2022-11-30 Planning Board Minutes11
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
yo SPRCIAI DURT11Ur'
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
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. Approval Of MiRute-s
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4.
5
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
999-5)
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. I9iRt n eetiRg With the Tree -ReaFd (T-Fe , Cade n.,-,P,r,.Jr.-,eRts AMD2022 00041)
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
November 30, 2022
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/30/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board to approve meeting minutes from November 9th.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes attached.
Attachments:
Draft 11.09.22 Planning Board Minutes
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
November 9, 2022
Chair Pence called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. He
noted it was the first time they have met in person in 32 months.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Kuehn read the Land Acknowledgement.
Board Members Present
Roger Pence, Chair
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Beth Tragus-Campbell
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)'
Board Members Absent
Judi Gladstone, Vice Chair (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director
Mr. Clugston reported that Matt Cheung had resigned and that Board Members Gladstone, Cloutier, and
Distelhorst had indicated they would not be attending.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CAMPBELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 26 MEETING AS PRESENTED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH BOARD MEMBER KUEHN ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dan O'Brien stated he lives directly east of Civic Park on 7th Avenue. He thanked the City for the park; he
thinks it will be great when it is done. He emphasized that the park is very unique with the noise of the pickleball
and the skate park. He expressed concern about the noise, especially after hours. He brought up concerns about
1 Student Representative Distelhorst arrived at approximately 7:17 p.m.
g
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 1 of 7
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
the dawn -to -dusk hours and about allowing wheeled sports. He thinks the lighting will be subtle enough so he
doesn't have concerns about that. He is fine with it being on during open hours. He hopes they can continue the
conversation after the park has been open for a while.
Jim Okanowski, Edmonds resident, spoke regarding the visioning statement. He thanked Director McLaughlin
for the input she did with the community to gain input. He attended many of the chat sessions for each of the
elements. There were a lot of good comments and modest participation from the community at each of those
events. He applauded her for going out to various areas of the community. He expressed disappointment in the
draft vision statement and stated he thinks it should be much more forward -looking than it is. He thinks the draft
is looking more at the present and the past, as opposed to looking at the future. It is more of a values statement
than a vision statement. He referred to what he thinks are well -written examples of vision statements such as
Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and President Kennedy's vision to the nation for achieving
the goal before the decade was out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. Each of
these lay out clear ideas, goals, timelines, and reasons for their achievement which are the foundational elements
S
of a good vision statement. A vision statement should be inspirational, forward -looking, and reflect our core
c
values. He referred to the Land Acknowledgement read at the beginning of the meeting for other inspirational
ideas to include in the vision statement. He urged the City to take another look at the draft vision statement.
o
Tara Ashton, resident, stated she lives near the old tennis courts at the park. She also expressed concern about
a
a
a
the noise from the pickleball courts. They have always been able to hear the sound from the tennis courts, and
a
she is sure they will be able to hear the noise from the pickleball courts. She did a search for pickleball noise
issues online and found many results of problems people are having with the noise. The noise has driven people
2
to putting up fences as sound barriers and requirements for players to use sound -reducing paddles and balls.
Other areas have reduced the hours that people can play from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. She noted that the neighbors
m°
near Civic Park have already had problems with the dawn -to -dusk park usage hours. They also know that
pickleball noise complaints are a big issue in the United States. She would like to see signage to give people
guidance about the hours and make them aware of the noise concerns and ways to dampen the sounds.
Barry Ehrlich, 628 Daley, stated that his residence of 20 years overlooks the park. He also is concerned about
the evening hours, especially in the summertime. There are a few people who abuse the hours, and the neighbors
have to listen to the wheels on the concrete and the loud, offensive language at night. He supports having limited,
specified hours, not dawn -to -dusk. He hopes they will read Pat Woodall's letters to the Parks Department and
to Chair Pence and seriously consider putting in specific hours for the Civic Center Playfield.
NEW BUSINESS
C. Civic Center Playfield / Civic Center Playfield Rules Request
Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director Angie Feser discussed the rules request that had been submitted.
She stated she was bringing it forward to the Planning Board in the form of a recommendation for City Council.
She noted that Civic Park is a very important park for the community, and there are some challenges with its
use. She reviewed the Master Plan and PROS Plan goals and Edmonds City Code sections regarding park hours.
She discussed the project background, construction timeline, and project design.
