
• Goal 1.C—Ensureprotection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The Tree Code does not explicitly
accomplish this goal. However, the City's Critical Area Code, which is referenced in a number of places throughout
the draft Tree Code, addresses this goal.
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 220
7.1.d
• Goal 1.D — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs. The Board will be reviewing the draft language
related to the tree fund during their upcoming discussion.
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.
There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree
fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC).
• ECDC 23.10.070 — Tree Protection Measures During Development
Mr. Lien explained that this section outlines the requirements for protecting the trees that have been identified for retention.
As proposed, prior to initiating development activity or tree removal on a site, trees to be preserved must be protected from
potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards:
A. Placing materials near trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree
designated to remain, including parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building materials, and dumping
concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to a tree that is
designated for protection.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City would address violations to this standard. Mr. Lien said that, a)
rather than fines, violations would be picked up during inspection and developers would be required to comply. _
He reminded them that a pre -application meeting with the developer would be required as part of the Tree •2
Retention Plan process. At that meeting, staff would review the proposal to ensure that the tree protection a
measures are in place before any construction activity begins on the site. Board Member Rubenkonig said she
was particularly concerned about the last sentence. For example, would attaching a chain to a protected tree result N
in a violation. Mr. Lien said the language is more about ensuring compliance with development. ri
B. Protective barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling, or any land alteration, applicants must:
1. Erect and maintain temporary protective fencing (6-foot, chain -link) along the limits of the disturbance.
2. Install highly -visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence.
The signs must be approved by the Director and state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area,
Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violators. If a
protected tree is damaged to the extent that a tree dies, replacement would be required.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers.
However, the Director may allow activities that are approved and supervised by a qualified professional
who is retained and paid for by the applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the Director authorizes
removal.
5. Ensure any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers
is accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree
must be covered with mulch to the depth of at least 6 inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar
materials to protect the roots and soil from damage.
7. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot deep trench at the edge of the critical root zone to
cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred the roots with heavy equipment.
8. Do corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building
activity.
9. Maintain trees throughout construction by watering and fertilizing.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that, as proposed, developers would be fined or required to replace any protected
trees that don't survive. He questioned if this section is overly prescriptive. Couldn't they just require a Tree Retention
Plan. If it doesn't work, regardless of the reason why, the developer would be required to remedy the situation. What
if someone follows all of the prescribed steps and the tree still dies? Mr. Lien recommended that the code should be
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 221
7.1.d
prescriptive as far as tree protection measures. He explained that sometimes things happen and trees are damaged
during development. When this occurs, developers who haven't met the retention requirement would have to replace
the tree. Board Member Monroe agreed that the requirements should be prescriptive, but language should make it
clear that tree retention would be measured at the end of the project and not during the project. Mr. Lien agreed to
adjust the language in ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Requirements) to make this clear.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if a new tree fails, nurseries will often replace them. She also
commented that the proposed language in this section appears very similar to what is required in other jurisdictions
her company has worked in.
C. Grade. This section deals with grading that might occur around a protected tree. As proposed:
1.
The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of a protected tree without the
Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The Director may
allow coverage of up to '/z inch of the critical root zone with light soils to the minimum depth necessary
to carry out grading or landscaping plans if it will not imperil the trees survival. "Critical root zone" is
defined as the area surrounding the tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to 1 foot for every
inch of trunk diameter.
2.
c�
If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode the tree's critical root
zone, it must be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. a
3.
The applicant shall not install impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained i
without the Director's authorization. The Director may require construction methods and/or use of
aeration devices to ensure a tree's survival and minimize potential root -induced damage. _
4.
To the greatest extent possible, utility trenches must be located outside of the critical root zone of •2
protected trees. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained 0
if the trenching would significantly reduce the chances of a tree's survival. a
5.
Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing
operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least N
possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained 7
where feasible. c
D. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage of trees designated for retention.
E. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forest
industry practices.
Board Member Monroe asked if Item C.1 is intended to limit the power of the Director. If a better opportunity presents
itself, and a qualified professional supports it, the Director should be allowed to approve it. Mr. Lien answered that a
balancing act is required when determining the level of flexibility that should be allowed. The goal was to be
consistent with the intent of the code, which isn't always black and white when it comes to flexibility.
Board Member Monroe suggested that Item C.2 should be amended to clarify who would determine if a rootzone has
been permanently stabilized, such as a qualified professional. He also suggested that the last sentence in Item C.5
should be replaced with a reference to the City's existing erosion control standards. Sometimes shrubs, ground cover
and stumps are not the best way to control erosion. Mr. Lien said the existing erosion control standards typically
address temporary stormwater situations, and Item C.2 is intended to be more long-term. If you don't have to disturb
the shrubs and ground cover, they should be maintained to help prevent future erosion. Erosion control wouldn't be
needed if the shrubs and ground cover are left intact.
Board Member Monroe asked if it would make sense to add some examples to Item E. As written, applicants are left
to guess what the Director might give them latitude to do. Mr. Lien responded that this provision was intended to be
general because it isn't possible to consider all of the site -specific options. Board Member Monroe asked if it would
be possible to cite a specific urban forest industry practices document. He is concerned that applicants will present
crazy ideas that the Director will have to study and make a decision on. Mr. Lien explained that if the City doesn't
have the expertise to evaluate an applicant's idea, it would be sent out for peer review. The Director will consult with
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 222
7.1.d
the City's arborist, as well. Mr. Chave suggested they could add language in this provision that requires the approval
of the City's arborist. Mr. Lien cautioned against this since the arborist's current job description does not include
project review.
Chair Robles commented that anyone who is developing land with any kind of complexity would be wise to hire their
own consultant. He asked if the City would provide a checklist of things a consultant should review when advising
an applicant. Mr. Lien said the required Tree Plan, which must be prepared by a qualified professional and arborist,
would cover all of the items that must be included in a development application. Item C is intended to outline the
actual implementation of the Tree Plan.
• ECDC 23.10.090 — Bonding.
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City currently requires bonding for development that requires native vegetation or landscape
plans, and they are typically done before the City issues final approval on a project. However, the City also requires 2-year
maintenance bonds, which are 15% of the bond amount. At the end of 2 years, the City does an inspection and the bond
won't be released until any vegetation that didn't survive is replanted. The proposed language was copied from the
landscape chapter of the code.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item C, noting that there is no mention of a 2-year timeframe for the maintenance
bond. She reviewed that the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy happens before the trees have really established
themselves. Mr. Lien agreed to adjust the language to add the 2-year timeframe.
• ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits.
Mr. Lien recalled that when the last Tree Code update was presented to the Board, the permit requirement drew a lot of
attention. The existing code has two types of tree -cutting permits. For single-family properties that do not fall under the
exemptions, tree cutting requires a Type II Permit, which is a staff decision with notice. The application fee is $1,000 for
every tree that is cut down, and permits take about 2 to 3 months to process. For multifamily properties, tree cutting
requires a Type I Permit, which is also a staff decision with no notice. The application fee is $305 for every tree that is
cut down. These permits are reviewed to make sure that the proposed tree removal is consistent with the landscape plan
that was approved for the development.
Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same
permit process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial
and multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040
would be processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would
be a procedural exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use
approval to be reviewed with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit.
Although not included in the proposed draft, Mr. Lien said some people have suggested, and other cities have implemented,
a requirement that private property owners must seek permission to cut down a tree. If the goal is to track tree removal
across the City as a basis for measuring the no -net -loss requirement, there must be a way to track trees that are cut down.
Some jurisdictions allow a certain number of trees to be removed in a given time period. No permit is required, but
documentation must be submitted. This would be similar to how the City addresses hazardous trees; no permit is required,
but documentation is. Staff has voiced concern that it would require additional staff time to review and track each
application, and they question what benefit would be gained other than giving people pause when considering tree removal.
Chair Robles said this potential provision would be a way to regulate tree cutting on private properties. Mr. Lien explained
that the Tree Code would generally apply to new development activity: short subdivision applications, subdivision
applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code,
some exemptions would apply. For the Commission's information, he briefly reviewed the exemptions found in ECDC
23.10.040. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas).
N
CO)
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 223
7.1.d
B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). (Note: The
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director has also requested an exemption for tree maintenance in parks)
C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain health of cultivated plants and to contain noxious weeks,
remedy potential fire hazards and other threats and safety.
D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable
of being divided into not more than one additional lot, except that portion of the lot contained in the critical area
or associated buffer and excepting erosion hazards on slopes less than 25%. (Note: Based on the recent
moratorium on subdivisions, staff is suggesting that the phrase, "which is capable of being divided into not more
than one additional lot" should be deleted. Otherwise, the exemption would allow someone to cut down trees
before applying for a subdivision.)
E. Nuisance and hazardous trees that do not meet the above exemptions may be removed with supporting
documentation.
Mr. Lien also reviewed ECDC 23.10.050, which identifies tree removal that is prohibited:
A. Protected Trees: Protected trees cannot be removed unless they are determined to be hazardous.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited unless they are
determined to be hazardous.
C. Demolition: Tree removal as part of a permitted demolition is prohibited except as required to reasonably conduct
demolition activities subject to approval of the Director.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited.
Board Member Monroe pointed out that Exemption D will be what private, single-family property owners will be most =
interested in. He suggested that this exemption should be moved to the top of the list. Chair Robles agreed that the 0
exemption should be at the top of the list and clearly visible to members of the public who attend and comment at the a
public hearing. Board Member Monroe also suggested that language be added to the "Intent and Purpose" section to make
it even clearer that it is not the City's intent to control private property owners' ability to maintain their trees. N
Board Member Monroe asked if the City tracks the planting of trees. Mr. Lien answered only those that are required as
part of development. The City doesn't keep a running log of how many trees are planted with development, as this would
require a lot of staff time. Board Member Monroe said he understands the purpose of requiring private property owners
to register their tree removals with the City and limit the number of trees that can be removed per year. But if the City
isn't tracking the number of trees that are replanted, the information would be incomplete and not provide an accurate
indication of the number of trees in the City.
For future regulations addressing existing residential lots, Board Member Rubenkonig advised similar parallel language
to the single-family/multifamily approach in the draft Tree Code. With that approach in mind, she said she favors starting
with a tree credit balance and an arborist tree survey. This would be similar to the City of Kirkland's tree credit system,
without the density requirement. This approach would reinforce the main underlying objective of retention. Many
homeowners have maintained a healthy tree canopy, and this benefit to Edmonds needs to be rewarded and incentivized
for others to do the same. Property owners who have a tree credit balance would not have to pay for a tree permit because
they already have as many trees as they need to provide on their property. She summarized that she would like the City to
implement a system that rewards those homeowners who have planted trees and incentivize others to continue to plant
more trees. The goal is to increase the tree canopy. Chair Robles added that property owners should also be rewarded for
leaving existing trees in place. He said there have been some suggestions of managing this type of program by using
certain newer technologies. While they can't get to that point with the current proposal, the idea of a credit system sounds
promising. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions accept satellite images of tree canopy to establish
the tree coverage on a single lot. While the technology is certainly available, she said she can't speak to the amount of
staff time that would be required to administer the program.
Mr. Lien said the program described by Board Member Rubenkonig would be a type of density requirement for all
properties in the City. If the City establishes a density requirement, it would also need to create a program to review all
tree removal within the City. He recalled that the previous draft Tree Code included a density requirement, as well as a
review for any tree removal. Even if the permit was free, a property owner would have to submit a site plan for staffs
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 224
7.1.d
review. Staff would then determine if the application would meet the density requirement. If not, replacement trees would
be required. He reminded them that this approach created a lot of community concern. Rather than the term "density
requirement," Board Member Rubenkonig said she would prefer to use the phrase "benchmark figure for retention of
mature trees on a lot." She doesn't want to go as far as the City of Kirkland has, but she would like to consider a tree credit
program for residential sites. This would affirm the City's goal of tree retention and increasing the tree canopy.
Mr. Lien said the proposed Tree Code includes a tree retention requirement associated with new development, but it would
not apply outside of the development review process. Whatever the concept is called, it has not been proposed to apply
citywide. If it was, the permit process would need to be expanded to include all tree removal.
• ECDC 23.10.110 —Liability.
Mr. Lien said this section makes it clear that property owners would still be liable for any adverse impacts, damages or
injury resulting from work performed with any permit issued by the City. There is similar language on nearly all of the
City's permit applications that indemnify the City. It makes it clear the property owners assume any liability associated
with the permit.
• ECDC 23.10.100 — Violations.
Mr. Lien explained that, in the existing code, violations are split up based on tree diameter. Trees that are 1 to 3 inches in
diameter can be fined $1,000 to $3,000 per tree, depending on whether it is within a right-of-way or critical area. Trees
that are greater than 3 inches in diameter can be fined $3,000 to $9,000 per tree. The proposed code has multiple ways to
assess the fine. He specifically reviewed the following sections:
A. Penalties.
1. Aiding and Abetting. Not only would property owners be responsible if a tree is cut in violation, but N
the company that does the tree cutting would also be held responsible. ri
2. Civil Penalties. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following:
a. An amount reasonable determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the G
City to investigate and administer the infraction. a
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (measured by the greater of c
the resulting increase in market value of the property, etc.). This provision addresses situations s
like the Point Edwards clear cut of the slopes prior to development. N
c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal using the trunk N
formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. This is similar to a R
house appraisal. A tree has a value based on where it is, how important it is to the neighborhood, c
etc. Rather than having a fixed fee for larger trees, the proposed code would require a tree m
appraisal to establish the fine. c
d. For smaller trees (less than 12-inches in diameter), the penalty would be $1,500 per tree.
e. Tree topping is considered an illegal tree cutting. Particularly for tall Douglas Firs and Cedars,
it can do significant damage to a tree and can create a hazardous situation. If an illegal tree o
topping has occurred, the property owners will be required to have a certified arborist develop pp
and implement a 5-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree
replacement.
f. Penalties will be paid into the City's tree fund.
Board Member Monroe asked if "illegal tree topping" is defined in the code. Mr. Lien responded that if a permit would
have otherwise been required to cut a tree, topping the tree would be considered illegal. He said he could add a definition
or "tree topping." He explained that topping trees that are exempt from the Tree Code would not be considered illegal, but
it still wouldn't be considered good practice.
Student Representative Bryan asked who would be responsible for actually doing the pruning labor for the next five years.
Mr. Lien answered that the property owner would have this responsibility. Student Representative Bryan asked what
penalties would be applied if the 5-year pruning schedule is ignored. Mr. Lien said that, similar to critical area mitigation
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 225
7.1.d
plans, the City could require monitoring reports throughout the 5-year period. However, he is concerned about how the c
City would inspect the tree each year to ensure that proper pruning has been done. Because of safety and liability issues, V
it would behoove a property owner to comply. p
rn
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that failure to enforce tree plans and landscape plans after the 2-year >
=a
performance bond is released is a chronic issue in most all jurisdictions. There isn't enough staff to accomplish this task,
so most cities rely on citizen complaints to address these situations. She would prefer an approach that requires monitoring CO
reports, which would at least require some accountability. Mr. Lien questioned where the tickler would be put in the City
system to make sure a monitoring report is submitted every 5 years.
rn
c
Board Member Crank pointed out that the draft Tree Code is being created as if the pandemic doesn't exist and everything
is normal. That isn't the case, and they don't know when things will get back to normal. She asked if qualifying language
would be provided at the beginning of the Tree Code to recognize that some of the timelines and penalties might need to
be softer if the pandemic is still a reality in two years. If that is the case, it may not be possible to comply with some of W
the code requirements, such as regular monitoring. At this time, they don't know how the pandemic will alter timelines d
going forward. Mr. Lien explained that an emergency proclamation related to the pandemic was issued by Mayor Nelson.
It acknowledges the extraordinary times and gives the Director flexibility to not apply the strict standards of the code that
would otherwise be required. He cautioned against including a disclaimer in the ordinance stating that the code was
developed under the pandemic and may be reviewed again in a few years. Board Member Crank said she is not suggesting a
a disclaimer or that the code should be reviewed again in two years, but the language should at least recognize that there L
may need to be some flexibility due to the pandemic.
2
Board Member Rubenkonig said her focus has been on the fact that most of the work related to trees is done outdoors, and
most of the plans can be submitted electronically. There hasn't been a big shift in terms of how the work is being done, 3
unless Governor Inslee shuts down any type of outside work. If that happens, it would be a temporary measure. While a
she agreed the City needs to be mindful that the process could be compromised due to the pandemic, she is comfortable N
with the fact that the Mayor has issued an emergency ordinance that allows flexibility as appropriate.
Board Member Cheung commented that as Item C.1 currently reads, both the homeowner and the person cutting the tree
could be fined separately for each violation. Mr. Lien clarified that the fine would be established per code and split between
the responsible parties. Board Member Cheung suggested the language needs to be clarified. He also questioned why the
person cutting down the tree would be responsible if it is done at the homeowner's insistence. Mr. Lien said that, for the
most part, the work is done by tree -removal companies, and they typically contact the City prior to removing a tree to find
out whether or not a permit is required. Some companies are more scrupulous than others, and if one company declines
to cut down the tree without a permit, a property owner can usually find another that will. For that reason, he felt that both
parties should be held responsible. Mr. Chave said it is important to also have the party that cuts the trees down potentially
liable because it is in their interest to make sure they understand and follow the rules.
Board Member Cheung asked if a handyman or friend (not a tree removal company) would be held liable if he/she was
hired to cut down a tree and the property owner fails to obtain the proper permit. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as written, the
provision doesn't say who would be responsible to pay the penalty, but the notice of violation and penalty would be
addressed to both parties and there would only be one fine. It would be up to the two parties to figure out how the penalty
would be paid.
Board Member Pence said that, if he were offering advice to a tree removal company, he would suggest they include in
their agreement with clients that they assume responsibility for any permits that are required. Then it would become a
legal issue between the tree removal company and the homeowner, with the tree removal company trying to push the
liability onto the homeowner. Chair Robles said that, if he were to hire a tree consultant, he would want to know the best,
safest and legal way to cut down the tree. He felt the onus should be on the tree removal company to understand the laws
where they operate.
Board Member Monroe asked how the triple damages called for under civil penalties would be applied. Mr. Lien said
that, as per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.12, which is referenced in Item C.2, trespassing onto someone else's
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 226
7.1.d
property could result in triple damages. That means the damages could be triple if trespassing occurs in any of the situations
listed.
Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a bad situation that occurred on her first day on the job in Maryland.
After she parked her car, she approached a man who was cutting down trees in the parking lot, asking if her car would be
safe. She was informed that it would. However, later in the day she learned that a tree was dropped next to her car and
had bounced up and landed on her car. The person cutting the tree was neither bonded nor licensed, and getting the
corporation that hired him to cut the trees to pay for the damage to her car was very difficult. Not only did the person
cutting the trees lie to her by saying her car was safe, he didn't take responsibility when the accident occurred, and neither
did the corporation. She doesn't want Edmonds residents to encounter a similar situation.
Board Member Rubenkonig also shared an example of a sad situation. Although the people in her neighborhood once
prized trees, that is no longer the case for some. Recently, she was awakened to the sound of tree cutting. The hired tree
service was going over a fence to cut back the limbs of a tree on a neighboring property right at the trunk. She approached
him and informed him that what he was doing was illegal. She asked him to halt the cutting, but he refused and advised
her to take up the issue with the property owner. He said he assumed the property owner had contacted the neighbors, but
she had not. When she called the City, she was told that because the tree service didn't operate in the City more than a
certain number of times per year, it was not subject to the City's licensing requirements. She concluded that this is a
troublesome area of enforcement concerning tree cutting, and it needs to be given quite a bit of attention.
Mr. Lien responded that both of these situations would be civil matters. A business license is required of anyone doing d
business in the Edmonds, regardless of how much. Board Member Rubenkonig again said she was advised by the Planning =
Division staff that the tree service was below the threshold of having to be licensed and was, therefore, not subject to the •2
City's purview. Mr. Lien said that, regardless of whether or not the tree service was licensed, the City responds when
illegal tree cutting occurs. Whether or not the person doing the cutting is licensed and bonded is outside of the Planning a
Division's purview. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is a troublesome area, for her and for others, N
and having good relations with neighbors concerning their priority of retaining trees is important. Whatever they can do O i
to address this, she welcomes further language that can help homeowners who are in such situations.
• ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund
Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received
under the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area)
would also go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council.
There was a request that Item D in ECDC 3.95.020 (sale of seedlings by the City) be removed. As proposed, the funds
could be used:
1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees. However, the vouchers cannot be used to
purchase trees required as part of a development or for replacement under the conditions of a violation. There
have been some questions about how the City would run the voucher program. It could be spelled out in this Tree
Code, or it could be addressed as a policy after the Tree Code is adopted. He expects the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Department would be responsible for the voucher program.
2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional.
3. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City.
4. To purchase supplies and materials for the City's observance of Arbor Day.
5. For other purposes relating to trees as determined by the City.
Mr. Lien said it has been suggested that additional items be added to this list: paying for services that support urban forest
management and health and as specified for any grant -funded projects.
Vice Chair Rosen suggested that Item 4 be changed to a broader definition of educational purposes. This would give the City
more leeway to do things that may or may not include Arbor Day observance or purchasing supplies. He assumes the intent is
education. Mr. Lien agreed to add "or other educational purposes."
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 227
7.1.d
• ECDC 23.10.XXX — Tree Replacement
Mr. Lien said he has heard the comment that planting a small tree will not replace a large tree that is cut down, and he
agreed that it takes time for a tree to grow. However, professional arborists, wetland specialists and biologists who do
mitigation plans say that larger trees do not establish as well as smaller trees. Professionals have explained that if you
plant a 1-inch caliper deciduous trees, its roots establish faster and it grows faster than a larger tree would. The requirement
of 2.5-inch caliper deciduous trees and 6-foot-tall evergreens is pretty standard and consistent with other areas of the City's
code. Vice Chair Rosen acknowledged that smaller trees establish better and grow faster than larger trees. However, if
the City's goal is to be made whole, they must make up this gap through money.
Board Member Monroe suggested the City could require a 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratio. Mr. Lien recalled that the Planning
Board discussed this and provided direction regarding the replacement ratio at their last meeting. The updated version for
the public hearing will require a greater replacement ratio for large trees. He is thinking of using the City of Shoreline's
model, which starts at 1:1 for the smaller trees (6 to 8 inches). For every 3-inch increase in diameter, the replacement ratio
would increase by one. Shoreline tops out at 3 replacement trees for the larger trees.
Board Member Monroe requested more information about how the Tree Code would be applied. Mr. Lien responded that
for short subdivisions, subdivisions, new multifamily, new single-family on vacant lots, or development that doesn't fall
underneath any of the exemptions, applicants would be required to retain 30% of all significant trees on the site. The
decision regarding which trees to retain would be based on the priorities outlined in the code:
1. Specimen trees, significant trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, _
significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or
greater than 18 inches in DBH.
2. Healthy tree groupings associated with undergrowth, trees that have a screening function and other significant a
native and non-native evergreen and deciduous trees. N
3. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are able to ai
be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetland or creek buffers.
Mr. Lien explained that, as currently drafted, tree replacement would be required for every tree that is cut. However, at
their last meeting, the Planning Board indicated support for only requiring replacement for trees that are removed beyond
the retention standard. He explained that, if there is a cost associated with tree removal, developers will make every effort
to retain as many trees as possible. One approach could be to require developers to replace all trees that are taken down,
regardless of the tree retention requirement, to meet the no -net -loss goal. The replacement ratio would be based on the
size of the trees that are cut down. If there isn't room on the site to plant that many trees, developers could pay into the
Tree Fund for each tree that cannot be planted on the site. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at their last meeting, the
Board indicated support for a 3-step process: 1) retain; 2) if you can't retain, replace; 3) if you can't replace, you have to
pay.
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that, by allowing flexibility in development design, retention becomes
more possible and the City can secure a higher retention rate. Mr. Lien agreed that is the intent of the design flexibility
provision for subdivisions.
Mr. Lien said he will rewrite ECDC 23.10.060 (Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity) to reiterate the
Planning Board's direction. He summarized that the basic retention requirement would be the minimum. Replacement
trees would be required to meet the 30% retention requirement, and the replacement ratio would be based on the size of
the trees that are removed. If you the required replacement trees cannot be planted on site, applicants would be required
to pay into the tree fund. Board Member Rubenkonig reiterated that the 30% retention requirement is comparable to what
other jurisdictions in the area already require.
Chair Robles voiced concern that, as proposed, a person who has 25 legacy trees on his/her property and wants to cut down
an 8-inch plum tree that is clogging gutters would be required to replace the plum tree at the same ratio as someone who
is cutting down the last tree on his/her property. He suggested that the replacement requirement should take into
consideration the number of trees a property owner is actively cultivating on site. Mr. Lien emphasized that the retention
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 228
7.1.d
requirement would only apply to new development or properties that do not fall under the exemptions. Existing single-
family property owners would not be required to obtain a permit to cut down a tree.
Chair Robles said he understands this distinction, but he suspects that people who are seeking to protect the tree canopy
will be concerned that the Tree Code would not apply to existing developed single-family lots where 93% of the City's
tree canopy is located. Mr. Lien agreed that some people will be unhappy. However, his charge, when drafting the Tree
Code, was to address the largest complaint, which is clear cutting sites with development. The way the code is currently
drafted, the exemptions, including single-family development, would still apply. The City could require a permit and limit
tree removal on single-family properties to a certain number during a 3-year period. However, this approach would likely
receive a lot of pushback from the community.
Board Member Cheung clarified that, as proposed, a homeowner is allowed to cut down an unlimited number of
nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien agreed, provided there are no critical areas on the site. Board Member Cheung asked if this
would include the smaller replacement trees that are planted as part of development. Mr. Lien answered that the required
replacement trees would be considered "protected" trees, which cannot be removed. Board Member Cheung asked if the
replacement trees would remain protected trees in perpetuity. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. That mean that a permit
would be required, and they could only be removed if they are determined to be hazardous or a nuisance. Board Member
Cheung asked how a property owner would know that a tree has to be protected. Mr. Lien explained that for short
subdivisions and new subdivisions, the protected trees can be recorded on the face of the plat. For new multifamily
development, the landscape plan would be on file and tracked. However, protected trees associated with new single-family
development on vacant lots would be difficult to track because it wouldn't be recorded anywhere.
Board Member Cheung voiced concern that when properties change hands, the new homeowners would have no way of =
knowing that a tree is protected. He is concerned about having something built into the code that requires subsequent 3
property owners to know which trees are protected. However, he doesn't have a recommended solution. Mr. Lien advised a
that the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) was recently updated to require a notice on title when a property has a critical area N
or is adjacent to a critical area. When someone purchases the property, the title report will flag that information. A similar
concept could be used to address protected trees, but there would be a fee associated with recording the information as a
notice to title. c
Chair Robles suggested that the City could provide some incentive for property owners to voluntarily provide the City
with an inventory of the trees on their properties. The information could be submitted electronically at no cost to the
property owner. Perhaps the incentive could be a reduction in the cost of a permit that is proportional to the number of
trees on a property. This type of approach would make the rules the same for everyone, and it wouldn't be costly to
implement. While it might be too late to incorporate it into the current draft Tree Code, he felt the idea should be pursued
at some point in the future. He suggested that the Tree Code could be reviewed every two to four years. As they implement
the code and collect feedback, they can consider changes to address future needs and problems.
Mr. Lien agreed that the City should offer other incentives to encourage tree preservation, but there isn't time to incorporate
the concept into the current draft. He suggested the City can continue to pursue incentive programs, but the current
proposal is a development regulation as opposed to an incentive program. Again, he said his charge was to draft a Tree
Code that addresses the biggest complaint the City receives, which is trees being removed with development. There is
currently a moratorium in place, and it is critical that the City Council adopts code language that addresses tree removal
with development as soon as possible. The next step could include a discussion about incentives.
Mr. Lien advised that he is preparing a press release that will be published prior to the public hearing to address upfront some
of the issues that might raise concerns. Chair Robles said he wants the public hearing to be successful, which means everyone
needs to feel they have been listened to.
Board Member Cheung suggested that any type of action or penalties that are restrictive will probably be viewed unfavorably
by a significant portion of people in attendance at the hearing. However, he doesn't believe most people would be opposed to
an incentive program that encourages tree retention and tree planting. Providing incentives will be seen as a positive thing as
opposed to penalizing people who cut down trees. Mr. Lien pointed out that, as proposed, Tree Fund dollars can be used to
offer tree vouchers for people to plant trees. Board Member Cheung concluded that the more the City can promote tree retention
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 229
7.1.d
and tree canopy through incentives as opposed to penalties, it will be accepted better by the community. Chair Robles
concurred.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that, in addition to inviting the public to the hearing, she would also like to hear from
professionals who will have to work with the code. Mr. Lien said he invited two developers to comment on the code, but
neither have responded to date. He recently invited another developer to comment, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig
suggested that practicing professionals in the area should be specifically invited to attend the hearing and provide feedback.
Mr. Lien responded that the City has hired The Watershed Company to work with the Tree Board to establish the Tree City
USA application. Their arborist reviewed the Tree Code and indicated support. She particularly noted that the Tree Code
clearly spells out what is required for a Tree Plan associated with a development proposal. The City's tree group, which has
representation from all departments, has also reviewed the draft Tree Code, as has the City's arborist. Board Member
Rubenkonig requested that the City issue a pertinent invitation to professionals who will be working with the Tree Code,
requesting their feedback either in writing or at the public hearing.
Mr. Lien announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for December 9', and notice will be published
next week. A revised version of the Tree Code will be prepared based on the Planning Board's discussions.
Board Member Pence said he supports Board Member Rubenkonig's suggestion that the City's outreach for the public hearing
be enhanced to include the affected professional communities. In addition, he suggested that when money is paid into the Tree
Fund in lieu of a tree obligation that cannot be met on site, the City has an obligation to use those funds to plant trees so that
the net tree canopy can be achieved. As proposed, the Tree Fund can be used to support a number of soft projects that will not
directly yield more trees. He would rather the funds be used to plant trees in City parks, greenbelts, planting strips, etc. where
they can contribute to the City's overall tree canopy, which is the ultimate goal of the Tree Code. Mr. Lien agreed that is
possible. When money comes in for the Tree Fund, different numbers could be used to identify what the funds could be used
for. Mr. Chave said there could be a problem with the amount of available public land where trees can be planted.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Board would have an opportunity to review the Tree Code a year or two after it is N
adopted by the City Council. Knowing that the Board would have an opportunity at some point in the future to make appropriate
adjustments would help her move forward with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Chave responded that, with any c
recommendation, the Planning Board can make a request that it be reviewed down the road. However, it is not something that a
should be adopted as part of the code. c
L
s
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA c
N
Chair Robles announced that the Board's next meeting will be December 9th, at which time the Planning Board will conduct a R
public hearing on the draft Tree Code. o
N
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
c
Chair Robles thanked staff for their support. They have so many conflicting projects, and he appreciates their hard work. a
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 230
7.1.d
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Student Representative Bryan said he was a bit surprised, when he opened the Planning Board's website to prepare for the
meeting, to learn that the Board had a special meeting on November 12'. He apologized for missing the meeting. He asked
that he be added to the email list so he can receive future notifications. Mr. Chave agreed to follow up on the request.
Board Member Monroe asked if the Board would elect 2021 Officers on December 9'. Mr. Chave said the election would be
added to the December 9' agenda.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City could revisit limiting the height of privacy hedges. At one time, their height was
to be the same as fences. Mr. Chave said that is a topic the City Council would have to refer to the Board. There was a rather
lengthy, time-consuming discussion at the City Council. The gist of the discussion was that hedges are growing things, and it
is difficult to regulate the height of something that grows. The City Council ultimately decided not to regulate hedges. Board
Member Pence agreed that hedges are growing things, but by their nature, they are in most cases designed to be trimmed into
a shape of some kind. They shouldn't be planted and forgotten. He felt the City could find a way to deal with them in an
appropriate manner.
Board Member Pence also praised staff. He appreciated having all of the comment letters attached to the Staff Report, but
forwarded separately to each of the Board Members via their City email accounts, as well. He suggested this should be a
standard procedure anytime a letter is received that deals with a Planning Board issue.
E."I -[$Ili"111t5I 0401"
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
N
M
Planning Board Minutes
November 18, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 231
7.1.d
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
December 9, 2020
Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty,
their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Daniel Robles, Chair
Mike Rosen, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 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 general audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Robles 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.
N
CO)
Packet Pg. 232
7.1.d
PUBLIC HEARING ON TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on the Tree Code in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was
presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board
recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the
Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation
includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the
downtown.
Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention
with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well
as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are
addressed in the draft update include:
• Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations.
• Goal LB —Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according
to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
• Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas.
• Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs.
• Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds.
Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been
broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10 a
(exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, and violations). There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in a new N
chapter Edmonds City Code (ECC 3.95). He reviewed each section.
• ECDC 23.10.020 -- Definitions
Mr. Lien advised that the following definitions were added and/or amended.
A. Significant Tree. A tree that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the
ground.
D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.
K. Protected Tree. A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection
plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant
restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations.
• ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all short
subdivisions (up to 4 lots), subdivisions (5 or more lots), new multifamily development, and new single-family development
on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-family house. A tree plan would also be required for tree removal on
developed sites that are not exempted by ECDC 223.10.040.
• ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions
Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new
multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions
would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt:
o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 2
Packet Pg. 233
7.1.d
o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means.
o Removal of trees for utility maintenance.
o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park Department.
o Routine landscaping and maintenance.
o Routine re -topping of trees to a previously -topped level.
Mr. Lien explained that the removal of hazard and nuisance trees would not require a permit, but supporting document would
be required. An example of a nuisance tree would be a healthy tree that is buckling a driveway or continually plugging the
sewer line.
• ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, the following would be prohibited:
o Removal of protected trees unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees.
o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless the trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance
trees.
o Removal of trees during permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition
activity.
o Removal of trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in ECDC 23.40 — 23.90.
• ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements
Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed tree retention requirement for proposed development would be 30% of all significant trees a
for new single-family, short plats and subdivisions. The retention requirement for new multifamily and unit -lot subdivisions
would be 25%. He reminded them that the focus of the tree code update is to retain more trees with development, and the N
Planning Board has considered the following priorities: ri
o Priority 1 — Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas and trees
over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH.
o Priority 2 — Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function and
other significant native and non-native trees.
o Priority 3 — Alders and Cottonwoods.
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement
Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree replacement would be required for each significant tree that is removed, and the number
of required replacement trees would be based on the diameter of the trees removed. One replacement tree would be required
to replace trees that are 6 to 10 inches DBH; two replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are 10.1 to 14 inches
DBH; and three replacement trees would be required to replace trees that are above 14 inches DBH.
• ECDC 23.10.080(E) — Tree Replacement Fee -in -Lieu
Mr. Lien explained that if all of the required replacement trees cannot be planted on a project site, the current proposal would
require $1,000 per tree not planted to be paid into the City's Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund would have to be used
to purchase trees to be planted elsewhere within the City limits.
• ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title
Mr. Lien recalled that questions were raised at a previous meeting about how a subsequent property owner would know that a
tree on his/her property is protected. This provision was added to require that protected trees be recorded as Notice on Title.
When someone purchases the property, they will see the notice when reviewing the title. The language was copied from the
Critical Area Ordinance, which also requires Notice on Title.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 3
Packet Pg. 234
7.1.d
• ECDC 20.75 — Conservation Subdivision Design
Mr. Lien explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and natural
resources through some amount of flexibility in the lot layout of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact
development. The priority of tree retention, as noted earlier in the presentation, would be applied to this section, as well, and
the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following flexibility is proposed:
1. Setbacks could be reduced to no less than 15 feet for street setbacks, 10 feet for rear setbacks and 5 feet for side
setbacks.
2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone.
3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not
exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone.
4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire
and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes.
• ECC 3.95 — Tree Fund
Mr. Lien advised that this section establishes the Tree Fund, and all revenue, mitigation fees, fines and penalties received under
the new Tree Code chapter would be deposited to this fund. All civil penalties under ECDC 23.40 (Critical Area) would also
go into this fund, as well as donations, grants for tree purposes and other monies allocated by the City Council. As proposed,
the funds could be used:
1. To provide tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds.
2. To pay for services provided by a qualified tree professional. a
3. To pay for services that support urban forest management and health.
4. To acquire, maintain and preserve wooded areas within the City. N
5. To purchase supplies and materials for Arbor Day and other education purposes. ri
• ECDC 23.10.030 -- Permits
Mr. Lien explained that the intent with the current update is to tie single-family and multifamily properties to the same permit
process. It isn't fair that single-family property owners have to pay $1,000 for a permit when the fee for commercial and
multifamily properties is only $305. As proposed, any tree removal not specifically exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 would be
processed as a Type I Permit, which is a staff decision without notice. Similar to the existing code, there would be a procedural
exemption that allows tree removal associated with a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval to be reviewed
with the associated project without requiring a separate tree removal permit.
• ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
Mr. Lien explained that, as per the proposed code, civil penalties would be determined according to one or more of the
following:
a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate
and administer the infraction.
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting
increase in market value of the property, etc.).
c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees requires an appraisal of the tree value by the City's tree
protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. using
the trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of the code.
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" DBH and the appraised value of trees
12" DBH or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the City's Tree Fund.
e. Violators will be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan approved by the
Director.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 4
Packet Pg. 235
7.1.d
Mr. Lien added that a new section "Aiding and Abetting" would make the tree cutter equally as liable as the property owner.
• Examples Illustrating How the Proposed Tree Code Provisions Would Be Applied
Mr. Lien shared examples to illustrate how the proposed tree retention, tree replacement and tree fund provisions would be
applied to new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions and multifamily development. He also provided examples of
how the conservation subdivision design provisions would be applied. For each example, he pointed out the number of existing
trees, the tree retention requirement, the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number
of replacement trees planted on site, and the amount of the Tree Fund payments.
Mr. Lien explained that, in addition to the Tree Code, there are a number of other provisions that apply to new development
such as access easements, landscaping, setbacks, utility easements, etc. These other code requirements also have a significant
impact on a developer's ability to save existing trees. Using the conservation subdivision design concept, the houses could be
clustered closer together in order to retain more trees. In the example he provided, the lot widths, access easement and setbacks
were reduced. Using the flexible design concept, the developer would be able to save 62 existing trees as opposed to just 15.
Because more trees could be retained on site, the Tree Fund payment would be reduced from $315,000 to $202,000.
Mr. Lien said he is concerned that the required Tree Fund payments are too high. He referred to the example he provided
earlier of the 4-lot subdivision, noting that although the developer could retain 40% of the existing trees, the required Tree
Fund payment would still be substantial. Using Park and Traffic Impact Fees for comparison, the 4-lot subdivision example
would require a $58,000 Tree Fund payment compared to a combined payment of about $27,000 for Park and Traffic Impact
Fees. He proposed the following alternatives to reduce the required Tree Fund payment:
o Reduce the replacement ratios to 1 replacement tree for trees that are 6 to 14 inches DBH, 2 replacement trees for
trees that are 14.1 to 24 inches DBH, and 3 replacement trees for trees that are greater than 24 inches DBH. N
o Reduce the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500. CO)
o Place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund.
