Loading...
2024-06-06 Tree Board Packetof ED.1> p f: Citizens' Tree Board �hC. 1100 Agenda BRACKETT ROOM 121 5T" AVE N, CITY HALL — 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JUNE 6, 2024, 6:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION The Public may join in -person or on-line. The physical location of the meeting is at 121 5th Ave N. City Hall, Brackett Room, 3rd Floor. This is a Hybrid meeting. Join Remote Meeting by using the URL: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/I/81670819481?pwd=EQRLgwlzlc7HOWJg90NLu'Z7iFRQle.1 The virtual Meeting ID: 816 7081 9481, Passcode: 442461. You may call in to the meeting by dialing (253) 321-58782. Those commenting 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. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES A. May 2, 2024 Draft Tree Board Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Watershed Fun Fair (May 18th) Report B. Edmonds in Bloom Garden Tour Tree ID update (Ben Mark) C. Tree App Project Update (Ben Mark) Packet Page 1 D. Tree Board's Tree Code Recommendations — i. Planning Board's Request (staff memo) ii. March 7th Interim Ordinance Motion (staff memo) 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Climate Action Group — September Event 8. STAFF COMMENTS/UPDATES 9. TREE BOARD CHAIR AND MEMBER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Next Tree Board meetings: August 1, September 5 Packet Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS F EYMo r. TREE BOARD Summary Minutes of Regular Meeting May 2, 2024 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Board Member Higgins read the Land Acknowledgement. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Chair Kliment called the Tree Board meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Board Members Present Staff Present Wendy Kliment, Chair Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Human Services Bill Phipps, Vice Chair (online) Director Janelle Cass (online) A4. Ian Higgins Ben Mark Others Present Crane Stavig Jenna Nand, City Council Liaison (online) Ross Dimmick (alternate) (online) Board Members Absent Ray White (unexcused) J ►A II - Approval of April 4, 2024 Tree Board Minutes Vice Chair Phipps questioned the report from the Tree Board Annual Presentation to Council under Unfinished Business on page 2 which stated that the Council was not supportive of a ban on removal of old growth/heritage trees. Chair Kliment explained this is what she had heard from councilmembers at the meeting. Vice Chair Phipps did not think it was accurate. Councilmember Nand explained the Council is always advised by the City Attorney not to pass interim ordinances, but they might be more favorable to a permanent ordinance related to a Heritage Tree program. The April 4, 2024 Tree Board minutes were approved as presented (5-1) with Vice Chair Phipps voting against the motion. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 3 Vice Chair Phipps asked to add a discussion item related to potential Tree Board participation in Climate Action Week to New Business. He also asked about adding a discussion item related to the Rimmer court case regarding the title/Tree code issue. It was noted that clarification is needed about whether the Tree Board should even be discussing the Rimmer case. Director Feser commented that staff was not prepared to discuss it tonight. There was agreement to put it on the next agenda and for board members to do some research in the meantime. The agenda was approved unanimously as amended. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Earth Day Event (April 20) Report - Vice Chair Phipps reported that it was a great event with about 20 people of all ages. Board member speculated people may have gotten got lost because of there wasn't adequate signage. Chair Kliment reported on the event at Pine Ridge which was also a great event with about 20 people. Both groups got pretty muddy. 2. Tree Board's Tree Code Recommendation to Council - Board Member Mark reviewed the Board's recommendations as previously discussed which he had compiled. There was consensus to hold off on voting on this because not all board members had received the final copy and it wasn't in the packet. Vice Chair Phipps referred to number 4, Required Tree Replacement for Removal of 18-30" Trees, and said he thought they should include a recommended number of required tree replacements depending on the size of tree. Chair Kliment explained there had not been a consensus on that which is why it was worded as it was. Vice Chair Phipps reviewed the tree replacements required for development. He thinks there should be some consistency between the development code and private property tree removals. NEW BUSINESS Watershed Fun Fair — May 18 — Vice Chair Phipps reviewed this item which will be held from 11-3 at the Willow Creek Salmon Watershed Education Center. Board Member Cass and Chair Kliment volunteered to split the day. Board Member Cass may have other obligations, but she will try to make it. Vice Chair Phipps will also be present. 2. Intro of New Project: Tree Identification Signs — Vice Chair Phipps reviewed the scope of this project to make laminated signs for trees sharing environmental benefits and other information. He wondered about integration with the app that Board Member Mark would be talking about. Board Member Mark thought it would be possible to have QR codes on the signs pointing people to the app. Tree App Presentation (Ben Mark) — Board Member Mark reviewed the City of Seattle's tree website which inventories Seattle's trees by type, by owner, by type, Heritage trees, street trees, park trees. He reviewed other sites including City of Melbourne (Australia) which lets you "email a tree" and the City of Snohomish who did a tree inventory with the help of a grant. He displayed the beginning of a sample website he created for Edmonds which could show information about trees including potential environmental benefits such as how much carbon is sequestered and how much shade it provides. Board Packet Page 4 Member Cass thought this was great and wondered about using Google Earth which could provide data that could be used for other purposes. Board Member Mark explained how QR codes on tree signs could be used to refer people to the website to find out more information about the tree or to find other trees. He offered to continue to take more photos and gather information about trees if someone else wants to handle the technology part. Director Feser spoke to the importance of meeting with IT to address any security concerns. She also recommended identifying the data they want to collect on the trees ahead of time and mentioned concerns about resources to manage this going forward after the initial creation and use of city resources of staff time and any costs. There was discussion about starting with park trees first to be sensitive to private tree owners and maybe having a tree nomination program. Vice Chair Phipps thought highlighting exceptional trees around schools could be a great way to introduce the kids to trees and the digital information. Board Member Dimmick expressed caution about listing dollar amounts for environmental benefits and discussed concerns he had about how these numbers are calculated. Board Members Mark, Higgins, Cass, and Phipps (alternate) expressed interest in working on the project. 4. Summer Market Tree Giveaway/Booth (Oct. 5) Discussion — Board Member Stavig said he has about 40 conifer saplings. Some can be used for the Watershed Fun Fair and some can be used for the Arbor Day/Month event. There was consensus to do the tree giveaway again and also the GIS critical area map activity. There was some discussion about working with IT to export the critical areas data to Google Earth and other ways the process could be improved. The group debated about whether they wanted to do the tree walk again and if so, how it might look. Vice Chair Phipps recommended having some smaller and medium varieties of trees to give away for people who don't have enough room for conifers. Director Feser indicated that Jenn Leach can find suppliers and order the trees through the Tree Fund for the event. She will have staff start working with Vice Chair Phipps and Board Member Stavig to determine what kind and how many trees they should get. 5. Discussion about participating in Climate Action Week (September 21, 2024) — Vice Chair Phipps reviewed this event and said it would be great to have the Tree Board represented there somehow for the September 21 kickoff event even though it is just two weeks away from the Summer Market Tree Giveaway event. He thought another tree giveaway event would be great. There was some debate about whether this would be possible given the proximity to the other event. Director Feser explained that the event is contingent on a grant being approved. She suggested waiting until June to make a decision to make sure the event is going to happen. STAFF COMMENTS/UPDATES None TREE BOARD CHAIR & MEMBER COMMENTS Motion made by Chair Kliment, seconded by Board Member Cass to cancel the July meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Vice Chair Phipps asked about the status of the vote they took encouraging the City Council to initiate an interim amendment to halt the removal of landmark trees until the Tree Code is finished. Chair Kliment thought it would be submitted along with all of their Tree Code recommendations. She encouraged all board members to read Packet Page 5 the Tree Code recommendations so a vote can be taken next month. Director Feser will put together a writeup of the motion and some background info for the packet. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Chair Kliment, seconded by Board Member Mark, to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Next meeting: June 6 Fl 11 Packet Page 6 y EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES Memo To: Citizens' Tree Board From: Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Date: 5/16/2024 Re: Tree Code Recommendations Status It has come to the staff's attention that there may have been some misunderstanding regarding the request and intended audience for the Tree Board's recent work related to Tree Code recommendations. This memo is to provide background information and re -focus the board on the original request from the Planning Board, which was not to review all the Planning Board's tree code recommendations and share the Tree Board's opinion with the City Council. Background On November 6, 2023, an email was sent from Nick Maxwell (Planning Board member) to Tree Board leadership stating, "I wanted to share this with you in case it could help the tree board reach a conclusion about a recommendation to send to the Planning Board" and "If the Tree Board can send a recommendation, that would help the Planning Board reach a conclusion". (Attachment #1 — 2023.11.06 Email RE Tree Code. The email and attachment are included) During the November 29, 2023 Planning Board meeting, a subcommittee reported to the full Planning Board on an agenda item titled "Planning Board Subcommittee Recommendations: Proposed Code Changes Adding Tree Removal Regulations For Developed Private Property". This was a discussion of the full Planning Board with no recommendations voted on or formalized. The minutes from the November 29th meeting are found in Attachment #2 — 2023-11-29 Planning Board Minutes starting on page 5. There are some additional comments later in the meeting in Planning Board Extended Agenda item (page 7). The November 29th meeting's agenda packet is included as Attachment #2 — Planning Board Meeting Agenda Item Packet materials. Pages 1-2 and 147-205, including previous planning board meetings minutes related to tree code. The Planning Board's tree code recommendations paused late 2023. The subcommittee's recommendations were NOT voted on by the entire Planning Board, therefore not finalized. Packet Page 7 Staff Recommendation With staff assistance, have Tree Board leadership meet with Planning Board leadership to clarify the Planning Board's request for information and/or recommendations on the city's tree code. In addition, discuss a coordinated and strategic approach to both Boards recommendations to City Council regarding tree code later this year when Council decides to consider revisions to that code. Packet Page 8 Attachment #1 From: Bill Phipps To: Feser, Anoie Subject: Fw: Tree Code stuff Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:13:11 PM Attachments: Proposed Private Property Tree Policy.docx Hi Angie Here is the Planning Board recommendations that I was working off of, , in his attachment. I'll be sending you other info as i find it. Thanks. