2022-10-06 Tree Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
�, � TREE BOARD
�•� Summary Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 6, 2022
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Board Member Cass called the Tree Board meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Board Members Present
Janelle Cass, Chair
Bill Phipps, Vice Chair
Chris Eck
Andy Lyon'
Wendy Kliment
Crane Stavig
Ross Dimmick (Alternate)
Board Members Absent
Bill Grant
Staff Present
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
Others Present
Vivian Olson, Council Liaison
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT — ROLL CALL — INTRODUCTIONS
Board Member Dimmick read the Land Acknowledgement.
MINUTES:
Approval of the September 19, 2022 Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
The September 19, 2022 Tree Board Special Meeting minutes were approved as presented.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Deb Powers requested an update on the tree stakes and signs. This was added to Administrative, item 3c.
The agenda was approved as amended.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1 Board Member Lyon had an excused absence, but ended up joining the meeting at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2022
Pagel of 5
Jennifer Antilla, Edmonds, brought up concerns about magnolias being planted in Edmonds. On 4th Avenue
going down to ECA the City has planted three magnolias. She expressed concern that there is not enough room
for two people to walk on the sidewalk because of the size of the trees and landscaping overgrowing onto the
sidewalk.
Greg Toy, resident of Edmonds, asked if the Tree Board is involved in issues related to overgrown hedges. Staff
replied that Code Enforcement in Planning and Development deals with that. Ms. Powers added that Public
Works manages it. She recommended going to the website for either Public Works or Code Enforcement to
submit information. Mr. Toy asked who makes decisions about what trees to plant along the sidewalks. Ms.
Powers explained that they could have been planted by a developer or by Public Works depending on the
location. She recommended submitting that concern on the website.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Annual/Ongoing Events
• Review October 1 st Summer Farmer's Market Booth event — Chair Cass thought Saturday was a big
success and stated that Vice Chair Phipps did a great job. Vice Chair Phipps thanked everyone for
helping. Board Member Eck commented on how happy people were to get free trees. Chair Cass
recommended doing it again next year. Ms. Powers agree and suggested possibly combining it with a
Parks event. Chair Eck noted that the Climate Protection Board is planning an Earth Day celebration.
She recommended getting in on that too. Ms. Powers explained that the Earth Day celebration is an
annual event. The Tree Board was involved this year by staffing tables, providing snacks, and planting
trees.
2. Special Events/Projects
• Brief status update on tree code amendment project/discussion of potential joint Planning Board/Tree
Board meeting — Ms. Powers explained that she went to the Planning Board on September 14 to talk
about no policy impact preliminary code amendments. For the most part the Planning Board agreed.
The next Planning Board meeting is October 12 to talk about minor tree code amendments. Ms. Powers
noted that meeting is no longer a joint meeting. There is consideration for the Planning Board to hold a
special meeting on November 30 which would be a joint Planning Board/Tree Board meeting to talk
about tree code amendments, however, that is not confirmed. Vice Chair Phipps asked about the Tree
Board's ability to provide input on major code amendments. Ms. Powers spoke to the need for the two
boards to stay in sequence. There are plans to have a number of joint meetings as they progress through
this process. She reviewed the proposed timeline. Board Member Eck asked for clarification about the
goals of the tree code amendments — to fix errors and make the code simpler for the public to
understand? Ms. Powers affirmed the number one objective, as scoped, is to simplify the existing code
and streamline the current development review process and to add new property owner tree removal
rules. She referred to the challenges with the code as evidenced by the mock development scenario and
encouraged the Tree Board to share what they learned in that process with the Planning Board.
Discuss process for Tree Board input on tree code amendments. Can we focus on the big impact
changes? How do we form consensus? How do we share and communicate with the Planning Board?
— Ms. Powers explained that City Council is looking at a new process for minor code amendments to
efficiently conduct code updates. At the same time, a new equitable engagement framework is being
developed for a fair and equitable approach to getting public input. She reviewed how this will affect
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2022
Page 2 of 5
working on tree code amendments for both Boards. She noted that the document for Tree Board
members to add their input was somehow deleted, but since no one had added comments, nothing was
lost. She invited board members to use "track changes" with the document on the FTP server and
generally explained how to do it. There was discussion about pros and cons of this process. Ms. Powers
stressed the need to provide justification for any amendments and to keep the goal of simplification in
mind. She reviewed how the input would be compiled and stated that the board should meet to discuss
and build a consensus on the comments.
Chair Cass asked for board input on the process for how they could come to a consensus. Board Member
Eck said she liked the idea of chunking it out so it doesn't feel so overwhelming for one meeting. Board
Member Dimmick explained he would be looking at all of it and recording his comments throughout
the process. If the Board wants to discuss just one part of it (minor code amendments) that is fine. There
was significant discussion about how policy level impacts are defined and how board members'
comments should be provided.