Mr. Lien reviewed each of the examples again to illustrate how they would be impacted by the alternative language. He pointed
out that, in most cases, the Tree Fund payments would be substantially less than the required Park/Traffic Impact Fees.
However, with the conservation Subdivision Design, the Tree Fund payments would still be substantially greater than the
Park/Traffic Impact Fees.
Mr. Lien reiterated that the proposed Tree Code was primarily focused on how to retain trees with development. The Tree
Code, in and of itself, will not help the City meet its no -net -loss requirement. Additional work on potential incentives to
encourage property owners to retain trees on their sites will follow. In addition to the voucher program to encourage people to
plant trees, the City is working to update the Street Tree Plan. There are many things the City can do to retain trees, including
educating the public about their importance. The City is currently working on a Heritage Tree Program, which will be a
voluntary program to recognize special trees on private properties.
Board Member Monroe asked if staff is suggesting that they retain the 30% retention ratio and $1,000 per tree fee. Mr. Lien
responded that a fee of $1,000 per replacement tree resulted in some very high replacement costs. He suggested that the Board
consider the alternatives he recommended: reducing the replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu amount and/or placing a
cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund.
Chair Robles opened the public portion of the hearing.
Anna West, Edmonds, said she spoke before the Board a few weeks ago about the need to address the protection of water
views in the Tree Code. Trees have potential to block views. She said she lives in the Edmonds Bowl, and tree topping comes
up in a lot of discussions because it helps to maintain water views. She is concerned with the phrase "illegal tree topping" and
its associated penalties. She is also concerned about the definition for tree topping, which is "the significant cutting back of
the leader stem or major branches resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. " She expressed her belief that
there should be an exception for when tree topping is used to maintain a water view. She noted that the draft Tree Code includes
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 5
Packet Pg. 236
7.1.d
a lot of exceptions for pruning canopy growth to protect utilities. Knowing how important the water is to Edmonds, she
suggested the code should also include exceptions for when trees impact water views. From a physical perspective, residents
with water views pay more in taxes, which is valuable to help the City thrive in a variety of ways. She said she is prepared to
ask for a tax reduction if the revised Tree Code impacts her water views, which seems like a lose/lose for everyone. She said
she reviewed the archives and watched the video recording of the Planning Board's May 27, 2015 public hearing on the Tree
Code where some residents requested that the code provide more balance, addressing both trees and water views. However,
the current draft does not take this into account. She summarized that, in her opinion, not including view protection in the Tree
Code highlights a disconnect in how valuable the Puget Sound is to Edmonds residents and visitors. The current draft has the
potential to penalize residents who are trying to maintain their water views, and she believes it will backfire on the City in the
long run. She asked that the Board consider verbiage regarding water view protection, or at the very least, remove the tree
topping penalty clause altogether.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code update represents a great start. The provisions that would
apply to new development are better than he expected, but he is concerned that they are already considering modifications that
would weaken them. He said he is not in favor of the alternative replacement criteria suggested by Mr. Lien. It is important
to plant multiple replacement trees for every three that is lost. Following adoption of the proposed update, he suggested it will
be time to address tree loss on land that is already developed, which is where most of the City's tree canopy is located. He
noted that most cities limit the number of trees that can be removed in a given period of time. He urged the Board to finish the
job of writing a thorough and meaningful tree code. He asked the Board to consider the thoughts he shared in a letter he
submitted to the Board prior to the meeting.
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, agreed that it is important to protect the existing tree canopy, but the effort must be addressed on a =
more global level in order for it to succeed. He noted that about 98% of the property in Edmonds is already developed, and a •2
small percentage is undevelopable. He questioned the fairness of passing the entire cost of protecting the tree canopy to new 0
property owners when the overall society will benefit. He suggested they consider other ways to accomplish the overall goal. a
For example, they could raise the fees for cutting down trees on developed properties or providing incentives for people to N
plant additional trees on their lots. These approaches would result in more trees. While there is a lot of friction coming from
the general public, equal participation from all citizens is important when it comes to meeting the needs of the community. He
expressed his belief that the net effect of the Tree Code, as applied to new development, would be negligible, and the costs c
would be high. They need to come up with a code that is more equitable for all citizens of the community. If proposed properly, a
the City's residents might be more willing to save trees on their own properties. He pointed out that clear cutting has happened c
on developed property, as well, specifically about twenty-four 10-inch trees were taken down recently at 527 12' Avenue North s
with just one permit. The danger of losing trees is as great on developed land as it is on undeveloped land. c
Chris Yockey, Edmonds, said that from a developer standpoint, the proposed Tree Fund payments seem awfully high. He
voiced concern that the payments will significantly increase the cost of each unit, making it more difficult to address the need
for affordable housing in the City. While he understands that topping can kill a tree, he asked if the proposed Tree Code would
allow him to take care of the limbs from trees on adjacent properties that hang over into his yard by 30 feet.
Louise Favier, Edmonds, commented that the access given to street and sidewalk seating for her business has made a massive
difference in her life. She appreciates the work the City puts into creating a good plan for the businesses in Edmonds, in
particular the restaurants and bars to be able to continue to use the rights -of -way during these challenging times. They would
like to continue to have street and/or ongoing sidewalk seating for another year or two so the businesses can have an opportunity
to recover. She said she loves the City's tree retention efforts and appreciates the existing tree canopy.
Larry Vogel, Edmonds, said he was present to cover the public hearing for MYEDMONDS NEWS. He requested a copy of
Mr. Lien's PowerPoint presentation, and Mr. Lien agreed to send it along.
Lora Hein, Edmonds, asked the Board to weigh their recommendation based on the broad -scale impacts. She recognized that
the current culture prioritizes monetization of business and financial gain over preservation and conservation of natural systems,
which are more challenging to assign a dollar value. One indication is how many people express being tired of the impacts
endured in the face of multiple crisis in 2020 and wish to return to normal. However, 2020 has presented an essential
opportunity. The challenges they are facing are the culmination of gross mismanagement of the planetary ecosystem. Until
and unless they take a serious look at combined effects of colonization and monetization mindset, they will be looking down
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 6
Packet Pg. 237
7.1.d
the barrel of 2020-like years and worse for decades to come. On the other hand, if they take time to stop, listen and look both
ways, back as well as forward, they may yet have a chance to halt the juggernaut of climate destruction that is becoming
increasingly out of control.
Ms. Hein commented that forging ahead without a plan only compounds the current dilemma. A flawed result is not better
than none, it is worse because it gives the impression that something has been done. She proposed that the City adopt a
moratorium on removing any trees in any development until a functional tree ordinance can be crafted. Such a moratorium
needs to be accompanied not only by hefty fines, but a halt to any construction that continues in violation of a moratorium.
They need to end, or at least pause, business as usual, take a deep breath of the air provided courtesy of the arboreal neighbors
and decide how they will manage to pay back the dept that is owned to the living forest they have inherited from the first
inhabitants recognized in words at the beginning of each City Council meeting. She observed that before the Salish-speaking
tribes took up residence on these shores, other inhabitants as deserving of our honor, not only in word, but in deed, made their
lives and ours possible.
Ms. Hein emphasized that without more stringent replacement and enhancement requirements, incentives and penalties, they
will continue down the path of ever decreasing quality of the natural support system. They need more widespread
understanding of the essential benefits trees provide in saving energy, not to mention sequestering carbon, our only current
hope to prevent global catastrophe from climate transformation. Goals for trees on single-family residential lots in non -critical
areas, which are the majority of land resources in the City, are woefully inadequate. The City must go far beyond asking for
voluntary public participation. Instead, they should ask how much the air we breath is worth. Trees are more than pretty
individuals. They require a network of supporting species to remain viable. The same can be said of humans, as a species.
Without trees and the communities that support them, we too are doomed to years far worse than what we have experienced in
2020.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, said she was disappointed to hear the proposed reduction in Tree Fund payments. With minimal
fees, the City will lose the motivation to protect the trees. She said she submitted a letter prior to the meeting emphasizing her N
points of concern. She is concerned that there is too much emphasis on exemptions to the proposed regulations. There is also � �
too much focus on replacement rather than retention, which is far more valuable. What is missing is scientific evidence to
determine the goals of the Tree Code and the effects of the exemptions. Lack of environmental analysis, measurable goals and c
baseline data limits the value of the code. She said she hopes the Board will continue to adjust the Tree Code to achieve the a
goal of retaining trees in Edmonds. c
Richard Bologna, Edmonds, asked how an illegal tree removal fee would be enforced and collected and who the City would
retain to assess the health of trees. He also asked if anyone has ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual
tree and how much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council.
Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he is speaking as a former member of the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission for six years, as
well as chair of the citizen's group called TreePAC. He commended the City for pursuing with the proposed Tree Code update.
He said the City of Seattle has been working to update its tree ordinance for 11 years, and it appears that the City of Edmonds
will be adopting a number of steps that have been recommended for Seattle but haven't yet been put in place. He said Portland
is an example of a City that has taken steps to preserve trees, including a tree fund, and a few years ago they raised about $1.5
million to help plant new trees within their City. Portland just recently updated its tree ordinance to address trees with new
development. They changed the replacement requirement to apply to trees over 20 inches, and it had previously been 36 inches.
They have been charging $450 per inch for trees that are 12 to 20 inches DBH, and they are now proposing $1,800 per tree
removed. When considering replacement requirements, it is critical to take the approach that the larger the tree that is removed,
the greater the replacement requirement. He suggested that an additional category be added for trees over 30 or 36 inches. The
priority should be to preserve existing trees, as it takes decades for trees to reach their ultimate size. Existing trees provide
immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by smaller, younger replacement trees. Replacement trees also need
more maintenance, and not all of them will survive. He suggested that the Tree Code specifically require that the replacement
trees must be maintained for a certain number of years. He summarized that the proposed Tree Code is a great first step to
protect the urban forest and the benefits that trees provide to the City's citizens.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, commented that no trees have ever been retained in her neighborhood when new development has
occurred, and she is happy to see that the City will be requiring tree retention. She said she would like the City to have a goal
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 7
Packet Pg. 238
7.1.d
to increase the tree canopy. She is worried about the impacts of climate change in the future. They will need every tree they
can get to provide shade, cooling, etc. She said she is interested in the emphasis on education. She has been running the
Edmonds Wildlife Habitat and Native Plant Demonstration Garden at the fish hatchery for the past 10 years, and they have
done a lot of education. She said she is looking forward to sponsoring some tree planting workshops and teaching people how
they can plant trees. She will work with the Snohomish County Conservation District on this effort. They have a lot of good
materials, and they sell trees and native plants at a low cost. She said she appreciates that the Tree Code indicates a preference
for native plants and trees, but she would prefer Alders to non-native trees. She said she misses the trees that have been lost
over the years.
Chair Robles closed the public portion of the hearing.
Board Member Crank voiced concern that developers would lean towards tree replacement rather than tree retention, and she
doesn't see how this would result in increased tree canopy. She said she would not support decreasing the fee -in -lieu payments
because developers tend to be okay with paying in -lieu fees, especially if they are in areas where the housing market prices are
high. Mr. Lien explained that the UFMP did not adopt a goal to increase the tree canopy. The UFMP adopted goals of no net
loss of the overall canopy and continuing to enhance the tree canopy in parks as per the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
(PROS) Plan. The current proposal is a Development Code update that is specifically focused on retaining trees with
development and was not intended to achieve all of the goals spelled out in the UFMP. If the City's Council chooses to address
trees in a more holistic way, other actions will be needed and could include incentives, a heritage tree program, more education,
planting trees with vouchers from the Tree Fund, etc.
Board Member Crank asked if any thought has been given to establishing a cap on how much of the replacement requirement =
can be satisfied with the in -lieu payment. Again, she voiced concern that developers will take full advantage of the fee -in -lieu •2
opportunity. Without a cap, it will be difficult for the City to achieve no net loss when development occurs. Mr. Lien explained 3
that when he prepared the examples, he felt that the replacement costs were too high. He applied the alternatives (reducing a
replacement ratios, reducing the fee -in -lieu for each tree not planted to $500 and/or placing a cap on the amount required to be N
paid into the Tree Fund) to show how the replacement costs would be impacted in each scenario. He felt this information
would be informative to the Planning Board's discussion. He pointed out that, in some situations, the replacement costs could
be excessively high for a development impact fee. c
Mr. Lien responded to the following questions raised by Mr. Bologna during the public comment period.
• How would an illegal tree removal fee be enforced and collected? Mr. Lien explained that the City's code includes Notice
of Violation Procedures. The City investigates reports of illegal tree cutting. If it is determined that a tree has been cut
illegally, a Notice of Violation will be issued to the property owner and fines will be assessed depending on the situation.
The process is clearly spelled out in the code.
• Who would the City retain to assess the health of trees? For hazardous tree removal, Mr. Lien advised that the City would
require that the tree be assessed by a certified arborist, and the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Assessment
Form must be filled out. If the assessment comes back as high or extreme, the tree would be classified as a hazardous tree
that could be removed.
• Has anyone ever attempted to determine the fair market value of an individual tree? Mr. Lien said there are a variety of
tools to calculate the value of a tree. While some early drafts of the UFMP identified values based on the ecological
services that trees provide, some questions were raised about how accurate they were and the section was removed.
• How much other revenue would be contributed to the Tree Fund by the City Council? Mr. Lien said this provision was
included as just one of the ways that funds could be placed into the Tree Fund, but there was no specific dollar amount
associated with it.
Vice Chair Rosen thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work preparing the update, and for his quick responses to the comments and
questions raised by the Board to date. He also thanked the citizens who provided both oral and written comments. He found
them to be very thoughtful, and they absolutely influenced his thinking. He asked if the City considers wildlife corridors as
critical areas. Mr. Lien answered that the Critical Area Ordinance recognizes the Priority Habitat Species Layer, which is
maintained by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There are a few wildlife corridors identified in the City,
and one of the main ones is Shell Creek from Yost Park down. While habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, there
are no specific regulations or setback requirements associated with them. Most of them are associated with stream channels.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 8
Packet Pg. 239
7.1.d
There are forested areas in the northern portion of the City, and there is a 30% native vegetation requirement for development
in these areas. He summarized that habitat corridors are recognized as critical areas, but they don't have any specific regulations
that apply to them because there aren't any species of local importance.
Vice Chair Rosen observed that the City's tree canopy is currently at 30%, and the maximum potential is 57%. The City is
nearly built out and the current proposal will not achieve even no net loss. If the City is serious about no net loss, they need to
be more aggressive. They must either change what they are doing or change the goal. He said he understands staff's sensitivity
when it comes to applying the tree replacement requirement to larger developments, but he felt the City should be agnostic to
the use of the land. Loss of trees and loss of land has an impact. Whether it is for a few units or 30 units, there is an economy
of scale and profit that comes with that. While he appreciates that staff offered the alternatives, he encouraged the Board to
follow the original proposal.
Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's historic position when it comes to protecting views, but it is important to
acknowledge that views are both financially and emotionally valuable and cherished in the community. Passions run high
when it comes to views. To address this, he suggested that the following language could be added to the Intent and Purpose
Section:
"The City of Edmonds recognizes and celebrates the value of our proximity to and views of Puget Sound and the
mountains. "ile the City does not enforce tree limits for views, except as expressly stated in this code, property
owners are encouraged to consider mature heights when planting to avoid planting things that will block views down
the road and to allow windowing, drop crotch and other pruning methods that won't damage the tree at the
beneficiary's expense when asked. "
Vice Chair Rosen also suggested that the Board send a parallel recommendation to the City Council that they consider, through 3
the Board if they prefer, addressing vegetation that is used as fence. While there are reasons why a hedge is desirable to a a
property owner, neighbors, the community, etc., that is not always true. He recommended the following language be added:
N
CO)
"Vegetation used as a fence be restricted to the maximum height allowed for fencing if there is a demonstrated cause
by someone negatively affected by the greater height and for those that already exist at the expense of the person who c
would benefit. " a
Vice Chair Rosen explained that the language could be very narrowly defined to address situations where hedges block solar
panels, result in the inability of a neighboring property owner to grow plants due to shading, block light from entering into a
home, or reduce safety. This issue has been out there for a while and could be addressed as part of the proposed update.
Board Member Monroe recalled the citizen comment/question regarding tree topping. He said his understanding is that there
would be no penalty associated with a private property owner topping trees on his/her property. The penalty would come if
you top a tree on someone else's property. Mr. Lien explained that tree topping is considered tree cutting and would be
prohibited on properties that are not exempt from the Tree Code. Trees on properties that are exempt from the Tree Code, such
as developed single-family properties with no critical areas, can be topped without a fine. However, topping is bad
arboriculture practice and opens trees to rot and damage. On properties that are not exempt, a property owner could apply for
a permit to remove a tree that is blocking view and then plant a tree that is more appropriate for the location.
Board Member Pence asked about the cost associated with planting trees off site using money in the Tree Fund. He suggested
that perhaps the per -tree fee should be attached to the actual cost of planting new trees elsewhere. Mr. Lien said he doesn't
know the cost associated with purchasing and planting trees, but he could ask the Parks Department to respond. If the planting
cost is reasonable, Board Member Pence observed that the City could plant more than one tree for each of the trees that are
removed. Mr. Lien reminded them that, based on the proposed replacement ratio, more than one replacement tree would be
required for most of the trees that are removed. He said that in some jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu programs are based on the
cost for planting and maintaining a tree. When the concept was initially introduced to the Planning Board, the feedback was
that developers would be more likely to find ways to retain and/or plant more trees on site if the dollar value is a little higher.
Board Member Cloutier summarized that, as proposed, someone who has been topping a tree to protect a view would be allowed
to continue to top the tree. However, new trees that are planted and eventually grow to block a view could not be cut down
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 9
Packet Pg. 240
7.1.d
without a penalty. Mr. Lien referred to the last sentence of ECDC 23.10.040.E, (routine maintenance exemptions), which states
that, "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these
trees alone. " He explained that if a tree has been previously topped, a property owner could continue to do so back to the
previously topped level. Whether or not a new tree that grows to block view would require a permit would depend on whether
or not the property falls under any of the other exemptions. On developed single-family properties with no critical areas, trees
could be topped without a permit, but it would still be considered poor arboricultural practice. On developed single-family
properties with critical areas, a tree cutting permit would be required to replace the tree.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that critical areas include steep slopes, properties near watersheds, etc. That is not the case
in most of the City's neighborhoods. Mr. Lien noted the steep slopes on properties in the bowl area and explained that critical
areas include erosion hazard areas (slopes between 15% and 40%). However, in the proposed code, the exemption was
modified to exclude trees on properties with a slope of 25% or more. Developed single-family properties with slopes of less
than 25% would be exempt from the tree code.
Chair Robles asked if the Board is ready to send the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval or if more
work is needed before that can happen. Mr. Chave said that is something the Board will have to decide. The Board can either
make a recommendation at the end of the meeting or identify specific issues they would like staff to work on further.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, based on her own review of the proposal, as well as the written and oral public a
testimony, she found that, whereas the general nature of the code rewrite is acceptable, it is time for the Planning Board to i
support a more robust approach to retaining existing tree canopy and its habitat. Upon hearing from the citizens of Edmonds,
she believes the current proposal falls short because it is limited to retaining only 30% of the existing tree inventory of the =
original lot. If there is little inventory, there would be no gain for additional tree canopy. Instead, the City should encourage •2
retention and even increasing available tree canopy, which includes shrubs and ground cover, by proposing that subdivisions 3
provide 30% coverage of the lot to be tree canopy, typical of the Pacific Northwest forests, include retaining, which can count a
towards the 30% of the significant trees and the understory shrubs and ground cover. This approach would be similar to the N
Snohomish County regulations, which seemingly provide more coverage for tree canopy, understory and ground cover, along
with flexibility for site design to meet the requirements. She expressed her belief that this approach would be a workable
solution that would honor the goal of the UFMP towards zero net loss of the tree canopy and would provide developers with c
flexibility. Increasing tree canopy habitat, which would be more than what exists in the current code, along with site design a
flexibility, which the proposed update already addresses, would be a workable solution for Edmonds. She summarized that c
she would be interested in having Snohomish County's approach being considered as part of the proposal. At the very least, s
she would like it to be included as an item that deserves further attention if the Board decides to forward a recommendation on c
the proposed Tree Code to the City Council. She would also like the City Council to give attention to the proposed replacement N
0
schedule, as well as Vice Chair Rosen's suggestion that language be included to address private view sheds. R
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that many of the citizens who provided comments stressed the importance of tree
retention. They are not as interested in replacement. She would rather have an approach that hinges on retention as opposed
to replacement.
Board Member Monroe summarized that Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting there is a preference for having a final
result of density on the property at the end of the day. If there is a limited number of trees, a developer would be required to
plant more trees than are there right now. To that extent, he suggested that the retention requirement be increased to 40% or
50% or 30% total density, whichever is greater. This would challenge the developers to figure out how to make that work and
size the houses right to fit on the lots. He suggested that the Board ask staff to evaluate this option's impact on the cost of
development. While the numbers might be high for an entire development, the per home cost would be consistent with what
is happening in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Chave commented that Mr. Lien's analysis had less to do with the number of homes and more to do with how many trees
were on the property. The most expensive example was on a property that was being subdivided into four lots. The cost
associated with the 10-lot example was far less. Board Member Monroe said his approach would raise the price of the 10-lot
subdivision because a developer would no longer be allowed to take advantage of open grassland. It would force a minimum
of 30% density when the project is completed. He noted that is the benchmark the City is trying to achieve.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 10
Packet Pg. 241
7.1.d
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that when she uses the words "tree coverage," she is looking at the site plan and wants to
see where the trees have been maintained. Significant trees that are retained could go towards the count, but it would be evident
on the site plan how much the site would create towards the City's total tree canopy. She said she is not as comfortable with
the word "density" when applying it to Board Member Monroe's recommendation because the public better understands the
coverage that is needed for the lot. Board Member Monroe said he understands her concern, but the UFMP specifically states
that the City's current canopy is 30%. That same mathematical equation should be applied to properties that are being
developed. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed. She pointed out that Snohomish County requires 30% coverage, and it is up
to the developer to determine how that 30% will be provided on the site. This approach is more direct and emphasizes retention,
which is what the citizens seem to prefer.
Board Member Cheung recalled that, at the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Lien mentioned that the current proposal is only
intended to address one topic of the UFMP. The Board could have a separate discussion on trees that are on private properties.
Mr. Lien responded that the current proposal is focused on retaining trees with development. At this time, he can't say that
another update will follow to address trees on developed properties. However, other steps will need to be taken to reach the
goal of no net loss of overall tree canopy. These steps include educating property owners on the importance of retaining trees,
providing vouchers for private property owners to plant trees, reviewing opportunities to plant more trees in city parks, updating
the Street Tree Plan and creating incentive programs to encourage tree retention. Again, he said the primary focus of the current
update is how to retain trees with development.
Mr. Lien said he would need more information to create language to implement the concept put forward by Board Member
Rubenkonig. Is she suggesting that 30% of the lot must have trees on it as canopy coverage, or would one very large big -leaf
maple tree meet the requirement? While counting the existing trees and applying the replacement ratio would be easy to do, a
30% lot coverage requirement would be significantly more complicated to apply.
Board Member Cheung said a number of citizens voiced concern that the proposed update doesn't do more to protect trees on
private property, which is where the majority of the existing trees in the City are located. It would ease their concern if they N
knew that the City would be considering other actions at a later date. He noted that the issue of view would be better addressed
by private property tree regulations. Mr. Lien said the update would only regulate trees on private property as part of
development. They could add a provision in ECDC 23.10.030 (Permits) that would limit the number of trees a developed c
single-family property could remove during a set period of time. However, this would require the City to establish a tracking a
system and additional code enforcement would be necessary. c
Board Member Cheung recalled that, when the last Tree Code update was presented for a public hearing in 2015, there was
significant opposition to the idea of regulating trees on developed single-family properties. He suggested the Commission
focus on solving the immediate problem at hand, which is tree retention and replacement requirements associated with
development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the current proposal addresses a concern that staff hears most frequently, which is
clearcutting on properties that are being developed. However, the City Council may direct the staff and Planning Board to
address trees on developed properties at a later time. Board Member Cheung said it is important that the public understand that
this is the first step, and additional steps can be taken in the future that might address their other concerns.
Board Member Rubenkonig explained that the beauty of Snohomish County's approach is that they give credit for the canopy
size of any retained tree. This credit goes towards the total tree canopy that must be provided on the site. They also give credit
towards species that are planted that will provide a healthy canopy within so many years. Snohomish County's approach
appears to be creating mini Pacific Northwest forests around the County, which is healthy. Their approach appears to practice
retention of the tree canopy and its understory shrubs and ground cover, which create the necessary habitat. She would like the
City's code to focus on retention versus replacement, as well.
Board Member Robles reminded the Board that the proposal before them relates strictly to tree retention and replacement as
part of development. Any comments related to trees on private properties that are already developed are mute in this discussion.
At this time, the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council with some caveats, or they could decide that the
proposal needs more work and the recommendation could be postponed to a future meeting.
Board Member Cloutier commented that, while the Snohomish County code emphasizes retention, it also has the exact same
replacement consideration outlined in the draft proposal. If the trees are located where a structure needs to go, they cannot be
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 11
Packet Pg. 242
7.1.d
retained. The 30% requirement is only applicable to one specific kind of lot. The requirement for a single-family home is
20%, and it goes down as low as 15% in urban areas. As Mr. Lien pointed out the goal of the Development Code should be no
net loss, and increasing the tree canopy can be addressed by implementing the goals and policies outlined in the UFMP. As
proposed, the trees could be shift from one side of the property to the other, new trees can be planted, or money can be paid
into the Tree Fund for trees to be planted somewhere else. It is not the objective of this code to create new forests in the City.
If they want to change the objective of the code, they will need to start all over. He expressed his belief that the proposed Tree
Code adequately accomplishes what it is intended to: no net loss and requiring developers to pay for the offset.
In terms of the best approach to meet the goals of the UFMP, Board Member Rubenkonig said she sees both options as equal.
Option 1 would be to recommend the approach presented by Mr. Lien and Option 2 would be to consider Snohomish County's
approach of requiring 30% retention. She cautioned that they need to be very mindful that development will either take away
or add to the tree canopy. Although she always respects Board Member Cloutier's approach to make sure they are on firm
ground and focused on what they are being tasked to do, she would have a hard time seeing the option outlined by Mr. Lien as
being any different than the option she is recommending. Both options would meet the same objective.
Board Member Crank commented that, if the Board decides to recommend approval of the proposal as currently drafted, she
remains firmly opposed to the alternatives put forward by Mr. Lien that would reduce the replacement ratios, reduce the fee -
in -lieu for each tree planted or place a cap on the amount required to be paid into the Tree Fund. Edmonds is a fairly expensive
real estate area, and she doesn't foresee developers choosing to retain trees rather than paying into the Tree Fund regardless of
the amount. Vice Chair Rosen concurred.
Board Member Monroe commented that, after hearing from Board Members Rubenkonig and Cloutier, he is comfortable
withdrawing his suggestion that they increase the retention requirement to 40% or 50%. However, he felt that Board Member
Rubenkonig's suggestion is worth further exploration. He agreed with Mr. Lien that the replacement cost might be too high,
and there needs to be a balance of property rights, community rights, views and the environment.
Vice Chair Rosen asked if any of the Board Members would object to adding additional language to the Intent and Purposecm
0ii
Section to address views. Mr. Lien pointed out that, without specific regulations that protect views within the code, it wouldn't
make sense to have it in the Intent and Purpose Section. He sees this issue being addressed via education. For example, they c
could educate property owners about planting the right trees in the right places. The Tree Board has been working on a tree a
list that can be used as an education piece. Mr. Chave agreed that codes are not a good vehicle for messaging. Codes are c
generally used to tell what is allowed and not allowed. Folding the view issue into the education piece would be a better s
approach. Vice Chair Rosen respectfully disagreed. While he understands staff s point of view, views are such a high interest. c
The draft code addresses trimming and maintenance, and views should be part of the equation. N
0
R
Board Member Cloutier summarized that Vice Chair Rosen is suggesting that the City should be mindful of property rights and o
people's desire to have a view and should make regulations that are aligned with that. However, he said he doesn't believe the
issue should be addressed in this particular development code. There is nothing in the proposed update that would change the
rules related to view, and there is nothing in the current code that addresses retaining and/or maintaining views. The proposed
update would not grant any special rights or place any limitations based on view. He voiced concern that adding language
stating that view is important would imply that properties with views would get special treatment, which is not the case.
0
m
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that they can use their meeting minutes to share their concerns with the City a
Council. For example, the minutes could reflect that the Board is interested in reviewing regulations related to private view
sheds. The minutes could also reflect that the Board is interested in regulating the height of hedges and bushes the same as a
fence if used for privacy purposes on a lot's perimeter boundary. While the issues would not be addressed as part of their a
recommendation on the Tree Code, they could emphasize the issues as warranting further consideration in the future. Vice
Chair Rosen agreed that would be an appropriate approach.
c
a�
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THEIR t
INTEREST IN REVIEWING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE VIEW SHEDS AND PRIVACY 0
SCREENS SUCH AS HEDGES AND BUSHES. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH Q
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 12
Packet Pg. 243
7.1.d
Board Member Cloutier asked if Mr. Lien's alternatives for the tree replacement fee were incorporated into the language that
is currently before the Board. Mr. Lien said they alternatives have not been incorporated into the draft code language. He
suggested the Board specifically look at the replacement ratios, which is directly tied to the high fees in the examples he
provided. He suggested that the replacement ratio he recommended in his presentation would be more appropriate. The larger
trees (greater than 24 inches) would still be replaced at a ratio of 3:1. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the Snohomish
County code doesn't use ratios. Developments are simply required to provide 30% tree coverage. He suggested the City's
measure of tree retention is better. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that would only be true if there are few trees on a
property to retain. Board Member Cloutier observed that the current proposal would not require a developer to plant more trees
than are currently located on the property, while the Snohomish County code would require a developer to plant additional
trees to a minimum of 30% coverage.
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the current proposal would base tree replacement on the inventory of the
current trees on a lot. But if there are no trees, there would be no retention requirement or requirement to provide additional
trees. This is a big negative for that approach. She noted that the public is tired of the number of trees that are being cut down
for new subdivisions. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern about how the Snohomish County concept would be applied on
a commercial lot in downtown Edmonds. It wouldn't make sense to require that 30% of the lot be covered with trees. Retaining
the existing tree coverage would make more sense. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that requiring 30% tree
coverage would be a proactive approach, recognizing that such things as utility easements, rights -of -way, etc. would be taken
away from that.
Mr. Lien advised the Board that they are not required to make a recommendation on the Tree Code tonight. He said he would d
like more time to review the Snohomish County code to provide helpful feedback to the Board, and he is still a little confused =
about how the current proposal is different than the proposal recommended by Board Member Rubenkonig. There are other •2
minor tweaks he would like to make before the document is forwarded to the City Council. He summarized that it appears the 3
majority of the Board wants to retain the $1,000 fee for each tree not planted, but they still need to provide feedback on the a
replacement ratio. N
ai
Board Member Cheung asked staff to provide calculations of what the fee would be based on $1,000 per tree but with different
replacement ratios. c
The Board agreed to carry their deliberations over to the January 131h meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the citizen Planning Board has benefited from each and every Board Member who
has given of their time, experience and hopes for the City of Edmonds. The Chair brings a unique approach to helping all
Board Members participate fully and professionally. Her recommendation of Board Member Rosen as her nomination for the
2021 Chair of the citizen Planning Board would do no less. They already know his measure and have been rewarded by his
presence and contribution. He will endeavor to lead the Board and encourage robust deliberations with fair outcomes. She
said she welcomes his support and offer him hers in his role as the 2021 Chair.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER ROSEN TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR 2021.
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN
FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER ROSEN AS THE 2021 CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
Board Member Monroe commented that the duties of Vice Chair are leadership and engagement. He has known Board Member
Crank for over five years and has found that she has these leadership capabilities. She is a member of a variety of community
groups, including the Snohomish County Airport Commission and Snohomish County Tomorrow. She can do a great job as
Vice Chair of the Planning Board.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CRANK TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR
2021. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED
IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER CRANK AS THE 2021 VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 13
Packet Pg. 244
7.1.d
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its deliberations on the draft Tree Code Update at their January 13'
meeting. He advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will provide an update on January 27'
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Robles thanked the Board Members for allowing him to chair the Board during this fascinating time. The Board set their
agenda and got some very important things done. The Board Members thanked Chair Robles for his leadership.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Rosen thanked the Board Members for their trust and kind words. He thanked Chair Robles for his leadership,
particularly for engaging him in such a meaningful way as Vice Chair. He appreciates the way he advocated for the Board.
He also appreciates his desire to engage more of the residents and increase collaboration with other boards and commissions.
Vice Chair Rosen commented that in recent years, the country has experienced and observed the impacts of dysfunctional
government organizations and individuals, and he has never observed the Board looking for either a Republican or Democratic
answer. Rather, they have worked to search for the best answers. He has never seen the group seek to blame others, but only
to accept personal and group responsibility for the job they have been given and the impacts of the decisions they make. Each
Board Member has demonstrated grace and respect, and he appreciates how they model the best of how local and national
government can and should be.
Student Representative Bryan said he appreciates the diversity of perspectives that were acknowledged amongst the Board 3
during the hearing. The residents voiced a lot of concerns on a huge range of topics. For the most part, the Board discussed a
them well and thoughtfully. He said he is proud to be part of a board that strives to do the right thing. N
ai
Board Member Pence announced that the City Council extended the duration of the Housing Commission to the end of January.
They will be reporting their policy recommendations soon, and he expects the Planning Board will be tasked with reviewing G
the recommendations to the extent they affect the code. This could be a time-consuming endeavor. a
Board Member Crank thanked the Board for their vote as Vice Chair. She commented that 2020 has been an interesting year
for her from a professional, community service and personal standpoint. She attributed a lot of her success on the Snohomish
County Airport Commission to her experience on the Planning Board. She appreciates that the Board has remained functional
throughout the pandemic. Everyone has had a passion to move forward and get as much done as possible, when they had every
excuse to rest on their laurels and not get much done. This speaks a lot about each and every Board Member. She hopes the
Board can continue its momentum into 2021. She particularly voiced appreciation to staff, who has had to adapt to a new way
of doing business while still providing excellent support to the Board.
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 14
Packet Pg. 245
7.1.d
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
N
M
Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2020 Page 15
Packet Pg. 246
7.1.d
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
January 13, 2021
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Roger Pence
Daniel Robles
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG
Board Member Rubenkonig read the following statement:
"Tonight, I say goodbye to the grand experience of serving on the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board with all of you.
I've been prepared for being removed from the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board since Mike Nelson was elected
Mayor. It is a peculiar emotion being called out by the City Council and the Mayor for removal from the Board. I
found the process poorly conducted and fraught with wrong facts. How did it happen that four out of eight position
terms were expiring in one year? The proverbial red flag should have gone up in the air, but many party to board
appointments did not act. This was disappointing. Why didn't they act to protect the Edmonds Citizen Planning
Board? The inaction led me to share the situation with the local newspaper, My Edmonds News, on December 28'
Maybe you are wondering why would the Mayor and City Council fire a standing Board Member. Usually when a
citizen volunteer opts to continue serving the City of Edmonds on a board, commission and/or committee, as I did, it
is considered to be a plus for the City. If my having a dissenting opinion to a standing mayor was a consideration
for dismissal, then past Mayors Fahey, Haakenson, and Earling had plenty of reason to not renew my Board
appointments, but they did not. I'd like to believe they valued discourse, including disagreement.
Throughout my 14 years, starting in 1996, our youngest daughter was three years old, I committed to serving the
people of Edmonds, not the elected officials. Allow me time for a quick back story. As a stay-at-home mom, like
many women in our community, I gave volunteer support to many non-profit groups during the years of child
N
ri
Packet Pg. 247
7.1.d
raising. Getting back into my profession took 16 years, but my citizen volunteer work on the Architectural Design
Board helped me keep my mark in the game. Ten years later, I was asked to apply for the Edmonds Citizen
Planning Board, and here I am six years later. I have thoroughly enjoyed and greatly benefited from Board work
and the years of challenge, including serving with male -dominated boards. Being voted as chair and vice chair of
both boards showed Edmonds can support women as leaders.
Now, here I am wanting to share my farewell remarks to this fine City Board. I'm proud of how we have been
proactive on affordable housing, elevating it to a City concern. And we have been very attentive to the concerns of
the community about the Urban Forest Management Plan. Each of us has a framework in which we look and
analyze the known facts. I describe mine as a sailing ship, navigating rough seas to a safe harbor. My life
experiences inform my perspective, the rigging. Some of those experiences are shared by others, raising children in
troubling times, pushing hard to change careers, starting a business during the recession, and reinventing oneself
for work. Not easy life experiences. Why am I sharing this? Because I am defending the Planning Board's ability
to also help the City move through a very difficult and necessary time of cultural change. In order to help the
community move through difficult times requires a ship to befitted out to navigate the rough seas. Navigating relies
on a crew of others to safely move forward, and that is how I witnessed the Board handling challenging issues.
Another back story. In my first years on the Architectural Design Board there were plenty of contentious issues,
plenty. Emotions reigned high at the meetings, and police monitored those sessions. I encountered strong push a
back from the Director of the Port of Edmonds, the then City Attorney, and the ten all -male City Council. At three i
separate occasions, each of those men took the time to talk to me and explain that their push back was not personal.
My response, it feels it. It took me more years than I'd like to share to understand what they were saying to me. In =
essence, it was `when we meet on opposites sides of an issue, I'm doing my job and I expect you to do the same.' I •2
now know dissention and discussion is key to the best decision. I slowly learned to not take opposition so 3
personally. When I've been on the dais listening intently to citizens, I know they have the right to talk and to a
disagree. I champion their right to do so. The need for rigorous rules of engagement is vital for Edmonds. I valued N
each and every opportunity to listen to the community, and I valued each and every opportunity to discuss (to really
argue) with all of you, my fellow Board Members.