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Maxwell, Nick <nick.maxwell@edmondswa.gov> To: Cass, Janelle ( Tree Board ) <Janelle.Cass@edmondswa.gov>; Bill Phipps <bebopbill@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 at 01:25:27 PM PST Subject: Tree Code stuff Hi Janette and Bill, I wanted to share this with you in case it could help the tree board reach a conclusion about a recommendation to send to the Planning Board. The Planning Board is still moving forward on getting together tree code for Council. (And that issue may get somewhat unclogged by the end of the campaign season.) Tree code is not on the Planning Board's agenda for this week. If the Tree Board can send a recommendation, that would help the Planning Board reach a conclusion. The attached is mostly meant as a framework to make the decisions easier. The important part is not that the document says 1 tree or 2 trees. The important part is to help see a draft policy that could then be adapted by answering questions like, "1 tree or 2?" "18" or 24"?" etc. If this doesn't seem helpful, please never mind. In a moment, I'll share with you some info about wildfire risks that might be important for your work on the tree board. And thank you for your work on the Tree Board! I would not want it to be a thankless task! I appreciate your time and effort. Nick Packet Page 9 Nick Maxwell (Planning Board) Packet Page 10 (Email Attachment: Proposed Private Property Tree Code) PROPOSED POLICY FOR TREE REMOVAL REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPED PRIVATE PROPERTY The following text was shared with the Planning Board as a discussion document to help reach conclusions. The idea was to provide a framework that could support reaching a conclusion by tweaking parameters. For example, 1 tree? Or 2 trees? 18" or 24"? Largest trees prohibited or require permit? Etc. - Nick Private Developed Non -Critical Land There was a request to revise the tree code for development. That is a worthwhile task. So far, the planning board has not completed such a code review and improvement. This proposed code is only for private land. These policies are not proposed for Edmonds locations that are defined as "environmentally critical areas" in Edmonds code chapter 23.40. Regulations and policies for environmentally critical areas are defined in chapter 23.40 and nothing in this draft code for 23.10 is proposed to supersede the regulations, requirements, or policies of chapter 23.40. These policies are not proposed for locations that are on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place that are regulated by Edmonds code chapter 18.85. Regulations for those areas are defined by chapter 18.85. These proposed changes to tree policies do not apply to locations that are commercial or multi family -zoned properties. Tree regulations for those locations are stipulated by Edmonds code 20.13. These policies apply only to RS zones. The following two tables describe the recommended policies. Packet Page 11 NON -HAZARD, NON -NUISANCE, & NON-INVASIVE TREES < 6" V - 18" 18" - 30" 30"+ Permit / None Notification Permit Notification Allowance No restric- While leaving at least one While leaving at least Prohi- tions 6"+ tree per 3,000 sq. ft. of one 6"+ per 3,000 sq. bited property, ft. of property, 2 trees per 12 months if no 1 per 12 months 18"-30" are removed, or 1 per 12 months if an 18"-30" is removed in the same 12 months Replacements None None required 3 trees, or 2 if conifers required HAZARD TREES, NUISANCE TREES, & INVASIVE TREES < 6" 6" - 18" 18" - 30" 3011+ Permit / None 1-2: Notification. Permit w/o Permit w/o Notification Required 3+: Permit w/o fees fees fees Allowance No No Restrictions No Restrictions No Restrictions Restrictions Replacements None None Required 3 trees, 4 trees, Required or 2 if conifers or 2 if conifers Permit w/o fees We recommend that inspections and permit processing for tree removal be provided by the City without charging fees. Tree maintenance is both a requirement of property ownership in Edmonds and a service to our neighbors. It is important that home owners with limited resources not be incentivized to leave hazardous trees standing. It seems reasonable that tree - removal permit costs would be covered by property taxes. Minimums Packet Page 12 We recommend that removals require leaving a minimum of one 6"+ tree per 3,000 sq ft of property. This provides an automatic grandfathering: A property that currently has no trees will not be required to add trees. Allowance for trees that are not nuisance trees, not hazard trees, and not invasive trees Each 12 months, property owners may: Remove up to two 6"-18" trees OR up to one 6"-18" tree and one 18"-30" tree. Limits are property related. For example, if someone removes two healthy non -nuisance and non-invasive trees in May and sells the property in July, the new owner is prohibited from removing more healthy non -nuisance and non-invasive trees until June of the following year. Prohibiting the removal of healthy, non -hazard, non-invasive 30"+ trees Planning board discussion focused on smaller trees. When trees of 30" in diameter or larger were discussed, it was recognized that these trees are extraordinary in the Edmonds area and are important historical and environmental assets that add substantial improvements to the beauty of Edmonds. 30"+ trees are almost all trees that were in Edmonds the last time that the Edmonds area was logged over roughly 100 years ago. Another factor is that trees accelerate how fast they grow throughout their lives. Unlike mammals, who slow down in growth and then stabilize, trees generally speed up in terms of how much wood they grow each year throughout their lives. This means that a large and mature tree takes much more carbon dioxide out of the air than a small and young tree. Citizen comments appeared to be in agreement that such trees are special assets that need protecting. One 18"-30" tree and one 6"-18" tree per 12 months We were concerned about the idea of three trees in 36 months, because of how it would limit new homeowners. With a 36-month requirement, if a seller cut the maximum allowance of trees in May and sold in June, the new buyer would have to wait three years before they could cut another tree for landscaping reasons. With the 12-month requirement, the new homeowner might be restricted up to 12 months, which seemed tolerable. Why one smaller and one larger tree per 12 months, when public comments were asking for the equivalent one tree per 12 months? Our judgment was that what mattered most to citizens and mattered most for tree canopy protection was the protection of larger trees. A request to be able to cut down two trees per 12 months was brought up during discussion. A compromise that seemed tolerable was to allow two trees, but not two larger trees. Packet Page 13 Attachment #2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting November 29, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Lauren Golembiewski Richard Kuehn (online) Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Emily Nutsch (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent None Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NUTSCH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBERS TRAGUS-CAMPBELL AND MARTINI ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA CHAIR GLADSTONE MOVED TO ADD THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE TREE CODE AMENDMENT BEFORE NEW BUSINESS AND TO ADD ELECTION FOR CHAIR TO NEW BUSINESS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None Packet Page 14 Board Member Tragus Campbell commented that Deer Creek has been used for a hundred years. They have the responsibility to make sure they are able to continue using this resource even if it means slowing down a limited sector of potential development. As technology changes and as additional infrastructure expands it can be looked at again. Most of the Board agreed with the recommendation that shallow UIC wells not be allowed in the QVA (gray) areas but that they should be allowed in other areas with the guidance that is currently in the draft code. Board Member Golembiewski had reservations about this. Chair Gladstone noted that the map of the aquifer or a link to it needs to be part of the code. Mr. Clugston noted that the City GIS is available to everyone and that is where all the critical area information lives. As Olympic View gets new mapping it will be added to the GIS. That is the place everyone looks for information about projects. Board Member Maxwell said he agreed with Mr. Guenther's comment that they don't want to encourage more cars and asphalt in the CARAs. If there are any zoning requirements that push for more parking, they should remove those from the CARAs. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS- CAMPBELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CARA CODE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH TWO MODIFICATIONS: 1. REMOVE MITIGATION SECTION IN 23.60.030(D)(1)(C) 2. DISALLOW ANY UIC WELLS — SHALLOW OR DRILLED — IN THE QV AREAS OF THE DEER CREEK AQUIFER BUT ALLOW SHALLOW UIC WELLS IN THE OTHER AREAS OF THAT WATERSHED. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI ABSTAINING. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to packet page 149: "Planning Board Subcommittee Recommendations: Proposed Code Changes Adding Tree Removal Regulations For Developed Private Property". Most of the comments they heard from the public and the Tree Board were very concerned with the largest trees. There was a lack of interest in putting forth regulations for the smallest of trees. It was also brought up many times that there is no data related to how many trees are actually taken down each year. The City is interested in making sure that there are permits or notifications in order to get some data. She reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations on page 150 in the packet for healthy, non-invasive, non - hazard trees not related to development. • Under 6 inches: Not regulated or tracked at all. • 6-12 inches: o Notification would be required. o Two trees would be allowed to be removed per 12 months of that size or one tree of a size that is bigger. The exception would be if you are down to one tree per 3,000 square feet of property you need to keep the last tree and not remove all canopy from that particular lot. Packet Page 15 o No replacements required. • 18-30 inches: o Replacements would be required. o Permit would be required in order to verify replacements were made. o Maximum of one tree of this size per 12 months (unless you have already removed two of the smaller trees) 30 inches or greater: Removal would be prohibited. Hazard, nuisance, invasive trees: No limits but replacements would be required for largest trees. Permits would not have a fee associated with it in order to encourage people to do the process correctly and not put a burden on those that might have lower incomes. Board Member Golembiewski recommended having two levels of hazard trees such as "emergency" which could be taken down with photo submittal and "hazard" which would require an arborist's assessment. There was some concern that this would be a burden for staff. The Board asked if the City is currently accepting photos or requiring an arborist to determine if a tree is hazardous. Mr. Clugston was not sure but indicated they could follow up. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked the Board about their thoughts on the size breakdowns the subcommittee came up with. Chair Gladstone said she liked the way they categorized them because it puts weight on the value of the older trees. She would like to hear from the City Attorney in a subsequent meeting about prohibiting removal of the 30+ inch trees. Chair Gladstone wondered if allowing two trees per year was too much. Board Member Golembiewski thought allowing two trees per year sort of evens the playing field between different size lots. Board Member Nutsch commented that it is also more cost effective to have two trees cut down at once. Board Member Kuehn passed on a message from Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers that the City was allowing photos without the need of an arborist. He spoke in support of trying to protect the largest trees (-26 inches+) and prohibiting removal of those. He wondered about allowing two trees per two years to allow some flexibility. He wondered if they have gotten any further direction from staff about what their goal is with the canopy. Chair Gladstone said there has been no further information about this. She heard it would be done in the first quarter of 2024, but she wonders if this is actually possible. Board Member Maxwell said they have heard from residents that they want to increase the canopy, particularly in places where it is sparse. Chair Gladstone summarized that the Board thinks there is some size they think should be prohibited if it is legal and that they will come back to this after they hear from the City Attorney. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell emphasized that right now in Edmonds there are no restrictions with tree removals so anything the Council can put into place will be helpful in protecting the canopy. The longer they wait, the more risk there is that they are going to lose some of these trees that they consider to be the most important. Board Member Mitchell spoke in support of the subcommittee's proposed categories and noted that the replacements would offset a lot of this. Board Member Kuehn agreed, but commented on the significant time it takes for a tree to grow to 26 inches. Board Member Mitchell wondered about having some sort of maintenance plan requirement for the replacement trees. He noted that Kirkland has resorted to doing this because some people were letting their replacement trees die. Chair Gladstone asked if there are some sort of guidelines about Packet Page 16 the size of tree that needs to be replacing the one removed. Board Member Golembiewski said there were some size requirements in the development code as well as maintenance requirements. There were questions about regulations that might be placed on replacement trees as far as maintenance, removal, etc. There was consensus to carry this over to the next meeting and a request to have the City Attorney come talk with the Board about legal constraints. NEW BUSINESS A. Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with HB 1337 — "Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units." - (continued to next meeting) B. Election of Chair — Chair Gladstone reported that at the next meeting they will need to elect both a Chair and a Vice Chair. She solicited any volunteers. Board Member Mitchell expressed an interest. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be interested in Vice Chair. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA The introduction to the Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units was continued to the next meeting. Election of officers will also be held. Mr. Clugston said they should discuss the Planning Board report to City Council which will happen in January. Chair Gladstone recommended setting a time limit for their discussions on the Tree Code because of how involved they get. Board Member Golembiewski recommended not putting the Tree Code on the agenda for the next meeting if the City Attorney is not available. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that if board members have thoughts that are different than the recommendation proposed by the subcommittee, they provide those to Mike Clugston so he can distribute them to the Board. Chair Gladstone also requested some clarity on the canopy work that is being done in terms of the timeline, how it's being done, and how it's being paid for. She suggested that if completion of this is going to be longer than expected they may want to consider giving an interim recommendation to Council. Chair Gladstone expressed concern about not having anything on the Comprehensive Plan on the agenda until they see high level alternatives in February. Board Member Mitchell wondered if this would cover all the sections or just a specific one. Mr. Clugston said he would check with the consultant and ask for more details. Chair Gladstone thought that the Board should be getting regular updates so they are prepared and informed when the consultant comes with alternatives. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell announced this would be her last meeting. She has really appreciated all of the discussions and vibrancy of the new members. She expressed appreciation to staff, especially Mike Clugston who has been the constant. She wants to stay informed and provide feedback when she can. Packet Page 17 Board Member Kuehn expressed appreciation for the discussion today. He commented that it is sad to see more staff leave. It's a tough job when there is so much turnover. He also thanked Mike Clugston for being the constant. He thanked Board Member Tragus-Campbell for her contributions and said they would miss her greatly. He looks forward to her calling in and participating when she can. Board Member Nutsch thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for her service. Student Representative Distelhorst referred to a previous conversation about the interpretation of a "small town feel" and said that people see that as keeping the city the way it is and keeping the bowl the way it is. This is the way the phrase is used by residents, politicians, and governmental officials in Edmonds. She thanked them for considering her email and what she said. She also thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for her service on the Planning Board. Board Member Golembiewski thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for serving on the Planning Board. It has been great serving with her. She expressed appreciation to both Chair Gladstone and Vice Chair Tragus- Campbell for helping to lead and set the example for the newer members. Board Member Martini thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for her service and said she will be greatly missed. Board Member Maxwell thanked everyone for the careful thinking about CARAs. It is important work, and he is glad they are taking it so seriously. Thanks to Mike Clugston for being a great support for their meetings. Thanks to Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for all of her work on the Planning Board. Board Member Mitchell expressed appreciation for Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell's deep and insightful comments and questions and noted it will be tough to fill her shoes. He wished her the best. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone agreed with previous comments and said she really appreciated Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell's thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and consideration of all issues. She thanked her for helping the board accomplish some important recommendations to Council over the years. She thanked staff for their work and expressed her deep regrets about the loss of Deb Powers. She thinks it will be a real handicap for the city and that they should all be concerned about the turnover that has happened at the Planning Department. This makes it hard for everyone. She agreed that they had a great discussion today. She appreciates what everyone brings to the table. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Packet Page 18 OF Agenda N Attachment #3 Edmonds Planning Board SPECIAL MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 29, 2023, 7:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This is a Hybrid meeting: The in -person portion of the meeting is at 7PM in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall. Zoom Link below for those attending online. https:Hedmondswa-gov.zoom.us/j/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuSO14QTO9 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode: 007978 Or Telephone : US:US: +1 253 205 0468 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve previous meeting minutes 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS For topics not scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code (AMD2023-0004) 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with HB 1337 — "Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units." 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) 8. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. November 29 Extended Agenda Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 29, 2023 Packet Page 19 Page 1 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 29, 2023 Packet Page 20 Page 2 7.A.c Board Member Maxwell noted that currently there are no restrictions on homeowners cutting down trees. They are talking about making it more difficult to take down trees, so he doesn't expect the number to increase. Other board members commented that there is no way to know what people are going to do since human nature is complicated. Board Member Golembiewski said at the very least they should be tracking tree removals. She would like to see a notification process required for all private homeowner trees and maybe even a permit just on the big trees. This would allow the City the opportunity to get some baseline data to make future decisions on rather than doing nothing in the interim period. Board Member Kuehn agreed that they should have baseline requirements and spoke in support of Board Member Golembiewski's recommendations in the interim. Chair Gladstone noted there is a lot more to discuss. She recommended that the Board continue the discussion while staff goes down the path of developing canopy targets. Director McLaughlin said she was not opposed to working in parallel on this but pointed out they would reach a point where they would need to have something to analyze that was not a moving target. She challenged the Board to think about equity considerations and the fact that there is a huge void of tree canopy in the Highway 99 area along with heat island impacts. If they treat all things equal, they will end up with more inequities in the tree canopy in certain parts of the city. She also wants to develop a subcommittee for the citywide tree canopy target so they can expedite the efforts. She will distribute more information to the Board. Board Member Mitchell thought there should be some sort of tax or fee on the removal of trees to emphasize the importance of retaining them. Board Member Maxwell clarified that they were thinking of permits with no fees for just the hazard trees. Board Member Golembiewski's suggestion was to have a fee on the larger trees. Board Member Martini raised concerns about equity. Board Member Mitchell pointed out that with the recent property tax increases there were avenues that senior citizens could go through to get relief. They might be able to get something like that in place. Chair Gladstone recommended that they get a briefing from legal staff about the property ownership tree removal portion of this so they are making a recommendation that is legally defendable. Vice Chair Tragus- bell noted that a discussion on the tree code update was scheduled for November 8. Director McLaughlin woul o hold a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission on the Comprehensive Plan on November This could happen before the regularly scheduled meeting. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that staff p-?Ovidr,, material to read ahead of only a few days prior to the meeting. She noted they would probably need to move ba e detached ADU discussion since they are adding additional items to that meeting. Also, there is an outstanding request from the Council about reviewing the vision Rateulent which was going to be worked on as a subcommittee. Chair Gladstone indicated she, Board Member Kue nd Student Representative Distelhorst will try to work together over the weekend so there can be something rea e Packet Page 21 Packet Pg. 186 OUP =SSE TOBEFORE THE CURRENT FIRST ITEM IN UNFINISHED BUSINESS. THE MO ND. BOARD ME ER MAXWELL MOVED, CHAIR GLADSTONE SECONDED, REMOVING THE PARKS, RECRE ON & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT - 2023 Q3 ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM THE AGEND LIEU OF BOARD MEMBERS READING THE REPORT ON THEIR OWN AND FORW THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CO AUDIENCE COMMENTS None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS TO STAFF. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q3 AccomplisIrments - REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Brief Tree Code Discussion Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell explained the subcommittee discussed all the various proposals and public comments on the tree code and submitted a document with suggested language for the code. Board Member Maxwell didn't think it was appropriate to discuss the code language specifically, just the summary table of the guiding principles. There was concern about discussing this at all since it was not included in the packet. Director McLaughlin commented that it was not an accident this item was not included on the agenda. The project is on pause at the staff level for legal review and director review. Chair Gladstone expressed a concern about waiting too long to discuss this and having to start over again. Vice Chair Tragus- Campbell suggested putting it on the agenda for the next meeting so they can stay updated on the staff review. She thinks it is important for this to stay on the agenda every meeting until they can get an answer and move forward. Board Member Maxwell suggested that legal review would be easier if they actually had some clear language to review. He also pointed out that there was no legal review of the step back ordinance. Board Member Martini asked what triggered this. Director McLaughlin said she was not able to answer that. Board Member Martini did not like the prospect of repeatedly pushing this down the road. Board Member Golembiewski expressed the concern about delaying this too long and ending up with a Council that proposes an emergency ordinance. She hopes they get to a point where they stop ruling by emergency ordinance. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Page 22 Packet Pg. 187 7.A.c MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, THEY HAVE A REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION MEMO AND RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM STAFF ABOUT STATUS OF THE REVIEWS PROCESS AT THE OCTOBER 25 MEETING. Board Member Kuehn expressed frustration about the situation. He doesn't understand why they can't even have a discussion about this to keep the ball moving forward. Board Member Maxwell noted that they could continue to share the key concepts tonight. Other board members disagreed because the public didn't have a chance to review the documentation ahead of time. Chair Gladstone expressed concern about having any process violations on this important topic. It was noted there would need to be continued discussion about how all of this would impact the extended agenda. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL ABSTAINING. Planning Board Action on 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Vice Chair gus-Campbell referred to a memo drafted by another subcommittee regarding the Planning Board's reco elation. The memo states that the Board does not have sufficient information to make a clear recommendation.N tone added that in the memo they tried to capture the concerns raised at the last meeting around thShe explained that they had primarily tried to characterize what the concerns were around equity. Thed there were gaps in the information that was provided in order to make a solid recommendation. Mitchell commented that there is a time crunch to present this to Council. It would take signifiork t rovide that backup information in time for the Board to make a formal decision. For that reason, they have le open and recommended that specific questions be asked. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thought the men aptured what was discussed at the last meeting and also during the last year. Mainly, they were raising questions a ut how items were prioritized. The public has consistently brought up concerns around sidewalks, and there wa oncern about not having any of that in the plan. She encouraged the Council to ask questions around prioritiz 'on and how they can make some progress toward addressing inequities in the infrastructure. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the intent was for these priori ' s to be presented to Council or for this to come back to Planning Board before making a recommendation to cil. Chair Gladstone did not think there was time for this to come back to the Planning Board which is why t memo ends up with things the Board thinks the Council should look at to make an informed decision. Board Member Martini thought that providing the Council with what they collectively a on would be useful. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell concurred and noted that the memo outlines that. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY BOARD N MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO TO CITY CO REGARDING THE CIP/CFP AS WRITTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Page 23 Packet Pg. 188 7.A.c Draft Sept. 13, 2023 Meeting Minutes Planner Amber Brokenshire pointed out the inclusion of noticing 300 feet around both parcels. She reviZcent the proposed project to rezone two parcels along Edmonds Way to BC-EW Community Business. The PUD substation was added to the proposal. The site to the east is still undeveloXreviethe ed even after being oned last year from RM-1.5 to RM-EW. Upon a request by the Planning Board, staffut t e PUD about including the property as part of the rezone proposal. The PUD had no objectied zoning change. The proposal boundaries have been expanded to include both properties. Se surrounding area, compatibility with the ComprehensivePlan, zoning analysis, public benefitning, public notice, and public comments. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board fomendation to City Council to approve the rezone. Chair Gladstone commented that they had had a pretty was the noticing of 300 feet around both parcels. Staff comments. She asked if there were any other questionv Public Testimony: Shaun Leiser, 2024 NW 190"` Streel Kdiscussion at the last hearing; the only issue noticed this and received no additional public WA, applicant, said he was available to answer any questions. Seeing no further public tes�iKony, the public hearing was closed. Deliberation: MOTIO>41ADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MA3XTNI TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. AMD2022-0004, Tree Code Amendments Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers shared public testimony on the tree code amendments since the last meeting and continued the discussion from the last meeting on property owner tree removals. She shared the following verbiage as a starting point for discussions and stated they would need to determine the number, tree size, and timeframe metrics to fill in the gaps in the draft code. III. Tree removal allowance 4. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to [number] [tree size] within [timeframe] with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. Ms. Powers explained that they had discussed having mandatory minimums so that when a property owner gets to a certain number of trees left on a lot or if they started with a low number of trees, it could trigger tree replacement requirements. She reminded the Board that the tree removal allowance is meant to be an extremely easy process that does not require extensive review. Staff believes it will still slow the loss of canopy as well as Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Packet Page 24 Packet Pg. 189 provide a way to track tree removals over time. Prior Planning Board considerations for property owner tree removals are to keep it simple, prohibit tree removal in critical areas, and limit larger tree removals. Board Member Mitchell asked if they are tracking by neighborhood or area. Ms. Powers explained that the TRAKit software tracks permit activity by parcel and would need to check if it can be queried for removal information by area. Ms. Powers reviewed the Planning Board's previous leaning toward allowing two landmark trees (24" DBH or larger) per 12-months. Replacement trees would be triggered when the property owner has the last two or three trees on the property. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she strongly supports requiring a permit and replacement (3:1) for removal of any landmark trees. She does not want landmark trees under the allowance. She feels this is where there is consensus with public comments they have heard. Chair Gladstone agreed and asked if there is a way to incentivize the replacement of the types of trees they want to see. Maybe have a 2:1 replacement? Staff replied that 3:1 replacement requirements are consistent with the current development code. Board Member Martini asked who pays for the replacement. Staff replied that the property owner pays for the removal and the replacement. Chair Gladstone brought up the issue of equity. What happens if it's a hazard tree that needs to come down and somebody can't afford the 3:1 replacement. Ms. Powers explained that under the current code, hazardous or a nuisance tree removal outside critical areas do not have replacement requirements. Under the proposed allowance approach, there is no permit or arborist report cost but under a hazard or nuisance tree removal permit, documentation by a certified arborist is required and is subject to staff review. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell clarified that she thought anything that is hazardous or nuisance should not require a permit or replacements. Staff clarified that a permit would be required for hazard or nuisance tree removals over and above the allowance. For trees removed under the allowance, no permit would be involved, and the board has considered mandatory minimums to address replacements. Board Member Golembiewski said her concern about requiring a permit for landmark trees is that it would take away the opportunity for someone to remove a hazard tree without the expense to do so. She thought if they could allow removal of one landmark tree every three or five years as part of the tree allowance it could help with the equity and affordability issue. Board Member Maxwell agreed and added that his understanding of a reason to have an allowance is that it would allow low-income families to remove nuisance and hazard trees without any costs as long as they are within the allowance. On top of that he is concerned that they have a $325 fee for a permit because it involves some sort of evaluation, but what is the evaluation in this situation? Board Member Kuehn suggested they could possibly make it more economically feasible for low-income families if that is something they want to do, but he had concerns about making it easier to remove landmark trees unless they are hazardous or nuisance. Chair Gladstone noted that equity can be achieved in different ways than just code. She suggested that the City could have a fund that pays for permits for low-income residents. She was concerned about just allowing landmark trees to be included in the allowance because of equity because they then forego the balance of taking Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Packet Page 25 Packet Pg. 190 7.A.c care of the canopy. Maybe they need to be more creative about how they accomplish the equity and allow for ease of removal of the hazard trees since that is what they are really concerned about. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell agreed with Chair Gladstone. She wondered about having the permit for hazardous trees potentially be free so you have to go through the process but there is no charge for it. The hazard/nuisance tree is a different topic to her than the healthy landmark tree. She asked the Board's thoughts on healthy landmark trees. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, THAT THE TREE CODE IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ANY TREES OF 24" DBH OR GREATER ARE NOT INCLUDED IN TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES AND WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND REPLACEMENTS IN ORDER TO BE REMOVED. Board Member Maxwell spoke against the motion and said he was in support of having different allowances for the larger trees than they have for the smaller trees. To him, this hasn't dealt with the problems that were brought up about equity. MOTION FAILED. Board Member Golembiewski suggested having an allowance to remove one landmark tree every three years. Board Member Maxwell referred to public comments by Larry Williamson and Bill Phipps and suggested an allowance of three trees that are 12" or larger every 36 months. For larger trees such as landmark trees and up, the allowance would be one tree per 36 months. The landmark tree would count toward the total of three per 36 months. Ms. Powers spoke to the decrease in code effectiveness and difficulty in administration when there are multiple timeframes for different sized trees and when timeframes are over 12 months. She discussed the Shoreline code as an example how 4 trees on an 8,000 square foot lot could be removed all at the same time, even with a 36 month timeframe and discussed various ways to look at this. Board Member Mitchell recommended just starting somewhere, tracking tree removals, and looking at this again in the near future to evaluate how it is working. Board Member Maxwell said it was his understanding that was what they were doing. Board Member Golembiewski recommended allowing three "regulated" trees over 12" DBH every three years or one landmark tree over 24" DBH every three years. There was further discussion about the complexities of having an extended timeline applied to different tree sizes. Would it be a rolling three years or a set three years? Chair Gladstone asked about the tradeoff from a canopy management standpoint of protecting the 6" and above trees versus starting at the 12" and up trees. Ms. Powers explained that Edmonds canopy data wasn't that detailed yet and spoke to the importance of getting something on the books so they can begin to track this. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the 12-month allowance as opposed to the 36-month allowance. She pointed out you are far more likely to see a change in ownership in a 36-month period versus a Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Packet Page 26 Packet Pg. 191 7.A.c one-year period. She thinks a 12-month timeframe would be easier for both the consumer and the City. Ms. Powers noted that the removals, whether as allowance or permit are tied to the parcel and not necessarily the property owner. Board Member Kuehn also was in favor of the 12-month time period. He asked if the system would allow one tree removal per 12-months, but if it's a landmark tree, you can't take another one out for a certain period of time. Ms. Powers noted that could work under a 1-per 12 month allowance that applies to trees at least 6" DBH, without a permit or replacements and that additional landmark tree removals would require a permit with an extended time and replacement requirements. Mr. Clugston thought they could make that work. Board Member Golembiewski suggested increasing the size of landmark trees to something bigger than 24" and still making them permit required. This might be a good compromise. She also asked that the size of landmark trees in the definition be based on a single trunk. She suggested that they also clarify the definition to reflect what they are really concerned about. Do they want to protect conifers? Native trees? Ms. Powers noted that the current DBH definition for multiple-trunked trees is already a proposed code change to follow industry standards. She thought that regulating tree removals based on retaining desired species would increase code complexity and its administration. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO DEFINE LANDMARK TREES AS 28 INCHES OR GREATER WITHIN A SINGLE TRUNK, THAT THOSE TREES WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND REQUIRE REPLACEMENTS, AND THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE OPTIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR FINANCIAL EQUITY TO DEAL WITH THE VARIETY OF ISSUES SUCH AS PERMIT FEES AND REPLACEMENTS. Board Member Maxwell recommended that the permit fee should be used for inspecting the replacement trees. Chair Gladstone did not think the Board had the authority to specify what the City should be charging fees for. Board Member Kuehn thought this was getting closer. Taking care of the landmark trees is a huge issue for the residents of Edmonds. Chair Gladstone said she was weighing the public education needs that would be required with changing the size from 24 to 28 inches and other implications of the size of the tree that may affect the loss of canopy cover. She wondered about including landmark trees in the allowance but only allowing one tree above significant per year. Student Representative Distelhorst asked about the rationale for making the size bigger since it counteracts the goal of trying to prevent people from cutting down larger trees. She thought they should keep the size for landmark trees the same and noted that people are already familiar with this size. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell explained that she agrees that 24 inches is an appropriate size, but her rationale for changing the definition of landmark trees to a larger size is to make it more palatable to everybody. Board Member Kuehn asked how the permit process works. Ms. Powers explained the main difference from the allowance process is that the permit requires staff review and a site visit, which is why a permit fee is charged and that the timeframe can be different from the allowance and it ensures that the replacements happen. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Packet Page 27 Packet Pg. 192 7.A.c Currently, permits for tree removal in critical areas, street trees, commercial, multifamily properties and vacant lots all require a site visit. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented on some quick research she had just done that a 24-inch DBH Douglas Fir would be about 120 years old based on a standard growth factor. She commented that there would not be many trees bigger than that since most of Edmonds is second growth forest. In order to get closer to a decision, Chair Gladstone asked if the Board would rather have one tree allowance that allows the landmark trees or have them permitted. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be in favor of two trees per year with a permit required for landmark trees. A big concern she had about landmark trees is adding the multiple trunks together. If that is rectified, she feels better about permitting landmark trees. She thinks a good definition of what they are trying to protect is important. Board Member Nutsch said she really likes separating out the landmark trees into a permit, noting that there are not many of them left. She thinks having landmark trees included in the allowance is inviting people to try to sneak it in. Chair Gladstone recommended concluding the discussion for tonight and asking staff to come back with a definition of landmark trees and the revised development code language regarding measuring multiple trunks. Board Member Maxwell commented that for critical areas if the slope is less than 25% you can cut the trees down, and he doesn't think that is a good idea. Also, in section 23.10.040 it appears to say that the limit for the allowance doesn't apply to invasive trees, and people are welcome to cut down invasive trees as much as they like. He doesn't approve of that either. Ms. Powers explained that "invasive" is defined by Washington State and county noxious weed boards for different levels of control. Board Member Maxwell said he was comfortable with allowing compliance with what is required to be cut down but he is not comfortable cutting down something that is stabilizing landscape and providing canopy just because it is invasive. Chair Gladstone recommended adding this to a list of things to discuss in the future. Board Member Golembiewski asked the difference between developed properties and improved properties. She asked for clarification about if this code applies to property that has a house on it but could be subdividable. Ms. Powers explained the current definitions for improved lot and developable site and noted that we may need a new definition for a property of any size regardless of the presence of critical areas. Board Member Golembiewski said the way she was reading it was if you could subdivide your lot then you don't get an allowance. Ms. Powers noted that is why we need to define "developed property" . Board Member Golembiewski requested clarity on which properties this applies to and how the changing state regulations affect any of it. Are they addressing only what the situation is today or are they thinking about what the changing regulations will mean for developable lots? VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL RETRACTED HER MOTION. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell offered to chat with Board Member Maxwell offline about his invasive species management concerns. She noted that the way the code is written, it excludes sections of property containing critical areas. She added she has a lot of materials she can share with him on this topic. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Packet Page 28 Packet Pg. 193 7.A.c The discussion was continued to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Clugston informed the Board they have lost two staff members in the last two wee Planning Manager David Levitan and Associate Planner Michele Szafran - so they will need to ma some changes in the upcoming schedules. He discussed the impact this will have on topics coming up. S tember 27 was supposed to be a discussion about the development tree code, but now it will be another dis ssion about property owner tree removals. The public hearing that was scheduled for October 25 will ve to be bumped out. Chair Gladstone recommended trying to wrap up the property owner tree code September 27 and starting the discussion on the development tree code on October 11. Mr. Clugston tho ght that would work. Chair Gladstone commented that Councilmember Olsen asked her out trying to have the Planning Board consider the vision statement. She asked Mr. Clugston about the s s of that. He was not sure but indicated he could check on it. Mr. Clugston said he would try to adjust the schedule for t next meeting and bring it back with consideration of staffing challenges and all the projects they are jug ng. He will be staffing the Planning Board for now. Chair Gladstone said she had been meeting with D id Levitan every other week to discuss the upcoming agenda and extended agenda. Mr. Clugston indica d he could continue those meetings with her for now. Student Representative Distelhorst disc sed a scholarship program she did over the summer with Puget Sound Regional Council. Board Member Mitchell expres d appreciation to David Levitan and Michele Szafran and wished them the best in their new positions. B d Member Golembiewski concurred. Board Member Martini so wished David Levitan well. She said she appreciated that the Board had more time for discussion at this afeetiniz. Board Member )6xwell said he appreciated how well they were able to work with people on Zoom tonight. Vice Chair ragas -Campbell welcomed Mr. Clugston back to the Planning Board and thanked him for filling in as staylialson again. Best of luck to David Levitan. She thanked Ms. Powers for continuing to come back and gX them as much information as she can. She felt like this was a really good meeting. She appreciates the Play6ing Board's patience with her as she tries to move them closer to a determination. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Packet Page 29 Packet Pg. 194 7.A.c August 23, 2023 Planning Board Meeting UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Work Session on Private Property Tree Regulations (AMD2022-0004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made the presentation on code options related to property owner tree removals. Due to technical difficulties with sharing the PowerPoint, Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that a copy of the presentation be included with the minutes. At the previous meeting there was general agreement to keep the regulations simple, that no healthy trees should be removed in critical areas, and to allow two trees to be removed per 12 months. Does this apply to larger trees? What about replacement requirements? She reviewed public and stakeholder feedback. She stated there was general support for limiting or prohibiting tree removal in critical areas. Additionally, the Tree Board had a strong recommendation to limit landmark tree removals. There was also previously a discussion about allowing a greater number of tree removals on larger properties. She reviewed a table showing options for property sizes with greater numbers of tree removal allowances for larger properties. The Board needs to decide if removal limits based on property size is a preferred approach. She reviewed some draft code options related to tree removal allowances depending on the size of the removed trees and noted that this would also increase the complexity and involvement by both the staff and applicant. Is this consistent with the stated goal of having a simple code? Chair Gladstone asked if there are other jurisdictions that use property size as part of their reporting and notification. Ms. Powers replied that Kirkland, Woodinville, and Bellevue all look at differences in property sizes, but it is up to the community. There was some discussion about the process of code development and how that affects the complexity or simplicity of the resulting code. Chair Gladstone noted it was important to answer the question of which trees to which this would apply. Would they even allow tree removals for trees over 23.9" DBH? Ms. Powers referred to a matrix that showed various code options related to landmark trees available to the Board, staff recommendations and solicited feedback. After landmark trees are defined, that code option is shown under Code Option III, Tree Removal Allowance - applicable tree size, in blue text under number 2. Code Option III.2: Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to one landmark tree within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. The Board had expressed support for limiting but not prohibiting landmark tree removals. Ms. Powers explained that rather than create a new size definition for trees in between significant and landmark trees, that the removal allowance just applies to landmark trees. The matrix shows the more complex code options in red text. There was some discussion if the number of allowed landmark tree removals should be one or two per 12 months. A permit would be required to exceed that numerical allowance, as shown under Code Option IV. Code Option IV.1: Tree removal scenarios that require a permit. The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacements: The proposed removal of • Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (new) • Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (new) Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Page 30 Packet Pg. 195 7.A.c • Trees located on commercial and multi family -zoned properties (current) • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (current) • Healthy landmark trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the allowance and not having the graduated sizes because of the cleanliness of it. She likes the idea of the graduated sizes but it feels like it will cause more of a burden from an applicant and processing standpoint. She thinks allowing two landmark trees is too much. If they are going to do an across-the-board allowance of two trees, she thinks they should be 20 inches or smaller. Chair Gladstone said she agrees that landmark trees feel different. She realizes this adds complexity to the code but she thinks they need to figure out a way to differentiate them. Ms. Powers explained that Kirkland has two categories — significant and landmark. Significant is defined as trees at least 6 inches in trunk diameter. If they want to regulate trees of a certain size range between significant and landmark trees (such as over 12 inches), they need to define that category though. There was discussion about how these definitions relate to the development code. Vice Chair Campbell expressed an interest in staying consistent with the development code definitions and possibly increasing the allowance for significant trees. Chair Gladstone acknowledged the late hour and recommended they come back to this at the next work session in order to have enough time to get feedback from everyone. She also requested that staff provide a clear staff preferred recommendation for the tree code as a starting point so they can get through it a little quicker. Board Member Golembiewski suggested jumping right back in where they left off at the next meeting and skipping the introduction. NEW BUSINESS None. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA There was discussion about the extended agenda and agreement to revisit the tree co on September 13 if there is time after the two hearings and then again on September 27. Staff needs to nsider how pushing this out impacts everything else on the extended agenda including the Comprehen ' Plan, the planned public hearing for the CFP/CIP, and a couple other projects. Staff will review this an me back with a revised schedule on a proposed approach for the tree code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone commented that the earlier s can provide the CFP/CIP to the Board the better. She urged all board members to review the tree cod d submit questions to staff ahead of the meeting in order to save time at the meeting. She asked Plannipg anager Levitan to pass along her appreciation to Deb Powers for the format of the information she had ovided tonight. PLANNING BOARD None ADJ MENT: Xe meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Page 31 Packet Pg. 196 7.A.c June 28, 2023 Planning Board/Joint Tree Board Meeting ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve W stated that there has been little or no discussion e on gative effects that some trees have on active or passive solar access. Is there any intention to do soy ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None GS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-00004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Property Owner Tree Removals. Under the current code, in most cases on developed single-family lots with no critical areas, it's basically unlimited tree removals. This code amendment is addressing that situation. Key concepts for consideration with this code update: • Number of removals • Frequency • Additional trees that can be removed (exceptions) • Landmark trees • Tree removal in critical areas • Replacement requirements Number of removals: Ms. Powers reviewed that at the April 26 meeting the Planning Board was supportive of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed under a notification process. There had been some question about whether it should depend on the property size and/or what frequency the removals would be allowed. She reviewed some sample code language. Another question was related to the size of the trees. The Planning Board had proposed that only trees 12" to 23.9" DBH would be "regulated" under the allowance. "Landmark" trees would be 24" DBH or greater. Frequency: Is 12 months between allowed tree removals appropriate? The Planning Board had thought that it would depend on the size and number of trees. Additional trees that can be removed: Are hazardous and nuisance trees reasonable exceptions to the number of allowances? These would be allowed to be removed in addition to whatever the allowance is. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Page 32 Packet Pg. 197 7.A.c Landmark tree removals: Should "Landmark" tree removals be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees? Fewer number of allowed removals? Greater number of months between removals? The Planning Board had indicated that Landmark tree removals (24"+ DBH) should be more limited than smaller trees. Ms. Powers reviewed some sample potential numbers with different allowances for different property sizes. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about having different standards for different neighborhoods rather than a one -size -fits -all approach in order to retain characteristics of specific neighborhoods. For example, he noted that the existing tree density in Westgate is way less than Perrinville. Ms. Powers acknowledged that this could raise equity concerns. She noted that they could made the code as complex or as simple as desired, but with greater code complexity there is usually less code compliance. Additionally, staff does not have the resources to deal with administering a complex code. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended not overcomplicating the process. She agreed that there are areas where there is a much greater canopy loss but having the same regulations across the city will be easier for everyone to understand. She said she liked the way the chart shared by Ms. Powers was set up even though she would be in favor of having two trees be the starting point for regulated tree removal allowances per 12 months rather than three trees. Critical areas: Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? The Planning Board had previously suggested only hazard and nuisance trees should be allowed to be removed in critical areas. A permit would be required to review whether the trees fit that criterion. Ms. Powers explained that the number one code enforcement issue they are having right now is unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. Replacement requirements: Should replacement trees be required for property owner tree removals? The response at the previous meeting was that it depends on the size and number of trees removed. Ms. Powers noted that no replanting is occurring with the current unlimited tree removals and reviewed a proposed matrix showing the removed tree DBH and the required number of replacements. Planning Board Member Maxwell asked the Tree Board their thoughts about regulating tree removals on private property. Tree Board Chair Cass explained that they are all passionate about trees and maintaining the tree canopy but they had mixed opinions about how to go about it. She referred back to a heated 2015 Planning Board public hearing about this topic. The decision then was to make sure there was an Urban Forest Management Plan which should extend at least 20 years out with good goals. She noted there is now a Plan with a good set of goals they haven't done and yet they are jumping to this action which wasn't necessarily in the Plan. She thinks it would be hard to re-engage with the public when they asked for an Urban Forest Management Plan with specific goals. She added that she noticed the consultant's report on the most recent public outreach related to the current code updates didn't go back to 2015 or include all the public input that went into the management plan. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps commented that he feels they should allow more trees to be removed on larger - sized properties. Tree Board Member Kliment expressed support for not allowing any tree removals in critical areas unless they are hazardous trees. She liked the simplicity of the proposed plan. She is concerned about compliance and whether or not they will lose more trees simply because of the fact that there is a tree code. A lot of people have made it clear they don't want a tree code. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Page 33 Packet Pg. 198 7.A.c Planning Board Member Mitchell asked the Tree Board if the Urban Forest Management Plan aligns with the existing tree code. Tree Board Chair Cass stated that the first goal was to maintain or enhance canopy coverage but there was a whole bunch of sub goals that were supposed to be encouraged. There was also supposed to be some tracking and reassessment after ten years. Planning Board Member Mitchell commented that it seems that there needs to be a regulatory framework aligned with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Chair Cass agreed and said she thought that the control of tree removal on private property did not meet the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Member Kliment said there is a statement in the Urban Forest Management Plan that says that the Edmonds population did not want any sort of control of tree removal on private property. Even in the current outreach done by the consultant, the number of people that responded is minimal and 19% of them did not even live in Edmonds. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about goal number 3 with more of an incentivized approach to protecting and planting trees. Tree Board Member Kliment said she was very supportive of an educational approach. Critical areas are something that they really need to pay attention to and have some sort of regulations around those because of landslides. Planning Board Member Martini asked about focusing on critical areas where environmental impacts would be greatest. Tree Board Member Kliment replied that the Tree Board's idea was to have a computer at the fall market booth where residents can type in their address to see whether their property is in a critical area and get information about what that means. She noted that what people in critical areas do with their trees has an impact on their neighbors. Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged that the public outreach they have done with this current work is not statistically significant but said he would say the same for the 2015 comments at the public hearing. Tree Board Chair Cass said she heard there were close to 300 people in the chambers for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan said he didn't see the video but based on the minutes there were 15-20 people who provided oral testimony. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked Ms. Powers what has been undertaken to implement the existing Urban Forest Management Plan from 2019. She also wondered what triggered the notion of having a code that may not have been consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Powers explained there are quite a few goals in the Urban Forest Management Plan that have been achieved already. hi 2024 there will be a gap analysis of the goals and consideration of the barriers to achieving the goals. She noted that the Urban Forest Management Plan goals are not just for the City to implement but for citizens, volunteer groups, the Tree Board, etc. She noted that Goal I related to development was achieved in 2021. At that point in time there was direction given to look at private property tree removal. Council was concerned that there was no accounting for or tracking of trees that were removed and no requirements for replanting. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked about the percentage of canopy cover that is on private property. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps replied that it was 87% - the vast majority of trees in Edmonds are on private property that has already been developed. Tree Board Chair Cass later added that 58% of the city's tree canopy is on single-family residential land. PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL MOVED TO REMOVE THE OPTION OF DOING NOTHING FROM THE TABLE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN SOME MANNER TO BE RECOMMENDED FURTHER ON IN Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Page 34 Packet Pg. 199 7.A.c THIS DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER KUEHN. Planning Manager Levitan noted that this was a work session and not the traditional time to make a motion. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her goal was to spend time on the analysis and not discussing whether or not they should do the analysis because she feels like that has already been determined. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that there seems to be general agreement by the group that they would want to restrict tree removals in critical areas. He noted he is sympathetic to Edmonds residents who are concerned about taking away the ability to cut down trees on their own property given that they don't have a canopy problem. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked when the tree canopy would become a problem. Planning Board Member Maxwell replied that the canopy is growing and not shrinking. It may not be growing as fast as they would like but it is not shrinking. He noted that some of the documents indicated that there are concerns but those are about developers and newcomers. In general, Edmonds residents seem to value their trees and do not cut them down. Planning Board Chair Gladstone said it is very difficult to determine at what point they are going to act. She believes they are at a point where the canopy is important for so many things including affecting the urban temperature. She doesn't want to wait until there is a reduction in the tree canopy and a problem; she wants to retain it the way it is. She also wants to do it in an equitable way, understanding that there is a tension between private property ownership and communal good. She thinks they can come to some reasonable compromises in navigating that tension. It may not necessarily be what's recommended in the Urban Forest Management Plan, but it may complement it. She also recommended keeping it as simple as possible. Planning Board Member Kuehn agreed that simple is good. He also supported the motion. He acknowledged there may not be a problem right now with the tree canopy, but their job is to plan for the future before there is a problem. Playing catchup with something like this is a losing battle. He noted that having a nice big tree canopy is important for helping with climate change. MOTION PASSED 4-2. Planning Board Chair Gladstone urged the group to keep the code simple because the simpler it is, the less there is to argue about. Recognizing the strong tension between private property and tree protection and canopy protection she thinks they need to figure out the best way to navigate that and get something reasonable and workable to Council. Ms. Powers suggested that there seems to be a basic agreement that critical areas need to be protected. The next most basic form of regulations would be a simple allowance (a certain number of trees per year with notification) not based on property size. At this simplest level, landmark tree removal would not be distinguished. Nuisance and hazard trees would be over and above that numbers and would be subject to review to make sure they meet the criteria. There was some discussion about how this would be counted and documented. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Page 35 Packet Pg. 200 7.A.c Tree Board Chair Cass asked if they could consider rolling over allowed trees to future years to be more cost effective for property owners. Ms. Powers explained that in Kirkland that was considered "borrowing" from future tree removals. It was hotly debated and there were questions as to whether it was effectively and fairly slowing the loss of canopy. It also complicates tracking tree removals. Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that ultimately the Council will decide this following a public hearing and there will probably be a lot of public comments. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed tree replacement or fee -in -lieu requirements. He noted that he is in favor of tree replacement but the current standards are almost a joke because they don't replicate the environmental benefit from the trees that were removed. He wants to maintain people's private property rights but he also wants to do what they can to maintain if not increase the tree canopy to help protect the environment. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was generally in favor of tree replacements but agreed that the current standards are highly inequitable in terms of trying to make sure that they are trying to replace the same volume of impacted tree canopy. She would not be in favor of requiring homeowners to do replacements or fees -in -lieu because it would just add more negativity to the situation. It might be worthwhile to consider the outright allowance only for 12-24" DBH trees. If they want to remove larger trees, they could require a permit and replacements. She stated that she was opposed to allowing fees in lieu in any circumstance. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked about using a green factor metric to alleviate the controversies between how many trees they could remove and replace. He commented that some jurisdictions are doing this to simplify the issue. Ms. Powers agreed that this was a wonderful method, but it is also a much more complex level of code for both the property owner and for staff. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that the chart showing the number of trees that could be removed at one time (depending on property size) is more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make sense to him. He wondered why it wasn't a simple formula like 1 tree per 3000 square feet. Ms. Powers explained this was similar to the breakdowns in other jurisdictions but it sounds like the left side. (property size) is dropping off anyway in favor of a simplified number of trees. Planning Board Member Maxwell said it should change with the size of the lot. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps agreed that it should be graduated. He didn't think that was too complex. He also thinks that landmark trees should get special consideration because they are very large trees and hold in tremendous amounts of carbon. When you remove those there needs to be replacement trees. Planning Board Member Kuehn said he agreed that landmark trees should be treated differently because of what it would take to replace those. He thought the proposed chart was pretty simple if you can read a table. Planning Board Chair Gladstone commented that breaking it up by property size is an equity issue because it is a privilege to have a larger piece of land and be able to remove more trees. She wrestles with this because she also recognizes that it is a bigger lot with maybe more trees. She would be interested in discussing this more at a future meeting. She also wondered why staff chose three trees per year instead of the "two -per" trees concept that Kirkland used. Tree Board members departed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Page 36 Packet Pg. 201 7.A.c April 26, 2023 Planning Board Meeting MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase I) to achieve the goal of reducing development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would just be a secondary use. Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12 months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist. Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals if it is evident in a photograph. Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time. Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Page 37 Packet Pg. 202 7.A.c Should tree removal on private property be limited? • Board Member Maxwell asked about trends they are seeing. Ms. Powers explained they have done two canopy assessments. The second one showed a slight gain from the last assessment, but the methodology was different than the first time. Also, there were losses in some areas and gains in others. • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed support for having limits on property owner tree removal. If there aren't limits there is nothing to stop someone from removing all their trees. • There was a suggestion to also look at minimum retentions such as not allowing a property owner to remove the last two trees on their property. • Board Member Maxwell agreed with establishing tree removal limits but wondered if they were trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. He moved here eight years ago and as far as he can tell the canopy has only gotten thicker. People do cut trees down but he thought they were not cutting them down as fast as they are growing. On the other hand, he would not want the tide to turn in the other direction. Whatever they put in place should feel roughly like what they are doing now because it seems to be working in Edmonds for the tree canopy. • Board Member Golembiewski asked how many calls they get about taking trees down. Ms. Powers noted Planning gets frequent calls about tree removals and they get some calls from neighbors about enforcement issues, especially in critical areas. However, they aren't tracking tree removals in general on private property. Planning Manager Levitan explained if someone calls about tree removals on private property and there is no critical area or development happening there it is generally an allowed tree removal. He said he gets several calls a week. • Chair Gladstone commented that the challenge is that they don't know exactly how often this is happening. Without the data it is hard to know the degree of urgency and the level of restraint that is appropriate. She wondered if using a tree retention level, rather than removal allowances, with frequent assessments made over time made more sense. What are they striving for in terms of the canopy cover? What kind of loss are they trying to avoid? • Board Member Martini noted it would be nice to have two studies comparing different years that used similar methods. Ms. Powers explained the first assessment used different imagery but they still did the analysis of gains and loss. The technology will always be changing so it is not likely they will have the same methodology from one canopy assessment to another. They can still get a general idea. She noted in Kirkland, residents were allowed to take out two trees per year. There were no replacements triggered until they go to the minimum on the lot (three trees per lot). This was a simple method. • Board Member Golembiewski said she was in support of having a limitation but was in favor of valuing some sorts of trees over others. Ms. Powers noted that under the definitions anything over 6" DBH (diameter at breast height) is considered a significant tree. They aren't regulating anything under 6" DBH. If they want to define landmark trees (larger trees) they could do so. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be in favor of a larger diameter than 6 inches because there are so many landscape buffers and poorly placed trees that aren't necessarily nuisances or hazards but aren't actually providing the kind of canopy cover they are aiming for. Ms. Powers noted they could determine the exact sizes later. There appeared to be agreement that 6" DBH seemed too small to regulate. • Board Member Mitchell noted that most cities that are 100% urbanized have a code like this to establish single-family residential removal allowances. They can decide on the specificity at a later date. He commented he did not want Edmonds to turn into Innis Arden. • Planning Manager Levitan suggested they focus on landmark trees and any replacements related to that. He gave an overview of the process. • Chair Gladstone commented that the consensus seemed to be "possibly" depending on the specifics. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Page 38 Packet Pg. 203 7.A.c • Board Member Golembiewski agreed and said they agree that there needs to be a tree code for private property. They just don't know what it needs to look like. Is 12 months between allowed tree removals an appropriate length of time? • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she wasn't sure about the timeframe until they knew what size tree they were talking about. • Board Member Kuehn said it depends on how many trees they are talking about for a 12-month period. Does the Planning Boardfeel that landmark tree removal should beprohibited? (except for hazard or nuisance trees) Is minimum 24 " DBH an appropriate landmark tree size? Should landmark tree removal be limited more than smaller trees? Should time between landmark tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? • There was general consensus for limiting the removal of landmark trees. • Board Member Maxwell said 24" DBH is a sizeable tree but not what he would consider landmark. He thought 36" DBH was more appropriate. Other board members thought 24" DBH was appropriate. • Chair Gladstone said regardless of what size they establish for a landmark tree she would still be more inclined to go with limited (not prohibited) removals. It should be based on limited frequency or limited per area (based on geographic location, etc.). She doesn't think an out-and-out prohibition would be accepted politically. • Board Member Mitchell asked about the frequency of canopy assessments. Ms. Powers explained it is every five to ten years as resources allow. Chair Gladstone noted that this frequency does not allow for much nimbleness in response. Ms. Powers agreed but noted that canopy assessments done more frequently than every five years wouldn't show changes in a way that shows a trend. • Board Member Golembiewski thought that a notification procedure for larger trees would be a useful metric for shorter term monitoring. She thinks that the general community consensus when they are thinking about tree loss is the 24" DBH and above size. She doesn't think people are concerned about taking out a 12" DBH fruit tree or other decorative landscaping tree. • Chair Gladstone recommended that, as they move forward, staff provide photos depicting what they are talking about because it is difficult to visualize. • Board Member Maxwell said he was fine with limiting 24" DBH and larger trees. He is supportive of prohibiting removal of larger trees such as 36" DBH. Planning Manager Levitan noted that some cities have larger trees designated as heritage trees. • Ms. Powers commented that they are looking for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. They are making decisions now for 20 years from now. This is important to keep in mind for the future. A healthy, sustainable urban forest has diversity not only in species but in age and size. • There was discussion about a desire to preserve certain species of trees over others. Ms. Powers cautioned against this and suggested instead they list things they don't care about because they are invasive, noxious, or weed trees. Board Member Maxwell suggested looking at native versus not native. Ms. Powers commented that because of climate change they need to rethink this. When they think of native, they are thinking of what was native 200 years ago, but this has changed. Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas? • Ms. Powers noted that in the public survey there was a lot of support for limiting tree removal in critical areas. The current code is confusing on this topic. • There was consensus that a permit should be required for tree removals in critical areas. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Packet Page 39 Packet Pg. 204 Should the same tree removal allowances (as outside of critical areas) apply in critical areas. • Chair Gladstone commented that it would depend on what the allowances are and how generous they are. Overall, she thought they should be more restrictive in critical areas. • Board Member Maxwell commented that critical areas affect the safety of people who are downhill. He doesn't think it should be the same allowance because they don't want to set up a mudslide for downhill neighbors. Ms. Powers noted that most cities that don't even have a tree code have limitations to tree removal in critical areas. With the exception of hazard and nuisance trees, should tree removal in critical areas (steep slopes, wetland buffers, stream buffers) be prohibited? • Board Member Golembiewski said they should be prohibited without a permit. • Chair Gladstone asked about the difference between hazardous and nuisance trees. Ms. Powers explained that a hazardous tree is a tree that has a defect or disease that predisposes it to failure. A nuisance tree is a tree that is causing significant physical damage, and whatever that nuisance is cannot be mediated by reasonable practices or procedures. There was discussion about the need to take a photo of the tree or provide some sort of documentation and justification for removing trees in critical areas. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was in favor of heavier restrictions, especially for larger trees and especially in critical areas because of the importance of preserving habitat and preventing landslides. She is also in support of possibly having a larger size than 6" DBH being regulated. She thought 8-10" DBH would be a good starting point. NEW BUSINESS A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property (continued to a future meeting PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan noted there are a couple joint meetings the Tree Board to this meeting on June 14 to discuss the Tree C workshop with the City Council on some of the current housin meeting. Board members expressed concern that this could tc Levitan will continue to look at alternatives. He added Mult for a separate joint meeting with the Architectural D gn Board. None PLANNING BOARD NJKMBER COMMENTS None meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. -oposSoo6 June. Staff is proposing to invite le ey are also looking at having a joint ated topics at 6:00 preceding the June 14 much for that meeting. Planning Manager Emily Design Standards is a potential topic Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 8 Packet Page 40 Packet Pg. 205 Memo Date: June 6, 2024 To: Edmonds City Council From: City of Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board RE: Interim Tree Code Recommendation — Landmark Tree Removals During the Citizens' Tree Board March 7, 2024 meeting, the Board discussed and approved the following motion. During the June 6, 2024 Board meeting, a majority vote indicted this motion and memo to be shared with the City Council for consideration. "The Tree Board advise[s] the City Council to add an interim amendment to the Tree Code to temporarily halt the removal of landmark trees, viable trees over 30" in diameter, until the Tree Code is finalized. There are certain exemptions including nuisance/hazard trees and certain species". (vote 4-2) Attached are the minutes from the March 7t" meeting and the following excerpt is the section related to the board's discussion and resulting motion. Unfinished Business, Agenda Item #6 Discussion about Proposed Amendment to Tree Code banning removal of Landmark Trees Vice Chair Phipps referred to comments by Dennis [Weaver] at the last meeting about Big Red and discussed a movement to ban removal of landmark trees until a Tree Code is finished. There was discussion about a lack of a definition of landmark tree. Motion made by Vice Chair Phipps, seconded by Board Member Mark, that the Tree Board advise the City Council to add an interim amendment to the Tree Code to temporarily halt the removal of landmark trees, viable trees over 30" in diameter, until the Tree Code is finalized. There are certain exemptions including nuisance/hazard trees and certain species. The group debated this matter and discussed whether or not Big Red is a nuisance tree, related condo actions, whether or not a permit is currently required for multifamily, how this action would not apply to Big Red, which zones this would apply to, and how some people might be pre-emptively cutting down trees because they know tightened restrictions are eminent. Motion passed 4-2. Packet Page 41 Attachment #1 CITY OF EDMONDS F EyM TREE BOARD Summary Minutes of Regular Meeting g9° March 7, 2024 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Cass called the Tree Board meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Board Members Present Janelle Cass, Chair (outgoing) Bill Phipps, Vice Chair Ian Higgins Wendy Kliment (incoming) Ben Mark Crane Stavig (online) Ross Dimmick (alternate) Board Members Absent None LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Commissioner Mark read the Land Acknowledgement. N TMTTF.C- Ctnff PrPCPnt Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Others Present Jenna Nand, City Council Liaison 1. Approval of February 1, 2024 Tree Board Minutes The February 1 Tree Board minutes were approved as presented. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Phipps asked to add a discussion about being involved in the May 18 Watershed event and an interim amendment to the Tree Code banning removal of landmark trees. The items were added to the end of New Business. Chair Cass asked to move the election officers up in the agenda to Unfinished Business. The agenda was approved as amended. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Packet Page 42 Punam Verma, Edmonds resident, introduced herself and noted she had applied to fill the open Tree Board position. Phyllis Becker, Edmonds resident, said she has some tree issues and wondered what the Tree Board does. She expressed how important the view is to Edmonds residents. She is concerned about trees being planted everywhere and ruining the views. She thinks huge trees in downtown Edmonds would make a lot of people happy and a lot of people unhappy. She noted that she is taxed because they have a view and she doesn't want to lose it. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Officer Elections Wendy Kliment was nominated and unanimously elected Chair for 2024. Bill Phipps was nominated and unanimously elected Vice Chair for 2024. Board members expressed appreciation to Board Member Cass for her service as Chair over the past couple years. 2. Tree Board's Tree Code Recommendation Letter to Council (Ben Mark) • Board Member Mark referred to a document he had sent out for board members to review and comment on related to the Tree Code recommendations. Director Feser recommended that Board Member Mark work with the Planning Department to determine the next steps for this. There was discussion about the Tree Board's role in the Tree Code and legal concerns. Board members went through each item on the spreadsheet, discussed scenarios, and shared their opinions. It was emphasized for all of these items that the Tree Board was only recommending and any formal action and further consideration of the details would be done by the Planning Board and City Council. 1. There should be a prohibition on removal of viable trees larger than 30" DSH. — A couple board members raised concerns about having a blanket prohibition and forcing people to keep trees if they don't want them or can't take care of them. Most board members expressed support for this as long as it was clear that invasive, nuisance, or hazardous trees should be exempt. (5 yes, 2 no) 2. Any tree permit fees should be covered by property taxes and not an additional application fee. — Most board members supported this. One board member thought it could raise concerns by people about why they have to pay other permit fees but not these. (6 yes, 1 abstention) 3. There should be a minimum of one 6" DBH tree per 3,000 square feet of property following any tree removal. — There was a question about what would happen if a nuisance/hazard tree was removed but it was the last 6" DBH tree on the property. There was some discussion about how Kirkland handles this type of situation with tree credits or replacement trees. Concerns were raised about situations where people already have less than one tree per 3,000 square feet. Would they be required to correct that? Board members generally felt that further clarification is needed. One board member spoke in support of a tree credit system. There was a comment Packet Page 43 that the City should try in general to prevent tree owners from removing all of their trees over time. One board member noted that this would help to further the City's tree canopy goal and maybe the City should help fund tree replacements. (5 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention) 4. There should be required tree replacement for removal of 18"-30" trees. If so, how many replacements? — There was a comment that not all trees are equal, and native conifers should be worth more credits than non-native trees. One board member expressed concern about requiring too many trees on a property and interfering with homeowners' ability to use their property as they would like. There was a question about the percentage of replacement trees that actually survive and if/how this would be enforced. Two board members recommended having the option of a tree bank/fee-in-lieu. One board member discussed experience with having performance bonds for trees replanted in restoration projects in critical areas on private property. (7 yes with a range of 1-2 replacement trees) 5. There should be required tree replacement for removal of >30" DSH. — A concern was raised about the number of replacement trees being too high to make sense in certain situations. Asking someone to plant four trees for one removed is a lot to ask. It was noted that fees in lieu can be useful in some situations. Several board members were interested in looking at allowing other native plants such as shrubs for replacements. One board member suggested replacement exemptions if you already have a certain percentage of your lot covered. It was noted that removing trees does not necessarily reduce tree canopy if it allows adjacent trees to thrive and fill in that space. This can be where a tree bank/fee-in-lieu could help. (7 yes) 6. There should be an option for a fee paid to the tree fund in lieu of on -site planting. (7 emphatic yes) 7. DBH (diameter at breast height) should be changed to DSH (diameter at standard height). — There was consensus to leave it at DBH but improve the multi -trunk calculation. (7 no) 8. There should be a limit of regulated tree removal to 3 trees per 3 years (or other quantity of tree/years). — One board member explained this would allow people to remove more trees at once in order to do projects on their property. There was a question about what would happen if a house was sold right after trees were removed, and someone new moved in. There seemed to be agreement that this would be pretty rare, but agreement that the cycle should start over. A concern was raised about dominant trees being removed leaving just unstable suppressed trees. (7 yes) 9. There should be a higher level of protection for trees in groves than individual trees. — One board member thought something like this should be in the code so hazardous trees aren't created by removing large trees. There was a comment that this needs to be defined. It was noted that a grove could cross property lines and a recommendation to not remove dominant trees from a grove. One board member did not think this was necessary because most trees are pretty uniform in a grove. Councilmember Nand discussed experience she has had with groves. There was consensus to wait on this one. Packet Page 44 10. There should be a `tree credit' model to assign value to different size or types of trees. — Kirkland's tree credit system was reviewed. There was a concern that this could get too complicated. (5 yes in support of the concept, 2 abstentions) NEW BUSINESS Tree Board Annual Presentation to Council — March 26, 2024 (Wendy Kliment) The group reviewed the draft presentation for the City Council shared by Chair Kliment, and board members made suggestions. Director Feser will need the final version by Friday, March 15. 2. Code of Ethics from Council President Vivian Olson (Chair Cass) — Chair Kliment read the Code of Ethics. Work Plan Update (discussion and work session) Motion made by Board Member Cass, seconded by Vice Chair Phipps, to adopt the 2024 Work Plan for the Tree Board. Motion passed unanimously. Tia from Edmonds in Bloom has asked who would be able to commit time to identify trees on private property for the tree identification signs. Board Member Mark volunteered. 4. Web -based Tree Mapping Project (Ben Mark) — not discussed Watershed event discussion The board discussed the May 18 watershed event and the planned "plug" planting activity that would be available for kids. Director Feser noted that $200 would be earmarked out of the Tree Fund (not the Tree Board budget) to supply the plugs and soil. 6. Discussion about Proposed Amendment to Tree Code banning removal of Landmark Trees Vice Chair Phipps referred to comments by Dennis at the last meeting about Big Red and discussed a movement to ban removal of landmark trees until a Tree Code is finished. There was discussion about a lack of a definition of landmark tree. Motion made by Vice Chair Phipps, seconded by Board Member Mark, that the Tree Board advise the City Council to add an interim amendment to the Tree Code to temporarily halt the removal of landmark trees, viable trees over 30" in diameter, until the Tree Code is finalized. There are certain exemptions including nuisance/hazard trees and certain species. The group debated this matter and discussed whether or not Big Red is a nuisance tree, related condo actions, whether or not a permit is currently required for multifamily, how this action would not apply to Big Red, which zones this would apply to, and how some people might be pre-emptively cutting down trees because they know tightened restrictions are eminent. Packet Page 45 Motion passed 4-2. Director Feser will discuss how to proceed with the Council President. STAFF COMMENTS/UPDATES FTP site, Donations "in the field" program Director Feser gave an update on looking for an alternative to the FTP site. Because of security issues, it appears that this won't work. She committed to being responsive to the group with getting information to them to compensate for that. She also discussed whether or not the Tree Board would be able to take donations in the field. Staff is still working on it. TREE BOARD CHAIR MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Packet Page 46