As an example of disagreement how policy level impacts are defined, Vice Chair Phipps referred to
"minor" code amendment 060.F.4.A, noting the question whether that's a typo there. Although the
current code says, "plant a number of trees to meet 30%," he does not think it should be and referred to
060.C.4 which says, "In addition to tree retention requirements, every significant tree removed under
this chapter must be replaced consistent with 23.10.080." He thinks the 30% requirement makes sense
when you take into account tree replacements. Ms. Powers said the current code says to do both. She
explained that it is shown as a "minor" amendment if it is just to make the existing code clearer. If they
want to change the intent of the existing code, it becomes a moderate or major code amendment. Vice
Chair Phipps noted that is why he had problems with listing these as minor, major, etc. because in reality
they all blur together. Ms. Powers stated that these were established by legal under a very specific
definition of the impact. There was discussion about having another comment column that explains the
intent of the code in question. The Board wanted to make sure that the feedback was being
commemorated somehow so that when they are at the point of changing a policy it can be raised again.
Board Member Dimmick noted that when they get to more complex items, they will need to look at it
more holistically. Ms. Powers agreed. There was discussion about how the intent of the code would be
determined. Ms. Powers stressed that at this point they just need to determine what the code problem is
and what needs to be fixed. There was a lot of confusion about the process.
Chair Cass recommended that line 4.A be considered as a moderate code change because it is a policy
change. Ms. Powers explained that multiple solutions to address code issues are shown in that way in
the Planning Board packet.
2Regarding 060.F.4.A, Board Member Lyon asked about clarifying the language by using a desired
density/canopy coverage area as the standard rather than the number of existing trees on the site. There
was some interest in looking at this at a later point. Vice Chair Phipps noted that Kirkland does
something like this called a tree credit system. He has investigated it, and the outcome is similar. He
pointed out that would not meet the intent of simplifying the code. Ms. Powers noted using a tree density
calculation is already shown in the recommended amendments under moderate code changes.
2 Board Member Lyon joined the meeting.
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2022
Page 3 of 5
There was some disagreement and confusion about what was shown as minor versus moderate or major
amendments. Ms. Powers reminded the Board where the definitions are shown and suggested that the
Board could submit items that they personally see as minor or no -impact amendments as a way to move
forward.
Board Member Eck recommended agreeing on an approach and trusting the process. She asked for
confirmation that the Board's comments would be captured and their conversation wouldn't be
completely lost. Ms. Powers affirmed that they would be, just submit your comments on the sheet as
requested last month and so they can be discussed and reach consensus at the next month's meeting.
The Board discussed what they might want to communicate to the Planning Board in their upcoming
joint meeting. Board Member Lyon noted it would be good to have common goals. Chair Cass thought
they would want to communicate about other minor things they see or justifications about why certain
things might not be minor amendments. Ms. Powers suggested providing the list of all the things the
Board agrees on and reminded the Board that the scope of the project is a clear, simplified code with
code provisions that will limit property owner tree removals. Councilmember Olson suggested that the
Tree Board could come to a consensus about the right approach, flesh it out and put it in a document to
share with the Planning Board prior to their meeting for consideration in advance. It is possible that the
Planning Board could do the same thing. Board Member Lyon liked the idea and indicated a desire to
have just a few goals that both boards could focus on. Councilmember Olson noted that the board leaders
of the two boards could meet prior to the meeting to figure out how to have a constructive meeting.
There was agreement for Board members to review the minor amendments and upload comments on
the FTP server by October 27 so it can be discussed at the November 3 Tree Board meeting and the
consensus shared at the joint meeting on November 30. Ms. Powers indicated they could make changes
to the document live time at the next meeting. Chair Cass raised a concern about not having Wi-Fi
access at meetings.
3. Administrative
a. Discuss process for item submission — There was consensus that if board members want to submit
anything extra to the agenda it needs to be submitted by Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting. Chair
Cass said she would send out a calendar invite on that Tuesday as a reminder to submit items if desired.
b. Discuss meeting process/time limits — Board Member Eck proposed that there be a two-hour limit.
Board Member Lyon thought they could get through an agenda in an hour or an hour and a half at the
most if they are efficient. Two hours should be the absolute max. Chair Cass noted she would provide
an estimate on how much time each agenda item would take. Board Member Lyon volunteered to be
the timekeeper at the meetings.
There was unanimous consent for Board Member Lyon to be the timekeeper.
Board Member Dimmick moved to limit Tree Board meetings to 90 minutes and allow them to
be extended with a motion if needed. The motion was seconded by Board Member Eck and passed
unanimously.
c. Tree Stakes/Signs update — continued to next agenda
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2022
Page 4 of 5
NEW BUSINESS
1. Continued relationship with Edmonds School District/teachers to encourage tree planting — continued to
nextagenda
TREE BOARD MEMBER IDEAS AND COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Next meeting: November 3
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2022
Page 5 of 5