I learned not to take public engagement personally. Yet, being fired, is just that. It is personal. I campaigned for
the Mayor's opponent. Opposition to this mayor is something he appears to take personally. In my experience,
opposition, dissention and disagreement, when shared in discussions and deliberations, leads to the best decisions
possible. But that is not what he or his partisans on City Council are looking for in an appointment. This upsets my
sensibilities on behalf of all of Edmonds. My parting words to you fine people, I hope you, as an Edmonds Citizen
Planning Board continue your history of conducting yourself in the arena of discussion and debate. Listen to the
words of Joseph Joubert from 1754 to 1824: It is better to debate a question without settling than to settle a
question without debating it.' Carry on making the tough decision on behalf of we, the citizens of Edmonds. Thank
you for your time of service. And now, according to ECC Section 10.40.020(A)(4), I congratulate Roger Pence,
previously referred to as alternate to the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board, in his new standing as Position 5. I
leave you to conduct necessary citizen business as members of the Board. "
All of the Board Members thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her service.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2020 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
A discussion of the Planning Board Membership Roster was added to the agenda, and the remainder of the agenda was
accepted as presented.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 248
7.1.d
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, commented that many Edmonds citizens are relying heavily on a new and improved Tree Code to
stop the constant clear cutting that always seems to accompany development. Unfortunately, it appears that the current Tree
Code draft is not designed to achieve the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) goal of no net loss of tree canopy. Lacking
an analysis of various measures in the draft, such as exempting private property, it will not actually be possible to determine
what will be gained or lost. She cautioned against the Planning Board finalizing their recommendation on the Tree Code
without an accompanying examination of the implications for each restriction and exemption. Will the exemptions and
restrictions increase, reduce or maintain tree canopy? Without this data, she doesn't think it is possible to evaluate the Tree
Code. She asked them to take more time before making a recommendation.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, observed that a Tree Code should address all of the trees in the City, not just a small minority of
them. The draft code only addresses 3% of the residential land in Edmonds (the land that is currently undeveloped). He
reminded the Board that the stated intent and purpose of the draft code is to implement the goals of the UFMP, which is to
enhance and retain or no net loss of our forest canopy. He expressed his belief that the draft code is inadequate to perform
the stated intent and purpose. The draft code would have been much more useful if enacted 10 years ago when there was
more undeveloped land. Now there is only 3% of the land that is undeveloped. As time goes forward and more development
occurs, the code will have less and less impact to the point where it will have no impact at all. He said he was very
disappointed to see the relaxation of the tree replacement criteria. There aren't that many large trees in Edmonds, and he
would encourage the Board to go back to the criteria of the previous draft. Every significant tree lost to development should
require multiple replacement trees. That is the gold standard of forest management and tree replacement strategies.
Mr. Phipps stressed that if the code is going to be codified, it should be meaningful and address all of the trees in Edmonds. =
He noted that 80% of the forest canopy is on developed lots, but the draft code totally ignores these trees. He cautioned 3
against the Planning Board passing forward this empty and insignificant Tree Code. The current draft is simply a token and a
symbolic effort to make the Board feel good. It does very little to stop the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He emphasized N
that a flawed result would be worse than no code at all because it gives the impression that something was done. The code, c i
as written, will do very little to decrease the loss of forest canopy in Edmonds. He asked the Board to spend more time on
the Tree Code before making a recommendation to Council. c
Steve Zemke, Edmonds, said he spent 6 years on the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission and was involved in doing a draft
tree ordinance, which hasn't been adopted yet. The commission spent a lot of time looking at what other communities are
doing in the region and country. He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, he noted that Portland, Oregon requires
that developers save all trees 20 inches and larger. If they are removed, they must be replaced inch -for -inch. They
established a replacement fee of $350 per inch of the tree removed. Folsom, California's tree code is based on the idea that
the larger the tree, the greater its value in terms of providing ecoservices to the city. He said he provided a copy of Folsom's
study, noting that they recently adopted a fee of $250 per inch for trees that are removed. They estimate their cost was $389
per tree, based on not just the acquisition and planting, but also tree maintenance. The draft Tree Code requires a 2-year
bond, and the City of Seattle's proposed ordinance would increase the bond requirement from 3 to 5 years. The consensus is
that, with climate change, it is not enough to plant trees. They must be maintained, and a much larger time frame is needed to
make sure this happens. While requiring native species for replacement trees is good, they must also keep in mind that
climate change is affecting a number of native species, making their survival difficult.
Mr. Zemke commented that if the City proceeds with the proposed replacement requirement, which uses increments of 8
inches, he strongly recommended they add an additional category to require four replacement trees for trees that are 32 to 40
inches in diameter and five replacement trees for trees that are 40 inches or greater. He emphasized that the Tree Code
should recognize the significant benefits that the larger trees provide. It will be a long time before the replacement trees will
provide the same benefit. He noted that, as proposed, the Tree Code would only apply to tree removal associated with
development. However, Portland requires permits to remove trees on all private properties, as does Lake Forest Park,
Kirkland and a number of others cities in the region.
Chris Yake, Edmonds, asked when the video from the meeting would be posted, and Mr. Chave said it should be available
within a week.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 249
7.1.d
John Marante said he is a past resident of Edmonds and now works for a developer. He was participating in the meeting to
observe what is going on with the Tree Code.
Nancy Winston, Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds and is very concerned about how strong the City's commitment is
to make sure that future development is not just clear cut. She is a concerned citizen and a tree lover.
Nicholas Capos, Edmonds, recalled that he attended the public hearing for the previous Tree Code update. The proposal
was very controversial and there were so many opinions that some of the attendees continued their discussions in the parking
lot until 1 a.m. He voiced concern that, since that time, the process has gone underground even though the outcome will
impact everyone who owns property with trees. He owns property with a home and a large number of trees that he cares very
much about. However, he believes the proposed regulations would be onerous and severely restrictive. He reviewed that the
UFMP outlines the following goals:
• Incentivize the planting and protection of trees on private property.
• Create a program for giving away trees or tree vouchers.
• Establish a property tax rebate or stormwater utility rate reduction for properties that retain a certain amount of tree
canopy.
• Implement other techniques that provide financial recognition to the benefits of tree planting and protection.
• Provide resources to the community to educate and inform them of tree planting and care.
• Provide signage and other information about significant trees.
• Establish a Tree Board.
• Develop community education materials.
• Participate in original tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to volunteers.
• Report annually to the City Council.
Mr. Capos referred to Question 17 of the survey the City recently conducted regarding the Tree Code, which asked, "When N
private properties are developed or improved, trees on property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with
protecting trees on private property during construction?" Of the 167 respondents, 53.89% answered yes. Eight did not c
respond to the question, 17.95% indicated that the City should not concern itself with trees on private property, and 28% t
weren't sure. If you subtract the number of people who didn't respond, you end up with a 51% majority that favor requiring
property owners to preserve trees on private parcels. That is not much of a majority. He summarized that this incredible set s
of restrictions, fines and fees can eventually financially impact every property owner in Edmonds that has trees. While it *�
starts off with developers, the stated goal is to apply it to developed private properties, too. The impact could be thousands of N
dollars per lot. He said he wants to build a house for his disabled son on the lot next to him. By the time he pays the building c
fees, stormwater fees, and tree replacement fees, he could be looking at $75,000 to $80,000 before any construction can start c
on the house. tA
Again, Mr. Capos voiced concern that the issue has gone underground and hasn't included the institutional discussion about
taking away private property rights. He has paid property taxes on his trees for 25 years, and he felt it was a violation of his
property rights for the City to tell him what he can and cannot do with them. He suggested that this entire subject needs to
receive a much wider vetting to the public. The meetings haven't been published in any of the local newspapers, and no
information has been disseminated to the property owners via the mail. Only 12 people were present at the last meeting to
comment on a proposal that would have a deep financial impact to property owners into the far distant future.
Richard Ellison, Seattle, said he is a semi -retired, part-time adjunct instructor at community colleges in the region. He said
he believes it is very important to protect trees on private property. They are part of the environmental infrastructure. He
voiced concern that the general way of doing things continues to allow more and more loopholes for developers to remove
the largest trees. While he is glad the City is trying to categorize trees in a fashion, there needs to be a better definition for
trees between 6 inches and a specimen tree. Trees that are 12 inches in diameter and greater provide a lot of habitat and
canopy. They are looking at summer record heat and fires, and cities need to plan for a future of climate change. They need
to figure out how to preserve the large trees and still allow more housing to be developed. He suggested that one option is to
allow taller buildings or to allow development to be reconfigured on lots so that trees can be saved.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 250
7.1.d
Mr. Ellison also encouraged the City to prohibit tree topping. Trained professionals know how to create a view through a
tree canopy without creating hazardous tree conditions in the future. He also encouraged the City to do as much planting as
possible. He noted that the larger trees capture a lot of rain and slow the stormwater runoff so it doesn't get into the system
as quickly. The City of Seattle is currently paying people to build cisterns for free on their properties in an effort to collect
water during heavy rains so it doesn't all come into the stormwater system at once. He suspects that Edmonds is also
experiencing problems with stormwater runoff. Rather than having to build additional infrastructure to capture the runoff,
Edmonds should retain the existing large trees that are doing an excellent job.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Vice Chair
Crank asked if canopies for outdoor dining will become standard in the downtown. Mr. Chave said the City Council adopted
an interim ordinance, which provided some new standards for streeteries and outdoor dining. Business owners are starting to
submit applications, and he suspects there will be more as time goes by.
TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE
Chair Rosen thanked the members of the public who provided comments regarding the draft Tree Code. He also reminded
the Board Members that they have received a number of written comments since the public hearing on December 9t''. Other
people have expressed their opinions via letters to local newspapers, etc. According to his count, the Board has heard from
96 citizens regarding the draft Tree Code. He emphasized that the citizen voices have been heard by the Board and will
influence their recommendation.
Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree 3
retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree a
fund, as well as improving the existing definitions, permitting process and penalties. He reviewed the UFMP goals that are N
addressed in the draft update as follows:
• Goal LA — Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The draft Tree Code
covers all of these topics.
• Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks
according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. While this goal was taken under consideration
when the draft Tree Code was developed, it is understood that the regulations, in and of themselves, cannot achieve
no net loss of canopy within the City. The City will have to do other things, such as education. The Tree Board is
doing a good job of education and outreach but more work is needed.
• Goal LC — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. The draft regulations will
supplement the City's Critical Area Regulations.
• Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree
programs. The draft regulations will establish a Tree Fund that will be funded by penalty fees and the fee -in -lieu
program.
• Goal 3.A — Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds.
Mr. Lien recalled that, following the December 91 public hearing, the Planning Board requested additional information about
the proposed tree replacement ratios and Snohomish County's coverage approach. He referred to the tree replacement
requirements in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10.080. As proposed, replacement would be required
for each significant tree that is removed and the replacement ratio would be based on the diameter of the tree removed. At
the public hearing, he provided a number of examples of how the replacement ratios would apply and the resulting fees into
the Tree Fund. While he felt the fees would be too high, the Planning Board did not seem concerned. He suggested other
options, including modifying the replacement ratio or modifying the dollar value per tree for the fee -in -lieu. The Planning
Board indicated they wanted to retain the $1,000 fee per tree, but they were willing to consider an alternative replacement
ratio. As requested by the Board, he shared a chart showing how the updated alternative replacement ratio compares to the
previously proposed replacement ratio:
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 251
7.1.d
Previously Proposed Replacement Ratio (Option 1
Updated Alternative Replacement Ratio (Option 2
6 to 10 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required
6 to 14 inches DBH* — 1 replacement tree required
10.1 to 14 inches DBH* -- 2 replacement trees required
14.1 to 24 inches DBH* — 2 replacement trees required
Greater than 14 inches DBH* -- 3 replacement trees required
Greater than 24 inches DBH* — 3 replacement trees required
*Diameter at Breast Height
Mr. Lien reviewed the four examples that were provided at the December 9t' public hearing again to illustrate how both
Option 1 and Option 2 would impact the Tree Fund payment required for new single-family, short subdivisions, subdivisions
and multifamily development. In each example, he pointed out the number of existing trees, the tree retention requirement,
the number of trees to be retained, the number of required replacement trees, the number of replacement trees planted on site,
and the amount of the Tree Fund payments. He also provided information showing how the required Tree Fund payments
would compare to Parks and Traffic Impact Fees. He summarized the following:
• New Single -Family Development — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted
from 22 to 19, and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $16,000 to $13,000. Park and Traffic i
Impact fees would be almost $9,000.
• Four -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 58 to 50,
and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $58,000 to $50,000. Park and Traffic Impact fees would p`
be almost $27,000.
• Ten -Lot Subdivision — Applying Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 98 to 84,
cc
and the required Tree Fund payment would decrease from $98,000 to $84,000. Park and Traffic Impact Fees would =
be almost $63,000.
• Conservation Subdivision Design — Applying the current zoning regulations, Option 2 would reduce the number of
trees required to be planted from 315 to 222, and the Tree Fund payment would decrease from $315,000 to 3
a
$222,000. Applying the proposed conservation subdivision design regulations would allow a lot more trees to be
retained. Option 2 would reduce the number of trees required to be planted from 202 to 141, and the Tree Fund
payment would decrease from $202,000 to $141,000. The park and traffic impact fees for both options would be
about $33,000.
Board Member Monroe asked how the park and traffic impact fees are calculated. Mr. Lien responded that the City only has
two impact fees (traffic and parks). For new single-family residences, the traffic impact fee is $6,249 per unit and the park
impact fee is $2,334, and credit is given for existing homes. In the examples he provided, the fees were calculated based on
the number of new residential units being constructed. He explained that both fees were established based on a lengthy
analysis, and the City's fees are about average compared to other jurisdictions in the area. Board Member Monroe
commented that the traffic and park impact fees are the same for each unit regardless of design, whereas the draft Tree Code
is intended to influence behavior and incentivize developers to retain trees.
Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that a fee of $10,000 to $20,000 per unit sounds appropriate. He would like the
fee to be high enough that developers are encouraged to reconfigure lots to save trees whenever possible. If the fee is not
high enough, most developers will simply choose to pay the fee and fold it into the price of the home. Mr. Lien pointed out
that the proposed subdivision design flexibility would allow developers to cluster the lots and retain the existing trees.
Board Member Monroe summarized that Option 1 is more conservation minded and would make it more difficult to remove
trees, and Option 2 would be a more liberal approach. He said he leans towards being more conservation minded, making it
more difficult to remove trees in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained that Option 1 would likely result in fewer trees being
removed. If more trees are retained, the potential fee -in -lieu payment would go down. If developers want to reduce the
amount required for the Tree Fund, they will find a way to retain and/or plant more trees.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE
REPLACEMENT RATIO. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Bryan said he supports Mr. Zemke's idea that the replacement ratio categories should be expanded to require more
replacement trees when trees greater than 32 DBH are removed. This would reduce the potential canopy loss in the City
without further complicating the code.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 252
7.1.d
Board Member Robles observed that the traffic and park impact fees are flat fees, property taxes are based on the assessed
value of the home, and, as proposed, the tree replacement fee would be based on the size of tree. He asked if there has been
any discussion about basing the replacement fee on the value of a property. For example, a higher replacement fee might be
appropriate if cutting down trees exposes a view and significantly increases the value of the homes that are built. On the
other hand, the higher fee might not be appropriate for development of low-income housing. Mr. Lien said the Board did
discuss this concept, but he is not sure how it could be implemented. He explained that when subdivision applications are
reviewed, staff does not require specifics about the homes that will be developed. Implementing the concept would require
appraisals with each application to identify the potential value of the property after subdivision and development. Chair
Rosen suggested that the Board should focus on taking action on the current motion, recognizing that Board Member Robles'
idea could be presented as a separate item for discussion at a later time, as appropriate.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien recalled that, at their last meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board review Snohomish County's
Coverage Approach. He met with Board Member Rubenkonig following the meeting to get a better understanding of what
she was recommending. He noted that the draft code includes a retention requirement. However, if there are no trees on a
site, there would be no retention requirement. Snohomish County's approach requires 30% coverage post development.
Developers are required to retain 30% of the canopy coverage. If replanting is required, a 30% coverage would be required at
the end of 20 years. Snohomish County's code doesn't include a definition for canopy coverage, but it appears to mean the
portion of the site covered by a vertical protection of the tree crowns as expressed at a percentage of the area of the site. That
means that, looking down on the site, the tree canopy needs to cover 30% of the site. You could have a single tree with a
large canopy that covers 30% of the site or you could have two or three trees that provide the same amount of canopy. The
coverage requirement is calculated based on the area of the circle and allows credit for retention of certain trees.
Mr. Lien said he drafted some regulations based on Snohomish County's model. He kept the same percentage requirement N
(30% for new single-family and subdivisions and 25% for multifamily), but changed from "retention" to "canopy coverage." CO)
The table on how to measure tree canopy was copied from Snohomish County's code. There would be two options for
measuring the existing tree canopy: Option 1 would require a tree survey, measuring the canopy of each tree and calculating c
the total area; and Option 2 would require an aerial estimation. Calculating the required new canopy would depend on the a
species of the trees that are replanted. A developer would need to calculate the radius of the canopy of each proposed tree at c
20 years maturity and multiply the area by the number of trees to be planted to obtain the total canopy area. s
Mr. Lien cautioned that Snohomish County's model would be difficult to administer. It is much easier to count the number
of trees than to calculate the canopy of each of the trees that are removed and replanted. The Snohomish County code offers
credits for existing trees, for example:
• Individual significant trees retained on a site shall be counted at 125% of the total actual canopy area.
• For clusters or stands of five or more trees, each tree shall be counted at 150% of the actual canopy area.
• For clusters or stands of five or more significant trees, each tree shall be counted at 200% of its actual canopy area.
• Retained trees located within no more than 20 feet of a rain garden or a bio-swale on site shall be counted at 150%
of their actual canopy area.
• Retained significant trees qualified to receive flow control credits shall be counted at 150% of their actual canopy
area.
Mr. Lien noted that the Snohomish County Model doesn't have a replacement requirement like what is proposed in the draft
Tree Code. If implemented, the replacement ratios discussed earlier in the meeting would need to be eliminated from the
code. The fee -in -lieu program could be retained for situations where the coverage requirement could not be met on site, but it
would be complicated to apply. For example, a developer could avoid paying a fee -in -lieu by planting one big -leaf maple
with a large canopy instead of multiple other tree species with smaller canopies.
Mr. Lien summarized that, if the Planning Board wants to pursue the Snohomish County model, it would take at least one
more meeting. While he drafted initial code language, he would need to review the rest of the code to identify other sections
that would be impacted.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 253
7.1.d
Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Lien to share staff s recommendation regarding the Snohomish County Model. Mr. Lien U
said he prefers the draft Tree Code for ease of implementation. The Snohomish County Model would be very complicated to p
administer and require more work on the part of developers and staff. Board Member Monroe asked if staff believes the A
Snohomish County Model would be consistent with or go beyond the UFMP goals. Mr. Lien answered that the Snohomish
County Model would be consistent with the UFMP goals, but the draft Tree Code would also be consistent. The difference is
that the Snohomish County Model would require trees to be planted as part of development even on properties that have no co
existing trees. The draft Tree Code would not. Board Member Monroe observed that implementing the Snohomish County
Model would likely result in a net gain, which goes beyond the UFMPs no -net -loss goal. Mr. Lien agreed it would result in a
net gain for properties that have no trees. c
0
Vice Chair Crank asked if the Snohomish County Model would be better from a long-term standpoint as opposed to a short-
term standpoint. Mr. Lien referred back to the example he shared earlier of a typical 4-lot subdivision with an existing
canopy coverage of about 40%. Applying the draft Tree Code, the end result would likely be a 30% canopy coverage plus a
$58,000 payment into the Tree Fund. The money in the Tree Fund must be spent on tree planting within the City of
Edmonds. He suggested that the proposed Tree Code would result in more trees being planted because of the fee -in -lieu
program, which would likely go away if the Snohomish County Model is adopted.
L
Vice Chair Crank recalled that in past conversations there appeared to be a consensus that the City's code should be in line a
with Snohomish County's code. However, doing that might result in more work for the staff. The question is, would the L
extra work be worth it. Mr. Lien responded that most of the cities he researched did not use a coverage requirement
approach. Some have a density requirement and others use a tree retention approach similar to the draft Tree Code. Some =
jurisdictions use a tree credit approach, as well. Vice Chair Crank summarized that the City of Edmonds wouldn't be the
"odd person out" if they were to implement the draft Tree Code.
a
Chair Rosen said there appears to be consensus amongst the Board that the approach outlined in the currently draft Tree Code N
is appropriate. The remainder of the Board concurred. C
Mr. Lien concluded his report by reminding the Board that the draft Tree Code update was primarily focused on retention
with development. The primary complaint the City has received over the years has been about properties being clear cut
when developed. He acknowledged that the draft Tree Code does not implement all of the UFMP goals, and more will need
to be done to implement the UFMP. Potential ideas include pursuing more incentives and education opportunities and the
creation of a heritage tree program. The draft Tree Code is intended to implement the first goal of the UFMP, which is to
develop tree regulations to retain more trees with development.
Board Member Monroe asked if it is fair to say that if the City Council wants to pursue tree regulations for already developed
private properties it will come back to the Planning Board for consideration and a recommendation. Mr. Lien answered
affirmatively.
Chair Rosen asked if there would be additional opportunities for public input after the Planning Board forwards its
recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien answered that there would be another public hearing at the City Council
level. As per the current schedule, the draft Tree Code Update would be introduced to the City Council on January 19'. A
public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 261
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT TREE CODE UPDATE TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING OPTION 1 FOR THE TREE
REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Rosen invited Board Member Robles to comment further on his earlier suggestion that the tree replacement
requirement could be based on property value. Board Member Robles said he has been pondering the citizen input and how
to distribute the impact in a more justifiable way. He suggested the discussion would be more relevant if and when the Board
considers tree replacement requirements for private properties that have already been developed. He shared an example of a
neighboring property owner who cut down several significant trees to create a view, which enabled him to sell his property
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 254
7.1.d
for a much higher value. Vice Chair Crank pointed out that the City cannot legislate behavior. Board Member Robles
agreed, but potential solutions might include incentives and education. He commented that the draft Tree Code Update is a
good first start.
CLIMATE GOALS PLANNING — STATUS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
Mr. Lien reviewed that the goal was to update the Climate Action Plan in 2020. The pandemic postponed the update, which
is now scheduled to occur in 2021. The City has hired a consultant, Environmental Science Association (ESA), to help draft
the plan. ESA has already completed the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and created the tracking tool that was previously
presented to the Planning Board. In addition, the City has consulted with Cascadia to assist with the public engagement
program. Cascadia has been helping with the Citizen Housing Commission.
Mr. Lien reported that, currently, staff is working to develop a website that is specific to the Climate Action Plan Update,
which should be live by January 21". An article on the Climate Action Plan Update will be published in the City's next
quarterly newsletter, and a virtual open house will take place in February to re -introduce the topic to the public. A
community workshop is scheduled to occur in March, and the City will also kick off an on-line survey in March. Following
the open house, workshop and survey, ESA will begin drafting the update. He said he anticipates a second workshop in the
fall, with the goal of having a Climate Action Plan Update that is ready for City Council review by the end of 2021. He will
provide regular updates as the process moves forward.
Chair Rosen commented that, as work continues on the Tree Code and Climate Action Plan, it is important to consider the d
efforts of the Housing Commission, the Tree Board, the Climate Protection Committee, the Conservation Advisory =
Committee, Architectural Design Board and the City Council. The work from all of these groups is interconnected, and they •2
all need to work together to address the City's goals. Mr. Lien said all of the groups mentioned have been identified as 0
stakeholders in the Public Engagement Plan, and staff will reach out to all of them. Tackling the issue of climate change will a
touch on all aspects of society. In addition to code changes, people will have to make personal decisions. N
ri
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
Board Member Pence noted that there has been a problem with keeping track of the term expirations of each of the Planning
Board Members, and it resulted in a situation last month where, according to the staff report, the terms of four of the eight
Planning Board Members expired at the end of 2020. The that established the Planning Board is very clear that only two
terms expire every year; but somehow, monitoring the terms ran askew. He suggested the Board get it back on track with the
original code so that two terms expire each year. He said he sent the Board Members a screen grab of a roster that was
created by Board Member Rubenkonig with some help from Ken Reidy. He invited staff to review the roster for accuracy
and share their ideas for addressing the problem. The Board could continue the discussion at the next meeting.
Chair Rosen asked the best way to address the situation. Mr. Chave responded that for the past 10 years, the current system
has tracked each of the 4-year term limits. He said he reviewed the original ordinance that identified term expirations for
each year, with new terms starting on January 1 st. At least half of the current positions track with the original ordinance, but
some got off track. He suggested that the discrepancy likely has something to do with replacing members mid-term or
moving people into expired terms. He noted that there are a variety of options to address the problem, but it will need to be
sorted out by the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney.
Board Member Cheung asked who is responsible to track term expirations. Mr. Chave explained that the mayor makes
recommendations and the City Council affirms the appointments, so the responsibility is shared. Over the past 10 years when
appointments were made, the terms and expirations were usually clearly stated.
Board Member Pence recalled that, when he was appointed to the Planning Board by Mayor Earling 1.5 years ago, nothing
was said by anyone at any point as to his term on the Board. He didn't have the presence of mind to inquire at that time. He
reviewed all of the paperwork associated with his appointment and confirmation and found nothing about the term. Member
Pence said he understands that it is up to the City Council, Mayor and City Attorney to address the problem, but he asked if
staff would provide a recommendation. Mr. Chave indicated he couldn't answer that question because he hasn't been part of
the discussions.
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 255
7.1.d
Chair Rosen summarized that Board Member Pence's original concern was getting the term expirations back on track.
However, he also voiced concerns related to communication and who is responsible for addressing the problem. If the
Board's primary concern is getting the Planning Board Member Roster straightened out so it is consistent with the original
intent of the code that established the Planning Board, he recommended the Board send a request to the Mayor asking that the
terms be clarified and standardized consistent with the code.
Vice Chair Crank thanked Board Member Pence for bringing the issue forward. She agreed with Chair Rosen that addressing
the problem will be an administrative task. Other than understanding the accurate terms, there is no need for the Planning
Board to be involved in the matter. She asked that staff update the roster as needed and present it to the Board at the next
meeting.
Board Member Cheung suggested that it would be helpful if the roster that is provided on the Planning Board page of the
City's website indicated what position each person serves in. This might make it easier to track the terms.
Chair Rosen summarized that the Board is asking the City Council to clarify the terms, identify start and end dates of each
term to bring them into compliance with the code and then document the roster.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that historically when the Board elected new officers at the end of the year, staff provided a
roster of Planning Board positions and term dates. This should become standard practice for the Board. The remainder of
the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said he has used the roster over the past 10 years, and the rosters have tracked with the
actions the City Council has taken when appointing new members. Board Member Cloutier suggested they could add
another column to the roster to verify the years of rotation.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rosen reviewed that the January 27t1i meeting agenda will include an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural N
Services Department and a presentation on the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan update focus
recommendations. The February 10' meeting agenda will include a presentation on a potential code amendment to allow c
unit lot subdivisions in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, as well as a review and discussion on code update work (EV a
Charging Charging). c
0
s
Mr. Chave announced that the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance on outdoor dining on private property, and c
the issue will come before the Planning Board in the near future. N
0
0
Board Member Pence pointed out that the Planning Board typically holds a retreat each year where they consider the Board's o
long-term activities and agenda. However, the retreat is not currently listed on the extended agenda. Chair Rosen said he
intends for the Board to meet with the City Council in February or March to discuss their priorities and how they will impact
the Board's extended agenda. Mr. Chave said that, generally, the Chair and Vice Chair meets with staff to review the
schedule and identify an appropriate date for the retreat. Typically, the retreat takes place in the spring. Chair Rosen said he
would work with Vice Chair Crank to set up a meeting with staff to discuss the retreat and report back to the Board. R
0
m
Board Member Robles pointed out that the Planning Board page on the City's website needs to be updated to reflect the a
leadership changes that were made. He asked if the student representative has been added to the list to receive Planning
Board emails. Mr. Bryan said he has been receiving Planning Board emails. Mr. Chave agreed to make sure the website is
updated. a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
r
c
a�
Chair Rosen referred to the disgrace that recently occurred at the nation's capital, as well as other state capitals. He said it t
was a horrible day for our country, and we are better than the violence, sedition and insurrection that took place. We cannot
tolerate this type of behavior, and they must put an end to it. They must also put an end to the racism that was clearly on Q
display on that day. Monday is Martin Luther King Day, and he encouraged each of the Board Members to work on creating
a community that is free of hatred, injustice and poverty.
m
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 256
7.1.d
Chair Rosen emphasized that, from his count, there are 17 boards, commissions and committees, adding up to 144
community members who volunteer to serve. He recognized that they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City
Council, and their job is to provide them good information so they can make good decisions. The value of the volunteer
groups is incredible. The volunteer force is the secret sauce that is the engine of a good community. On the Planning Board,
the hourly rates if the City were paying for their service would run to at least $500 an hour. It would seem the City should
create an environment where they recruit and retain the best possible talent and that they feel appreciated. We failed recently
and we can do better.
Chair Rosen thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for her incredible service. She was passionate and showed up and will be
missed.
Chair Rosen commented that being part of a community means showing up and participating, just like the individuals did
tonight regarding the Tree Code. He encouraged members of the public to show up and have an opinion at public workshops
and hearings, to serve on the boards, commissions and committees, and to run for office. It works better when the load is
shared.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Bryan announced that January 27t' will be his last meeting as student representative to the Edmonds Planning Board. He L
said that while representing the youth of Edmonds on the Planning Board over nearly the past 2 years has provided him with
valuable professional experience and the satisfaction of community involvement, it has become clear that he no longer =
intends to pursue a career in urban development. Consequently, he wishes to devote his time to activities that align more •2
closely with his interests. Moreover, he felt it would be unfair for him to maintain the position when there are undoubtedly 3
students in the community who could engage more meaningfully with the Planning Board with respect to their own a
professional aspirations. He thanked all Board Members and City staff for the experience and wished the Board and City N
success in the future. CO)
Board Member Robles commented that Mr. Bryan did a great job as student representative. He served his community and
was as good if not better than any student representative. He thanked him for his service, and invited him to rely on Board
Members for recommendations in the future.
Board Member Monroe welcomed Board Member Pence as a Planning Board Member rather than the alternate. He said he
would miss Board Member Rubenkonig, who had passion and a breadth of knowledge that lined up will with the Board's
goals. He complimented Chair Rosen for a well -run meeting. Lastly, he said he has been impressed by Mr. Bryan's
professionalism as he shared his viewpoints on a host of issues.
Board Member Cheung also thanked Mr. Bryan and said he was the best student representatives the Board has had. He was
sorry to see him leave the Board. He encouraged him to find other opportunities where he could share his skills with the
community. He said he was surprised to learn that Board Member Rubenkonig was leaving the Board, especially on such sad
terms after serving the community for a number of years. She has been a great voice on the Board. He said he is looking
forward to having Chair Rosen and Vice Chair Crank lead the group.
Vice Chair Crank also thanked Mr. Bryan for his service on the Board. She agreed with Chair Rosen's comments. As
someone who works with non-profit organizations, she understands that volunteers are the lifeblood. They need to treat all
volunteers with the respect they deserve. She was not happy to be the person that had to tell Board Member Rubenkonig that
her time was over. It was a surprise for all of the Board Members. She expressed her hope that they can learn to do better in
how they serve one another.
Vice Chair Crank echoed Chair Rosen's comments about what has been happening in our country. It is not the way she
wants the country to go into 2021, but she anticipates it may get worse before it gets better. They also need to look locally,
and treat each other well. She received two very disturbing images on social media during the meeting. It makes her sad that
there is bad behavior in Edmonds. They must remember that bad behavior is everywhere and Edmonds is not exempt. They
need to call it out and address it as they see it. She hopes the community can get better from the inside out. She also
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 1 I
Packet Pg. 257
7.1.d
reminded them that Monday is Martin Luther King Day, which is typically a day of service. Obviously, the pandemic limits
the amount of physical service they can do. She wrote a letter to My Edmonds News, providing some great suggestions for
things that can be done while in your home, either by yourself or with family members, to challenge the equality and equity
piece they are trying to all do together.
Board Member Pence agreed with the comments made by his fellow members. However, he expanded on the comments
made by Vice Chair Crank about the problems in Edmonds and the need for much more vigorous conversation. The
community needs to be talking about the issues amongst themselves on something more substantive than the comments read
under My Edmonds News articles. He doesn't have an easy proposal for accomplishing that, but they need to work at
building the civic energy of the City more. This can be done by people talking amongst themselves using the technologies
that are available since they cannot meet together.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
N
CO)
T-
Planning Board Minutes
January 13, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 258
7.1.e
From: Bill Phioos
To: Lien. Kernen
Subject: Fw: Proposed Tree Code
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 6:43:32 PM
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com>
To: citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Edmonds City Council <council@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020, 06:28:36 PM PDT
Subject: Proposed Tree Code
Greetings Planning Board members;
A typical Tree Code has three main requirements :.
1.) Requires a percentage of significant trees to be saved when new development is done on
unimproved parcels.
2.) Requires a limit on the number of significant trees that an existing developed property owner can cut
down per year.
3.) Requires replacement tree planting for any significant tree lost for any reason, anywhere at any time.
The bigger the tree, the more replacement trees required to be planted.
While looking at the proposed Tree Code submitted by staff, I clearly see the first requirement addressed
on page 6 section C. 1. 1 would encourage the City to make substantial penalties for developers who
want to opt out of requirements by paying a fee into the tree fund ( section C. 4.) Otherwise developers
will just opt out of requirements by paying fees that are insignificant in cost to them.
As for the second requirement , i don't see it addressed anywhere in the proposed Tree Code. This
needs to be addressed in any proposed tree code. What i see happening is people moving here and
buying an existing home where the property has a large number of significant conifers and the new
owners immediately clear cut all, or most, of the trees on their new property. This practice needs to be
curtailed by including restrictions in the number of trees a person can cut down per year. A typical
number is 3 significant trees may be cut per year for a 10,000 square foot lot and 6 trees per year on a
20,000 square foot lot.
As for the third requirement; i would encourage the City to require multiple replacement trees be planted
for each significant tree lost depending on the size of the tree cut. We need to realize that a sapling
replacement tree won't really be a replacement tree until decades later. An example is the loss of many
large trees due to the building of the light rail transit system through Shoreline. There they required three
replacement trees for each significant conifer lost.
Another problem for Edmonds is that our parks and public land is pretty "treed out", that is there is no
room to plant replacement trees. If you build a large house on a lot and you take out, say, 6 significant
conifers there most likely won't be room to plant replacement trees on that lot that will eventually become
quite large. A solution to this problem is the City entering into a partnership with local tree preservation
groups such as the " Mountain To Sound " tree preserve or the Million Tree program in Snohomish
County. Planting our replacement trees in these off site locations will give us the same environmental
benefits in the long run.
One last point, for now; I would encourage the City to not charge large fees to private home owners who
are applying for a permit to cut trees on their lots in excess of the code restrictions. This will really anger
our citizens. There should be no fee involved in order to get better compliance and cooperation.
The key to this whole Code should be replacement trees. We recognize that we will continue to lose
Packet Pg. 259
7.1.e
significant trees due to development. We must be forward looking by requiring multiple "of kind"
replacement trees for every significant tree lost anywhere, at any time and for any reason.
Thank you for your time and consideration;
Bill Phipps
Edmonds resident.
Packet Pg. 260
7.1.e
From: ericth uesen (Wrontier. corn
To: Lien. Kernen; Council; Citizens Planning Board
Subject: Tree code /email submittal / notification to property owners / Zoom meetings
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 5:34:58 PM
From: Eric Thuesen <ericthuesen@frontier.com>
To: citizens-planning@edmonndswa.gov.
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 5:01 PM PDT
Subject Proposed Tree code
Good Afternoon Planning Board members;
1).Normal due time for submittal of written and oral comments is prior to the start of the of a meeting. I
spoke to Kernen today at 3:30 and was advised cutoff date was 3;OOpm.
I am sending this email prior to the 7pm meeting in hopes that it will be submitted as a comment. There
has been only one comment to date from Bill Philipps. Few citizens
are aware of the rules and are not getting a chance to express their thoughts.
2).Landowners - It is my understanding the City was to send out meeting notifications to landowners.. I
am a landowner and did not received an email. Only became aware
of the meeting when I called the Development Services Department and was told there was a meeting.
3).Zoom meetings. A large portion of Edmonds residents are not tech knowledgeable. Because of this
they are locked out of participating in virtual meetings. Please review the address code required to enter
the virtual meeting.
Staff needs to recognizes that citizens have right to have access and notification of the decisions our
Board members and Council are making.
Regards;
Eric Thuesen
Packet Pg. 261
7.1.e
From: Chave, Rob
To: Lien. Kernen
Subject: Fwd: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:22:11 AM
Attachments: image.ona
Rob Chave
Planning Manager, City of Edmonds
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anna Forslund West <forslund.anna@gmail.com>
Date: November 11, 2020 at 3:58:30 PM PST
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "Hope, Shane"
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>, "Chave, Rob" <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Revised Tree Code - Adding verbiage regarding water views
Hello Planning Board + City Council,
I'd like to follow up on the email I sent over on Oct 13th to City Council, in
regard to including a section in the revised tree code for protecting water
views. I see this is not included in the draft version, as of yet.
The very definition of our city is described as: "facing the Puget sound".
The Puget Sound is a vital part of our identity. In many cases it is the
reason people buy homes here and spend time in our restaurants, bars,
farmer's market + shops vs. spending their dollars in other cities. While we
are spending time revising tree codes that affect private property, and drill
down to the detail (ex: what is defined as an "insignificant tree", size tree
that can be cut, penalties, etc), I do believe we need to add, protecting
water views, to this code. At the very least, a section on hedge height
guidelines/ when vegetation is used as a fence/privacy row and negatively
impacts another resident's water view.
Specifically I'd like to suggest this be woven into the INTENT + PURPOSE
Section. Regardless if you think the tree is the view or the water is the
view, trees have the potential to block water views; and both are important
to our identity as Edmonds residents. We would be remiss to ignore
this.
While the city has not chosen to protect water views in written code over
the past few decades, I do know the water view is of importance, the city
tells me so with increased taxes for private property that have water views.
Taxes which in turn, benefit our community. Our town's logo "It's an
Edmonds Kind of Day" is literally a picture of a ferry, on the water.
Packet Pg. 262
7.1.e
}} P -
Ids an low land of days
How often are our city departments (police, city council, etc) called upon to
deal with a hedge height or blocked view situation? A more concrete
guideline would help take the pressure off these departments.
While the draft version shows we are detailing out the tree code
substantially (and specifically only to trees), if the city chooses to not
include a section on how trees also affect water views on private property,
I feel shows a disconnect. We have max height guidelines for buildings
and fences, but when vegetation is used as a "fence" the sky's the limit —
quite literally.
I suggest we use the Tree Board's "Right Tree in The Right Place"
motto to help write code which will help protect our trees and our water
views, which I think we can all agree, are both vital to our community.
Thank you for your consideration!
Anna West
Packet Pg. 263
7.1.e
From:
Chave, Rob
To:
Lien. Kernen
Subject:
Fwd: Revised Tree Code
Date:
Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:19:22 AM
Rob Chave
Planning Manager, City of Edmonds
Begin forwarded message:
From: cdfarmen@comcast.net
Date: November 11, 2020 at 7:35:19 PM PST
To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Revised Tree Code
Dear Board Members,
An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward
controlling the loss of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be
helpful in reducing the loss of significant trees, especially in large wooded
areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern.
I would like to see a provision in the tree code for new construction on
wooded lots that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain
as many trees as possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10,
especially items "C and D" where it talks about development practices that
work to avoid the removal or destruction of trees.
Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed
property. The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of
20% of the existing trees, the same as required for new construction sites.
Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the
city will be relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a
solution, versus tree retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers,
are not capable of absorbing even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared
to significant trees.
The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as
to where those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything
in the revised code that addresses that issue. And, who would decide
where to plant the replacement trees and who would be responsible for
planting them? Is the city going to be liable for planting on some non -
owned property?