The rules request by park neighbors is as follows:
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 2 of 7
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
1. Change the "Dawn to Dusk" hours to fixed hours of operation including the general park hours being 6
a.m. to 9 p.m. and restricted hours of use for the skate park, tennis/pickleball court, basketball, soccer
(multipurpose lighted athletic fields) and exercise stations to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
2. Prohibit wheeled sports on the walkways and promenade.
3. Limit hours of lighting of the east -west promenade to posted hours of use.
Director Feser discussed her recommendations in response to the rules request:
1. Park Hours:
• Park Hours — Dawn to Dusk (Sunrise to Sunset)
• Skate Park — 9 a.m. to Dusk (previous rules)
• Tennis/pickleball court, basketball — Dawn to Dusk
• Multipurpose athletic fields — lighted to 10:15 p.m. 0
• Exercise stations — Dawn to Dusk =
2. Wheeled Sports: Director Feser recommended not prohibiting the use of wheeled sports within the park c
other than the possible restriction of some types of wheels activity which could damage the rubberized >
track. The wide sidewalks and paved paths provide for multiple uses including bicycles, tricycles, strider a
bikes, scooters, rollerblades, and the like. Currently, there are no prohibitions of wheeled sports in any a
City of Edmonds parks nor any city code that allows prohibition of this use.
3. Promenade Lighting Hours: Director Feser recommended allowing for pedestrian lighting after dusk.
City practice is to have pedestrian lighting through dark hours for safety and expanded opportunity of
use by park users especially in the fall and winter months (Hickman Park). Edmonds Police Department
supports the lighting. This enables pedestrian movement through the park rather than alleyways. There
will be limited lighting within the park, with most of it being the east -west promenade, one side of the
concrete path, and a 30' lighting radius.
Director Feser recommended allowing a year of usage before making any significant changes. She reviewed
enforcement challenges. She requested consideration of a recommendation to Council by the Planning Board.
Board Member Kuehn agreed that a lot of thoughtfulness has been put into the park, and it is hard to make a
recommendation to change when they don't really know how it will work out. As of right now he is comfortable
with her recommendations.
Board Member Rosen asked about exceptions beyond the dawn -to -dusk limits. Director Feser explained that
4th of July is an example of one of those times. Exceptions are developed with conditions surrounding special
events agreements. Board Member Rosen noted that the pickleball demand is very high. He is wondering if
there might be some public -private partnership opportunities that could relieve some of the burden from the
Parks Department while meeting the need. He also asked if they have explored any of the noise -mitigating
technology associated with the sport. Director Feser acknowledged there are ways to go about requiring
equipment that can help with the noise — both the paddle and the ball. There are also sound -reducing baffling
walls that can be put up in the courts to help absorb the sound. This is staff s least favorite method because of
the lack of visibility in and out of the courts as well as the expense and maintenance required. Staff is more
supportive of using the noise -mitigating equipment and controlling the hours around using the court. She stated
she would support looking at reduced hours for the pickleball on the tennis court because of the noise.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 3 of 7
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Board Member Campbell echoed comments thanking the audience members for their comments and letters.
She thanked Director Feser for putting together information, especially regarding the lighting. In general, she is
supportive with moving forward with this. She agrees with the audience comment that says we need to re-
evaluate this. She is also supportive of coming back to this in a year after they have had some time to see how
it works out.
Board Member Campbell provided more detailed feedback on staffs recommendations:
• She asked about putting up something on the west side of the skate park which might absorb sound
rather than reflect it. Director Feser noted this is a possibility they could explore. There is an existing
Boys and Girls Club and possibly a new Boys and Girls Club in the future. This could be something
they consider as they look at plans for the new building. Board Member Campbell encouraged this.
• She asked about the circumstances surrounding having playfields lit until 10:15. Director Feser
a
explained the lights are turned on in conjunction with scheduled activities. This could be city
programs or other users. The irrigation and lighting are all handled remotely. If there is something
E
scheduled, the playfield lights will go off at 10:15. If there is nothing scheduled, the lights never go
0
on. Board Member Campbell asked about historical complaints about the lighting use at the
playfields in the past. Director Feser explained she didn't have any history with that because she
Q
started with the City in April of 2020. The use of Civic Park was prior to that. Also, prior to
C
construction of the Civic Park programming was diminished significantly because of COVID. She
noted she could check with staff about complaints they had received. She commented that
discussions with night police staff revealed that there had not been many serious issues with the
c
fields. There have been some calls about skaters after dark, but the police are right across the street.