Packet Pg. 264
7.1.e
One of the code's alternatives to tree removal is paying for the removal of
significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those
"fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I
recommend the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden
program. Using those dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative
that I could accept.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Respectively submitted,
Duane Farmen
Seaview area homeowner
Packet Pg. 265
7.1.e
From:
Bill Phio)s
To:
citizens- plan ninoboard (c edmondswa.aov
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Proposed Tree Code
Date:
Wednesday, November 11, 2020 9:30:06 PM
Greetings Planning Board;
I enjoyed sitting in on your meeting on Oct. 28. It was a good discussion about the tree code.
But first, the subject of public input came up. I would recommend sending a notice to My Edmonds News
whenever you are having a public hearing. They will publish it and people read it.
i would also consider letters to you , the Planning board , as public input. My letter to you, on the tree
code, dated Oct. 14, 2020 wasn't acknowledged by a single one of you. But, I guess you must be
flooded with letters and public comments...
Concerning the tree code, it was good to hear your understanding of the issues around "replacement
trees"; the tree saplings planted to replace the large conifers lost to development.
The next question is where are we going to plant those replacement trees ?! We're talking about
significant areas of open spaces, where it's appropriate to plant large conifers.
I do think you missed one key element of tree codes. Private property owners on already developed land
should be curtailed from removing excessive numbers of trees from their property.. Most cities restrict
tree removal to a certain number of trees per period of time; such as 3 significant trees per year. See the
Exemptions section of the draft tree code, section d).
Previously developed parcels should not be exempt from the tree code.
Should there also be a minimum percentage of tree canopy saved on developed land, just as there will
be for developers ?
What we see is new owners of houses moving in and immediately cutting down all or most of their big
trees, that have been maintained for decades by previous owners of the property.. We could try to slow
that process down, to see if the new owners might end up liking a few trees around them ?!
I have other ideas and concerns, but that is enough for now. Feel free to contact me.
I'm looking forward to attending your next meeting and Mr. Liens' excellent presentation of the proposed
tree code and your insightful and lively discussion about the future of our forest canopy.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bill Phipps
Edmonds resident
Packet Pg. 266
7.1.e
From:
Bill Phim)
To:
Citizens Planning Board
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Tree Code
Date:
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:07:59 AM
Greetings Planning Board ;
And Mr. Lien !....I would like all my comments to the Planning Board to be considered as comments to
you as well. For the record, thank you.
You , the Planning Board, were doing so well at the first meeting; you were asking real questions to the
real issues of replacement trees. You realized the math. If you take down 70% of the trees, for new
development, how are you going to maintain the stated goals of the UFMP; no net loss of forest canopy
?. You were talking about the necessity of multiple replacement trees for each big one cut down.
Then at the last meeting you dropped the ball. Or were you punting ? You all of a sudden dropped
replacement trees completely. Did you realize the difficulties at hand ? Did you want to do deal with it at
all.? How was that decided? A couple nods of the head ? Whose nods ? Do you take votes?
No matter.
It's not too late, Buckle up and dig down and deal with this. Back up and look at the simple math. All of
you.
If we say we want to maintain a forest canopy of 30%; how are we going to do that without replacement
trees planted for every tree that is lost to development.?
If we say we want to maintain our forest canopy with "no net loss"; how are we going to do that without
replacement trees planted for trees lost when private property owners build mother-in-law studios on
their lots?
The math has to add up. A replacement tree has to be added for every one that is lost..
How can we create incentives for people to plant or retain trees? How about storm water bill discounts?
We can deal with the question of : where are we going to plant those future big trees. One idea is
entering into a partnership with a local Tree Bank/Preserve. We will fund local tree planting with the funds
from our Tree Fund.
You can do this .
We can do this.
Let's create a meaningful and sustainable Tree Code.
Thank you for taking your responsibilities seriously;
Bill Phipps
Packet Pg. 267
7.1.e
a
Packet Pg. 268
7.1.e
From: Barbara Chase
To: Lien, Kernen
Subject: Thoughts on other entities and trees
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:30:46 PM
Kernen,
Thanks for the work you have done. I know it must take a lot of patience.
As they talked about where to put trees I thought about where in the parks there is room. I
saw on one map that various parks have some (not a lot) space for trees. Perhaps Rich
Lindsay can tell you where. The Tree Board has done planting in Yost Park for one example.
The other area is the schools. I promoted planting a small plot near the large school sign at
Edmonds Elementary. It had lots of weeds and one unhealthy apple tree which was removed.
The area was replanted with a vine maple and other native shrubs and groundcovers.
It took a lot to work with the school district, but there are many spots on school grounds which
could be planted with trees.
Tomorrow I will be meeting with David Jackon of the Snohomish Conservation 'District. That
is a state agency (as you no doubt know) which has a lot of experience with working with
schools. When I find out more I will let you know about it.
It is usually beneficial to work with various groups so they can learn about each other. The
teacher and principal at Edmonds Elementary have been very supportive. If it can be used
with their curriculum all the better.
Again, thank you. I will be sure to attend the December Public hearing.
Barbara Chase
Packet Pg. 269
7.1.e
From:
Martin, Michelle
To:
michelle.martin(dedmondwa.aov; cdfarmen(ocomcast.net
Cc:
Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen
Subject:
FW: Planning board coments
Date:
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:39:00 PM
Greetings Duane Farmen,
Your comments have been received and distributed to the board. If you should have future
comments specifically related to the Tree Code, please forward those directly to Kernen Lein
Thank you,
11) 1,0
x J
r•
'4icheCCe L. Martin
Development Services Department- Planning Admin.
Planning webooael121 5th Avenue North 1 Edmonds, WA 98020
2: 425-771-0222 directl F:425-771-0221 Imichelle.martin(C)edmondswa.gov
NOTICE: Email & attachments subject to Public Records Act (RCW 42.56)
CITY HALL IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Services will continue to be provided by email and phone.
Please visit www.edmondswa.gov for up-to-date information
For inspections: httgs://inspection.mvbuildinooermit.com/
For planning permit inquiries please email: olanningpermits(cDedmondswa.goov
For all other permit inquiries please email: devserv.admin(o)edmondswa.gov
From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 3:22 PM
To: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Planning board coments
Dear Board Members,
An updated enforceable tree code is a very important step toward controlling the loss
of significant trees. Hopefully, the revised code will be helpful in reducing the loss of
significant trees, especially in large wooded areas where "clear -cutting" is a concern.
I would recommend a provision in the tree code for new construction on wooded lots
that would allow for " building footprint" adjustments to retain as many trees as
possible. This would fit with the goals of 23.10, especially items T and D" where it
talks about development practices that work to avoid the removal or destruction of
trees.
The exemptions for single family residences needs a change. If a single family home
Packet Pg. 270
7.1.e
site has 8 or more trees per 10,000 sq ft of lot space it should not qualify for an
exemption.
A case in point. Behind my home is a 15,000 square foot lot with 35 significant
trees. The owner is building a 3,900 sq ft home with a 785 sq ft ADU. All but 7 trees
are being removed. These are all significant trees, some nearly 150 ft tall. Why
should this property be exempted?
Also, I recommend limits be placed on tree cutting on existing developed property.
The property owner should be required to retain a minimum of 20% of the existing
trees, the same as required for new construction sites.
Being somewhat of an amateur environmentalist, I am concerned that the city will be
relying too heavily on the use of "tree replacement" as a solution, versus tree
retention. Replacement trees, even in large numbers, are not capable of absorbing
even a fraction of carbon dioxide compared to significant trees.
The code regarding a "cutting and replacement" plan needs clarification as to where
those sapling trees are going to be planted? I don't see anything in the revised code
that addresses that issue. And, who would decide where to plant the replacement
trees and who would be responsible for planting them? Is the city going to be liable
for planting on some non -owned property?
Another alternative to tree removal, which I do not subscribe to, is paying for the
removal of significant viable trees. The code does not seem to address how those
"fee -in -lieu" will be used. If that fee -in -lieu is used in a particular case, I recommend
the fees collected should go towards the city's rain garden program. Using those
dollars for planting rain gardens is an alternative that I could accept.
Respectively submitted,
Duane Farmen
Seaview area homeowner
Packet Pg. 271
7.1.e
From:
Martin, Michelle
To:
Planning Work Group
Subject:
FW: Trees and Water Views
Date:
Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:22:10 PM
Kernen, would you like this one? O
-Michelle
From: Ryan Boyd <rjeremyboyd@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:19 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Trees and Water Views
Hello,
I recently purchased a home off Walnut street and am concerned about tree growth blocking
my views. In our case, our view was paramount to our decision to not only purchase our
home, but move to Edmonds in the first place.
I naively assumed there were rules in place to prevent your existing view becoming blocked
by the growth of trees. This is very troublesome to me and my family and I believe the rules
should be modified in order to prevent this from happening.
We are so happy to have joined the Edmonds community and despite the covid concerns we
have been welcomed warmly. I hope there isn't a case down the line that we come to regret
our decision because there weren't responsible codes in place that negatively impact the value
of the property we purchased.
Thank you!
Ryan Boyd
Packet Pg. 272
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.XXX
Intent and Purpose
23.10.XXX
Administration Authority
23.10.XXX
Definitions
23.10.XXX
Permits
23.10.XXX
Exemptions
23.10.XXX
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.XXX
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.XXX
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.XXX
Tree Replacement
23.10.XXX
Bonding
23.10.XXX
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.XXX
Liability
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund
23.10.XXX Intent and Purpose
RECEIVED
NOV 2 0 2020
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
The purpose of purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the
protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance, and use of significant trees. The intent of
this chapter is to:
A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving
the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or
destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
C. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
D. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
E. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still
allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner.
F. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural
topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g.,
disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 1 of 13
Packet Pg. 273
7.1.e
G. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
H. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
23.10.XXX Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.XXX Definitions (Definitions currently incomplete. Will review definitions to make sure all
terms are defined.)
A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every inch of trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet from grade or otherwise determined
by a qualified professional (example: one (1) foot radius per one (1) inch DBH).
C. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
D. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) -The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
E. Dripline -The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
F. Hazard tree -A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by
recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
G. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
H. Non -significant Tree (i.e. alder) - P,c o 1(? .11 r c (iy
I. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
J. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
2. Tree Risk Assessor Certification (TRACE) as established by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of ISA
(or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 2 of 13
Packet Pg. 274
7.1.e
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
K. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree [protection and
replacement] plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction.
L. Significant Tree —A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground.
M. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city
tree protection professional (City Arborist, qualified professional, someone?).
N. Tree Fund - XXX
O. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location_ _ �74,1 0U 6 ,- =-, :*e , ra c?:,r
23.10.XXX Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any protected, non -protected or
significant tree except as provided by this chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.XXX will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal
permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.XXX Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
B. Removal of trees in association with right-of-way and easements. Tree removal by a public agency
or a franchised utility within a public right-of-way or upon an easement, for the purpose of installing
and/or maintaining water, storm, sewer, power, gas or communication lines, or motorized or non -
motorized streets or paths. Notification to the City by the public agency or franchised utility is
required prior to tree maintenance or removal within City -owned rights -of -way.
C. Routine maintenance of trees necessary to maintain the health of cultivated plants, to contain
noxious weeds, or to remedy a potential fire or health hazard, or threat to public safety.
D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which
is capable of being divided into not more one additional lot, except for:
1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer, excepting erosion
hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 275
7.1.e
E. Trees that do not meet the above exemptions maybe removed with supporting documentation for
the removal of:
1. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been done to
rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
3. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8
23.10.XXX Tree Removal Prohibited
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.XXX
Hazard Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for ECDC 23.10.XXX.E, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolitions: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required
to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement
may be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all natural growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.XXX Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
City requires approval of a tree retention plan in conjunction with the following applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.XXX.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before
removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish
tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate
preservation of viable trees.
B. Tree Plan Retention Plan
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 4 of 13
Packet Pg. 276
7.1.e
An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that
complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain
components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense.
2. Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following
information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
corresponding tags on trees); the inventory must also include significant trees on
adjacent property with driplines extending over the subject property line;
Size (DBH);
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
plat or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements
cannot be established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in
subsection (3)(a) of this section;
Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property (surveyed locations may be
required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out;
vii. Proposed locations of any supplemental trees and any required trees replacement trees
as outlined in ECDC 23.10.XXX.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 5 of 13
Packet Pg. 277
7.1.e
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Describe the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in
a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Plats and Subdivisions
a. Phase Review
If during the short plat or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, was not able to be
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses trees only
affected by the known improvements at the time of application. Tree removal shall be
limited to those affected areas.
ii. A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as
more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to
all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for project
development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Project Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short plat, or subdivision
30% of all significant trees in the developable
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short plat,
25% of all significant trees in the developable
or unit lot subdivision
site
Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.XXX Hazard Trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area hazard tree.
The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40— 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
4. If the required retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant shall pay $XX into the
tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: In identifying significant trees to be retained trees should
be retained in the following priority order of priority:
1. Priority One: .,tie
a. Specimen trees;
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 6 of 13
N
CD
N
O
W
ca
V)
c
a>
E
E
0
U
U
0
a
c
m
c
a�
U
cU
Q
m
E
U
c�
w
Q
Packet Pg. 278
7.1.e
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches in dbh.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space,
wetlands or creek buffers.
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to
utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may
be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting
the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity.
F. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection with clearing limit fencing of any critical areas and critical area
buffers;
3. Trees to be removed and retained; and
4. Property lines
23.10.XXX Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following
standards:
A. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant
shall:
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 279
7.1.e
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Fences shall be constructed of chain link and be at least six (6)
feet high, unless other type of fencing is authorized by the Director.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree
fence. Said sign must be approved by the d and shall state at a minimum "Tree and Soil
Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement
to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the Director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the Director authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
C. Grade.
The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the Director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The Director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the Director. The Director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 8 of 13
Packet Pg. 280
7.1.e
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The Director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the Director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation.
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
D. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
Additional Requirements. The Director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.XXX Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.XXX.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced by one new tree in accordance
with subsection ECDC 23.10.XXX.0 of this section. Trees that are removed which are classified as
landmark shall be replaced by three new trees in accordance with subsection RZC 21.72.080.0 of this
section. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor.
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
B. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
C. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. Two -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
D. Tree Replacement Fee-in-leu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval
by the director after 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 off -site location.
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 9 of 13
Packet Pg. 281
7.1.e
1. The amount of the fee shall be $XX times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree
replacement requirements of this section will be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
23.10.XXX Bonding
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration covering trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required
Ooj�S landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure
adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance
bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in subsection B.
A
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
tSO� buffers.
�Q,Y� Q tA of & V�I Y� 6 �� i n �c� rh � r� d s�. � y) C w VI ON 3 , i d,r x x cr> S
23.10.XXX Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any other section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
C. Penalties:
Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
penalty.
Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction �os�tsrealr�izedy the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
�, �or Ih ' Gttvnicj�lly ��� r� cA
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 282
7.1.e
c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid in o tha-dty-tr-e -
vv KC.-V d e
fed. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be '
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar t Nis ���
growing conditions. 1
vvtno a� �
e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued 5 , t- SE rcec�cx
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance Wi
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and tcaee-
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in ec�SSc
the absence of the violation(s).
r�
f. If illegal tree toy ' as occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified e i-r—
arborist develop an lement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and required tree rep ttlnc rlo+ M
3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the CAae-S
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the dates) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require i
necessary corrective action within a specific time. �&Y-e-
64
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as4Ygi�
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. tZVVY 1
23.10.XXX Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.XXX shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shali not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.XXX and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 283
7.1.e
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced up to 20 percent in all residential zones
provided that:
a. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet;
The required front setback shall not be reduced by more than five (5) feet. There may be an
additional five (5) feet of reduction beyond the allowance provided for covered entry
porches.
2. Lot size. Lot sizes may be reduced ("clustering") to allow dwelling units to be shifted to the most
suitable locations so long as the overall density of the project complies with zoning ordinance.
3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that overall
coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allow by the zone.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city policies and codes.
3.95 Tree Fund
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund."
3.95.020 Funding Sources
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources:
A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC.
B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC.
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes;
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 284
7.1.e
D. Sale of seedlings by the City; and
E. Other monies allocated by the City Council
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the tree fund maybe used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the
city:
1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds;
2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional;
3. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
4. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day;
5. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
B. Monies from the tree fund may be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, but may not be used to purchase trees required for replacement
under the conditions of a violation. Further, they may not be used in any manner that will profit the
grantee.
P m a,Y� f-e-r)a,nce- w,6 r-V- v--.3
W eU k h o- w -Vv1 e CCIR I iS Some es 01P =
rriUk.i V) �a i v1 i Y1.S a n d r,-- CLc� v`cl
Gtr�e� �J a
y
n d +-V) is 16,06 N
00
OP
cn r b h r ix.b - �-o r S a
a CC> YYYt pie Gun a, d7�
+his PUv)6 ��� a�+��y be tcSe� E
CC �^ y p l.c, G�vtn CL� �'cw�c--c� �- �� °�`� t� �,✓�� iri
v-)C-.vv
c i m eCA es(t
is Y) O �— c - v\,
m
E
t
Planning Board 10.08.20 Draft Page 13 of 13
a
Packet Pg. 285
7.1.e
c
m
E
c
m
E
Q
m
O
t�
c
O
A
7
Cn
C
N
C
O
R
a1
N
d
N
LL
r
Y
L
IM
'L
ci
a
r
N
Co
N
r
O
Q
Packet Pg. 286
7.1.e
From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:18 PM
To: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane
Cc: Planning; Nelson, Michael; Council
Subject: Draft Tree Code
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
I have attempted to review the draft Tree Code to prepare "informed" comments
for tomorrow's public hearing at the Planning Board, but find I can't make
informed comments without seeing an accompanying SEPA review.
Where is the draft SEPA environmental impact document that will help the
public and the decision makers understand the likely significant impacts of
the proposed code both on the people of Edmonds as well as our environment if
the draft code doesn't actually result in "no net loss of tree canopy" as
called for in the Urban Forest Management Plan?
The public and our decision makers (the Council) need to see the analyses on
how different aspects of the proposed tree code will affect existing and
future tree canopy in Edmonds, the environmental services of large trees
(i.e., carbon removal), the wildlife in our City, as well as the impacts it
will have on residents and future development in our City.
This is a huge contentious issue in our City with property rights advocates,
people wanting views, people wanting safety from falling trees, people
wanting to preserve what trees are left in Edmonds, and people wanting to
protect the 'green' environment of Edmonds. All of this necessitates a
environmental impact review that is made available to the public concurrent
with the draft tree code.
Without an accompanying SEPA document, how will anyone know what the effects
of each of the exceptions in the draft code will have on retaining the
existing tree canopy, let alone increasing it as some are calling for.
Packet Pg. 287
7.1.e
From:
Johnson, Kristiana
To:
Hope, Shane
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Fwd: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance
Date:
Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:54:46 PM
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Judge, Maureen" <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Date: December 8, 2020 at 2:32:59 PM PST
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizen Comment on Tree Ordinance
Good Afternoon,
An Edmonds residence asked me to pass along this message to you regarding the tree
ordinance:
Patrick Sampson-Babineau and his partner Robley King would like you to consider
taking a common sense approach to the tree ordinance. They are concerned about
safety and that you incorporate safety exemptions in your decision making. The
exemptions they are most concerned about are trees falling on homes, damaging
sewer lines, and damaging roofs.
They can be reached at 206-372-0013.
Thank you!
Maureen
Packet Pg. 288
7.1.e
From:
Bill Phim)
To:
Citizens Planning Board
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
tree code public comment
Date:
Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:25:34 PM
Hello Planning Board members and Mr.Lien;
Please enter the following comments, on the Tree Code, into public record and as comments to Mr. Lien
Thank you.
I really enjoyed your last meeting on November 18, 2020. You really dug into the issues surrounding the
updated tree code. I appreciate your efforts. I liked the way you danced around the issues and each
other !
We now realize that the proposed code, as written, only addresses 5% of the private land in Edmonds.
That is the amount of un-developed land that remains.. It does not address the 95% of private land in
Edmonds that is already developed.
Is it true that Edmonds is 95% "built out".? Thus, there is only 5% of private land left that might be
developed. That's the land this code addresses, so far.
Some of us realize that this is not enough. In the Urban Forest Management Plan it was stressed that
83% of our forest canopy is on private land. It was a goal of the UFMP to update our codes in order to
control deforestation on that 83% of land in Edmonds. The code, as written, doesn't do enough to
address deforestation on private land. Not when you remember phrases like "no net loss".
So, we can look at "alike" nearby cities and see what they have done:
In Shoreline, a property owner can take out three significant trees in a three year period.
In Kirkland, a property owner can take out two significant trees at a time and may not take out the
last two
trees on the lot.
It goes on and on with permits vs notifications, fees, plans, penalties, It's complicated.
But it can be done. Most of our neighboring cities are already doing it.
You know, these are not draconian measures we're talking about. On my street in the last month, 6
significant conifers were cut down; on two different properties. Even under a strong tree code, both of
these events would have been permissible. But neither of those folks are replanting conifer saplings.!
If you're scared of the "property righters", at least institute a notification system; whereas property owners
notify the City of tree cuttings on their property. Then the City knows how many trees are being lost and
how many replacement trees to plant in our Tree Bank from proceeds from our Tree Fund. The city of
Kirkland uses such a system to track their forest canopy.
I've always thought the key to a good tree code is replacement trees. We have to realize that we are
losing tree canopy due to development and "property rights". We must commit to replacing lost trees with
new trees. We must be forward looking and play "the long game". The trees we plant today will make a
huge difference to our grandchildren and their grandchildrens' quality of life.
We must plant multiple "of kind" replacement saplings for every tree cut down. Any significant tree cut
down anyplace, any time, for any reason; must have replacement trees planted.
Once again, thank you for allowing me to sit in on your "tree code" meetings. I appreciated your nuanced
discussions about tree replacement requirements, penalties, fees -in -lieu -of, permits, and especially
incentives.
Packet Pg. 289
7.1.e
We must encourage tree plantings and incentives for property owners to retain their trees. Tree credits,
tax breaks, storm water bill discounts, tree vouchers; all are good ideas.
I hope you choose to broaden the scope of the draft tree code.
I hope you look at regulating tree removal on the already developed properties in Edmonds. This is
where our urban forest canopy is.
Let's create a meaningful tree code that we can all live with and be proud of.
Thank you for your time and consideration;
Bill Phipps
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 290
7.1.e
From: K Keefe
To: Lien. Kernen
Subject: Public Comment on 12/9 Planning Board Meeting
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:07:48 AM
Good morning Kernen,
I would like to submit public comment for tonight's Planning Board Meeting in regard to the
draft tree code. If I submit my comments here, will it be read during the "public comment"
period of the meeting? I am unable to attend the meeting via zoom this evening, but would like
to ensure that my comments are seen or heard by the board.
Please let me know if there is a different avenue I need to take to make sure that I have
properly submitted my comments, which I have included below.
Many thanks,
Killy Keefe
Please consider this my public comment on the draft tree code for
tonight's Planning Board meeting.
I support the draft tree code and would encourage it to be passed
as soon as possible. However, I wish it would include MORE
restrictions pertaining to trees on private property.
If a majority of Edmonds tree canopy exists on private property,
wouldn't it make sense to do more to protect those trees? I have
12 significant trees on my property and I would support
protections to keep those trees here, even if it was what some
would consider "an over step of the government telling me what I
can or cannot do on my property." Trees like mine are good for
the entire community, and are a community asset, even if they are
on my personal property.
Please consider passing the tree code now and continue to strive
toward further protections for trees in Edmonds on private
property in the near future.
Killy Keefe
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 291
7.1.e
Killy
wheekawheek(&gmail.com
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi
Hendrix
"Dawn is breaking everywhere. Light a candle, curse the glare." Touch of Grey, The Grateful
Dead.
"She knew how animals would act, she understood what animals
thought, but you could never be sure about people."
From "The Long Winter" by Laura Ingalls Wilder
What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would
die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the
beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
N Chief Seattle
Packet Pg. 292
7.1.e
From: Donna Murohv
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien. Kernen; citizens-climate (abedmonds.wa; Johnson. Laura; Buckshnis. Diane;
bebopbi I I(dya hoo. com
Subject: Tree Code discussion public comment
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:37:50 PM
Dear Planning Board Members and Mr. Lien,
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about the current proposed Tree Code. I appreciate the time and
dedication that Mr. Lein has given to researching other codes, writing and presenting the current Tree Code draft.
I would like to propose the following additional proponents to the current draft:
1. Limit the amount of significant trees, per year, that a property owner can remove from their property, especially
paying close attention to trees that result in the continued deforestation on private land.
2. Require private property owners to notify the City Arborist of which significant trees they plan to remove and if
those trees could be better managed (through education and resources to help the homeowner).
3. If a homeowner plans on building on their property, by either adding on to an existing structure or a detached
building that the trees be marked on the site plan, and any trees labeled problematic or to be removed be evaluated
during the pre -construction meeting.
4. Offer incentives to home -private property owners to keep their significant trees or plant replacement trees.
Incentives may include reducing storm water fees, tax breaks, tree credits and such.
Let's move towards a "no net loss" of trees and protect our urban canopies which in turn, protects our watershed.
As noted by the many larger cities' tree codes, "Our urban forest is a critical infrastructure." A plan of action is as
important as knowledge and resources.
According to the "Morton Arboretum": "Trees are the only infrastructure that increases in value with age." Clearly
larger trees provide larger benefits. With Edmonds being built out from developers, I have confidence that most of
Edmonds' private land/property owners, with education, guidance and incentives, are willing to take action to
protect our limited tree canopy
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Murphy
Sent from iPhone please excuse typos/brevity
Packet Pg. 293
7.1.e
December 9, 2020
RE: Proposed Tree Ordinance
My name is Doug Wrigley and I live at 9724 214" PI 5W, Edmonds, WA. I wanted to share my comments
regarding the proposed tree ordinance. I am a 21-year employee of Select Homes, Inc. who has
constructed 70 new homes on single lots, short plats that we have developed or regular plats
throughout the City of Edmonds since 2015. 1 wanted to share with you how the process works and who
benefits from this construction activity.
1. Finding the land. The majority of the land we acquire is from sellers who are moving from a
single-family home into some form of senior housing. The proceeds from the sale of the land
we believe is used to maintain or improve the citizen's standard of living. In many cases the
homes we purchase are run down, dangerous dwellings. We have been praised by many that
our action to purchase, tear down and build a new home, eliminating the eye sore, rodent
infestation, fire hazard, etc., is very much appreciated.
Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who are paid the highest price for their land based on
developable lot yield. Neighbors near the dwelling who get a safer community as a result of a
derelict home being removed from their neighborhood.
2. We make a preliminary plat application if the land will be subdivided. Sometimes during the
processing of the plat, we can allow the Seller to remain in the house for a year or more. This is
helpful to make the process of moving into senior housing a gradual change vs. an immediate
one.
Benefited parties: Senior citizen sellers who sometimes enjoy rent free living for up to a year.
City Staff who have sufficient work to maintain gainful employment as a result of department
reviews of our projects. Local engineers, planners, architects, surveyors, soil testing
organizations, asbestos testing organizations and asbestos remediation organizations to name a
few.
Once construction is started, we pay 10.4% in WSST for everything that goes into the home.
Included in the 10.4% is the local Edmonds portion of the sale tax rate, 3.9%. On a typical new
home, we will pay approximately $66,000 in state sales tax of which approximately $25,000 is
Packet Pg. 294
7.1.e
the Edmonds local portion. In addition, there are a host of permit fees associated with
constructing a new home ... fees that can easily exceed $30,000 with most of that collected by
the City of Edmonds. Any you can't forget the big one: the millions and millions of dollars of
value that is created by developer/builder activities that gets taxed in the form of property taxes
forever more. Hospital districts make more, school districts, etc.
Benefited parties: City of Edmonds general revenue fund. State of Washington general revenue
fund. Citizens of Edmonds. Hundreds of employees throughout the area who are paid a living
wage to form and pour foundations, frame, side the home, roof the home, wire and plumb the
home, landscape the home. School districts, hospital districts, etc.
4. Once the home is completed and the home sell and closes, we are charged Excise Tax on the
sales price of the home regardless if any money was made on the project. It's a variable rate
(new 2020) but is approximately 1.8% of the selling price or $24,930. Part of this goes to the
State and part goes to the City of Edmonds.
Benefited parties: State of Washington / City of Edmonds.
While we love building in Edmonds where a lot of us live it is fairly restrictive even without the new tree
ordinance. We have height constraints on all our homes. We have to amend the soil where landscaping
will be installed. We have to retain/manage every drop of water that hits the lot through sometimes
expensive/elaborate storm water systems. If the house is over 3000 sf then a fire suppression system is
required to be installed. We have to install underground utilities to the new home where once the
utilities were overhead. Often, we need to add sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and other public
improvements. It takes a lot of money to make sure we are doing it right. It was funny but when
purchased my lot, I had no idea that I'd spend $55,000 on Edmonds lot requirements on top of what I
paid for the land and small tear down home. That's a real number and that is what it cost me for my
storm system, soil amendments, underground utilities, improving the side sewer, etc. not to mention
approximately $8,000 to install fire suppression in my home.
Finally, I am concerned about the timing of the enhanced tree ordinance. We are in the middle of a
pandemic and we need all the sales tax revenue we can get to offset some of our shuttered businesses.
We need to focus on the health and wealth of our senior citizens, those of whom might be thinking of
selling their homes and need the proceeds from the sale to help them survive financially. We need to
think of our City employees and their livelihoods. Where would many of them be if redevelopment was
squashed in the City of Edmonds as a result of an onerous tree ordinance. I would ask the Mayor and
Council to tap the breaks on the tree ordinance implementation. It needs more thought. Stakeholders
like us should be at the table helping to draft a commonsense ordinance. What you currently have will
certainly lead to fewer applications, fewer new homes being constructed and fewer tax dollars for
Edmonds. It's just to costly, especially in these unprecedented times. The ordinance needs balance and
I am sure you will hear specifics from others.
Packet Pg. 295
IL
Select Homes
INC
December 9, 2020
Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds — Planning Division
Re: Draft Tree Code Review Response
My comments and concerns are:
Page 3, 23.10.020, M
Qualified professional — How many people in our local area have 2 of these credentials that
are in business? Why not just one credential? What are they going to charge? In our
experience these fees are very high and will contribute to an increase in housing costs.
Page 3, 23.10.202, O
City's qualified professional — who is this person? Is it someone on staff or an outside
consultant? And, what criteria do they use for specimen tree.
Page 5, 23.10.060, A
Are remodels and additions exempt?
Page 5, 23.10.060, B
The cost and time to meet all the details you are listing is going to add a lot of cost to new
homes and bring down the value of older homes that are over grown. A lot of elderly people
have stayed in their homes for extended years and have not been able or afford to take care
of their yards. When they have to sell to move to assisted living or can't care for themselves,
they are going to be penalized by this ordinance as it will make their properties less desirable
Unless we exempt some types of landscaping like non-invasive species -- Laurel and Emerald
Green hedges, Holly Trees, even Rhododendrons and Fruit Trees. Many of them exceed 6
inches if they are old. These should not be considered in this ordinance.
7.1.e
16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 plivne 425.742.6044 Px 425.742.5082 www.selectlyomeswa. town
Packet Pg. 296
7.1.e
Page 6, 23.10.060, C
What happens if you cannot save 30%? Are they going to be cases where you make some lots
unbuildable? If so is the City going to buy these lots, or just deny use.
Page 7, 23.10.060, D
Alders and Cottonwood are another example of trees that die early, rot and fall.
Page 8, 23.10.070, B
1. Fencing —Why not use orange construction fencing.
2. Who is the "director", who determines when you can remove fencing?
Page 9, 23.10.070, C
3. This will make it very hard to save trees that are in the setback, close to driveways
and sidewalks, etc.
4. In very few cases can you hand dig a tunnel under a tree root system to lay pipe.
Page 10, 23.10.080
Tree Replacement— Can your replacement trees be planted on a different lot within the city
limits?
Page 11, 23.10.085
This is the worst thing in the whole proposal. No one should have to record their trees on
their title. This has the potential for a lot of misunderstanding by lenders, title companies and
future buyers. I strongly disagree with this item and hope it is removed.
Page 11, 23.10.090 Bonding
There is no way to buy a bond for this. This would have to be cash out of pocket and in some
trust account at the City. A lot of administration to manage this. Again, adding cost to the
home.
If you sell during the two years can you transfer the bond/cash payment responsibility to the
new owner?
How would it work if you planted trees on someone else's lot?
2
16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 981W plww, 425,742.6044 Ja . 425.742.5082 wrv+v.seleethomesrva. cam
Packet may. 297
7.1.e
In closing,
I'm not sure what the priority is for the City. You have been talking about affordable housing
for a long time. Easy to do with the proper zoning changes. But, this proposal will add a lot of
cost to a home. I am very concerned it will make some properties unbuildable or under-
utilized.
Edmonds has a huge shortage of lots and buildable land. We need to prioritize what is most
important. Trees are a necessary part, but they are also something that can and should be
managed. Big trees and houses don't go well together. By continuing to harvest and replant
everything seems to works better.
We hope that the City will utilize these comments and concerns as you move forward with
the tree code. We'd also like to see that lots that are currently part of subdivisions that have
been submitted be vested in the current code. These properties were purchased and the
subdivisions designed without the knowledge that they would be part of a new tree code.
The subdivision moratorium is already allowing that no new subdivisions be submitted during
this time, but those that have already been submitted should be vested in the existing code.
Lastly, while I am a business owner I am also a resident of Edmonds. 1 want the best for our
community and feel we can find a more balanced way of managing our trees.
Sincerely,
Randy Clark
President
Select Homes, Inc.
3
16531 13th Avenue West, Suite A107, Lynnwood, Washington 98037 pb, w 425.742,6044 fay. 425.742,5082 iviviv.selecthomesiva.com
Packet Pg. 298
7.1.e
December 9, 2020
RE: Proposed Tree Code Update
To Whom It May Concern,
I am an Edmonds resident and an employee of Select Homes, Inc. We have been building in
Snohomish County for thirty years and in Edmonds over the last decade.
I have worked with nine cities in Snohomish and King counties while working in land
development and residential construction. I have seen how different tree ordinances impact this
process in many ways. For instance, when laying a house on a property we take many things into
consideration — privacy, yard size, views, how can we maximize daylight in the yards, etc. With
overly strict tree ordinances we have little flexibility (or it becomes overly cost prohibitive) in
making the best layout for the families that will be living in the future home.
The City of Edmonds permitting process takes weeks, if not months, longer than many of the
other jurisdictions I work with. The addition of such strict ordinances will extend this process in
many ways — finding qualified arborists is difficult and the wait times for reports can take many
weeks. When we receive comments from the City, we'll likely have to go through another wait
time for updated reports from the arborists. The longer we hold onto these properties, the more
they cost us and this ultimately adds to the price of the home. In the same way the added expense
caused by time lost adds to the price of the home, so will the added expense of arborists, tree
protection, tree replacement, etc. that will all go to driving up the price of homes.
The subdivision moratorium has already made the City of Edmonds builder unfriendly and now
this new tree ordinance will do the same. This will go for builders of all kinds and will make it
even more prohibitive for any new housing in Edmonds, including affordable housing.
We hope to see a more balanced tree ordinance. We'd like to see exemptions for plantings that
were originally done as landscaping (emerald greens, rhododendrons, fruit trees, etc.) that have
become overgrown and now exceed 6 inches and/or the Significant Tree definition increased
from 6 inches. We're very concerned with the requirements for bonding and putting the trees on
title. The requirement for bonding will be a deterrent to builders as the trees are out of their
control upon sale of the property and the title requirement will be a hinderance for home buyers.
We hope to see lots that are part of a subdivision that are already submitted to be vested to the
current code.
Thank you,
Kayla Nichols
Packet Pg. 299
7.1.e
From: Chris Walton <emailcwalton@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:56 AM
To: Lien, Kernen
Cc: Spellman, Jana; Barbara Chase
Subject: Last Night's Presentation
Hello Kernen,
Thanks to your team for the presentation last night. It was interesting. I was hoping to make a couple of
comments at the end, but to be honest I couldn't bear to go through the beginning slides a 2nd time. I
gave up. No worries. I truly understand the challenges of Zoom.
• It appears to me that in the end, it all boils down to money. Unless I am misunderstanding the
document (and that is very possible!), the concept is that developers are "encouraged" to
maintain trees, or replant trees, because if they don't there will be a price to pay. I suspect that
most developers will clear cut the lot and just consider that price as part of the expense of the
project and pass it on to the buyers.
• Cutting down huge mature trees and replanting puny replacements will have little effect on the
environment for years to come.
• The way we build now maximizes density. One large single lot can easily end up having 3 large
houses put on it. (Example: new houses on corner of Pine and 9th where there used to be
many beautiful trees). This is a people versus nature issue that I doubt we will solve. The reality
is that when houses are packed together like that, large trees will never fit.
• Hopefully we are "measuring" in some way what we are doing. In other words, 5 years from
now, did these monetary incentives work, or are we continuing to loss the canopy in significant
numbers? We'll see.
I am glad that I am a senior and won't be around much longer. What humans are doing to this planet is
disgraceful and not sustainable. I do applaud your team and the Tree Board for "trying", but I doubt
nature will win in the end.
No reply is expected. Just sharing my personal thoughts.
Respectfully,
Chris Walton
Cedar Street, Edmonds
Packet Pg. 300
7.1.e
From: Sharon Sneddon <sksneddon@frontier.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:16 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board
Cc: Council
Subject: Tree Code
After reviewing the Urban Forest Plan as well as the existing Tree Code, I believe regulations need to be
strengthened if Edmonds is to maintain/increase our current 30.3% tree canopy.
With our climate changing, trees face increased challenges to their survival. Rainfall patterns, pests and
diseases both current and new, are already affecting our trees. With 83% of the trees in Edmonds
growing on private property, stronger regulations are needed to protect that portion of our urban forest
canopy.
Present regulations requiring new developments to retain 30% of the trees on the property should be
increased to at least 50%.
Permission to cut trees on private property needs to be more regulated with documentation by a tree
professional required to remove even potentially hazardous trees. Removing trees to increase the home
owners' view could be regulated by a clause in the buying/selling documents for that property.
I am not aware of any public engagement opportunities regarding trees in Edmonds except for the
native plant garden (Demo garden) on Pine.
I hope you will consider my suggestions.
Sharon Sneddon
Edmonds Resident
Packet Pg. 301
7.1.e
From: Janie Worm <hello@janieworm.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:21 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board
Subject: Tree Codes
To whom it may concern,
I attended a recent Tree Board meeting, and board member Bill Phipps
recommended that I share some thoughts with you regarding tree codes.
First of all, I am s000... grateful that tree codes are being written &
updated to help meet the current environmental needs of our times. My
thanks to everyone who has put their time and attention into this!
I think it's great to charge a hefty fee for contractors not able or willing to
replant the desired number of trees on lots of completed construction
projects. This is a great step.
My concern, however, is that many will opt to pay the fee and move
on. Then, we have money in the bank, but money will not clean our air,
our water, and support our soils.
It feels to me like a major education campaign needs to happen.
Awareness/Education --> Appreciation; Appreciation --> Protection/
Preservation.
How can we impress upon people that trees are not like light posts that we
can tear down and reconstruct somewhere else. They take years of growth
and are the best purifiers of our environment, better than anything we can
construct from inorganic materials. Trees are unpaid employees
working silently and efficiently everyday on our behalf!
Can we offer incentives to home and land owners?
At tax time, those who have purchased hybrid vehicles get a tax break. Can
we offer tax breaks or a stipend to those planting and maintaining large
trees, since the whole community is benefiting from them?
Someone mentioned a tree at 8th & Walnut that neighbors prefer to have
removed. Can we first educate people? I recommend putting a sign near
the tree that offers facts showing how it benefits them personally, and giving
the tree a voice. (I haven't seen the tree so I'll make up an example.)
Sample of one possible educational sign.
Packet Pg. 302
7.1.e
"I am a 20 year old Blue Spruce that removes 200 lbs of carbon from the air
each year, improving air quality by 22%. I also filter 100 gallons of water
annually, and my canopy reduces surface temperatures, benefiting all
residents. I offer these gifts of service for free. "
Nature is very dear to my heart, and trees are one of the most important
keys to turning around global warming. Since my yard is full, I am willing
to plant trees on any public lands (city, state, national, global). Please let
me know how I can help increase the number of trees in this area. I have
many friends, arborists, gardeners, plant nursery workers, teachers,
students... all ready and willing to help. After the recent wildfires, this feels
more important than ever.
There's a "must see" documentary titled, "Call of the Forest: The Ancient
Wisdom of Trees."
Thanks so much for all you do, and for thinking about the health and well-
being of the planet, all life and future generations. Together we can
accomplish anything!
Thanks again.
Janie Worm
"Let's bring your space to life with paint. " -- Harmony Paint & Music
"Love moves like a song." -- JanieWorm.com
Packet Pg. 303
7.1.e
December 12, 2020
TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
FROM; LARRY NAUGHTEN
RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS
HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER..
Packet Pg. 304
7.1.e
PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COM IISSION-TY
a
Packet Pg. 305
7.1.e
EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS
I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful
"GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN
TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes,
but only with considerate Neighbors and a new City tree height
ordinance..
I lived in Edmonds for 50 years ... 20 of those years were spent in
public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time
Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with views and
trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and
inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, as Mayor,I always had
empathy for homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed,
when possible —to protect their views.
Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new
construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits
fences. The City should pass a new tree height ordinance limit of
25' on any new tree plantings. This would protect future view
corridor impacts. This new height ordinance would also send the
positive message that the City values the need for trees and views
to coexist and thereby maintain and improve the quality of life for
the residences of Edmonds. If you live in a view corridor a 25'
height limit,on new tree plantings, is important for your homes
f value.
'
ugh ee
Edmonds M or (1983-1991)
Packet Pg. 306
7.1.e
December 2.2020
TO: EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LARRY NAUGHTEN
RE: FUTURE EDMONDS TREE HEIGHTS
HERE IS A SUGGESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER
Packet Pg. 307
7.1.e
EDMONDS TREES AND VIEWS
I wanted to comment on Anna West wonderful and thoughtful
"GUEST VIEWS" article in the Edmonds Beacon regarding "CAN
TREES AND VIEWS COEXIST IN EDMONDS" the answer is yes,
but only with considerate Neighbors and a City tree height
ordinance..
I lived in Edmonds for 50 years...20 of those years were spent in
public service, on the Planning Board, City Council, and as full- time
Mayor. I have had a lot of experience in dealing with Views and
Trees, and their conflicts. I was also the victim of abusive and
inconsiderate neighbors. As a result, I always had empathy for
homeowners who wanted a tree trimmed, or removed, when
possible —to protect their views.
Here is my suggestion... the City currently has height limits on new
construction, both residential and commercial —also height limits
fences. The City should pass a tree height limit of 25' on any new
tree plantings. This would protect future view impacts. This
height Ordinance would also send the positive message that the
City values the need for Trees and Views to coexist and thereby
maintain and improve the quality of life for the residences of
Edmonds.
�ughte ,'4 or (1983-1991)
Packet Pg. 308
7.1.e
January 7, 2021
Mr. Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov
Dear Mr. Lien:
RE: Comments on Draft City Tree Code
These comments, submitted on behalf of the Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protec-
tion Committee (CPC), are written in support of the City's action in expeditiously
adopting the Tree Code' to implement the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Man-
agement Plan.
The CPC `s mission is to encourage action by Edmonds citizens and govern-
ment to minimize the impact of climate change through a combination of reduc-
ing Green House Gas emissions ("GHG mitigation") and preparation for the im-
pacts that are already upon us ("climate adaptation"). We do this by providing
citizen - stakeholder input to the Mayor and City staff.
While it is common knowledge that trees offer cooling shade, block cold winter
winds, attract wildlife, and add beauty to the Edmonds community, we also are
learning that trees are vital to both GHG mitigation and climate adaptation.
GHG Mitigation
As trees grow, they help stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from
the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the at-
mosphere.2 Trees help to absorb carbon and other gasses from the atmos-
phere. A single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs. of carbon a year and make
enough clean oxygen for four people to breathe fresh air annually.'
1http://www.edmondswa.90v ima es/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/
Plan-
ning Division/Codes/TreeCode Clean Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations PB PH Draft
12.09.20. pdf
z htt s: www.arborday.org/trees/climatechange/
3 https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation
Packet Pg. 309
7.1.e
CO2 absorption is very important because CO2 - already in the atmosphere due
to human activities such as fossil fuel production has already warmed the world
by 1 ° Celsius (° C) (as compared with pre -industrial data) and is on track to in-
crease up to +1.5° C (2.7° F) by 2030. That number will continue to rise if we
don't take immediate global action to cut emissions and reduce the GHG already
in the atmosphere.4 In addition, shading by trees in urban areas helps reduce
energy consumption when it's hot, thus reducing carbon emissions and saving on
cooling costs.
In August 2020, the Edmonds City Council took the bold step to manage climate
change by adopting 1.50 C as the City's Climate Action Planning Goal. This
means Edmonds will do its part to ensure the global heat measurement will only
rise 1.50 C by 2030 when compared to 1900. Please see the excellent summary
of "Why 1.5"by Edmonds Planning Services Department. 5
However, in September 2020 projections of GHG emissions by Climate Action
Tracker showed a substantial gap toward reaching our goal of maintaining 1.50
C. 6
Forest ecosystems are the largest terrestrial carbon (C) sink on Earth and their
management has been recognized as a cost-effective strategy for mitigating
GHG emissions.' While Edmonds Urban Forest is but a small piece of the global
forest ecosystem, it is a piece over which we as a City have some direct control.
By acting quickly today to keep our urban forest viable, we can start tipping the
balance to maintain and enhance the forest C sink in the United States and be-
yond.
Climate Adaptation
The Fourth National Climate Assessment states this about impacts of climate
change to the Northwest:
[E]xtreme events, like heavy rainfall associated with atmospheric rivers,
are also anticipated to occur more often. Along the coast, severe winter
storms are also projected to occur more often, such as occurred in 2015
during one of the strongest El Nino events on record. El Nino winter
storms contributed to storm surge, large waves, coastal erosion, and
flooding in low-lying coastal areas. 8
4 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/
s https://www.cityofedmondswa.com/post/why-1-5
6 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps/
7 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24649
8 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/24/
(citations omitted.)
Packet Pg. 310
7.1.e
Trees are an increasingly important adaption tool in that they protect against se-
vere flooding and storms by slowing the water's strength as it surges on land
and absorbing excess water in the soil which they then release as water vapor
into the air. 9
As a committee tasked to recommend on climate change issues, we unanimously
recommend the City expeditiously adopt the proposed Tree Code to implement
the 2019 Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. We trust this background
will be helpful to the City staff, Mayor and City Council.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
City of Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protection Committee
By Co-chairs
T.C. Richmond and Lisa Conley
9https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/trees-climate-change-reforestation
Packet Pg. 311
7.1.e
City of Edmonds:
To best examine the issue of allowing the City of Edmonds to stomp on our personal property rights
concerning trees I am going to use an example of a conifer that sits exactly fourteen feet from one
property owner's basement foundation and twelve from the adjacent neighbor. This tree has a split top,
sits on essentially level ground in a 5x8 foot semi -circle of converging paved driveways, with gas, water,
sewer and electrical running directly beneath it, and, in a location just shy of fifty feet from a tree
covered slope that has been deemed above 15% grade. (Wasn't that 25% just last year?)
Foresters and biologists concur the Western red cedar requires room to spread out, at minimum six feet
and only if the tree has room for the roots to grow horizontally, which of course would preclude this
particular tree as it is 3' inches from one driveway and 8" from the other. Also recommended is at
minimum a distance of 20' from foundations, here again a point of concern. More importantly the
proximity to underground utilities alone makes is an example of "wrong tree, wrong place". City officials
told these property owners to "not touch their (own) tree".
Certainly it is unfortunate when a tree of this size is removed, but this particular tree is a hazard to those
that live underneath it and the decision of removal should have no place in the our city's discretion, nor
incur even one penny for a permit. That is the function that should be covered by property taxes and
anything else should be deemed extortion.
I would suggest that increasing our city's tree coverage should be concentrated in the numerous parks
that are publicly owned. It is impossible to walk through any one of them and not notice that there is
room for increasing the number and variety of coniferous trees. There would be many of us that would
eagerly volunteer to assist under the guidance of accredited specialists. That is where officials should
concentrate their efforts and not our backyards or on sub -dividable, privately owned land.
The City of Edmonds has used Covid-19 to surreptitiously, and successfully, mask decisions that affect all
citizens, confident in the knowledge that beyond the majority not paying attention there is a large herd
of'sheeple' blindly following their lead without complaint. When did we grant city officials the right to
access our property and impose restrictive codes that derive from their personal agenda, and bias, and
have no reality in science? When did the majority of residents grant to our local officials the ability to
impose what should be illegal fees in the guise of permits and penalties? Aren't enough of us fed up
with this type of governance to take back power that is being stripped from us on a daily basis and
increasing so? Trees on personal property, with the exception of a slide area, should never be under city
authority.
7010 4U ILt�1011
P.S: Ms. Buckshnis, instead of wagging a finger at people who want the right to remove dangerous or
nuisance trees, might consider her own residence where there exists one 20' topped tree between
herself and the view and another behind her house of the same height..... instead of attempting to
legislate what homeowners and builders should do ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY! The hypocrisy is
laughable. She has lived there long enough to plant an entire hillside of forty foot evergreens so if she
cares so much for trees: start planting.
Packet Pg. 312
7.1.e
a
Packet Pg. 313
7.1.e
From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:16 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen
Cc: Council; Hope, Shane
Subject: Tree Code
Edmonds Planning Board and Mr. Lien;
Thank you for letting me provide recommendations to the proposed tree code.
We know that the proposed code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds; the 3% that has
not already been developed. Edmonds is 97% "built out".
We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the
80 % of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots.
The proposed Code is simply too little too late. There isn't much more land to develop. It would have
been much more meaningful if it had been enacted 10 years ago!
Plus, it doesn't seem fair to the new construction home owners that have to maintain 30% canopy on their
lots, while the rest of us don't. It has been said that everyone should have some tree canopy
requirements !
We must address the forest canopy where it mainly is; on private already developed lots.
Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code, concerning their private land, if it is friendly,
inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced
storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings.
The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame
and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting
on their land.
The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots.
A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is
lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are
to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings
for every significant tree lost.
Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that
many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter.
All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees.
We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds
to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County
Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves
and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air.
We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by
carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant
multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow.
Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are really going to need those trees that we plant today
Packet Pg. 314
7.1.e
Are we going to enact an insignificant tree code that doesn't address the main problem ? A tree code in
name only? A symbolic and token effort? To make us feel good, or look good, as if we had done
something?
Or are we going to get back to work and create a meaningful, effective and far reaching tree code that we
can be proud of? A code that achieves the goal of "no net loss" A code that our grandchildrens'
grandchildren can be thankful for ?
If we are going to enact a tree code, why not do it right?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bill Phipps
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 315
7.1.e
From:
hglandau@aol.com
Sent:
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:17 PM
To:
Citizens Planning Board
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Fwd: Tree Code
Dear Edmonds Planning Board,
By forwarding Mr. Phipps excellent summary of tree issues, I mean to convey that the issues he
sites deserve thorough consideration by the Board. Like Mr. Phipps, I want my children and
grandchildren to breath healthy air in a healthy climate with the abundance of flora and fauna
that trees provide.
Thank you,
Hank Landau, PE, Ph.D.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill(a)yahoo.com>
To: 'Nancy Johnson' <najohnso .operamail.com>; Marjie Fields <mvfields(abme.com>; Gayla Shoemake
<gaylashoemake(c�yahoo.com>; Climate Justice <climateiustice.team a(�euuc.orq>; Kate Lunceford
<kurlykate888(o)gmail.com>; Joe Scordino <loe.scordino(a)_yahoo.com>; Charles D. Farmen
<cdfarmen(o-)_comcast.net>; Bloom Joan <joanmbloom(o-)_icloud.com>; Gayle Leberg
<lebergwq(a-)_me.com>; Hank Landau <hglandau(o-)_aol.com>; Lora Hein <heinsight(o)earthIink. net>; Clara
Cleve <dancer.ca64(q-)_gmail.com>; Karen Helland <kaycat2173(aD_gmail.com>; Rachel Maxwell
<rachelmrmaxwell(o-)gmail.com>; Citizens Climate Protection <citizens-climate(o)edmondswa.gov>;
Citizens Tree Board <citizens-tree(a-)_edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 8:37 pm
Subject: Fw: Tree Code
Dear friends;
Please email or zoom in to Planning Board meeting on Wednesday evening, the 13th. Tell them we need
a real tree code. Also let the City Council know. Thank you for all that you do ;
Bill Phipps
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill(a)-yahoo.com>
To: Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning(a)edmondswa.gov>; Kernen Lien
<kernen.lien(q-)_edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Edmonds City Council <council .edmondswa.gov>; Shane Hope <shane.hope(o)edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 08:16:04 PM PST
Subject: Tree Code
Edmonds Planning Board and Mr. Lien;
Thank you for letting me provide recommendations to the proposed tree code.
We know that the proposed code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds; the 3% that has
not already been developed. Edmonds is 97% "built out".
We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the
80 % of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots.
Packet Pg. 316
7.1.e
The proposed Code is simply too little too late. There isn't much more land to develop. It would have
been much more meaningful if it had been enacted 10 years ago!
Plus, it doesn't seem fair to the new construction home owners that have to maintain 30% canopy on their
lots, while the rest of us don't. It has been said that everyone should have some tree canopy
requirements !
We must address the forest canopy where it mainly is; on private already developed lots.
Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code, concerning their private land, if it is friendly,
inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced
storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings.
The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame
and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree cutting
on their land.
The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots.
A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is
lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we are
to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind" saplings
for every significant tree lost.
Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have that
many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter.
All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees.
We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds
to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County
Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond ourselves
and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air.
We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by
carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we plant
multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow.
Our grandchildren and their grandchildren are really going to need those trees that we plant today.
Are we going to enact an insignificant tree code that doesn't address the main problem ? A tree code in
name only? A symbolic and token effort? To make us feel good, or look good, as if we had done
something?
Or are we going to get back to work and create a meaningful, effective and far reaching tree code that we
can be proud of? A code that achieves the goal of "no net loss" A code that our grandchildrens'
grandchildren can be thankful for ?
If we are going to enact a tree code, why not do it right?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bill Phipps
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 317
7.1.e
a
Packet Pg. 318
7.1.e
From: Gayla Shoemake <gaylashoemake@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:20 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen; Council; Hope, Shane
Subject: Tree Code Update- Public Comment
Greetings to the Planning Board, City Council Members, and City Staff,
I understand that you are in the midst of updating the Tree Code, which is
important before making any Planning Changes, and I commend you for this
step. As I look at the information available, it does not appear that there
are any cutting restrictions or enough incentives to retain trees (which would
be preferable) for private property owners who have most of the trees in
Edmonds.
It does not seem meaningful to write a Tree Code which leaves out 70% or
more of the trees in the city which are on private property. The goal of the
Tree Code is to retain and increase the number of trees in our city because
their numbers continue to decrease. As you well know trees are one of the
best carbon digesters available. In this time when we have significant
carbon reduction goals, it makes sense to keep as many trees as we can.
Obviously, people are attached to their own property, but sometimes they
do not realize the health and other consequences to the community, and
ultimately to their own families, of cutting down trees on their property
(unless they are diseased or dangerous). By first educating the public and
especially property owners about the value of trees to the community, some
property owners may decide to retain that tree. Next, offer incentives to
retain the trees (such as reducing city utility bills or adding another tree to
their property (I think this idea was originally included) or other
incentives. Also, encourage tree donations by individuals in the community
to locations where there is room in the city, of course in parks and open
spaces, but also on private property in low income neighborhoods where
there might be few trees, or nearby county land where there is
space. Assessing fines for unlawful tree removal would only be used in the
most dire situations.
It is possible that the current Tree Code has significant additions or changes
from the earlier version that I saw. I will be interested in reviewing the up-
to-date Code to see what alterations have been made.
Thank you for your work on this Code and for the other policies and codes
you work on each year. I appreciate your time in looking at these issues
seriously and your attention to public comments.
Packet Pg. 319
7.1.e
Sincerely,
Gayla Shoemake
a
Packet Pg. 320
7.1.e
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hello Planning Board and Mr Lien,
I appreciate all you do for Edmonds.
Nancy Johnson <najohnso@operamail.com>
Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:04 AM
Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen
Tree Code
Follow up
Flagged
As an Edmonds resident living south of Yost Park, I have seen a shocking number of mature, healthy
trees taken down in the last several years - just in my neighborhood, mostly on private lots.
I understand that the proposed tree code will only impact 3% of the residential area in Edmonds as
Edmonds is 97% "built out".
We know that 83% of our forest canopy is in residential areas. The proposed code does not address the
80% of all our trees, those that are on already developed lots.
Most folks in Edmonds will go along with a tree code affecging their private land, if it is clear,
inexpensive, and reasonable. We should encourage tree retention with economic incentives (reduced
storm water bills). We can encourage new tree planting by giving away free appropriate saplings.
The regulations of trees on private property should not be about expensive permits and fees and blame
and punishments . It should be more of a notification system where citizens notify the city of tree
cutting on their land.
The City will only interfere if there is mass clearcutting planned on heavily forested lots.
A tree code, as in all forest management, is centered around tree replacements. For every tree that is
lost; for any reason, any place, at any time; there should be multiple replacement trees planted. If we
are to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy, we must plant multiple replacement "of kind"
saplings for every significant tree lost.
Please don't weaken the tree size requirements for multiple replacement trees. We simply don't have
that many very large second growth trees in our city, such as 24 inches in diameter.
All fees collected from the tree code should go directly to funding the planting of more trees.
We may find that because of increased housing density, there is not enough available land in Edmonds
to plant all the replacement trees. The city should enter into a partnership with the Snohomish County
Healthy Forest Project, whose aim is to plant a million trees by 2040. We need to think beyond
ourselves and realize that we are all in this together. We all breathe the same air.
We realize that we are in a climate crisis. The easiest way to mitigate our green house gases is by
carbon sequestering. Every time we cut down a tree, carbon is released into the atmosphere. If we
plant multiple replacement trees they will sequester more and more carbon as they grow.
Packet Pg. 321
7.1.e
Thank you for your consideration -and my children and grandchildren thank you too!
Nancy Johnson
9411 216th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Pg. 322
7.1.e
From: Rachel Maxwell <rachelmrmaxwell@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:28 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen
Cc: Council; Hope, Shane
Subject: I support a strong tree code to protect urban forests!
Dear Edmonds Planning Board,
As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium to save significant trees in
our city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important
precedent.
While I applaud the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan, I urge the Council to strengthen
the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken centuries to grow.
Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic
vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure a better quality of life.
I stand with the League of Women Voters in supporting "management of land as a finite resource not as a
commodity, since land ownership, whether public or private, carries responsibility for stewardship".
With gratitude for your service to our city and my kind regards,
Rachel Maxwell
Rachel Maxwell
she/her/hers
425.231.8313
Packet Pg. 323
7.1.e
1 of 2
To: Edmonds Planning Board
From: George Lasch, Executive Director, PlantAmnesty
Date: January 13, 2021
RE: Oppose Amending Draft Tree Related Regulations to Permit Tree Topping
It has come to our attention that the City of Edmonds is drafting an updated tree ordinance and
that there has been a proposal from a homeowner to amend it to allow tree topping in certain
instances, in particular to maintain water views. We strongly disagree with a proposal to allow
tree topping. Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or to lateral
branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role. Other names for topping
include "heading," "tipping," "hat -racking," and "rounding over." Topping is used to reduce the
size of a tree. A homeowner may feel that a tree has become too large for his or her property.
Topping, however, is not a viable method of height reduction and, in addition to the problems it
causes listed below, it certainly does not reduce future risk. In fact, topping will increase risk in
the long term.
The following has been adapted from International Society for Arboriculture (ISA) brochure
titled "Why Topping Hurts Trees" and maintains tree topping is an unacceptable practice for the
following reasons:
1. Topping Stresses Trees - Topping can remove 50 to 100 percent of a tree's leaf -bearing
crown. Leaves are the food factories of a tree. Removing them can temporarily starve a tree
and trigger various survival mechanisms. Dormant buds are activated, forcing the rapid growth
of multiple shoots below each cut. The tree needs to put out a new crop of leaves as soon as
possible. If a tree does not have the stored energy reserves to do so, it will be seriously
weakened and may die. A stressed tree with large, open pruning wounds is more vulnerable to
insect and disease infestations. The tree may lack sufficient energy to chemically defend the
wounds against invasion, and some insects are actually attracted to the chemical signals trees
release.
2. Topping Leads to Decay - Correct pruning cuts are made just beyond the branch collar at
the point of attachment. The tree is biologically equipped to close such a wound, provided the
tree is healthy enough and the wound is not too large. Cuts made along a limb between lateral
branches create stubs with wounds that the tree may not be able to close. The exposed wood
tissues begin to decay. Normally, a tree will "wall off," or compartmentalize, the decaying
tissues, but few trees can defend the multiple severe wounds caused by topping. The decay
organisms are given a free path to move down through the branches.
3. Topping Makes Trees Ugly - The natural branching structure of a tree is a biological
wonder. Trees form a variety of shapes and growth habits, all with the same goal of presenting
their leaves to the sun. Topping removes the ends of the branches, often leaving ugly stubs.
Topping destroys the natural form of a tree. Without leaves (for up to six months of the year in
temperate climates), a topped tree appears disfigured and mutilated. With leaves, it is a dense
ball of foliage, lacking its simple grace. A tree that has been topped can never fully regain its
natural form.
4. Topping Is Expensive - The cost of topping a tree is not limited to only the job cost. Some
hidden costs of topping include increased maintenance costs, reduced property value and
increased liability potential. Topped trees may pose an unacceptable level of risk. Because
topping is considered an unacceptable pruning practice, any damage caused by branch failure
of a topped tree may lead to a finding of negligence in a court of law.
Packet Pg. 324
2 of 2
7.1.e
5. Topping Can Lead to Unacceptable Risk - The survival mechanism that causes a tree to
produce multiple shoots below each topping cut comes at great expense to the tree. These
shoots develop from buds near the surface of the old branches. Unlike normal branches that
develop in a socket of overlapping wood tissues, these new shoots are anchored only in the
outermost layers of the parent branches and are weakly attached. The new shoots grow
quickly, as much as 20 feet in one year in some species. Unfortunately, the shoots are prone to
breaking, especially during windy or icy conditions. While the original goal was to reduce risk
by reducing height, risk of limb failure has now increased. New shoots develop profusely below
a topping cut.
Trees topped or pruned for utility clearance (generally within public right of way) provide an
asset to the entire community - light and warmth. Trees topped on a homeowner's lot will
provide only the resident with benefits - the view - and does not convey a community benefit at
all. In fact, tree topping can disrupt a potentially delicate equilibrium with adjacent trees (wind)
and houses/streets (increased storm water runoff).
We are learning that trees provide numerous benefits for our urban areas including enhancing
air quality, reducing the heat island effect, and attenuating storm runoff which ultimately
protects habitat and water quality in Puget Sound. We support the current draft regulations as
they provide for "the protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper
maintenance of significant trees". Tree topping leads to the decline and ultimately kills the trees
in question.
Furthermore, the Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000.C. state that the intent of the code
is "To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare
of the residents of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city
through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on
improved or partially improved property". Tree topping on private property does not contribute
to the health, safety or general welfare of the residents of Edmonds.
In closing, tree topping should not be allowed because it affects the health and viability of the
topped trees long term. It is unsightly, increases the cost of maintenance, and can actually
lead to increased liability/risk to the property owner. And importantly, as this draft ordinance
recognizes, healthy trees are an asset to the community at large and should be regulated as
such.
Sincerely,
George Lasch,
Executive Director, PlantAmnesty
Jack Bautsch
President of the Board of Directors, PlantAmnesty
Packet Pg. 325
7.1.e
From: Nicholas Kappes <consultnick@pea k.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:52 PM
To: Lien, Kernen
Subject: Tree Code Update Comments
Hello Mr. Lien,
I was unable to attend the Planning Board meeting of December 9th, 2020, regarding the proposed Draft Tree Code.
These regulations have the potential to drastically affect my plans for building a home for my disabled son on an
adjacent lot that I have spent 23 years and will have spent nearly $300,000 acquiring --next to my present home in the
Pine Ridge neighborhood, where I have lived for quarter of a century.
Both lots are "heavily-tree'd", which is why I bought here in Edmonds in the first place, and very clearly I do love my
wonderful trees! However, these proposed Tree Code changes could in time have great impact on the property
values of either of my lots, and by default could turn both into substantial financial/penalty liabilities for myself, and
significant profit -centers for the City and for its short roster of expensive private arborists, should I choose to maintain
my trees or build a home.
All of this has happened/will happen without an open election on an initiative about which voters have had no
opportunity to decide! Are property owners even remotely aware that they might face fines and "tree expenses"
of perhaps as much as $40,000 if they happen to have a significant number of trees on their vacant lot, and if they
should trim or remove them without city approval be treated as grand larcenists? I certainly think not!
Frankly speaking, this is the type of regulation activity that fires the MAGA-Trumpers--legislation/taxation without real
representation! The Tree Board, as it was instituted and is currently comprised, cannot be regarded as fully
representing community interest. A prime example of its institutional failure would be that I had to search very hard in
past issues of the Beacon to find any public mention of the profoundly important December 9th meeting, which was
very surprising after remembering the volatile and heavily -attended meeting about this issue that took place in 2015,
which I did attend, and which went far into the night!
Quite possibly the failure to widely/effectively publish notice for the December 9th 2020 meeting is why only a dozen
folks "attended" —by Zoom! It certainly raises the question: Was this on purpose? Is the Planning Board taking
advantage of citizens pinned -down by a pandemic and preoccupied by near -term tumultuous —almost pre-
revolutionary conditions? That attendance level-12 citizens —cannot be construed as a wide public vetting of
this very critical and impactful set of regulations. Nor can the utter lack of subsequent meeting coverage in the
Beacon, in which the City could have headlined these regulations to its residents. And I have received absolutely
nothing in my mail box regarding this profoundly important property owner matter.
It could be argued that these impending tree regulations, restrictions, fines and impositions could have more effect
per Edmonds citizen than the widely -vetted, carefully managed anticipated Housing Commission sets of
recommendations. Almost every property owner in Edmonds has trees to manage and enjoy, but relatively few
Edmonds citizens anticipate significant remodeling or development of their properties, where they might encounter
the new Housing Commission's highly anticipated regulation recommendations. Those have enjoyed a full democratic
process, well -managed by Development Services, such that a wide spectrum of opinion and comment has been
solicited from the community -at -large.
In spite of almost zero public notice, I was fortunate to contact a neighbor who did attend the December meeting by
Zoom, and he assured me that a video would be available on the Planning Division's website. It is not, and I wonder
why not, especially as we are on the precipice of adopting these profoundly impactful decisions. With almost no
public vetting, the potential financial impacts could reach many tens of thousands of dollars per property,
an eventuality that very, very few owners would have any idea is being preemptively levied upon them! And it must be
pointed out that these fees and fines "grow with the trees" —as the trees grow larger --so do the fines! An enormous
and very expensive set of responsibilities, including professional arborist surveying, documenting, tagging, registering
and subsequent attorney county deed recording services are being proscribed on an unwitting public who happens to
have trees on their land.
Virtually no one knows this is coming their way. And it begs questions of constitutionality --and certainly approaches
city condemnation/confiscation of private property, and seriously affects "enjoyment" of ownership. Lot owners are to
become unwitting hostages, who will have to pay "ransoms" to the City to trim or remove their own trees. How does
the concept of property rights intersect with these intended regulations?
Packet Pg. 326
7.1.e
For many of us in this city, fortunate --or perhaps now very unfortunate --to own property in perhaps a more "tree'd
city" than any other in Puget Sound, few things could be more important than the City of Edmonds taking de facto
ownership/stewardship of our trees --at our considerable expense now and into the far distant future. Has anyone
performed a study on the potential costs to the average lot owner, regarding the depressive impacts on property
values when adding -in these onerous fees, studies, permit processes, tree registration and tree -recording on deed
requirements, and harsh/ugly punitive fines, which even eclipse court -imposed fines for serious criminal behavior,
over the cutting of a tree that is personal property as defined by present law?
A close read of these regulations reveals very exacting, very expensive and sometimes very laborious city-
micromanaged procedures that have to be paid for out of pocket. How does all of this impact property evaluation for
taxation purposes, as taken together this set of requirements may add great complexity to the permitting process and
the cost of building a home, perhaps exceeding the cost of the building permit itself! There are bizarre rules
determining where a property owner might even place material on his own lot —or where he may be able to walk his
dog on his own lot during the construction process! These proposed fine-grained micro -management rules are indeed
onerous.
In this "Tree Board process", there seems to be a distant echo of the Point Edwards Tree -Cutting Fiasco, where the
developer devastated a coastal community landmark landscape in the process of profiting by millions, and eventually
paid a mere pittance of a fine. Are we in the community to be regarded as suspects in "tree -crimes" against our own
property? Is it our legacy to pay for history's lesson of Point Edwards? It is certainly not hard to understand how the
city may wish to influence how structures are placed and must be built to standards and codes, but it is a huge leap to
understand how the city can interpose itself between a property owner and his/her trees that are already in the
ground and growing, and that about which that owner's decisions about their tree does not
affect another neighbor's property, or have geological land stability impacts. The "Tree Board process" seems to be
rooted in aesthetic considerations --their aesthetics. Are uniforms next for Edmonds citizens --who would design
those? A close read reveals the City's desire to control bushes and shrubs, as well! Where does this end --with a Tulip
Board .... a Rhododendron Board?
For many of us, our trees may be regarded as extremely personal and intimate "property" --sometimes little different
than pets --and it can be very difficult to see them thru to their end. They can also be home -destroyers. I am still
recovering from over $80,000 in damage from one that fell on my house. But the decisions about whether, how or
where they may grow should belong to the property owner, who is ultimately responsible for that tree's "behavior"
under the law, should it "go bad" and fall on a friend or neighbor --we are.
If one must invest so much to build a home, (e.g. $300,000 for the lot and perhaps $450,000 to construct a
"cheap/simple" Edmonds home, including possibly $75,000 in building permit and surface water management costs)
they should enjoy the rights of property ownership. The City could certainly be helpful and suggest solutions
encouraging more tree accommodation, but these proposed regulations are in places very strict, harsh and clearly
punitive. One could spend thousands to comply, only to see a wave of disease air a storm destroy everything 2 years
later .... and even be forced to remediate that disaster! Some of these regulations are a reach too far.
It could be argued that there has been vanishingly small public notice and almost zero public opportunity to vet or
comment about this very important and dense set of intended regulations. I cannot even at this point find the video of
the last public meeting. To my mind, this ongoing lack of public information jeopardizes the validity and possibly the
underlying legitimacy of the entire "Tree Board process".
Perhaps it is purely circumstantial and unintentional, but there is an air of "sneakiness" about this
whole endeavor, which appears to disregard the facts that we are deep in a pandemic, and now possibly even in
a social revolution, if not living through a deeply disturbed time. This begs the question of whether there is
any consideration of better -accommodating —even hearing —the community's concerns? I do believe we need much
more time and need to once again hear many more voices, as inconvenient and messy as that might be. Certainly
democracy is messy .... the last "big meeting" about this subject was very messy!
Certainly from the looks of things as they now read, the horse has left the barn and the gates are locked behind it,
begging the question of how much does the community at large know and how much input did they have in the
preparation of this set of policies? From what has been published in the Beacon —virtually nothing! It's Edmonds'
biggest secret. Only one of my many neighbors knows that the city "is thinking about our trees"....
Way back at the big uproarious meeting, I didn't then —and do not now —envy your job, but I do believe that you are
sincere. So I'm sincerely asking for more time. We need a public meeting --a Zoom meeting of 12 in a pandemic is not
a public meeting! Can we not wait until our forums are more widely open? And could the city of Edmonds take care to
widely publish that time and place?
Packet Pg. 327
7.1.e
After all --the trees have grown slowly. A few years is virtually nothing to my 150 year old Douglas Fir. So should the
city move slowly .... and wisely.
Thank you for your time.
My Regards,
Nicholas Kappes
Pine Ridge Neighborhood
425-297-0243
Packet Pg. 328
7.1.e
From: Steve Zemke <stevezemke@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:34 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen
Subject: Comments on Edmonds draft Tree Ordinance update.
Here is some more specific information and links on Portland, Oregon's recent update to their
Tree Protection Ordinance that I mentioned in public comments at the Planning Commission's
Dec. meeting.
Portland, Oregon last week took another strong step toward strengthening their
Tree Ordinance.
"On Nov. 12, the Portland City Council adopted an ordinance that updates the city's tree
policies to promote greater preservation of trees when development occurs in certain
types of commercial, employment and industrial areas, and to further incentivize
preservation of larger trees in other development situations."
Among the provisions of the updated ordinance, it
• "Reduces the threshold for required preservation of private trees from 36 inches
to 20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) wherever tree preservation is
required
• Reduces the threshold for the application of an inch -per -inch fee in lieu of
preservation for private trees from 36 inches dbh to 20 inches dbh ...
• Directs Portland Parks and Recreation to bring a scope of work for future updates
to the city's tree code Title 11 of Portland City Code) to City Council by March
31, 2021 and directs the City Council to consider funding for that work during the
fiscal year 2021-22 City budget process."
Link to full Portland news article below, which has a link to the amended
ordinance text for Chapter 11.50 -Trees in Development Situations and
accompanying documentation of the adoption process.
Portland.gov - Portland City Council adopts updates to city's tree code,
strengthening tree preservation
Packet Pg. 329
7.1.e
Portland, OR as of Dec 12, 2020 requires that developers pay a Fee in Lieu of 2
for 1 replacement cost for removed trees 12-20 inches diameter and inch for inch
cost for trees removed that are over 20 inches in diameter.
The amended ordinance in Exhibit C, of the accompanying document shows the
new amended Fee in Lieu cost:
Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry Title 11, Trees Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT effective December 12, 2020
DEVELOPMENT
preservation, Fee in Lieu private trees
trees>12 inches and <20 inches in diameter .... $1800/tree
trees>20 inches in diameter ..... $450/inch
NON -DEVELOPMENT
planting and establishment Fee in Lieu .... $450/inch
With budget shortfalls this year note that Seattle continues to lose potential
revenue to support our urban forest infrastructure as lots during development are
frequently clear-cut. Portland, Oregon meanwhile is generating revenue to help
reduce tree loss and counter it by replacing trees. Here is a link to Portland's
latest report. Urban Forestry Title 11 Fund Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019.
Portland reported that they generated $1,444,426 for their Tree Planting and
Preservation Fund and $981,720 for their Urban Forestry Fund for revenue in
fiscal year 2018-2019 totaling $2,426,149.
These number will go up as Portland has lowered its threshold for its Fee in Lieu
for tree loss during development from 36 inches DBH to 20 inches DBH. Private
homeowner's Fees in Lieu start at 12 inches DHB but are seldom used as it
appears as they choose to replace the removed tree and thus not have to pay a
Fee in Lieu.
Another report on in -lieu fees can be seen here. City of Folson Tree In -Lieu Mitigation Fee
Nexus Study - Jan 2020
"The Tree In -Lieu Fee proposed by this nexus study is designed to fund mitigation of impacts to
Protected Trees removed as a result of development activity through replacement planting of trees in
Folsom in order to preserve the City's existing tree canopy. The fee is structured such that the larger the
Packet Pg. 330
7.1.e
Protected Tree removed, as measured by diameter inches at standard height, the greater the in -lieu fee.
Since larger trees provide a greater benefit compared to 3 smaller trees, more smaller trees need to be
planted to provide the same benefit of a larger tree. Given this, the removal of larger Protected Trees
requires the planting of more one -inch replacement trees. Thus, the diameter inches of the removed
Protected Tree are multiplied by the Tree In -Lieu to account for the need to plant more one -inch
replacement trees. The Tree In -Lieu Fee is intended to cover the cost of tree acquisition, planting,
maintenance and monitoring of each one -inch replacement tree for a three-year period. "
Steve Zemke
Chair - Tree PAC
Packet Pg. 331
7.1.e
From:
Clara Cleve <dancer.ca64@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 13, 2021 6:45 PM
To:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Tree Code
Dear Kernen Lien,
As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium
to save significant trees in the city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its
guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent.
We congratulate the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. But we urge the
Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some of which have taken
centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and provide a healthy urban forest which
can contribute to the economic vitality of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency,
and ensure a better quality of life. I would like to have us have a Urban Forest Management Plan similar
to Shoreline's Management Plan.
We need to have laws & ordinances that stop builders from clearing all the trees off lots they are building
on.
Sincerely,
Clara Cleve
550 Elm Way #203
Edmonds, WA98020
Packet Pg. 332
7.1.e
From: Pam Iverson <pam.iverson@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:42 PM
To: Citizens Planning Board; Lien, Kernen
Cc: Council; Hope, Shane
Subject: Trees
Dear Edmonds officials,
Thank you for this opportunity to talk about trees in Edmonds.
As a resident of Edmonds, I appreciate the Council for passing a moratorium
to save significant trees in the city. I also appreciate the Tree Board for its
guidance to the Council. It is a brave and important precedent.
We congratulate the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan. But we urge the
Council to strengthen the city code to limit removal of significant trees some
of which have taken centuries to grow. Please protect significant trees and
provide a healthy urban forest which can contribute to the economic vitality
of the community, provide environmental stability and resiliency, and ensure
a better quality of life.
Thank you.
Pam Iverson
Packet Pg. 333
To Whom It May Concern:
JAN 13 2021
nEVELl PNIENT rrr_:,
CQUNTC',
My wife and I live on 941h Avenue West in Edmonds. To the north of our property is
Hutt Park replete with hundreds if not thousands of native trees. To the south is a
small ravine with hundreds of native trees. To the east are houses with various
landscapes including many trees and ornamentals. To the west are dozens of
Douglas Fir Trees, Pines, Cedars, Hemlocks and ornamentals in landscaped yards.
There is no shortage of trees.