She added that the field lighting is much improved to the old lighting. The new lights are very
CU
precise on the field without a lot of spillover.
m°
• She is in support of the dawn -to -dusk park hours because of the clarity of this; however, she agrees
with the concerns about the pickleball courts. She agreed with the recommendation about trying to
do some signage and education about respectful use of the areas. She did not recommend changing
a
the ending time until they have more information about how the space if being used. She thought
N
the previous skate park rules of 9 am to dusk seemed acceptable. She doesn't feel like early morning
o
use of the exercise stations is going to cause any sort of noise issues. She did not feel like the
playfield lighting would be a problem as long as the lights are oriented as described with the new
a
lighting.
o
• She agreed with the City's recommendation to not limit wheeled sports on the promenade but
stressed that people need to know and use the rules of the road.
E
• Regarding promenade lighting, she thanked the City for the light orientation consideration. She
agreed with the Police Department that the lighting should be on during dark hours for safety
a
reasons. She requested that they do not put in any overhead lighting at the skate park as this would
encourage nighttime use.
Student Representative Distelhorst agreed with staff recommendations. She was in support of allowing wheeled
sports inside the park because this the park is a great resource for everyone in the city to use. She thinks the
10:15 playfield light turnoff time makes sense for athletes. She agreed that lighting on the walkway at night is
very important for safety.
Chair Pence asked about the recommendation for dawn -to -dusk park hours except for areas that are lighted. He
asked how this would get communicated and noted it could be confusing for users. Director Feser suggested
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 4 of 7
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
signage that would explain that the park is closed at dusk, but the promenade is still available to walk through
the park. Chair Pence noted there is a fabric material that has great sound absorbing qualities and is frequently
applied to fences along highways. This may be something to explore for the pickleball area even though it would
block some views. He agreed with the recommendation to have a minimum set of clear rules to start with and
give it a year to see how they are working before making changes.
Vice Chair Rosen also thought that waiting a year was good unless something important comes up sooner. He
was a little troubled by the lack of ordinance on wheeled sports. He suggested isolating that issue and getting a
recommendation from staff at some point in the future.
Board Member Campbell agreed that the promenade through the park needs to have careful signage to avoid
confusion. She supported using Authority of the Resource type signage.
Director Feser thanked the Planning Board and the members of the public for their input. She indicated staff
would make some changes and bring this back.
A. Debrief. November 1st Joint Meeting with City Council
Chair Pence reviewed the topics of the joint meeting held with the City Council on November 1. At the meeting
he had reviewed the rules that guide the Planning Board and the main substantive issues that they are addressing
(Comprehensive Plan Update and the Development Code revision). He stated that Mike Clugston will be the
lead person for the Development code rewrite. He commented that there was a lot of emphasis by council
members at the meeting about issues on Highway 99 such as the infrastructure improvements and a planning
study the City has undertaken. This was emphasized as an area of priority by the Council.
Vice Chair Rosen agreed and stated that the Board has been given direction by the Council's priorities as stated
at the meeting.
Board Member Campbell noted that there was mention of a certain Planning Board's member's attendance at
other meetings in the city. She would like help in knowing what events are coming up so she and others have
an opportunity to participate in that way.
Student Representative Distelhorst commented that when people talk about housing and development in
Edmonds, they also talk about keeping the "charm" of Edmonds. She thinks they are referring to single-family
residential housing, but she stressed that they can keep a charming city while focusing on other things like bike
lanes, transit, and multifamily housing.
Board Member Kuehn agreed it would be nice to have a simple reminder about events that board members
might want to attend.
Chair Pence commented that the Planning Board made a formal request to Council, sponsored by
Councilmember Teitzel, for a budget amendment to support hybrid meetings by the Planning Board as is done
by the Council. He indicated he would investigate providing some sort of calendar of events for the Board.
N
d
7
C
0
0
a
a
a
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 5 of 7
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Board Member Campbell said she went to the City of Edmonds website to search for a calendar of events. She
got one, but it appears to be blank. Chair Pence acknowledged that this is an issue, and he will add this to his
topics to address with staff.