The following is an example of the ludicrous situations a "tree ordinance" creates.
We have only one mature tree in ouryard and it is alongside our driveway on the
shared property line with our neighbor to the south. It is a Cedar of approximately 80
feet in height and three feet in girth, two feet off theground. The tree sits atop a sewer
line serving my neighbor's house. The root system of the tree regularly blocks the sewer
outfall through the line. Furthermore the tree's root system is pushing -up the concrete
pads in our driveway, cracking them. It is only a matter of time until the driveway
repairs will entail expensive replacement.
My neighbor and I want to remove the tree thus ending the damage it is causing. We
have agreed to split the cost because the tree appears to sit equally on the property line.
We have had two "tree specialists arborists" examine the tree only to conclude that the
tree is "at worst a nuisance" and not a "high risk" tree. Numerous trees have been
removed from this property and neighboring ones so there is a precedent for tree
removal where needed. We have not applied for a permit because we were told in a
letter from Kernen Lien that the tree is located within 50 feet of a potential landslide
hazard area. Landslide? The tree has a soil perimeter of 3" to 21 "surrounding its base!
We have never considered the tree a high risk in spite of several moderately high
windstorms in the past several years, but what about that unknown and unknowable
next windstorm? What loss of property or life is worth that tree? We have always
considered the tree a risk to the sewer system and the driveway. That should be enough
for us to remove the tree. It is damaging both of our properties. We have not applied
for a Type 11 permit because of the nearly prohibitive cost of the process with zero
refund if denied. That in itself is larcenous!
For the City of Edmonds, bureaucrats and politicians alike, to deign to think you can
tell me what I can and cannot do with my property is the height of ignorant
arrogance! It is an illegal "taking" of my property and "rights " to my property. You
or your legal counsels certainly know that you cannot "take" my property without
due process and just compensation. Merely writing an administrative ordinance
stating trees cannot be removed or trimmed is tyranny at its worst. What kind of
trees? They are all different. What age tree? Young or old - it makes a difference.
How about when a tree represents a risk to life and home? Would you seriously
sacrifice a property or a life to "save a tree?" What about when a tree damages
infrastructure, such as the one on our property? If the tree were on public property
and stopping a utility service in a public right of way, would you save the tree and
allow the infrastructure to be damaged? I'd bet not.
Packet Pg. 334
7.1.e
Think people. This is not about some perceived "class warfare" between haves and
have-nots. This is simply doing what is right, using common sense and thinking
matters through to their logical conclusion.
John and Bonnie Magnuson
18622/6--94t" Avenue West, Edmonds
ylkz M�
Packet Pg. 335
7.1.e
From:
Gellman, Jana
To:
Hope. Shane
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
FW: The Value of Trees
Date:
Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:45:37 PM
FYI - Jana
From: amearns@aol.com <amearns@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:58 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Spellman, Jana <Jana.Spellman@edmondswa.gov>;
Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: The Value of Trees
Why is it that, in the draft Tree Code, which covers only 3 percent of the City of Edmonds, the dollar value
of trees is estimated whereas for the 80% of the City... residential areas .... the residential trees have no
monetary value to the city or it's residents?
When residential trees are cut, residents pay commercial tree cutters often thousands of dollars each,
enriching private commerce, while reducing habitat and carbon capture and increasing land heat, soil
desiccation, and pollutant runoff to our creeks and Puget Sound ... and not paying a dime to the City for the
loss or restoration.
Please place the same dollar value on a 50 foot cedar regardless of whether it is on developing property
or on existing residential property.
Alan Mearns
Edmonds
Attached. Bald Eagle roost across street from my house.
Packet Pg. 336
7.1.e
From: Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:43 AM
To: Council; Public Comment (Council)
Cc: Lien, Kernen; Hope, Shane
Subject: Tree Code
Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson;
The proposed tree code that you will hear about tonight is a good start. It covers about one third of what
a good tree code should cover. The proposed tree code does a good job of addressing private
undeveloped lots when they come up for development.
But, the proposed code does nothing to address the already developed residential lots. That is where
most of our forest canopy grows and where it is being cut down. Little cuts lead to big tears.
I hope the Council will take the time to fix this proposed code. Get it right. Address all the trees in
Edmonds. Get a sustainable self funding tree planting program set up. Tree replacement planting is the
key to a good tree code.
We gotta realize that more and more trees are gonna come down; for all the usual reasons. Our
commitment should be to planting replacement trees for every significant tree lost. Any tree, any place, at
any time for whatever reason should have multiple replacement trees planted.
I've looked at other tree codes in neighboring cities. They all try to control and/or mitigate the loss of tree
canopy on private land.
The attempts at "control" include: fees, permits, inspections, penalties, "fees -in -lieu -of', and endless
enforcement issues. Attempted control of privately owned trees leads to public resentment because of
added expenses and hassles. It leads to cries of "private land rights!".
Whereas, "mitigation" recognizes and acknowledges the loss of forest canopy, which leads to
action. Positive and cooperative action. We can all agree to the idea of planting new trees, just as long
as they're not in my way ! We all recognize the environmental benefits of forests. And it's a lot less hassle
and cost to City staff.
I encourage the Council to not "kick this can down the road." Let's just do it right the first time. (Oh, no
wait, the second time!) Let's take the time to institute an all encompassing and self sustaining Tree Code
that actually fulfills the UFMP goal of "no net loss."
Let's institute a "Lost Tree Notification" system. You just notify the City of when you are cutting down
trees. Then the City can replant multiple "of kind" tree saplings. We can advertise this program through
the City water bills, local media, pamphlets and city groups.
All tree replanting and retention efforts should occur in Edmonds first; through tree vouchers and lower
storm water bills.
But it may require us participating in a local tree preserve, such as the Snohomish County Healthy Forest
Initiative, in order to fulfill our obligations.
It will feel good to do it right. We need it. A sense of accomplishment. Let's do it!
An all encompassing, self sustaining and meaningful Tree Code
For our future.
Thank you for your consideration;
Packet Pg. 337
7.1.e
Bill Phipps
Edmonds
a
Packet Pg. 338
7.1.e
From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:37 PM
To: Council; Public Comment (Council); Lien, Kernen; Nelson, Michael;
Hope, Shane; Passey, Scott
Subject: Public Comment on Draft Tree Code
1. First and MOST OBVIOUS Comment - WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?
Trees are an integral part of our natural environment and
any/all decisions (i.e., codes, ordinances, regulations) on
removal and/or replacement should be based on BEST
AVAILABLE SCIENCE!!
The draft rule has percentages, diameters, etc. with NO
scientific or societal basis for those metrics. What are
the metrics in the draft code based on? Where is the
rationale and calculations that resulted in the metrics
chosen in the draft tree code? What tree protection and
canopy goals/objectives will or will not be achieved? How
will the level of tree removals authorized by the draft
code affect the ecological services that native trees
provide?
2. Will the "Intent and Purposes" of the draft tree code be
achieved by the prohibitions set forth in the draft tree code,
or will the exemptions and replacement requirements (as drafted)
make that impossible?
Is it really the intent of this draft rule to implement the
City's Urban Forest Management Plan?
One of the goals of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan
is "no net loss to overall tree canopy." Unless there are
analyses (as stated above) that indicate otherwise, the
draft tree code appears to fall way short of that goal and
will more likely result in continued significant loss of
tree canopy.
3. Is this draft code consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan?
Packet Pg. 339
7.1.e
Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under Environmental
Quality, states:
"Some ecological services that native plants and trees
provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion,
replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing
barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the
air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon
dioxide."
"So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning
ecosystem, that non -sustainable approaches to land
development and management practices can have effects that
ripple throughout the system."
Any/all allowances in the code for tree removal must take into
account the "ripple effect." We are already seeing the "ripple
effect" in the Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek watersheds
where land development practices have caused HUGE erosion and
flooding problems in our creeks.
4. What percentage of the existing tree canopy on private
property in Edmonds could potentially be removed under this
draft tree code?
The Council and the public must be provided the answer to
this question before it proceeds to a public hearing on the
draft tree code.
5. Starting off the draft code with "blanket exemptions" to all
of the prohibitions and requirements is BAD NEWS for trees in
Edmonds. The entire exemptions section should be DELETED.
If there are necessary exemptions for social or safety
reasons, they should be specifically described under the
appropriate provision in the code. Further, there should
be an accompanying document that explains exactly why and
where the exemption is necessary and how such exemption
affects achievement of the goals of the UFMP and Comp Plan.
Packet Pg. 340
7.1.e
6. "One size does NOT fit all" - the draft rule needs to address
differences between the watersheds in Edmonds.
More tree protection should be provided in environmentally
sensitive watersheds (such as Perrinville and Shell
watersheds) that will be further damaged with every large
tree removed (i.e., the ripple effect mentioned
above). Further, the remnant wildlife corridors provided
by trees and tree canopy in Edmonds should be afforded more
protection to preserve the wildlife.
Thank you to those Council members that are actually listening
to public comments and making informed decisions by requesting
additional information from staff and asking staff to make
necessary changes to the draft code BEFORE it goes to public
hearing.
Packet Pg. 341
7.1.e
From: STEVE WAITE <waitearch@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:15 AM
To: Lien, Kernen
Subject: Tree Code, City Council Review (2/26)
Hello Kernen,
Might you include my comments below for the City Council 2/26/21 meeting:
City Council Members,
The Draft Tree Regulations do not consider the accommodation of solar access, either
passive or active, on a single developed lot, *.
Sustainable energy practices should not be mutually exclusive of the natural
environment. Adopting solar access will allow reasonable use of property, while still
balancing holistic ecological concerns. I ask that you consider this issue for inclusion
into the Tree Code.
Thank you,
Steve Waite, Edmonds
*The concept of solar easement was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes
(10/18/20), but that referenced only adjacent properties
with no further discussion or consideration.
Packet Pg. 342
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 343
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 344
7.1.f
DAVEY
Resource Group
Packet Pg. 345
Driveways, minirmm width of 12
feet {ECDC 18.80.07f1]
— C—i
a�
M
A
wat I
aarr�aTsw
Cmnectians II
. • • • ."'.. PJowaWe building area
For RS-8 zme (ECDC
16213.030)
Required 30-foot access
easement (ECDC 18.80.0ID)
—:ode Sew..
Connec?c•
Packet Pg. 346
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 347
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 348
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 349
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 350
7.1.f
c
�L
0
V
CL
r_
0
r
r
N
L
IL
R
am
c
�L
2
V
CL
0
U
io
r
c
d
t
r
r
Q
c
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 351
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 352
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 353
7.1.f
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, or unit lot subdivision
site
Q
Packet Pg. 354
7.1.f
c
�L
0
V
CL
r_
0
r
r
N
L
IL
R
am
c
�L
2
V
CL
0
U
io
r
c
d
t
r
r
Q
c
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 355
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 356
7.1.f
c
�L
0
V
CL
r_
0
r
r
N
L
IL
R
am
c
�L
2
V
CL
0
U
io
r
c
d
t
r
r
Q
c
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 357
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 358
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 359
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 360
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 361
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 362
N
L
IL
cu
1 1 C
_1Q�1to104
l i
�
err cxs t!t ."') f;r• L3 t. t'u"' .� 4 .
Yl
1 I f Sri
r,�r c,zse. ,� - �y •' �-;ri'. i+ "' + .'�`g";,. ��� �.��r , } - -
ru •� :.c Y. t @j'
�I [
r IIl l 1
• i • f � t Pwaletr�-r�r ,{}" `f��� \{ �,(e !�'�•� JI
Packet Pg. 363
� asap as^ w ras rr_
FA i0'SEPrEF-.
1 FAiY1dElJT
1
f
a i
- 7.; 741 3- _ li
Packet Pg. 364
i O
LyJ .uoowus o s �
PA L 1
---------- --------------- 7 �5 i
----_----_---------------
a `�, PANLEL 1
614 ucw'ws i �:�r.m i .�oEu � re C7 ..�00.9
Q
Packet Pg. 365
Driveways width reduced from Access easement reduced 0)
12 toI10 feet from 20 to 30 feet C
I
d
� �cGNS qUC I1 IIN
SiL (i1P) V 7
f�{i
CST � Ns
� Rewosco .1 �
ryrrl w �+ a 3
^,01 r, d
• - Utility easeme O i
and r
-r � • • • • I ' reduced and
--flv a. -. °'r'"�`` q' • • uiihties in accr rM d
✓� y C
CL
�� •• • fA
FRACTB88 - ..
240TH ST
'Mbwable building area. Reduced,Trees in this area can d
15-foot setback
retained
from access easement and 5-foot _
side setbacks .V
C
7
O
U
io
r
c
d
t
O
r
r
Q
C
O
E
t
R
Q
Packet Pg. 366
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 368
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 369
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/2/2021
Recognition of Housing Commission's Work
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Preparer: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Housing issues have been a much -discussed topic in our community and region for at least a few years.
Such housing issues have included: concerns about the cost of buying or renting, whether there's
enough housing overall, whether the existing housing meets current needs, adequacy of options for
seniors, the appropriateness of existing city programs, options for new housing programs, relationship
to zoning, provision of open space, and many other housing -related issues.
In 2018, the City of Edmonds began efforts to develop a strategy for addressing some of the housing
issues. Concerned residents requested that an entirely local commission be appointed to propose things
for the City to consider.
In 2019, the City Council established the Citizens' Housing Commission per Resolution # 1427. That
Resolution called for a broad application process so that residents from across the City would have the
opportunity to learn about and/or participate in the Commission's work. To assure that residents would
be appointed from different parts of the city and not just one or two neighborhoods, seven "zones" -
with roughly equal populations --were identified. Each Council member was assigned by the Council
President to a particular zone from which they would appoint three applicants --two to be regular
members and one to be an alternate --to serve on the Housing Commission. The Mayor was to select
one "at -large" Commission member and one alternate from the remaining pool of applicants.
In all, the City received 135 applications. Council members reviewed the applications from his/her
assigned zone and appointed two Commissioners and one alternate from them. The Mayor then
reviewed the remaining applications and selected one Commissioner and one alternate.
Resolution # 1427 gave the Commission the following mission:
Develop diverse housing policy options for (City) Council considerations designed to expand the
range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are
irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation."
Policy recommendations were due by the end of December, 2020. (The due date was later extended to
the end of January, 2021.) In accomplishing its work, the Commission was to provide for public outreach
and to have information on a city website.
The Housing Commission's first meeting was in September, 2019. Given that the members had different
backgrounds and not all were familiar with the range of housing issues, the Commission's first several
meetings focused on learning and sharing information about housing laws, programs, terminology, etc.
All meetings were in public and video -recorded. A special webpage for the Housing Commission
provided additional information.
The first open house was in February 2020 to share what the Commission was working on and to seek
Packet Pg. 370
8.1
early community input on issues. Soon after this event, the COVID-19 crisis caused the City to stop
having in -person meetings. Housing Commission meetings were held online, while continuing to be live -
streamed and video recorded. All videos were posted on the City's website.
Resolution 1427 had also called for the Commission to have two City Council liaisons. Between
September and December 2019, rotating Council members served as liaisons at each meeting. At the
beginning of 2020, two Council members (Vivian Olsen and Luke Distelhorst) were appointed as Council
liaisons for the remainder of the project.
As part of the outreach efforts, four community surveys were developed. They were mostly online, but
the first three surveys had postal mail components too. (Note: Online government surveys typically
have more representation from households with average or above incomes and people who are middle-
aged or older. Therefore, the opportunity for hard copy surveys, mailed to a small random sample of
addresses, was intended to provide a broader outreach.)
The public process for the first community survey included an in -person open house. The survey
was general in nature because the Commission had not proposed any ideas yet.
The second community survey was associated with an online open house and asked for
feedback on the first round of policy ideas the Commission was considering.
The third survey was associated with another online open house and asked for feedback on a
second round of policy ideas the Commission was considering.
The fourth survey was associated with both an online open house and a webinar. It identified
each specific draft policy that the Commission was actively considering and asked community
members whether or how much support --or disapproval --they had for each draft policy.
During the entire process, a special website was maintained and updated at:
https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/. Of course, public process for the Commission's work
included other components too.
As part of its work, Commission members considered community input. After COVID-19 hit in 2020,
most of the public input was in written form. In addition, individual Commission members also heard
from or had conversations with other local people that were interested. Along the way, Commission
ideas evolved. Public input was an important part of that process. Many of the Commission's initial
policy ideas changed, either a little or a lot.
The last meeting of the Housing Commission was scheduled for January 28, 2021. It would be the
Commmission's 23rd public meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the process to date, recognizing that the Housing Commission's work is wrapping up.
Narrative
At the time this memo was prepared, the Housing Commission had not had its final meeting nor
submitted a set of policy recommendations to the City Council.
By the time the City Council's February 2 meeting is held, the Council will probably have received the
Commission's recommendations. Such recommendations also would have been posted on the City
website.
The Housing Commission's recommendations will be reviewed in phases by the City Council over the
next few months. Each phase or housing policy item for Council review will be identified on the agenda
in advance of the public meeting.
No recommendations from the Housing Commission will be automatically implemented. They are all
Packet Pg. 371
8.1
subject to further study and public input. Ultimately, the City Council may decide to move some
recommendations forward --perhaps for more work or changes --and to not act on other
recommendations.
Regardless, the Housing Commission's work has been completed at this time. As an appointed body, the
Commission ended on February 1, 2021. While Commission members represented a wide range of
opinions, they have all been committed to the process and devoted many hours to fulfill their role.
Packet Pg. 372
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/2/2021
Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel" as a Permitted Use in
the CW Zone
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty / Rob Chave
Department: Economic Development
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
This code amendment was originally proposed by the Economic Development Commission. The Planning
Board recommended this code amendment after a public hearing on December 11, 2019. City Council
considered this item initially at its February 4, 2020 meeting and then again after a Public Hearing at its
February 18, 2020 meeting. Three members of the public spoke at the Public Hearing: two in favor of
the proposed amendment; one stating that there is already a hotel near the Waterfront. Minutes of
both City Council meetings are attached here. The matter was scheduled on the March 3, 2020 City
Council Action Agenda, but was postponed due to the late hour of that meeting. After that time COVID-
19-related restrictions did not allow its return to City Council agendas this time.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the Ordinance as proposed.
Alternative: Provide direction and forward to February 9, 2021 Action Agenda for further review and
approval.
Narrative
Summary of Issue:
Hotels are an allowed use in the Downtown Business (BD) zoning districts. However, in the waterfront
district of Downtown Edmonds - the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone district - hotels are not included
on its list of "permitted primary uses." The CW zone encompasses all of the properties waterward of
the BNSF railroad south of Brackett's Landing South park to the City's southern limits (see attached
map). That being said, only limited opportunities may exist for hotel uses to be developed in the CW
zone, given that there are few, if any, viable, vacant properties. If a property owner or investors were to
respond to market demand for hotel rooms, it would likely be in the form of re -use of an existing
commercial building.
A review of the history of several of the extant commercial buildings along the waterfront indicates that
they have housed a succession of different uses over the decades, including such marked changes in use
as apartments to offices, offices to restaurants and back again, retail to office, etc. These changes have
occurred in response to changes in market demand over the decades and in response to changing
Packet Pg. 373
8.2
economic conditions. The one, otherwise standard, commercial use that has not been available in this
zone is lodging.
The Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered this issue over the past two to three years,
spurred by their interest in potentially capturing more economic impact from the thousands of visitors
who come to Edmonds. While day-trippers spend on average from $44 to $85 per person, per day
(depending on their activities) in our local economy, overnighters in Snohomish County spend up to
$179 per person, per night, a substantial increase in local economic impact (Dean Runyon Associates,
May 2019).
What's more, in proposing this potential code amendment, the EDC believed that additional lodging
opportunities in and around greater Downtown Edmonds would also serve as a welcome complement to
the important arts, culture, entertainment and culinary scene.
See attached memo from EDC Chair supporting this proposal.
For these reasons, the EDC proposed consideration of adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted
uses" in the CW zone.
It should be noted that since this matter was first considered, the COVID-19 crisis has up -ended the
local, national and global economies and substantially impacted the financial viability of traditional
mainstays of our local economy, including retail, office -based and other establishments. Many business
and property owners are facing an uncertain future with their traditional business models. Office -
building owners have been left wondering if pre-existing and/or traditional tenants will return once the
pandemic has receded, given the current work -at-home environment. It is quite possible that previously
well -occupied office buildings may see long-lasting vacancies. Such property owners may start to seek
and consider any possible alternative uses that could be more financially viable. Re -use of such
buildings for lodging should be an available option.
Proposal:
For these reasons, and in an effort to expand the opportunities for developing potential lodging
establishments in and around Downtown Edmonds, the Administration forwards the EDC proposal to
consider adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted uses" in the CW zone.
The current version of the CW zone is attached. Generally, the City's zoning code provides for hotels in
commercial zones, and includes this definition:
21.40.060 Hotel.
Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are
rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior
accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not
included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical
attention or care. (See also, Motel.)
The current proposal can be accomplished by adding hotels to the list of Permitted Primary Uses in
Chapter 16.55.010 (CW zone). Staff does not recommend adding'motel' as a permitted use since the
purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area, and
the definition of a motel is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access.
This potential amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which allows this type of
use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments.
Packet Pg. 374
8.2
The City Council had some discussion regarding parking during its review on February 41". Briefly, the
standard for all commercial uses in the downtown area is as follows:
"All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a
flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a
mixed use or residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for
residential uses shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit.
For purposes of this chapter, "residential uses" shall refer to lobbies, stairwells,
elevators, storage areas and other similar features." [ECDC 17.50.010.C]
If the Council is concerned that the normal downtown commercial parking rate is insufficient for hotels,
the Council could instead specify that hotels use the residential parking rate of "one stall per {dwelling}
unit". This could be accomplished by amending the proposed ordinance to permit hotels as:
"Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit"
In summary, the Administration believes it is incumbent upon the City to provide a fertile platform for
robust economic opportunity within our local business community - such as opportunities to pivot from
traditional business models to keep businesses and property owners viable in the new economic
realities we will be facing. The potential of a mostly vacant office building at the Waterfront does not
serve our community's nor nearby businesses' best interests. If market conditions warranted re -use of
such a building as a hotel, the Administration believes such an opportunity should be available, as it is
elsewhere in Downtown Edmonds.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that would implement the Planning Board's
recommendation to add "Hotels" to the permitted uses in the CW zone. Exhibit 2 contains the existing
CW Zone language (ECDC 16.55) showing the proposed change allowing hotel uses. Exhibit 3 contains
the minutes of the Planning Board discussion and public hearing. Exhibit 4 contains the EDC Memo to
the Planning Board asking that lodging be allowed in the CW Zone. Exhibit 5 is a map of the CW zone.
Exhibit 6 is a summary of responses to recent questions raised. Exhibit 7 contains the 2/4/20 City Council
minutes. Exhibit 8 contains the 2/18/20 City Council minutes.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: 2020-02-13 Ordinance adopting revised CW zone
Exhibit 2: Edmonds CW 16.55 with Hotels
Exhibit 5: Zoning Map
Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes - Hotels in CW
Exhibit 6: Summary of Responses to Rrecent Councilmember Questions
Exhibit 7 - City Council 2-4-20 minutes
Exhibit 8 - City Council 2-18-20 minutes
Exhibit 4: EDC Memo to Planning Board
Packet Pg. 375
8.2.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW
HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW)
ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's zoning code generally provides for hotels and motels in
commercial zones; and
WHEREAS, this amendment allows only hotels, but not motels, in the CW zone; and
WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which
allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public
hearing on December 11, 2019; and
WHEREAS, this code amendment was originally requested by the Economic
Development Commission; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 16.55 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike
through).
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Packet Pg. 376
8.2.a
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
IM
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 377
8.2.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE
COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2020.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
3
Packet Pg. 378
8.2.b
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
Chapter 16.55
CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
Sections:
16.55.000
Purposes.
16.55.010
Uses.
16.55.020
Site development standards.
16.55.030
Operating restrictions.
Page 1/2
16.55.000 Purposes.
The CW zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. To reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians to the
waterfront;
B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the waterfront;
C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public.
16.55.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Marine -oriented services;
2. Retail uses which are either marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented, excluding drive-in businesses;
3. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics;
5. Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation;
6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070-;
7. Hotels.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use.
C. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC;
2. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 6, 2001; Ord. 2366 § 9, 1983; Ord. 2307, 1982; Ord. 2283 § 6, 1982].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.
Packet Pg. 379
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
16.55.020 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum Minimum Minimum' Maximum Maximum
Lot Area Width Setbacks Height Coverage
CW None None 15' landward of 30' None
bulkheads for
buildings; 60'
landward of
bulkheads for
parking
1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property.
2 Tanks which are part of a petroleum products storage and distribution facility are allowed
to be 48 feet in height.
B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC.
Page 2/2
C. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and
reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 2526 § 7, 19851.
16.55.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for:
1. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats;
3. Public parks;
4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
5. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3902 § 4, 2012; Ord.
3320 § 4, 2000].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.
Packet Pg. 380
M
NOW..
------------
kn
500 %;"
8.2.d
Board Member Pence suggested there is a way to get the public engagement program right from the beginning of a project so
that the situation doesn't escalate later in the process. However, that is a topic for a different meeting.
Board Member Monroe asked why the additional language related to existing, developed sites was added to Subsection C
instead of another subsection. For example, the language might fit better in Subsection B. Mr. Clugston responded that
Subsection C is application related, and staff felt that a little bit more explanation was warranted.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (AMD20190005) BE
FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER
PENCE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE CW ZONE (FILE NO.
AMD20190006)
Mr. Chave recalled that this item was also introduced to the Planning Board on November 13' by Patrick Doherty, the City's
Economic Development Director. He reviewed that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) has requested an
amendment TO the City's zoning code to allow lodging -type uses in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. As noted by
the EDC, there are very limited areas for hotels to locate in the downtown waterfront area at this time. The amendment is
intended to promote the economic well-being of the City by expanding these opportunities.
Mr. Chave advised that the EDC's request could be addressed by adding "hotels" to the list of "Permitted Primary Uses" in
ECDC 16.55.010. At this time, staff is not recommending adding "motel" as a permitted use since the purposes of the CW
zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area and the definition of a "motel" is more focused on
supporting vehicle use and access.
Chair Cheung opened the hearing, but no members of the public were present.
Board Member Monroe asked if the amendment would change the height or parking requirements, and Mr. Chave answered
no. The amendment would simply allow a "hotel" as a permitted use. He pointed out that the Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) already envisions hotel uses on the waterfront, so the amendment would actually bring the zoning code into
compliance with what the SMP envisions. Board Member Monroe voiced support for the proposed amendment.
Student Representative Bryan said he also supports the proposed amendment and likes the idea of having more hotel
accommodations on the waterfront. He noted that the hotels would be within walking distance of downtown Edmonds, as
well. Expanding opportunities for hotel uses could bring more people to Edmonds, adding to the local economy.
Board Member Pence said he supports the idea behind the proposed amendment. However, his recollection is that the SMP
requires water -related uses within 200 feet of the shoreline, and a hotel would not be considered a water -related use. Mr.
Chave explained that the CW zone is located within an area that is designated as Urban Mixed Use in the SMP, and lodging -
type uses are allowed even if they are not water -related.
Chair Cheung asked staff to share any arguments against the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave pointed out that it is pretty
common for waterfront towns to have lodging in and around the waterfront area. At this point, Edmonds is unusual in that
the use is not currently allowed.
Vice Chair Robles said he supports the concept, but it might end up being too good of an idea. There are at least five existing
buildings along the waterfront that would be fantastic locations for hotels. Once the use is allowed, it would be difficult to
stop if it proliferates. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment is a haphazard approach, and he would rather look at
the entire CW zone as a whole and come up with an overall plan similar to what was done with the Westgate and Highway 99
areas. The waterfront property is unique and there is limited land on the west side of the railroad tracks. It is possibly the
most coveted piece of real estate in the State of Washington. Property owners could benefit tremendously from the
amendment, which could dramatically increase property values based on the higher use allowed. Perhaps there should be
some limits placed on the use, or at least a filter so they can get the good ideas and have an opportunity to reject bad ideas.
He summarized that the waterfront area is a public amenity (a park) that belongs to the citizens of Edmonds.
Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 382
8.2.d
Mr. Chave emphasized that the proposed amendment would not allow a park area to be redeveloped into a hotel. The park
spaces are zoned Open Space (OS). The amendment would be limited to the properties zoned CW, and there aren't very
many. A lot of the properties that Vice Chair Robles is concerned about are not zoned in a way that allows hotel
development, and they are publicly owned. Therefore, the danger is extremely limited.
Board Member Monroe asked if Vice Chair Robles is concerned that existing apartment buildings would be replaced with
hotels. Vice Chair Robles said he is more concerned about properties where single-family homes are currently located.
Board Member Monroe agreed that these homes are great places for people to live, but they are currently underutilized
properties. He said he would love to have a place for friends and family to stay in hotels close by.
Chair Cheung said he can understand that people might be concerned that allowing hotel uses in the CW zone might result in
additional traffic impacts, less public access to the waterfront, etc. However, providing additional lodging opportunities
would be a nice addition that benefits the local businesses. It is a great location in that employees would be able to get to
work via the Sounder Train. Mr. Chave pointed out that the existing office buildings in the CW zone do not provide public
amenities. He would argue that a hotel use would encourage more public access and amenities.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (FILE
NO. AMD20190006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD
MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung reminded the Board that the December 25'i' meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be January 8th, and
the agenda will include an update on the Housing Commission's work. The January 22" d meeting agenda will include a
quarterly report from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, the February 121 meeting agenda will include
an update on the Climate Goals Project, and the February 261 meeting agenda will include updates on the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2050 and Buildable Lands processes. He noted there are a number of items on the list of
"pending projects," as well.
Board Member Pence asked if the Board holds an annual retreat, and if so, when will it be added to the extended agenda.
Chair Cheung answered that the 2020 Chair and Vice Chair will be responsible for scheduling and establishing an agenda for
the Board's annual retreat. In the past, the retreat has been held earlier in the year, rather than later. Board Member Pence
said that would be his hope, given that there will be a new Mayor and several new City Council Members.
Chair Robles said he will be meeting with the Development Services Director soon to discuss the Board's extended agenda,
including a possible date for a retreat. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback regarding the items they see as
priorities for 2020.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung thanked the Board Members for their hard work and participation as he chaired the meetings throughout 2019.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe thanked Chair Cheung for doing such a great job of setting the Board's agendas and leading the
meetings. He made the meetings fun to attend, and the Board got a lot of business done, as well.
Student Representative Bryan referred to Vice Chair Robles earlier comment that allowing lodging uses in the CW zone
might be too good. He recalled the Board's earlier discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about their desire
to be involved earlier in the permit process. He suggested that perhaps it would be possible for the ADB to provide feedback
to help weed out the bad ideas, like too many hotels ruining the waterfront. Vice Chair Robles emphasized that the Board
doesn't have that power. The Board's job is to make recommendations, and it is up to the City Council to make the final
Planning Board Minutes
December l 1, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 383
8.2.d
decision. The optimum approach is for the Board to populate the record to the maximum extent possible so the City Council
has adequate information to fully understand the public's wishes.
Student Representative Bryan asked if it would be possible for the ADB to have the power to review projects and deny those
that do not fit in with the City's vision. Mr. Chave explained that, depending on where a project is located, the ADB can
make recommendations or approve design, but it cannot say whether or not a use is appropriate. The uses allowed are set by
the zoning code. Adding "hotels" as an allowed use in the CW zone is essentially saying that type of use is fine in the zone,
period. The ADB can rule on whether the design is adequate for the location, but it cannot rule on whether or not the use is
appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 384
8.2.d
POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
(CW) ZONE (File No. AMD20190006
Mr. Doherty advised that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is interested in ways to enhance the economic
vitality of the City, and one potential option is to encourage greater lodging opportunities in the City center to be adjunct to
the attractions (events, activities, restaurants, performance venues, etc.) that already exist. He explained that, over the years,
they have tried to entice hotel developers to the downtown and even paid for a hotel demand report a few years ago that
quantified the demand for hotels. The report pointed out there are few opportunities to develop hotels in the downtown given
the small site size and height limit. While there is potential for small, boutique hotels that are run by independent operators,
the name brand hotels usually won't invest in a market for anything less than 75 rooms, and there are no properties in the
main downtown that could accommodate a hotel of that size.
Mr. Doherty pointed out that the waterfront is another part of the greater downtown where there are opportunities to
adaptively reuse existing office and residential buildings for hotel uses. In fact, he was approached a few years ago by a
person who was interested in converting a waterfront office building to a lodging use, but he had to advise him that it was not
allowed by code. The building was later purchased by someone else and is currently used as office space.
Mr. Doherty said the EDC became excited about the notion of a waterfront hotel, and it was discovered that if a waterfront
office building were converted to a hotel use, it would be the only beach front hotel in the Puget Sound area. It could become
an attraction for Edmonds and improve the economic vitality of the entire downtown core. He explained that the EDC is
requesting that the zoning code be amended to allow lodging as a permitted primary use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW)
zone (ECDC 16.55.010).
Mr. Chave pointed out that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which already
allows lodging uses in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environment. He also pointed out that the City's code typically
addresses hotels and motels together; but in this case, the amendment would apply to properties along the waterfront that are
in close proximity to public walkways, parks, etc. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to limit lodging uses in the
CW zone to hotels only.
Mr. Chave suggested that, in addition to the proposed amendment to add "hotels" as a permitted primary use in the CW zone,
it would also be appropriate to do minor updates to the definition of "hotel." If the Board is willing to move the proposed
amendment forward, it could be scheduled for a public hearing in December.
Mr. Doherty explained that the overarching concept for the SMP is to have either marine -related or marine -dependent uses on
the waterfront. If that is not possible, then there is a hierarchy of uses that can be considered, and hotels are higher on the list
than offices. Office uses typically serve the same crowd every day, whereas a hotel would serve different people every day
and would likely provide some public space, as well. In many cases, a hotel use would provide more opportunities for public
enjoyment of the shoreline than an office use would.
Board Member Monroe said he believes the proposed amendment is a great idea. He asked about the boundaries of the CW
zone, and Mr. Chave said it includes all of the property along the waterfront except the ferry property, the port property east
of the railroad tracks, and the parks. The Port property east of the railroad tracks is zoned General Commercial (CG) and the
park and ferry properties are zoned Public (P). He summarized that it is a fairly narrow strip, but there are some significant
properties that could be repurposed or redeveloped for lodging uses. Board Member Cloutier provided a zoning map to
illustrate the extent of the CW zone, which includes part of the Port property, but not Harbor Square.
Board Member Monroe asked about the parking requirement for hotel uses. He suggested this will be important information
to provide at the hearing where it will likely be raised as a concern. Mr. Chave answered that the parking requirement is one
space per room or unit. Board Member Monroe asked if employee parking is also required, and Mr. Chave answered no.
Mr. Doherty observed that the average occupancy for a hotel is between 60% and 70%, and typically, 100% occupancy only
occurs during special events. During these times, employees would end up parking on the street.
Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 385
8.2.d
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how creative an applicant could be in meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Chave
responded that not all parking must be provided on site. Development in the downtown is allowed to take advantage of
parking elsewhere within the area to meet the parking requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if other methods of
transportation, such as Uber or Lyft, could be used by an applicant to meet at least part of the parking requirement. Mr.
Chave reminded the Board that all new uses in existing buildings are considered to comply with the parking requirement. If
an applicant is renovating an existing building on the waterfront for a hotel use, whatever parking is there would satisfy the
parking requirement.
Vice Chair Robles pointed out that there is no emergency access solution for properties on the west side if a train is blocking
the track. He asked if there is something in the hotel laws that would prohibit a hotel from being placed on the west side of
the tracks for safety reasons. Mr. Doherty said he does not know of any restrictions. He said he has spoken to a few hotel
developers, as well as a hotel development broker, who were conceptually interested in property on the waterfront, and they
didn't seem to find a problem. In general, there is concern about noise and vibration from the trains going by, and he
occasionally hears from the Harbor Inn that guests complain about it. This is something a developer would need to address
as part of a project design.
Vice Chair Robles asked if the proposed amendment would increase the value of properties in the CW zone. Mr. Doherty
explained that, typically, the appraised value is based on the highest and best use of a property. There are no hotels in the
area and office development is currently considered the highest and best use. He does not believe that the properties would
be appraised higher because there are no large under -developed or undeveloped properties that would impact the value.
Vice Chair Robles said he understand that the amendment is being proposed to attract and accommodate tourists to the
downtown and waterfront. He asked if a waterfront hotel is considered the only way to accomplish this goal or if there are
other options available such as short-term rentals that can absorb a lot of occupancy but do not require development. This
would give local residents an opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits, too. Mr. Doherty said the Airbnb phenomenon is
growing in Edmonds, as evidenced by the surge in business licenses and lodging taxes. This is largely because they do not
have a lot of other options. However, short-term rentals are not always to everyone's taste, and a hotel scenario is preferred
by some. The proposed amendment would widen a very narrow door that a potential developer could walk through to
provide more lodging in the downtown area.
Vice Chair Robles suggested they open the scope of the discussion so that it is not based solely on the premise of bringing
more people to the waterfront and downtown to take advantage of the fairs and events. Mr. Doherty responded that a lot of
people use lodging in neighboring cities, and the goal is to recapture some of this market to improve the City's economic
vitality.
PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROCEDURE
(File No. AMD20190005
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the unit lot subdivision process was adopted in 2017 and has been well received. Since that time,
three projects have been approved and several others are in the works. Based on experience, staff has identified the need for
a minor change to the application timing within the unit lot subdivision process to make the associated building permit
review more efficient. He explained that the current code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot subdivision concurrent
with design review, concurrent with a building permit application, or after a building permit application is received.
However, applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to inefficiencies. It requires
additional staff time to create, change, update and re -review applications, and it also requires applicants to prepare new
documents and pay additional fees.
In order to streamline the process, Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending that unit lot subdivision applications no longer be
accepted after building permits are submitted. As proposed, staff will know to process buildings permits as single-family
residential developments rather than having to start the process as a commercial development and change further down the
road when a unit lot subdivision application is submitted. The proposed amendment to ECDC 20.75.045 would alter just a
few words to implement the change in process (See Exhibit 2).
Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 386
8.2.e
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO RECENT COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS
1. Q: Should hotels be allowed in the CW zone only as a conditional use?
A: In the Edmonds City Code, "Conditional use means a use allowed in one or more zones as
defined by the zoning code but which, because of characteristics peculiar to such use, because of
size, hours of operation, technical processes or equipment, or because of the exact location with
reference to surroundings and existing improvements or demands upon public facilities, requires
a special permit in order to provide a particular degree of control to make such uses consistent
with and compatible with other existing or permissible uses in the same zone or zones."
Since offices, restaurants, and other commercial uses are already allowed in the CW zone, it is
not clear that hotels would be out of character or have "peculiar characteristics" above and
beyond the other types of commercial uses allowed. In fact, some marine -related allowed in
the CW zone may arguably have greater impacts. For these reasons, it does not appear to be
necessary to subject hotel uses to the greater scrutiny, process and expense of a conditional use
process. In addition, the Planning Board did not raise the potential need for a conditional use to
accommodate this additional permitted use in the CW zone.
2. Q: Should the definition of "hotel" in ECC be updated?
A: The definition of "hotel" could certainly be updated, and we have considered doing that
sometime soon — perhaps bundled with other "clean-up" amendments. As to specific questions
raised regarding the existing definition: The current definition of hotel could allow for B&Bs,
which are a reasonable lodging type. Other uses, such as senior home or apartments, etc., are
already governed by their respective definitions, so there would be no confusion that they could
somehow be construed to be "hotel" uses.
3. Q: Would this proposal include motels?
A: No, motels are auto -oriented lodging establishments which we do not believe are compatible
with the downtown environment.
4. Q: Will sufficient parking be required for a hotel use?
A: Throughout Downtown Edmonds (in the BD zones) the parking requirement for all
commercial uses is 1 space for 500 square feet of gross building area. This includes hotel uses in
the Downtown Business (BD) zones. This uniform requirement is intended to allow our existing
building stock, including historic buildings, to be readily adaptable to a full range of commercial
uses over time and as market demand dictates. To require specific parking ratios for each
possible use could result in certain uses being unavailable for certain buildings, and/or could
even render certain buildings unadaptable or even obsolete. Wishing to promote a rich variety
of interchangeable commercial uses in Downtown Edmonds, the City has implemented this
standard parking ratio requirement and staff believes it should be continued in the CW zone for
hotel uses also. If the Council wishes to consider another option, we have included the option
of using the standard of 1 space per hotel room unit.
Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be compatible with the City's plans to complete the
waterfront walkway and otherwise provide physical and visual access to the waterfront?
A: Yes. Re -use of existing buildings for lodging would in no way impact the City's efforts in this
Packet Pg. 387
8.2.e
regard. What's more, two factors may argue in favor of hotel uses as providing greater public
access to and enjoyment of the shoreline (a central tenet of the Shoreline Management Act)
than some private uses, such as office: the common inclusion of semipublic spaces and functions
in hotels (lobbies, cafes, bars), especially when fronting an amenity like a public beach, and the
larger and ever -changing daily population of users of a hotel.
6. Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be required to observe the view corridor requirements of the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)?
A: Yes. All new buildings in the CW zone, within the shoreline environment, would have to
observe all development standards of the SMP, including view corridors. However, given that
most, if not all, existing commercial buildings in the CW zone predate current SMP requirements
(most do not include view corridors, e.g.), it is unlikely that a property owners or developer
would demolish an existing building to accommodate a new structure, given that the result
would be a smaller new building. Re -use of an existing building as a hotel would not trigger view
corridor requirements.
Packet Pg. 388
8.2.f
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
February 4, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the p
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, N
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land c
and water." E
0
N
3. ROLL CALL
N
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. c
0
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V
r
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
V
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
t
x
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
w
r
c
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the Councilmembers who were elected and selected, E
commenting it was a good process. During the Councilmember selection process, at approximately ballot
number 18 when Councilmembers were describing why they had nominated a person, he was shocked by
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page ]
Packet Pg. 389
8.2.f
the negative comments made by Councilmember Buckshnis regarding one of the applicants, Lora Petso.
He was most bothered by Councilmember Buckshnis lying in her statement about the $5 million which Ms.
Petso had nothing to do with. The topic of the $5 million happened during a previous administration and
finance director. Ms. Petso was not on the Finance Committee, and was only the Council President. He said
Councilmember Buckshnis' comments were out of character for a Councilmember. Ms. Petso was polite
enough not to say anything although those around her have been speaking out including comments made
on My Edmonds News. He summarized the people of Edmonds did not care for Councilmember Buckshnis'
performance that night and she owes the Council and Ms. Petso an apology.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE SEAVIEW PARK INFILTRATION FACILITY
PHASE 2
6. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MICROSOFT OFFICE 365
7. ACTION ITEM
HIGHWAY 99 PHASE ONE PROJECT
Mayor Nelson said he was very excited about this project and his hat was off to staff, particularly Public
Works who, even in light of the challenges the City faces due to the lack of state and federal transportation
fund, have developed a project that jumpstarts what the City has been trying to do on Highway 99 for a
long time to protect pedestrians, prevent vehicle crashes, and enhance and revitalize Highway 99. This
E
project endeavors to that on a quick and affordable pace.
Co
IT
Development Services Director Shane Hope reminded of the work that went into the Hwy 99 planning
04
process including Council approval of the Highway 99 Plan, a vision for Highway 99 that includes
U
opportunities for development as well improving the function, walkability, and safety of the corridor. The
o
corridor improvements are costly and the City has struggled with a way to move forward with a project that
U
brings the vision closer and is helpful for traffic and pedestrians.
r
U
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is very complicated, matching the possible funding
'�_
sources with the work planned for Hwy 99 and accomplishing as much as possible with the initial funding
in hopes of attract more money. He reviewed:
w
9 Introduction
o Aerial view of project
0 244th St SW to 212th St SW (— 2.3 miles)
E
o Speed limit: 45 mph
o Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 40,000 vehicles per day
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 2
Packet Pg. 390
8.2.f
o City Limits: approx. 25,000' both sides
■ Edmonds (approx. 20,000' frontage — 80%)
■ Esperance (Snohomish Co. approx. 1,500')
■ Mountlake Terrace (approx. 1,000' north of 220th)
■ Lynnwood (approx. 2,500' total, 1,900' south of 212t")
o Other Nearby Transportation Assets
* Interurban Trail
■ Lynnwood Link
■ MLT Transit Station
o Funding
■ $10 million Connect Washington funding in 2018
■ $450,000 spent to date
■ $9.55 million available in 2021
■ $290,000 in local funds
Project costs ($Million/2020 dollars)
Segment
Limits
Roadway Cost
Utility Cost
Utility U/G Cost
Total Cost
1
244" to 238" Streets SW
$20.6
$2.4
$8.8
$30.0
2
2381h to 2341h Streets SW
$10.3
$1.4
$5.1
$15.8
3
2341h to 2281h Streets SW
$18.3
$2.4
$6.9
$26.0
4
228' to 2241h Streets SW
$13
$1.8
$5.9
$1.3
5
2241h to 220" Streets SW
$14.1
$3
$9.4
$26.5
6
2201h to 2161h Streets SW
$14.0
$1.8
$8.2
$24.0
7
216111 to 2121h Streets SW
$23.1
$3
$10.2
$36.3
Total Costs
$113.4
$15.8
$54.5
$183.7
Proposed Scope Change
o Current scope (estimated project cost $183,000M)
■ New sidewalks with new street lighting in most locations
■ Center landscaped medians for access control and turning movements
■ Utility improvements
■ Landscaping and other softscape treatments
■ Capacity improvements at existing signalized intersections
■ Potential undergrounding of overhead utilities
o Revised scope
■ Center medians for access control and turning movements along entire corridor
■ Traffic signal or HAWK installation (location TBD)
■ Considered a traffic signal at 234t", have enough funding but not enough warrants to
justify so likely not approved by State
Existing
o Geometry cross sections
■ 84' curb to curb roadway
■ 8' sidewalks
■ 13' transit lanes
■ Two 11' travel lanes each direction
■ 12' center turn lane
o Signal
■ 244t" St SW
■ 238t" St SW
■ 228th St SW
■ 224th St SW
■ 220th St SW
■ 216t" St SW
* 212" St SW
0
d
E
0
N
I
N
c
0
t�
U
x
W
c
d
E
t
V
cC
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 3
Packet Pg. 391
8.2.f
• Future improvements with cross sections
o Raised median
• No Hwy 99 widening
■ Add raised/planted medians between intersection with left -turn openings
• Add C-curbs along left turn lanes at intersections
■ Add HAWK or traffic signal (specific location: TBD)
• Future build -out
o Widen Hwy 99 at 238"' St SW
• Add dual left -turn lanes NB at 238t" St SW
o Keep raised, planted medians between intersections completed as part of Raised Median
Project
o Replace C-Curb with concrete hardscape median at intersection
o Add ITS and upgrade existing traffic signals
o Potential undergrounding of overhead utility lines
• Cost estimate of revised scope
o Raised median total project cost $.5M (funded through Connecting Washington 2021-2023
Biennium
• Design phase $1 M
■ Construction phase $5.5M
o Traffic signal or HAWK signal (location: TBD)
• Total project cost: range from $1M to $6M (based on selected options)
• Funding sources
- Remaining connecting Washington funds ($9.55M)
- Some or all of the $6.2M allocated to the Waterfront Connector project
- Future grant opportunities (Highway Safety Improvement Program/HSIP)
• Next Steps
o Raised median
• Approval of scope change by WSDOT Early 2020
■ Design 2020
• Construction 2021 (early 2021 advertisement)
o Future build -out
• Design TBD (secure funding)
• Construction TBD (secure funding/future development)
Mr. Williams referred to development along the City of Shoreline's frontage which has dramatically
increased activity; he anticipated the same would happen in Edmonds. Each project, particularly large
mixed use and residential projects, can be asked to dedicate property along their frontage and can be
required to build the frontage improvements.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said before serving ten years on the City Council, she was on the
Highway 99 Committee for five years. She liked the idea of a planting strip, envisioning it would improve
safety. She also encouraged staff to continue looking a HAWK signal at 234"' as the area between 238"' and
228' as there are bus stops along that section with pedestrians trying to cross seven lanes of traffic which
result in fatalities and personal injuries. She recognized the importance of traffic safety, commenting she
has seen at least ten accidents in the area between 220"' and 2241", but she was also concerned with
pedestrian safety. The new apartments in process next to the community health center will increase the
number of people trying to cross seven lanes of traffic. She summarized the planting strip was a great first
step to improving safety.
Mr. Williams agreed a HAWK signal would be a big step forward if WSDOT would approve it which he
believed they would since they approved two in Shoreline. He said the HAWK signal would not necessarily
be located at 234" and may be slightly north or south. He reviewed highlights of the crash history:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 4
Packet Pg. 392
8.2.f
• 8.61 crashes per million miles traveled, 3.5 times the state average.
r One -quarter of accidents involve vehicles coming to or from two-way left turn lane
■ 220"' to 220 has the most accidents followed by 2281h to 228th
Mr. Williams said center turn lane improvements will change the dynamic of the accidents and can address
all the segments at the same time. Another benefit of the center median improvements is they begin to make
a visual statement, a commitment to the entire frontage along with the future gateway improvements that
identify when drivers are entering/leaving Edmonds. The gateway improvements have not yet been
designed; staff is hopeful they can be incorporated into this project.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the HAWK signal did not necessarily need to be located at 230
but the lack of a crossing in that ten block section has created lot of problems. She pointed out Shoreline
has HAWK signals in front of the ice arena and further south and there are also areas where drivers can
make left turns which has created a much safer environment. Shoreline has also been successful in reducing
the speed limit from 45 to 40 and she was hopeful that could be accomplished with this project. Mr.
Williams said WSDOT is reluctant to reduce the speed limit without any improvements. Construction of a
median provides a visual clue to drivers to slow down which may justify lowering the speed limit to 40.
Although not the intent, if a person chooses to cross Highway 99, the median provides some semblance of
a refuge. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed but said that was not a substitute for a crosswalk and a
HAWK signal.
Councilmember L. Johnson commended staff for developing a plan that did not wait to address safety on
Highway 99, specifically a plan that would address safety on the entire stretch of Hwy 99. During the last
year she has heard a number of concerns about safety on Highway 99 and as the mom of teenage drivers,
she is very aware of the disproportionate number of accidents that occur on Highway 99. She was also
interested in the gateway signs to welcome people to the City. Although she recognized the center island
improvements could provide a place of refuge for pedestrians, she cautioned her children not to do that.
Recognizing that 20% of the frontage is owned by other cities, Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the
a)
City would partner with the other jurisdictions. With regard to a signal at 234`h, she asked how far off the
M
warrants were, noting signals are evenly spaced except in that area. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss
E
answered level of service (LOE) is based on intersection delay; A is no delay and E is over 55 seconds of
O
delay. That intersection is currently LOS B-C which indicates there is not a lot of traffic using 2341h and
there minimal increase with development planned on the northwest corner. With a 20 year growth rate, the
intersection is still at LOC C.
c
E
Councilmember L. Johnson observed the warrants have been met for a HAWK signal. Mr. Williams said
N
that will be negotiated with WSDOT as the criteria is for a HAWK signal is more flexible. Few pedestrians
that use that intersection even though legally there is a crosswalk at any road that intersects with another
N
road. It is a very challenging area for pedestrians to cross 100 feet. With regard to the 20% frontage located
in other cities, Mr. Williams said staff has had discussion with the other cities and Snohomish County; the
c
City would sponsor the project. The cost estimates include all the frontage improvements; the partner
V
jurisdictions will need to approve the design.
v
Student Representative Bauder commented when a road is revamped, drivers tend to drive faster because,
there are fewer bumps. He asked if there were any plans for additional speed cameras to keep the roadway
safe. Mr. Williams said traffic cameras cannot be used for speed control except in school zones.
w
Councilmember Paine said she spent much of the summer talking to people and often heard that when going
north on Highway 99 and crossing into Edmonds, it looks like you've entered 1950. She appreciate the z
effort to move forward on this project quickly. She asked if this was the first time residents and businesses
have heard about the change in scope. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Paine envisioned an a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 5
Packet Pg. 393
8.2.f
active community engagement plan so businesses and residents in the area understand what the project
looks like. Mr. Williams agreed frequent and high quality contact with businesses and residents is
anticipated, especially with property owners who will be keenly interested in limiting left turns.
Mr. Hauss recalled public outreach when the conceptual project was developed with the seven segments.
Although the complete project was not described, there were discussions about a raised median and mid -
block left turn pockets during public outreach. Councilmember Paine asked if residents and businesses
knew the project will potentially be constructed in the next 1'/z years. Mr. Williams said if the Council sees
merit in moving forward as staff has presented, the project consultant will develop a plan for public
outreach.
Councilmember Paine asked about the timeline for the project. Mr. Williams anticipated design in 2020,
going to bid in early 2021 and construction in 2021.
Councilmember Paine referred to warrants, commenting it was a term particular to the industry. It was her
understanding warrants were the number of people or vehicles involved in crashes. She asked if any other
data sets could be considered such as school bus stops to sway the decision to install a signal or a HAWK
signal. Mr. Williams said there are warrants for everything related to traffic engineering. For example a
stop sign, if a driver uses a stop sign 4 times a day and only sees another driver once every three weeks, the
stop sign stops having any value because it does not seem to provide any benefit. The idea behind warrants
is the installation of a traffic control measure should mean something and control a hazard that actually
exists, not just a hazard that might happen but only infrequently. The same is true for a signal although
there is a desire to avoid interfering with traffic flow if there is not a need. A certain amount of pedestrian
traffic and cross -street traffic is necessary to justify the traffic control. He explained Mr. Hauss is good at
warrant analyses and staff will maximize the case as much as possible. However, there are limits and with
the limited amount of congestion at that intersection, a signal does not appear to be the right answer. A
HAWK signal may be better option; the issue is finding the right location.
Councilmember Paine asked if a warrant analysis was done for the HAWK signal at City Park crossing SR-
104. Mr. Williams said that was a WSDOT warranted, funded and constructed project. The City contributed
approximately $10,000 to the $500,000 project. He never saw the warrant analysis. Mr. Hauss said a
HAWK signal will be added at SR-524 and 84t". The threshold in the warrant analysis is 10 pedestrians
during the peak hour. A pedestrian count at Highway 99 & 234" found was one pedestrian crossed during
the entire day, well below the 10 pedestrian/hour threshold
Councilmember Paine asked about a HAWK signal at 7`' & SR-5241" near Holy Rosary. Mr. Hauss
answered nine intersections will be improved as part of the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project, including
SR-524 & 9t" and a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) at SR-524 & 7t". Mr. Williams said the cost
for a RRFB is $30,000 versus $200,000 for a HAWK signal.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $6.2M legislative re -appropriation which Mr. Williams
advised was state funding. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $9.6M in Connecting Washington
funds and asked if the total was $15M. Mr. Williams clarified the re -appropriation of the $6.2M was on the
City's legislative agenda. After the passage of I-976, all the state -funded projects were examined; funds for
ongoing projects were preserved, projects that had not had any efforts were absorbed and several projects
were placed on a pause list. Edmonds' project is on the pause list which suggests there may be an
opportunity to have funds re -allocated from the pause list to the active list. The $6.2M for the Waterfront
Connector is currently unassigned but that does not mean Edmonds has access to it. There have been
discussion with legislature about using some or all of those funds to add elements to the center turn lane
improvements.
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 6
Packet Pg. 394
8.2.f
Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is $9.6M remaining from the existing Connect Washington
funds. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Shoreline where the utilities were
undergrounded, pointing out if 5G is installed, they will be located along Highway 99 so the City may not
want to spend the money to underground utilities. Mr. Williams answered 5G can be mounted on existing
utility pole but if the existing utilities are undergrounded, dedicated poles, even decorative poles, can be
installed and 5G antennas can be shielded/masked in a way that they are unnoticeable.
Councilmember Buckshnis said for the $54M cost of undergrounding utilities, she preferred to construct
pedestrian safety measures instead of aesthetic improvements. She agreed it would be great to have all the
utilities underground but it was costly to underground and to repair them. Mr. Williams said some of that
cost could be borne by development that funds future frontage improvements. For example, the GRE
development on the northwest corner of 234"' & Highway 99 will be undergrounding the utilities in front
of their project as well as doing frontage improvements. The community health center to the north will also
be installing frontage improvements. Over time, the utilities can be undergrounded without City funds.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE INITIAL LANDSCAPING MEDIAN PROJECT ALONG THE ENTIRE
HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO REQUEST FROM THE LEGISLATURE RE -
APPROPRIATION OF THE $6.2 MILLION INITIALLY ALLOCATED TO THE FORMER
WATERFRONT CONNECTOR PROJECT TO THE HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT IN ORDER TO
FUND COMPLETION OF THIS FIRST PHASE IN THE 2021-2023 BIENNIUM.
Councilmember Olson expressed support for the motion. She commented there are circumstances and
projects that highlight how amazing City staff is. She thanked staff and Mayor Nelson for this interim
solution to what has been a long term problem for the City. With regard to the gateway signs, she said
citizens like to be involved in providing input and she hoped there was a process in place for getting input
from businesses and residents in that area, particularly the International District. Mr. Williams assured there
would be outreach to the public.
Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated staff s creativity in developing this project and bringing it forward.
He asked if this modular approach would limit any future elements in the larger plan or require any rework.
Mr. Williams answered not that staff could foresee; the design process will consider each intersection. The
intent is to install mid -block left turn pockets as well as U-turns at intersections which will require
p
maintaining turning radius. It may be possible to obtain a deviation to reduce the turning radius from 52
N
feet to 48 feet. There will be property takes at the intersections to provide adequate space for turning
movements.
E
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Co
IT
8. STUDY ITEMS
N
U
c
1. POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENT TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
o
PROCEDU1ZC (AMD20190005)
V
r
Planner Mike Clugston explained the Council adopted a Unit Lot Subdivision code a few years ago that
v
allows the subdivision of townhomes, an alternative for fee -simple ownership instead of a
condominiumization process. Three fee -simple projects have been approved to date and several more are
at various stages of the review process. Based on that experience, staff has identified the need for a minor
w
change to application timing within the unit lot procedure to make the associated building permit reviews
more efficient for both staff and applicants. The existing code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot
subdivision together with design review, together with a building permit application, or after a building
E
permit application is submitted. Applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application
leads to processing inefficiencies for both staff and applicant. To streamline the process, staff is proposing
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 7
Packet Pg. 395
8.2.f
a minor change in 20.75.045.C, to change "subsequent to" to "preceding." The intent is to ensure applicants
are aware of the need to apply for the unit lot subdivision earlier in process which will save staff and the
applicant time and money. Staff has educated a couple applicants in -the past 1-2 months while this change
has been in the work to encourage them to apply for the unit lot subdivision upfront and they were agreeable.
Councilmember Paine said she was familiar with unit lot subdivision in other municipalities. She liked the
change as well as ensuring predictability in the development process. She asked about the additional
language in subsection C, "For existing developed sites, a preliminary unit lot subdivision application may
be submitted at any time." She asked if this was prior or post occupancy. Mr. Clugston answered this
technique can be applied post occupancy for existing developed sites. For Councilmember Paine, Mr.
Clugston explained unit lot subdivision is only available to townhomes; flats would use the
condominiumization process.
If a tenant was unable to remain in a unit that was going through the unit lot subdivision, Councilmember
Paine asked if the developer was required to provide funds for displacement costs. Mr. Clugston said he
was not aware of anything like that in the City's code. Councilmember Paine remarked that is required in
other cities.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a public hearing was necessary for such a small change. Mr.
Clugston answered a public hearing is required for a code amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if
the reason this did not go through a Council committee was due to the public hearing at the Planning Board.
Mr. Clugston answered yes.
Mr. Clugston advised a public hearing at City Council has been scheduled.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised a study session and public hearing was held at the Planning Board M
in response to a request from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to include hotel as potential
use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) Zone. He displayed a map of the Shoreline designations, M
c
identifying the Urban Mixed Use II and Urban Mixed Use I; the CW Zone encompasses both basically west
of the railroad along the waterfront. The Planning Board considered the amendment and found it appropriate O
to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW Zone. The Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code would
also apply. He reviewed the applicable code sections:
r 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments
Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment c
commercial and recreational uses. N
Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high- N
intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation.
• 24.40.040 Public access and views.
11. View Protection Regulations. t�
a. Within the urban mixed use I, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II
shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the v
following required view corridors:
i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained_
across 30 percent of the average parcel width.... s
x
w
Mr. Chave commented most of the existing buildings on the waterfront do not comply with the 30% view
requirement. Given that the height limits in the CW zone are 30 feet and with the view corridor requirement, E
the amendment would not result in a large building usually associated with a hotel; it would be a boutique 0
or small scale hotel.
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 8
Packet Pg. 396
8.2.f
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the EDC has discussed this
over the last couple years; the principal motivations were to capture more economic impact and enhance
the economic vitality of Edmonds as well as increase the limited supply of lodging in downtown Edmonds.
Although the City has a lot of visitors, overnight visitors either stay in the few rooms available in downtown
Edmonds or in Lynnwood where there are upward of 2,000 hotel rooms. The EDC's interest was to capture
a fraction of that economic impact; based on national averages, a day tripper spends $50-75/day and an
over-nightery spends $200/day. A hotel would also be a complimentary feature in Edmonds' downtown
where there are many activities, events and venues but limited lodging opportunities.
Mr. Doherty explained it was envisioned as reuse of existing buildings on the waterfront; there may be only
one building large enough to accommodate a hotel use. The existing buildings are all older and do not meet
today's standards; if they were demolished, it was likely to be replaced with a smaller building.. He relayed
a couple years ago an office building on the waterfront was for sale and the owner contacted him due to an
interested party who wanted to use it for a hotel. He informed them that a hotel was not allowed. If this
amendment was approved, there could be interest in the future for reuse of an existing building on the
waterfront.
Mr. Chave explained this only an introduction to the issue. A public hearing is scheduled on February 18th
Councilmember K. Johnson was troubled that the EDC Chair sent a memo to the Planning Board Chair.
She did not recall any other time since she has been on Council that that had occurred. According to the
memo, it was pursuant to the EDC's work plan. The EDC meets with the City Council once a year and
presents their work plan; she did not recall this issue being on their work plan. She felt this was an end run
and it would have been more appropriate to ask the City Council to consider this and for the City Council
to refer it to the Planning Board. She clarified her concern was not with the content but with the process.
Mr. Doherty relayed the code states the EDC and Planning Board are encouraged to collaborate on issues. E
When the EDC raised an issue and discovered it required Planning Board input/approval, they interpreted
that as they should approach the Planning Board. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was the Planning
Board liaison to the EDC when it was first established in 2010; there was a format for that collaboration c
and both the Planning Board and EDC worked on multiple projects such as Westgate redevelopment. She
reiterated this was first time she had seen a memo sent from the chair of one committee to the chair of O
another and then to City Council and said it did not feel right. w
m
Councilmember Olson acknowledged she was a newcomer but as the Council liaison to the EDC, she was
aware there is a liaison from the Planning Board to the EDC. In her opinion, there could not be too much o
collaboration. She suggested perhaps collaboration between commissions could be a topic for the upcoming C�
retreat or another discussion. c�
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that something went awry in
c
the process. The City Council directs policy and makes decisions about how to proceed. To have the EDC
t�
and Planning Board coordinate on this before there was a discussion at Council did not feel right. For
example, if the Council was not interested in proceeding, the EDC and Planning Board have unnecessarily
v
spent time coordinating.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented some of the buildings on the waterfront that might be
X
repurposed are over the height limit. Mr. Doherty agreed most of the buildings do not conform to today's
W
standards. The likelihood that someone would demolish one to comport with today's standards was low
because the result would be a smaller building. The City allows reuse of existing buildings; the current code
E
allows a building owner to change from office to retail/commercial. The proposal is to add hotel to the list
0
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 9
Packet Pg. 397
8.2.f
of allowed uses so someone could repurpose an existing building even though the building may be larger
than allowed in today's code.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not object to repurposing a building provided it met the codes related
to parking, etc. She was concerned that an office building over 30 foot height would want a rooftop
restaurant or something that would increase the height. Mr. Chave assured that would not be allowed,
especially if the building already exceeded the height limit. He recognized it would be challenging to
repurpose an existing building that was not built as a hotel because the building codes would be different.
It was quite likely that the buildings were old enough that they would not comply with current building
codes. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it would be more likely the building would be
demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Chave said would be challenging for older buildings to comply with current
codes and change the use to a hotel.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified if a building were converted to a hotel, it would need to meet
the fire code, codes related to parking, , etc. Mr. Chave answered yes. He explained in the downtown
waterfront area, if an existing building is converted to commercial, they can work with the existing parking
and not add parking. In his experience, hotels want more than the minimum parking, especially in an area
like Edmonds waterfront where the availability of overflow parking would be extremely limited. The one
advantage of the waterfront was potentially commuter rail could attract travelers between Seattle and
Vancouver who would not need a car.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if allowing a hotel would also allow a boarding house. Mr. Chave
answered it would need to meet the definition of a hotel. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed it
could not be a kids summer camp. Mr. Chave reiterated it would need to meet the definition of hotel in the
code. The definition of hotel in the code is out of date but the intent is clear especially when coupled with
the definition of motel. In reviewing the intent of the shoreline environments and zoning, a hotel makes
sense, but motel does not have the pedestrian component that is important for the shoreline.
Councilmember L. Johnson agreed with need for adding overnight lodging in Edmonds; however, she
questioned whether the best use of the shoreline was a public amenity. As this would apply to Urban Mixed
Use I and Il, she asked whether the number of waterfront hotels would be limited. She also questioned the
tradeoff for a waterfront hotel versus the waterfront as a public amenity for visitors and residents.
With regard to public amenity, Mr. Doherty said the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) places a high
priority on uses that maximize the public's enjoyment of the shorelines. That includes direct access to the
water as well as passing through a site, visual access, etc. An office building has less exposure to the general
E
public than most hotel uses. All saltwater shorelines are considered shorelines of the state and access for
0
all is encouraged, not just Edmonds residents. A hotel use with a greater number of people accessing the
C�
building and site maximizes the amount of physical and visual access to the shoreline over an office
N
building. Many hotels also have a semipublic area such as a lobby, cafe or bar that is often on the water
side which maximizes the potential public enjoyment of the shoreline.
c
t�
Related to parking, Mr. Doherty explained reuse of a building for another commercial use is allowed to the
extent the existing parking works for that new use. The new uses in the building need to be formatted to
v
meet the available parking. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the parking requirement for hotels,
r�
recalling a residential building that was constructed recently that did not provide parking. Mr. Doherty
explained to encourage the reuse of building stock in the downtown zones including CW, the new use can
x
be designed to use the existing parking. For example, if there are 40 spaces, the size of the hotel would be
w
designed for that number of spaces.
E
Mr. Chave explained Urban Mixed Use I, the privately owned commercial area, is pretty limited. The Urban
Mixed Use II is Port property and their uses are fairly established and the opportunity for a hotel is pretty
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 10
Packet Pg. 398
8.2.f
limited, especially when there is already a hotel at Harbor Square. It was unlikely the Port would be
interested in adding hotel rooms to compete with the existing use on their property. The more likely location
for a hotel would be Urban Mixed Use I, however, the existing buildings make that very challenging. He
summarized the opportunity for a hotel was remote.
Councilmember Paine suggested cleaning up the hotel/motel language. Ultimately the goal is to have a
hotel/motel in Edmonds either in the downtown core or elsewhere. Mr. Chave said the only hesitancy was
the impact that changing the definition had on other locations in the code. He agreed it was definitely an
outdated term.
Councilmember Paine pointed out there was a small area of CW in the north end of Edmonds by Haines
Wharf. She suggested having a hotel as a conditional use instead of adding it to the zoning. Mr. Chave
explained a conditional use permit (CUP) applies conditions to an allowed use. A CUP cannot be used for
a use that is allowed. The SMP does not allow hotel uses at Haines Wharf. A property would need to be
zoned CW as well as have the Urban Mixed Use I or 11 designation.
Councilmember Paine referred to parking, recalling the Port Commission meeting included discussion
about commuters parking in the Harbor Square parking lot and possibly implementing a tow policy. She
suggested a hotel on the waterfront be required to acquire an off -site lot for parking with a shuttle service.
Mr. Doherty explained when a use is conditional, it requires more scrutiny than other commercial uses. In
his, the Planning Board, and the EDC's opinion, a hotel is simply another commercial use and doesn't
particularly raise egregious issues. The parking issue exists for all uses; for example, an office building has
a parking demand and the hotel use would be right sized to meet the existing parking. When constructing a
new building on a vacant site, parking is a consideration. In the case of reuse of an existing commercial
building with existing parking, parking should be a wash because they are using the same parking. A CUP
would be an extra step that doesn't seem to make sense for one commercial use versus another allowed
commercial uses.
Councilmember Paine asked if adding add hotel to CW would be consistent with environmental goals and
long range plans for the waterfront. Mr. Chave answered type of use fits the purposes and descriptions of
the environments in the SMP. The goal is to establish uses that are water dependent or take advantage of
the location next to water; uses like lodging that support those activities fits the long term goals for the area.
Councilmember Paine asked if a hotel was consistent with open space plans, recalling there was interest in
purchasing a parcel on the waterfront and expanding the beach. Mr. Doherty said it ever made sense for an
investor to pursue a hotel, for example the building south of Bracket Landing South, there would be a
continuation of the beach as the building has a sandy beach in front. If the use were changed to a hotel, the
c
beach would be more accessible to public and it would be the only hotel in the Seattle metropolitan area on
C�
the beach. The notion of a walkway and connectivity is not affected by the reuse of an existing building.
cm
Mr. Chave said public walkways, beaches, etc. are protected areas and changing the use does not affect
those.
0
t�
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the concern about the process, that it should have come to the
Council first. She did not recall that this was on the EDC's 2019 work plan. The City has limited open space
v
and she agreed a hotel should be a conditional use. She was not in favor of hotel on the waterfront due to
the limited space and because there is already a hotel in the waterfront area. The waterfront is precious and
limited and should be retained for citizens and tourism. She was unsure that Edmonds needed to have the
s
x
first hotel on the beach and she preferred a boutique hotel be located in the downtown area.
w
Councilmember Olson commented these are existing buildings and other uses should be considered unless
c
E
the City wants to purchase the property for more beach or public space. The proposal is to allow an
additional use in existing building and some of the concerns are not relevant. Mr. Doherty recalled the EDC
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 11
Packet Pg. 399
8.2.f
recognized another potential reason to have lodging in proximity to the waterfront environment was rental
events at the Waterfront Center. He did not envision a hotel of greater than 40-50 rooms could be
accommodated -in any -of the -existing buildings. A hotel would -complement -activities on -waterfront.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested obtaining hotel vacancy rates from the existing waterfront hotel,
especially in the summer months.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed there hasn't been any specific interest in the past couple years about
repurposing an existing building. Mr. Doherty said there was an inquiry a couple years ago when one of the
buildings was for sale; a potential purchaser was interested in the possibility of a hotel if it were allowed.
No one has specifically identified a building for purchase for a hotel. There was an inquiry in November
whether hotels were allowed in the waterfront area; he told them no, but that it would be considered in
2020.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
City Clerk Scott Passey explained after the election, he met with the Mayor and new Councilmembers to
discuss City processes. Those discussions included ways to promote more understanding and cooperative
working relationships and he mentioned the Rules of Procedure that the Shoreline City Council adopted.
The draft rules are based on Shoreline's rules and modified to fit Edmonds. In Shoreline, these rules
facilitated mutual understanding about procedures as well as promoted collegiality and cooperative
interaction among Councilmembers, the Mayor and Staff. For the most part, the rules articulate processes
the City already follows but there are a few changes. Tonight is an introduction; the packet includes a
resolution to adopt the rules.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled financial policies were adopted via resolution and posted on the City's
website. She suggested doing the same with the Council Rules of Procedure.
Councilmember Olson suggested reviewing the Rules of Procedure sequentially.
Councilmember L. Johnson said as a new Councilmember, she needed something to help her understand
the processes. Updated, comprehensive rules of procedure will provide clear direction on how the Council
should conduct business. She suggested posting it on the City Council's webpage so constituents are clear
regarding procedures.
Councilmember Paine said the Rules of Procedure are wonderful and it will be nice to know the rules of
the road. She particularly liked the addition of behavior outside Council Chambers.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule 60 minutes on a future agenda to review the proposed Rules
of Procedure section by section. Councilmembers were encouraged to send questions to Mr. Passey in
advance.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported at approximately 5 a.m. today, a gentleman turned onto an access road that
paralleled the BNSF train tracks at the Dayton intersection and his truck was sideswiped by a train. Mayor
Nelson said he asked Public Works to contact BNSF to request a barrier or signage to prohibit future access
to the road. As a temporary measure, Public Works has erected temporary barriers.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
as
c
E
Co
N
IT
N
U
c
0
U
r
U
x
w
r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 12
Packet Pg. 400
8.2.f
Student Representative Bauder relayed the good news that he received a nomination from U.S. Senator
Patty Murray to the U.S. Naval Academy. He thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for making phone
calls on his behalf.
Councilmember Distelhorst reminded the public that the Edmonds School District is hosting a series of
events about Black Lives Matter. The first was on Sunday and events continue on Wednesday and Friday
evenings, a good opportunity for the community to listen and learn. He thanked the school district for
organizing these events.
Councilmember Olson referenced ballots that voters have received for the February 11 election. She
encouraged voters to drive around school properties so they can make an informed decision about the school
district's needs and to vote.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Olson comments about ballots and encouraged voters
to have their voices heard and to turn in their ballots by February 1 I".
Council President Fraley-Monillas told Student Representative Bauder it was easy to talk about him. The
congressional office was very impressed with him and the work he did.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded of the Council retreat on Friday, February 7 from 8:45 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall. The retreat will include training for new Councilmembers.
She encouraged Councilmembers to think about topics for the next retreat, possibly in April.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Council has used study sessions and committees in the past.
She felt committees are were efficient; study sessions take longer. The Council needs to decide whether to
continue with committees or to hold study sessions. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised that topic
was on the agenda in about 2 weeks. Two Councilmembers have proposed different processes.
Councilmember K. Johnson looked forward to discussing parliamentary procedures at the retreat. During
tonight's meeting, Councilmembers spoke regarding Highway 99 and then a motion was made. The proper
procedure is to start with motion and then have discussion. That is another topic the Council needs to
discuss.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to information about Wallace Falls Creek and an article in the Everett
Herald that directed the public to contact Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. However, because
County Executive Somers cannot veto a resolution, the public should contact Department of Natural
Resources District Manager A] McGuire, DNR Allen McGuire.
Councilmember Paine commented the Council survived its fourth week. She thank staff for their
presentations, particularly the study topics. She looked forward to providing a report on the Port of
Edmonds including environmental mitigation for parking lots.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
MICH L NELSON, MAYOR PA SEY, CITY CLE
as
c
E
0
N
It
N
U
c
0
U
r
U
x
w
c
m
E
R
r
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 13
Packet Pg. 401
8.2.f
d
O
m
U
U
W
Cd
E
m
d
c.i
m
L
Q
N
d
r
7
C
E
O
N
I
N
C
7
O
U
i
Q
Packet Pg. 402
8.2.g
E D M ONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
February 18, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDERIFLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Acting Police Chief
Ken Crystal, Police Sergeant
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Mike Clugston, Planner
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
PULL ITEM 10 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PRESENTATIONS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 1
Packet Pg. 403
8.2.g
PROCLAMATION FOR JOE DWYER'S 100TH BIRTHDAY
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation honoring Joe Dwyer's 100"' Birthday and declaring February 20, 2020
as Joe Dwyer Day in Edmonds.
2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OFOFFICE FOR POLICE: DEPARTMENT PR()MC , ION
Acting Police Chief Jim Lawless said this is an opportunity to celebrate the achievement of a department
member, Ken Crystal, who is receiving a promotion to rank of police sergeant. Joining Sergeant Crystal
tonight are his daughter Mattier, son Jake, and girlfriend Lisa. An oath is an important public recognition
of personal achievement. Most importantly an oath is a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and
professional standards that are so critical to the law enforcement mission.
Sergeant Crystal has served the Edmonds community for nearly 22 years after being hiring as a lateral
officer on July 6, 1998. He came to Edmonds with several years of police experience with the New Castle,
Delaware Police Department and the Delaware State Police. During his time with Edmonds, Sergeant
Crystal has been a property crimes detective, a narcotics detective, a motors officer as well as a patrol
officer and has been a patrol corporal for the last 5'/z years. An interesting side note to Sergeant Crystal's
work as a narcotics detective is that after leaving that assignment, he served a six month term as the law
enforcement liaison to the Snohomish County Adult Drug Treatment Court, a therapeutic court that works
with adult offenders whose charges stem from drug addiction or abuse. Off duty, Sergeant Crystal has for
many year coordinated the EPOA sponsored Thanksgiving dinner for seniors as well as the EPOA
Christmas gift giving program in Edmonds area schools. Sergeant Crystal has received two letters of
commendation, a medal of valor for rescuing an individual from a fire and was the David Stern Officer of
the year in 2012.
Chief Lawless administered the oath of office to Sergeant Crystal. His daughter Mattier pinned his badge
and his son Jake presented his hat which also displays a badge of rank. Chief Lawless presented a Certificate
of Promotion to Sergeant Crystal.
Sergeant Crystal thanked Council, Mayor, co-workers, family and citizens for attending. He explained he
was being promoted because Sergeant Bob Barker is retiring. A poll at a recent shift briefing revealed the
average age of officers in the department at the time was 56 and the minimum amount of experience on that
day was 28 years. Conversely, the graveyard crew has an average age of about 30 and the average amount
of experience is 3 years. There is a huge transition in the department and it is an exciting time to be invited
into the leadership to help new officers as they grow in their career and he pledged to do the best he can to
share what he has learned.
3. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts explained he is the Hearing Examiner for about 20 jurisdictions including
Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, and Kenmore as well as larger cities such as Lakewood and Federal Way.
His clients range geographically from Mt. Vernon to Port Townsend to Mason County. Edmonds is one of
favorite jurisdictions as some issues become contentious because people really care what happens in their
community. He highlighted the three cases he held this year:
Hitchens Shoreline Variance (3/27/19): Shoreline variance approved to build 4,690 square foot home 15
feet into a 50-foot shoreline buffer. The lot had an existing nonconforming home that was located 5-6 feet
from the shoreline. If the variance had been denied, the Applicant could have expanded the home landward
from its existing location, creating far more view impacts to surrounding properties. In the alternative, if
the variance were denied the Applicant could have built a new albeit smaller home further up the slope,
also creating more view impacts to adjoining properties. There was no opposition to the project. However,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 2
Packet Pg. 404
8.2.g
one resident noted that neighbors were concerned that a narrow private drive would be used to access the
new home. Staff took care of this issue by recommending a condition (which was adopted) that the private
drive access be barricaded.
Sound Transit Conditional Use Permit (4/25/19): Conditional use permit approved for 25 parking spaces
at Edmonds Methodist Church at 828 Caspers Street to be used for commuter parking for users of the
Sounder, with the Edmonds stop located about a mile away. Adjoining the church site is a Community
Transit bus stop that the commuters can use to access the Sound Transit Station. Sound Transit and
Community Transit have synced their schedules to facilitate use of the parking lot. No opposition.
Edmonds Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment (6/7/19, reconsideration denied
7/20/19): Approved three shoreline substantial development permits, a conditional use permit and design
review to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center at 220 Railroad Avenue and to construct an adjoining
overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium at 200 Beach Place. The proposal drew
significant opposition from the residents of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, who's uninterrupted waterfront
views of Puget Sound were to be interrupted by an overwater extension of the Edmonds waterfront trail
built upon a concrete foundation similar to Seattle's monorail tracks. The overwater trail was to have the
same elevation as the bulkhead for the condominiums. Ebb Tide condominium owners filed an appeal of a
determination of non -significance 1 issued for the project in addition to opposing approval of the land use
applications. The environmental appeal was overturned and the decision to issue a determination of non -
significance was upheld.'
The primary issues raised by Ebb Tide residents were impacts to forage fish, pedestrian safety, noise and
easement rights. The evidence presented establishes that although the project may create some minor
impacts to forage fish, overall project mitigation in the form of 3,000 square feet of new forage fish habitat
was found to more than compensate for these impacts. As to pedestrian safety, the overwater walkway was
only proposed to be ten feet wide with no significant guardrails. Guard rail requirements are addressed by
building code standards. The final decision deferred guardrail implementation to building permit review,
with the caveat that the City would have to implement measures to prevent access to the overwater walkway
during storm events. As to easement rights, the City has an easement for the proposed trail extension but
the Ebb Tide owners asserted that the scope of the easement did not authorize the elevated walkway
proposed by the City. The decision concluded that easement rights are beyond hearing examiner
jurisdiction.
There was no opposition to redevelopment of the Edmonds Waterfront Center. The Ebb Tide residents were
very accommodating in separating their appeal and concerns from the Waterfront Center so that
construction on the Waterfront Center could move forward without delay.
'A determination of non -significance is a decision by the City's State Environmental Policy Act
Responsible Official that an environmental impact statement is not necessary to review the impacts of the
proposal because all impacts will not rise to the level of probable significant adverse impacts.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the reconsideration on the Edmonds Waterfront Center and
Waterfront Redevelopment that was denied but the permits were approved. Mr. Olbrechts answered the
reconsideration was related to the trespass issue which was outside his jurisdiction so reconsideration was
denied.
4. PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT
Jim Zachor, Junior, Zachor & Thomas, introduced Yelena Stock, Ms. Stock has been an attorney since May
2009. She began her career at Zachor at Thomas in 2009. In 2014, she left Zachor and Thomas for the City
of Seattle prosecutor's office. There she quickly excelled and became one of the City of Seattle's top trial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 3
Packet Pg. 405
8.2.g
attorneys, with a special emphasis on prosecuting crimes of domestic violence. During her tenure there, she
also gained experience and knowledge, handling cases in many of the various community court programs
offered by the City of Seattle. In June 2019, she came back to Zachor and Thomas and brought with her the
knowledge and experience in prosecuting DV cases, but also her knowledge and experience with
community courts. Ms. Stock is one of two supervising attorneys and handles the bulk of all City of
Edmonds criminal matters as well as all cases currently in the newly formed Edmonds community court.
Mr. Zachor introduced Sara Anderson who has been an attorney since October 2019. In her short time as
an attorney, she has shown herself to be a smart and capable attorney who is passionate about the
prosecution of misdemeanor cases. She currently assists Ms. Stock in the prosecution of the Edmonds
criminal caseload and appears frequently at on the jail, arraignment, and review calendars.
Mr. Zachor explained he has been an attorney since 2009. He is currently a supervising attorney for the
City of Edmonds. His primary responsibilities are defending the City of Edmonds on RAU appeals and
representing the police department in drug, felony and firearm forfeitures. He also handles the out -of -court
administrative functions required by the court, assists Ms. Stock in preparing the legal updates and trainings
for the police department, is the primary point of contact for police officers needing review of search/arrest
warrants or with charging/arrest questions and is "on -call" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He is also
responsible for all charging review cases
Ms. Stock reviewed criminal filings 2018 compared to 2019:
Other
Criminal
Total
Traffic
Non -Traffic
DUI/Physical
Criminal
Non-
Total
Criminal
Infractions
Infractions
Control
Traffic
traffic
Filings
2018
4547
29
144
328
466
5514
938
2019
1 2804
1 38
1 135
343
507
1 3827
1 985
Mr. Zachor explained the Edmonds Police Department (EPD)is one of the more active departments for
pursuing DUI offenders; even though 2019 decreased slightly compared to 2018, he liked to think that was
due to the emphasis Edmonds Police Department places on DUI. The prosecution of DUI has become a
much more burdensome and lengthy process. The primary mode of determining blood alcohol level is via
blood testing where the EPD draws someone's blood at the hospital, sends it to the Washington State
toxicology lab who runs tests on the blood to determine the alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, prescription
drugs, etc. That process has become quite burdensome; 4-5 years ago the turnaround was 2 weeks; early
last year the delay was 6 months, the current average delay to get results is 10-12 months even though the
toxicology lab has hired more people. Toxicology results are important, especially for repeat offenders who
typically have more experience with defense attorneys telling them how to get out of a DUI. The wait time
for toxicology results does not deter the EPD or their office from prosecuting DUIs. On occasion a case has
to be dismissed temporarily and refiled when the toxicology results are available.
Ms. Stock reviewed jury trials
• Number of Jury Trials: 7
o Number of guilty convictions at trial: 4
o Number of not guilty convictions: 1
o Number of trials ending in a mistrial: 2
■ Jury Trials by case type and result:
o DUI — 2 trials — 2 guilty verdicts (both on appeal)
o Assault 4 Domestic Violence: 3 trials — 1 guilty verdict (on appeal) and 1 mistrial and on
retrial defendant was found not guilty.
o Domestic Violence No Contact order violation — 1 trial, resulted in mistrial, not re -tried
o Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officers — 1 trial with a guilty verdict (on appeal)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 4
Packet Pg. 406
8.2.g
Mr. Zachor said a common question is why are the guilty verdicts on appeal; In Washington, defendants
have what is called a direct appeal or appeal as a matter of right, meaning the defendant has a right to appeal
a finding of guilty to a higher court. Most often, appeals are a result of a defendant being found guilty after
a jury trial. Currently, all jury trial guilty verdicts from 2019 are in the appeal process. Including appeals
from 2017 and 2018, bring the total to 8 pending appeals (total also includes 2 new appeals already filed in
2020). Appeals from jury trials often take several months to process for transcriptions, reviewing, brief
writing, and oral arguments before the court are conducted. One such example, is a current DUI case on
appeal resulted in a 660-page transcript.
Mr. Zachor and Ms. Stock highlighted notable cases in 2019:
• Edmonds v. Sanchez — The defendant was charged with his 41h DUI in the last 10 years, 2 in the
last two years in Washington and 2 in Texas. That case went to trial in April and he was found of
DUI and is currently serving a one-year jail sentence because he was a repeat offender. The case is
currently on appeal and has a transcript of 660 pages.
• Edmonds v Bendzak — This was the defendants 3`d DUI. The jury trial took two days and was
successful as a result of the Police Department and witnesses. In talking to the jury afterwards, they
indicated the Edmonds Police Department and Prosecutors had done an excellent job. The
defendant was found guilty at jury trial and sentenced to 30 days, 5 days in jail and 25 days on
EHM, and 5 years of probation with requirements to obtain alcohol/drug treatment. The case is
currently on appeal. The case highlights the difficulties posed by the long delay in receiving
toxicology results from the State Toxicology lab. This case was originally filed in 2018 but had to
be dismissed and re -filed almost 8 months later when the toxicology results were finally received.
• Edmonds v. Curtiss — This stalking case began in 2012 and involved a young lady who was stalked
for over 5 years by the defendant, resulting in her spending much of her time at home protected by
her mother. The case was finally resolved in 2019, originally filed in 2017. His and Police
Department's primary concern was to protect the victim; the case resulted in diversion agreement
and a permanent/life-time stalking protection order and securing significant mental health treatment
for the defendant. While the defendant is on this diversion agreement, should he violate any
provisions or conditions, he will likely spend a year or more in jail. The diversion agreement also
saved the victim from having to testify and relive the horrors she endured during this part of her
young life. Mr. Zachor thanked the Edmonds Police Department for the time and effort they put
into this case.
Ms. Stock and Mr. Zachor reviewed prospects for 2020:
Community Court — Edmonds Municipal Court began its newly formed community court in January of
2020. Currently, the program has had two court calendars and the new program appears to be heading in
the right direction by improving the success rate of defendant's on probation. The location allows
defendants to take the bus and the court is one -stop -shopping. Most of the defendants are indigent and do
not know what resources are available.
DWLS 3post-filing, re -trial diversion program — The prosecutor's office is currently developing a
program to improve the re -licensing of criminal defendants charged with driving on a suspended license in
the third degree. While there are various reasons for such a driving status, it primarily is a result of not
paying or responding to traffic tickets. This program is designed to help people become lawful licensed and
insured drivers and therefore less likely to be in the criminal justice system.
Domestic Violence prosecution — Adding Ms. Stock as one of the supervising attorneys for the City of
Edmonds instantly brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the firm's DV prosecution.
Additionally, having the City's DV coordinator, Jill Schick, significantly increases the contact and success
rate of DV prosecutions. Combined, the effect has seen a reduction of repeat domestic violence offenders
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 19, 2020
Pa e 5
Packet Pg. 407
8.2.g
and improvement in victim/police/prosecutor interaction and this office looks toward continued
improvement on Domestic Violence prosecution cases. Thanked Edmonds Police Department officers.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her appreciation and shared in the excitement of implementing
community court. She referred to the decrease in traffic infractions from 4547 in 2018 to 2804 in 2019 and
asked why there had been a 40% reduction. Mr. Zachor said that was best answered by the Police
Department, but it can be related to a reduction in staffing levels, officers pulling over drivers and
discovering there is an associated crime, people are driver better, etc. He summarized there were a number
of factors that could result in the reduction.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked about domestic violence cases; how many cases have there been, whether
they are brought to community court and how Ms. Stock works with the Domestic Violence Coordinator.
Ms. Stock answered she did not have exact number of domestic violence cases, they are included in criminal
non -traffic. Mr. Zachor estimated 1/3 are domestic violence so about 150-200. Ms. Stock said community
court is a post -conviction court, cases only go to community court if there is a disposition, the defendant is
on probation and there has been a guilty finding. Defendants qualify for community court as long as there
is no safety risk since the community court is held offsite at Swedish. If there any safety risks, defendants
are seen at the Edmonds courthouse. Her work with Domestic Violence Coordinator Jill Schick includes
multiple emails and phone calls and she staffs select cases with Ms. Schick at least once a week.
Councilmember Paine thanked the firm for their work in the domestic violence community. She spent
nearly seven years of career in that field and found it tough and interesting and required a lot of heart. She
was excited by community court and asked if there was any interest in clearing post and pre -conviction
warrants closer to Hwy 99. Mr. Zachor answered the Public Defender's Office, Judge Coburn and their
office have bench warrant quash motions filed routinely. The difficulty with people with warrants is getting
in touch with them. That question is probably better answered by the Public Defender who actively reaches
out to people before court and after court if they do not appear. As long as there has been some contact with
the Public Defender's Office, Judge Coburn tries not to issue warrants because she would rather have them
in court than in jail. Edmonds has liberal policy of quashing warrants; Judge Coburn makes it as easy as
possible for someone to quash their warrant; typically they simply need to show up and the Judge will quash
their warrant.
Councilmember Olson referred to the staffing issue at the toxicology lab effecting the time it takes to issue
results. She asked if that was an issue nationwide or locally. Mr. Zachor answered it was statewide. Ms.
Stock explained the toxicology lab has hired people but they must complete a certification process that
takes up to a year. Councilmember Olson suggested that could be an opportunity for a public service
announcement for young adults and asked what background was required. Ms. Stock answered chemistry.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Zachor & Thomas for their report and their work on domestic violence
and community court. He asked if 2 of 7 trials ending in mistrial was more than normal, whether there were
significant lessons learned, noting one was retried and one was not guilty. Ms. Stock answered mistrials are
usually due to something procedural. The rules of evidence are set at the beginning where evidence that
will/will be allowed is determined. The most common is information that is supposed to be suppressed ends
up comes out during trial and the trial has to start over. Once a case has begun, everyone has seen everyone
else's hand and it is more difficult to "play poker" the next time when you know everyone's hands. So the
prosecutor has to reevaluate to see if the case can be won knowing the strategy and what evidence will/will
not be allowed as the rules of evidence still apply to the next case.
Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the lengthy delay in receiving toxicology reports and the delay in
processing rape kits. She asked the timing to process rape kits. Mr. Zachor answered rape is a felony which
is filed by the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 6
Packet Pg. 408
8.2.g
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Zachor & Thomas for participating in Judge Coburn's
community court program. She also served on Judge Coburn's team and she appreciate them being flexible
and willing to go where issues are occurring. The cooperation of the prosecutor and defense attorneys made
a huge difference in the ability to implement community court. Mr. Zachor said they too are excited about
community court, finding it a great benefit to the community.
5. POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT PROCESS
Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson introduced Gary Peterson, President & CEO, Public Sector
Search & Consulting, Inc. She clarified there is no action required of Council.
Mr. Peterson explained PSSC, a California corporation authorized to work in Washington; is a boutique
firm with 5-7 employees that specifically focuses on executive searches for police chiefs. They pride
themselves on being response to their clients and limit the number of searches they take on at any one time.
He is the President/CEO of the firm and will be the Search Consultant and lead this project. He has
personally led over 35 executive search projects over the past 5 years, including 23 police chiefs searches.
All 23 searches resulted in a selection; all selections are still in place. He highlighted the qualifications of
the recruiters involved in this search:
Gary Peterson, President/CEO
30 years public safety/recruiting
experience
Retired Police Chief — Martinez, CA
JD, MS, BA
FBI National Academy
Senior Management Institute for Police
(SMIP)
Training Committee, California Police
Chiefs Assoc
Mr. Peterson reviewed:
• Track Record
o 2019
Mark Helms, Search Consultant
32 Years Public Safety Experience
Ret. Chief— Lodi PD (CA); former deputy chief, Stockton PD
(CA)
Executive Fellow, National Police Foundation
Board of Directors, California Police Chiefs Assn.
MPA, BA
FBI National Academy
CA Law Enforcement Command College
■ Yakima WA — Police Chief
a Redmond, WA —Police Chief
■ Grand Rapids, MI — Police Chief
■ Payson, AZ — Police Chief
Wheat Ridge, CO — Police Chief
o 2018
■ City of Seattle, WA — Police Chief
• University at Buffalo (SNY) — Police Chief
• Rohnert Park, CA — Police Chief
■ City of Syracuse, NY — Police Chief
• City of Albany, NY — Police Chief
• City of Seaside, CA — Police Chief
o 2017
■ Los Rios Community College, Sacramento, CA Chief/Director of Public Safety
• City of Kansas City, MO — Chief of Police
■ City of Dallas, TX — Chief of Police
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 7
Packet Pg. 409
8.2.g
■ City of Sacramento, CA — Police Chief
■ City of San Francisco, CA — Police Chief
+ City of Fairfield, CA — Chief of Police
■ University of California, Davis — Chief of Police
■ University of California, Los Angeles — Chief of Police
■ City of Shafter, CA — Police Chief
Search Process
o Establish candidate profile
o Develop recruitment materials
o Advertise the position
o Source/recruit quality candidates
o Screen/vet candidates
o Forward candidates with recommendations
Selection process
o Goal: Inclusive Process
0 1" round interviews
■ Law Enforcement Panel (Partners and Edmonds)
■ Intergovernmental Panel (Leaders e.g. Schools, Mental Health, Fire)
■ Community Panel (e.g. Youth Commission, Senior Center, Diversity Commission and
Other Community Partners)
■ Interview with the Mayor
o Debrief Panels — Provide the Mayor with Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement for
each candidate
o Select Finalists
Finalist Process
o Suggested Multi -Day Process
Community Forum
■ City staff forum
■ Meet and greet City — directors team
■ Interview with Mayor
■ Mayor selects 3 finalists
■ City Council interviews three finalists
■ Mayor makes the final selection and forwards to City Council for approval
o Entire process 90-120 days
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Peterson was from California and recalling Edmonds'
Police Chief prior to Chief Compaan was also from California. She asked if that was because there were
more police departments in California. Mr. Peterson answered there are 350 police departments in
California.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how Councilmembers should provide their input. Ms. Neill
Hoyson suggested Council could provide input now or email input to her. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said it may be better if Councilmembers have an opportunity to think about it for a bit. Ms. Neill
Hoyson commented this would not be the Council's only opportunity; it will take 7-10 days to develop the
recruiting materials so there is time to provide feedback.
Councilmember Paine said she has been a public employee and has had bosses who conducted national
searches. She asked if there would be a public records request to obtain all the employment information
regarding the top candidates. Mr. Peterson answered it would depend on where they come from. A records
check will be done through First Check who will provide a screening report that includes a lot of information
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 8
Packet Pg. 410
8.2.g
but he was uncertain it would provide all the employment data. Councilmember Paine assumed they would
also do a thorough internet search. Mr. Peterson agreed.
Councilmember Paine asked what he perceived to be the biggest challenge in the recruitment process for a
city Edmonds' size. Mr. Peterson answered mainly the cost of living; it is expensive to live in the Seattle
Metropolitan area which may dissuade some candidates. He recruited for Redmond which is similarly
situated and had a very strong candidate pool. Councilmember Paine commented Redmond also has unique
qualities.
Councilmember Olson asked if the City would be responsible for moving expenses if an out-of-state
candidate were selected. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that can be part of the negotiation process once a
candidate is selected.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the population of cities he generally conducts searches for. Mr. Peterson
answered it ranges from small (18,000) to very large. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if their questions
take into consideration the knowledge of the area, the area the chief will be managing, crime history, etc.
Mr. Peterson said all that information is relevant and important to know and is taken into consideration and
factored into the assessment. Councilmember Buckshnis warned him the City had experts involved in the
Fire contract who provided some very valuable information that saved the City approximately $1M/year,
but that went terribly with the union.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Peterson was involved in hiring Seattle's Police Chief
Carmen Best who was an internal candidate. She asked how many total candidates there were for that
position. Mr. Peterson recalled there were a total of 65 candidates; their process called for advancing five
candidates to the mayor. Eight candidates were interviewed by a 24-person search committee who reduced
the number to five. PSSC's involvement ended once the five candidates were forwarded to the mayor's
process.
Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled Carmen Best was not Seattle mayor's top choice. Mr. Peterson
said that was well documented in the newspapers and he did not want to comment. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said she was not necessarily interested in Mayor Durkan's reasoning but how Carmen Best was
appointed. Mr. Peterson the five candidates submitted were reduced to three, one candidate dropped out,
Carmen Best was added and was ultimately selected.
Councilmember Olson commented it was a relief to see so many layers of community engagement in the
process, recalling recalled the hearing examiner's comment that Edmonds citizens care a lot about the
community. She encourage him to listen to the citizen feedback at every step in the process.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, speaking for herself, referred to an article she wrote recently and asked if
Councilmembers had read it; several indicated they had. She posed the following questions: What does the
Mayor believe is broken at the Police Department that needs fixing? What is the Mayors' direction for the
Edmonds Police Department; citizens would like to know the plan before it is implemented. Is it his intent
bring Edmonds into the sphere of influence of Seattle policies and politic and if so, is that in the best interest
of the Edmonds community? What message, perhaps a loss of confidence, are you sending to rank and file
of the department that you would look outside for new leadership when the department has qualified
leadership within and is already a successful, cohesive organization? At this point with so many retirees, it
is critical that new staff have cohesive education and support for their inexperience. As pointed out earlier,
there is an average of 3 years' experience on the graveyard and the department is losing 38 years of
experience. Bringing in new, outside leadership at this point doesn't seem wise from a management
standpoint. A change of leadership should be stabilizing and use of this recruiting company does not seem
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 9
Packet Pg. 411
8.2.g
to move in that direction. She was concerned that the amount of money spent was excessive and
recommended individuals in the department be strongly considered.
Marlin Phelps referred to a 2015 phone conversation with City Attorney Jeff Taraday in which Mr.
Taraday told him the City had a new public defender. Prior to that time, the City used Feldman and
Associates in Lynnwood who was heavily corrupt. He went to Feldman's office because he was fighting
corruption in Edmonds; Mr. Feldman slammed his office door to the amusement of receptionist. When he
left, he saw Mr. Feldman's silhouette through his half -open blinds, on the phone screaming "that expletive
expletive is here right now." He commend on the crimes that went on in the Edmonds courthouse, the things
they did and that there were no trials. James Zachor has trials but his father James Zachor, Junior, is a
murderer, a cold blooded, old school gangster, murderer. Given adequate time and his story of what
happened to him, he can point to the that James Zachor, Junior was responsible for the murder of a U.S.
Attorney. In 2001 U.S. Attorney Tom Wells was shot 4 times while sitting at his computer in his Queen
Anne home. James Zachor, Junior had his own grandson's father murdered. To know the history of this
room and what went on will empower the Council. He encouraged the Council to know what they did and
not be fooled.
Jim Ognisty, Edmonds, highlighted State House and Senate Bills that could have a dramatic impact on
the character of the City, SB 6536 and HB 2780, related to the elimination of single family zoning across
the state, similar to what Oregon has enacted. He assumed the Council was passionate above the issue and
wanted to bringing the bills to their attention as they are moving quickly through the House and Senate. He
was curious whether the City would take a specific stance on either bill and if so, how that would be
communicated to state representatives and residents.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was unable attend earlier to watch the Hearing Examiner's report so did not
what know what questions the Council asked. He hoped someone asked how for the second consecutive
time the Hearing Examiner's term and contract expired without putting the position out to competitive bid.
The Hearing Examiner office has been problematic for the City and citizens for some time. He encouraged
the City Council to do a detailed investigation into the history of the Hearing Examiner position and to
involve citizens in that process and allow citizens to participate in the evaluation of that office before putting
it out to bid. The Hearing Examiner has a four year term; the December 31, 2014 expiration was overlooked,
10 months later citizens made the City aware and his new term expired December 31, 2019 without going
to bid. The process is to go out to bid, the Mayor makes an appointment, and the City Council confirms and
a contract is entered into. He urged the Council to do a detailed look into the Hearing Examiner's office
and look at Chapter 10.35 which is an absolute mess
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS FOR POLICE COVERAGE AT SCHOOL
DISTRICT EVENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 10
Packet Pg. 412
8.2.g
5. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE CALL TO ARTISTS
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MURRAYSMITH FOR THE PHASE 8 SEWERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE PHASE 11 WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Finance Committee
Councilmember Distelhorst reported on topics the committee reviewed:
• Finance Committee Orientation — information only
• Preliminary December 2019 Quarterly Financial Report — future full Council
2020 Carryforward Budget Amendment Ordinance — full Council in future
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Paine reported on topics the committee reviewed:
1. Authorization to Advertise Call to Artists (Civic Park and library) — approved on Consent Agenda
2. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with The Blueline Group for the Phase 11
Waterline Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda
3. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Murraysmith for the Phase 8 Sewerline
Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda
4. Level 3 Communications LLC Franchise Ordinance — future Consent Agenda
Public Safety, Personnel &. Planning Committee
Councilmember K. Johnson reported on topics the committee reviewed:
1. Discussion Executive Assistant to Council Contract — consider extending current contract and
possibly hold executive session to discuss performance. May be further discussion by Council
2. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Between Edmonds School District and City of Edmonds for
Police Coverage at School District Events — approved on Consent Agenda
3. Edmonds School District Security Camera Inter -Local Agreement — full Council
4. Field Arborist Job Description — Consent Agenda following union approval
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
PROCEDURE(AM 11701900051
Planner Mike Clugston explained staff has identified the need for a minor change to the unit lot subdivision
application procedure so that a building permit would precede the unit lot division application. Applying
for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to processing inefficiencies for both
staff and applicant. The change will save the applicant and staff time and money. Staff recommends
approval of the ordinance following the public hearing.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented in the past the Council has not made a decision at the same meeting
as the public hearing and has made the decision at a future meeting to allow for additional questions and
comments. She asked what process the Council intended to follow.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 11
Packet Pg. 413
8.2.g
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Councilmember Paine plan to bring that issue up as part of a study
session regarding Council procedures. She recalled times in the past when the Council did not take action
at the same meeting as the public hearing and other times the Council did take action following the public
hearing. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that the Council should take action at the meeting
following a public hearing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said her research found there was nothing in writing either way. In the
past there have been numerous instances where a decision follows the public hearing. Councilmembers
always have the right to make a motion. It would be good to have a written policy that the Council does not
take action at the same meeting as the public hearing.
Councilmember Paine said she preferred the Council have time to digest the information and consider
comments received via email.
Development Services Director Shane Hope clarified the intent of memo was not that the Council make a
decision tonight, but simply to relay that staff recommends approval.
Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said when it comes to subdivision application procedures, the critical part is
enforcement of the laws the City Council adopts. Enforcement of application procedures for subdivisions
should not be contingent upon citizens monitoring applications and ensuring they file an appeal before the
21 day LUPA period expires. Citizens do not have time to monitor subdivision applications to ensure they
are complete, consistent and legal; it is mayor's job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully
enforced. He feared the 21 day LUPA appeal period creates a problem for citizens. Whatever the Council
adopts, he recommended strong enforcement of the procedures.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed a diagram of the zoning on the waterfront, identifying the CW
(Commercial Waterfront) zone west of the railroad. The other parts of downtown allow hotels; the CW
zone is the only commercial zone in the downtown area that does not. The Planning Board recommended
adding hotels as a permitted use in the CW zone. He reviewed the applicable code sections:
• 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments
Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment
commercial and recreational uses.
Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high -
intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation.
• 24.40.040 Public access and views.
11. View Protection Regulations.
a. Within the urban mixed use 1, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II
shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the
following required view corridors:
i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained
across 30 percent of the average parcel width....
Mr. Chave reviewed amendment options:
1. Planning Board recommendation draft ordinance: add "hotels" to the list of permitted uses in the CW
zone
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 12
Packet Pg. 414
8.2.g
2. If parking is a concern, this can be substituted in the ordinance: add "Hotels that include parking at
one stall for every unit" (current residential parking requirement)
Mr. Chave referred to the Council packet which includes questions and answers based on previous Council
discussion as well as background from Economic Development Committee (EDC) related to permitting
hotels in the CW zone.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referenced the two buildings that have had some level of discussion, one
has plenty of parking and the other has minimal parking and adjoins City's parking. She questioned how
parking would be made available if there is only so much space. Mr. Chave answered the standard parking
rate is 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area; another option would be to require the language in option
2, "Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit." If that amount of parking was not available, a
hotel could not be established at that location. Another option would be "Hotels that include parking at 1
space per 500 square feet of floor area." In either option, that much parking would need to be provided to
establish a hotel use.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented that prohibits current waterfront buildings. Mr. Chave
answered it would depend on the existing circumstances and what property was available. Economic
Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the 1 space per 500 square feet of floor
area that is uniform across downtown recognizes the changes in uses that have occurred downtown over
the decades. Downtown buildings have had a variety of uses in response to market demands. Having a
consistent parking requirement of 1 per 500 allows the same parking for the next use. Changing the parking
requirement for hotels would mean other uses could continue to provide 1 per 500. Anyone interested in
developing a hotel would need to determine the size based on available parking.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if that was the same for the Port property, noting a majority of the
CW zone was on Port property. Mr. Chave answered the CW zone applies to the Port property as well; the
one exception is Harbor Square which has its own unique zoning and standards.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the zoning diagram and inquired about the green space with
a P on it. Mr. Chave answered that was zoned Public. He identified the shoreline, noting the area zoned
public is basically the beach. Developing a hotel on the Edmonds waterfront would not result in inaccessible
waterfront because via covenants, public ownership, etc. public access to most of the waterfront is
protected.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she believes zoning is an extension of the police powers as was before the
U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid V. Ambler. It is the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
One factor that hasn't been discussed is noise. She did not feel it was appropriate to have a hotel renovated
in an existing location because in her experience while in those buildings, conversations have to stop due
to the train noise. If the City had a quite zone or adequate passage to the waterfront area, it could be
reconsidered. In the meantime, she did not find renovating an existing building for a hotel appropriate. She
has heard complaints about the train from people at Harbor Square. In theory, Edmonds needs more hotels
and in theory the waterfront is a beautiful area but this proposal is not appropriate at this time. She was also
concern with how this was communicated and transmitted directly from the EDC to the Planning Board
without first coming to the City Council.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed Brackett's Landing North is also colored green on the zoning map
and asked why the area south of the ferry terminal was not also green. Mr. Chave answered it was never
zoned that way; it is owned by the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 13
Packet Pg. 415
8.2.g
Councilmember Olson said the comments about parking are relevant for today including concern with
overflow onto the streets and using parking that should be available for other uses. She pointed out
automation will change things, as well Uber and rental cars that park away from the hotel. In the short term
and for the reality of today, possibly some parking language should be added, but it was important for the
Council as a legislative body to readdress that as reality changes and not as much parking is needed even if
a hotel has not come to fruition. With regard to noise, that is an issue for a developer to consider in
developing a hotel, and there are great noise proofing construction methods. The proposal is changing the
zoning so it is an option if the right developer can make a project work. She was in favor of the proposed
change.
Mr. Chave commented it is difficult to predict the clientele that would be attracted to a hotel in this location.
One of the factors is the proximity to rail and ferry traffic; some people seeking lodging may not even have
a car. Mr. Doherty referred to uses that are currently allowed, noting there are currently no restaurants north
of the fishing pier. Restaurants are currently allowed and have the highest parking demand of all the uses
being discussed, whether office, hotel or residential. Any one of those building could be reused for a
restaurant at any time. The concept is to add another use to the pallet of possible uses. A hotel is not an
outlier from a parking perspective when compared to the current list of uses.
Councilmember Paine asked if one of the buildings were rehabilitated as a hotel, do they have access to
parking permits beyond their employees. Mr. Doherty said no, recalling a two unit hotel on Dayton applied
for parking permits and were denied because the current language does not state hotel guests.
Councilmember Paine asked if hotel employees could obtain a parking permit. Mr. Doherty did not think
the Railroad & Admiral area was in the permit area.
Councilmember Paine said the noise concerns are impactful but are not much different than other uses in
the area. She was not entirely opposed if it was related to renovating an existing building. If a new building
were proposed, she would have more concerns. Mr. Doherty pointed out most of the existing building
substantially exceed today's development standards and some do not provide any view corridor. If a
building were demolished to construct a new building, they would be required to provide 30% of the lot as
a view corridor which potentially could be 30% less building as well as potentially a lower height.
Therefore, it would be very unlikely someone would demolish a building to rebuild a hotel. Mr. Chave
agreed several of the existing building exceed the height limit. A new building would have to provide a
view corridor as well as likely be shorter.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was baffled; the code is messed up, there are four different definitions
for hotel and motel and there are higher priorities than adding hotels to the CW zone. She cited parking
issues, sound issues, public issues, potentially rezoning the entire area, and concern with hotel creep into
the MP Il zone. Had the Planning Board come to the City Council first, she would have said no. She
summarized the definition of hotel motel is a can of worms.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to staff s indication that restaurants have the highest parking needs,
commenting in her experience hotels often have a restaurant. Mr. Doherty said the issue is there is not a lot
of square footage in any of the buildings. If anyone were to determine there was a higher economic return
to renovate a building for lodging, they likely would want to maximize the number of units and meet the
parking requirements. He did not envision there being enough parking onsite to accommodate a restaurant
other than a small bar for guests and/or a breakfast room. It would be difficult to accommodate both a hotel
and restaurant with the limited parking that exists unless they were to acquire additional property within a
reasonable distance. He summarized it was unlikely there would be a hotel of any size and a full service
restaurant because there would not enough building space or parking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 14
Packet Pg. 416
8.2.g
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the building north of the newly created waterfront/senior
center used to have a very large restaurant and nearly their entire first floor is parking. That building would
make the most sense for development as a hotel. She was interested in hearing from citizens. She recalled
the building north of the fishing pier previously had a number apartments and are now offices; that building
is set up for hotel rooms.
Councilmember Olson said she was interested in citizen input. As someone who has served on citizen
boards, she was aware of the frustration due to the lack of action on the work and proposals those citizen
boards have done. This is likely an opportunity in one building closest to the waterfront/senior center and
would only happen if a developer was interested. The EDC has considered this and talked to a lot of business
owners and stakeholders; this could be an economic driver for the City. The City needs more hotel rooms
and are losing room nights to Lynnwood because there are inadequate accommodation in Edmonds. She
urged the Council to keep an open mind and remember the citizens who volunteer their time on EDC put
their time and effort into this which was good enough reason for her to look at it more closely.
Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, small business owner and EDC member, spoke in support of amending the
ECDC to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW zone. There are so many fantastic reasons to visit Edmonds
and it makes sense to capitalize on visitors and the dollars they spend. For example, research shows that
day-trippers spend $45-85/day; overnight guests spend $175+. With the development of new
waterfront/senior center, it is a natural partnership to allow existing building space to become a hotel and
to create a true waterfront event experience. There is an opportunity for Edmonds to have one of the only
beachfront boutique hotels in the greater Seattle area. As a member of the EDC and Downtown Edmonds
Merchants Association, who also supports the amendment, they see the opportunity this change could create
for economic growth and ask that the Council to consider the amendment.
Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, recalled speaking with a few Councilmembers two weeks ago when this
amendment was first presented. His overall opinion was the amendment would be a great idea. The concerns
expressed about noise, parking, etc. will play themselves out. It will be a business decision by the person
who chooses to develop a hotel. In this day and age where people provide online reviews, if noise becomes
an issue, the hotel will not attract customers. It will be up to the business owner whether a hotel would be
profitable. He agreed a hotel could not operate restaurant, more likely they would form relationships with
existing waterfront restaurants. The location of hotel on the waterfront in close proximity to the train station
is a perfect match because people can walk to the hotel. This change offers nothing but opportunity. Any
redevelopment would improve the architecture profile of the waterfront. He was looking hard for a
downside and the only downside he saw was the hullabaloo in previous years about safety on the waterfront.
David Preston, Edmonds, agreed code issues are an important point. He noted there is already a hotel on
the waterfront, the Port of Edmonds has over 5,000 overnight stays on the water in boats per year.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about occupancy of Harbor Inn. Mr. Doherty answered the manager's
email, which arrived after the Council packet was assembled, stated 55-65% occupancy is average during
non -peak times such as this time of year; in the summer occupancy is 95-100%. He summarized there are
times of the year where there is a need for more rooms and other times when another hotel would be a
competitor in the marketplace.
10. STUDY ITEMS
1. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES. STUDY SESSIONS, AND STUDY ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 15
Packet Pg. 417
8.2.g
This item was removed from the agenda via action during Agenda Item 4.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson advised he will be a tasting judge at the Chamber of Commerce International Clam Chowder
Cookoff on Saturday, February 22. There will be ten local restaurants participating and one participant from
Japan.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember K. Johnson announced she has reappointed Scott Merrick to the Economic Development
Commission. She announced the 28"' Annual Chocolate and Wine Gala presented by Domestic Violence
Services of Snohomish County on Friday, April 3' at the Tulalip Resort Casino.
Councilmember L. Johnson reported the South Snohomish County Cold Weather Shelter opened last night
when temperatures dropped below 34 degrees. The shelter will be open through Thursday due to projected
low temperatures. It is a lifesaving service that is staffed by volunteers and they are always looking for
more volunteers. She plans to volunteer tomorrow; varying length shifts are available morning and evening.
More information is available at weallbelong.org.
Councilmember Buckshnis reminded dogs are not allowed on Brackett's Landing beach or any Edmonds
beaches except the dog park south of Marina Beach.
Council President Fraley-Monillas wished Mayor Nelson luck at the Clam Chowder cookoff as she does
not like clam chowder.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked everyone who participated in the Citizens Housing Commission
(CHC) open house last week. The survey is open until Friday and available in multiple languages. He
thanked the CHC for providing an opportunity for those for whom English may not be their first language
to complete the survey.
Councilmember Olson reported the Memorial Day event will be expanded this year with an invitation to
people who have been touched by the art of Michael Reagan's Fallen Heroes Project. There are a lot of
special events for Gold Star families who have lost loved ones to the war on terror. She invited the public
to contact her via the City website or at her talk then walk at 85°C Bakery Caf6 on Hwy 99 tomorrow at
8:00 a.m.
Councilmember Paine thanked everyone who came to the Housing Commission open house, coming it was
very interesting and there were many perspectives. She estimated the number of attendee at 100. She was
pleased with the attendance and was encouraged about having traveling open houses.
Councilmember Paine reported on her Police Department ridealong, five hours with Sergeant Barker, that
she found fascinating and a terrific education. She did not expect so much to be going on behind the scenes
in Edmonds.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
of L J/J
MIC £L NELSON, MAYOR
PASSEY, CITY CLE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 16
Packet Pg. 418
8.2.h
MEMORANDUM
TO: MATT CHEUNG, CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD
ROB CHAVE, PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
VIA: MARY MONROE, CHAIR AIM
SUBJECT: Amendment of Edmonds Community Development Code to Allow Lodging
Uses in CW Zone.
DATE: September 18, 2019
In pursuit of one of the 2019 EDC Work Plan Goals, as presented to City Council earlier this year, at its
September 18, 2019 meeting the Economic Development Commission recommended that the
Commercial Waterfront "CW" Zone "permitted use" provisions be amended to allow lodging uses.
There has been discussion in previous EDC meetings over the past two years about this issue, which
Commissioners believe would potentially allow for development of additional lodging facilities within
walking distance of Downtown Edmonds, thereby serving to enhance economic vitality, jobs and
revenue.
We hope that by transmittal of this memo, in addition to our work in the past and stated goals to City
Council, the Planning Board and Development Services Department will be able to commence work on
this rather minor code amendment in the near future.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or Patrick Doherty, Economic Development and
Community Services Director.
Packet Pg. 419