B. Review Draft: Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement
Chair Pence noted that at least three board members were present for the unveiling of the vision statement at
Porchfest over the weekend. He solicited feedback on the vision statement by Board.
The City of Edmonds Vision Statement: Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of
life for all. We value environmental stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy
streets, and a thriving arts scene. We are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient a
future.
Chair Pence commented that this seems more like a values statement than a statement pointing the planning c
process one way or another. He feels like it is too broad to be useful in planning.
0
L
Board Member Campbell agreed with Chair Pence. It is a values statement and reflects values the City has, but C
there is no action. It needs to be distilled into additional direction in order to help guide. <
Board Member Kuehn agreed that this is a statement of values. This is not necessarily bad, but he is not sure if
it does what it is intended to do.
Vice Chair Rosen said he is a big fan of vision statements. He applauds the City for heading in that direction.
He wondered about the process for evaluating whether this truly encapsulates what they heard from the
community outreach. He also wondered how this will be used. If it is used appropriately, it should be the filter
through which all other things must pass. He agrees that it is more of a values statement. Vision statements
should be inspirational and aspirational and invoke emotion. This does not do that. He thinks the City needs to
make sure that everybody understands what a vision statement is in the same way. Having a common language
would help. In his opinion a vision statement states the desired destination — where they are going. It would also
be helpful for the community to be aware of the schedule for developing this. He noted that a high priority in
the community outreach was housing, and this does not mention that. Should it? He also expressed concern that
this does not even nod at the business community.
Student Representative Distelhorst agreed that it doesn't address multifamily residences or businesses, but she
felt it was inspiring and evoked positive images of how they want the City to be. She thinks it is a great vision
statement.
Chair Pence asked about next steps. Mr. Clugston was not sure. Vice Chair Rosen suggested asking the Council
how they would like the Planning Board to be involved. Chair Pence concurred and indicated he would bring
it up.
D. Discuss Attendance Policies for Planning Board
Chair Pence brought up concerns about low attendance in the past few months. He noted that the alternate
position has been advertised. There is now another member vacancy upon the resignation of Matt Cheung. Chair
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 6 of 7
2.A.a
Pence brought up concerns about the way this had played out and stated that Mr. Cheung was offended by the
process. Mr. Clugston explained that there had been a misunderstanding, and it was an unfortunate situation,
but there was no intent to offend Mr. Cheung.
Vice Chair Rosen reviewed the existing attendance rules. He wondered if they have been overly gracious in the
way they have/have not been enforced. Chair Pence agreed.
Board Member Campbell recommended going through the rules with new board members to make sure
everyone understands. She also cautioned against being overly strict because of the challenges they are having
finding people to fill the positions. Chair Pence concurred. He stated he prefers to handle this in a casual,
personal way.
N
Chair Pence asked staff about the status of a Planning Board member manual that Kernen Lien had discussed.
Mr. Clugston said he didn't know but indicated he would look into it. He noted that Director McLaughlin S
wanted to have one of these for each board. He will try to bring something to the Board next month. —
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA o
a
a
Mr. Clugston reviewed the extended agenda. There were comments and questions about the schedule. a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Kuehn said he would be sending an email to City Council to request a speedy adoption of the
budget amendment to allow for hybrid meetings. He encouraged other board members to do the same.
Vice Chair Rosen thanked Matt Cheung for his service and stated he was sorry to see him go. He was
disappointed about the way this was handled and noted it didn't seem to be unique to this board. He encouraged
better protocols by staff. He recommended that in the recruitment process they follow up with people who have
applied for other boards and commissions to see if they are interested. He also recommended very specific
training about roles and responsibilities with board members. It would also be nice to thank and recognize
people when they leave.
Student Representative Distelhorst said she really enjoyed the announcement of the vision statement at
Porchfest. It was a great opportunity to see a lot of people in the city who were interested in the Comprehensive
Plan and to talk to fellow Planning Board members, the Council, the Mayor, and staff. She hopes to see more
events like this where they can interact with people with other positions in the City.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2022 Page 7 of 7
Packet Pg. 9
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/30/2022
Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment for Minor Code Changes in ECDC 20.80 (AMD2022-0005)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
This topic was presented to the Planning Board on October 26, 2022, as part of the larger code
modernization introduction. Council heard the same introduction on September 27.
Staff Recommendation
Take public testimony on the proposed code change to Chapter 20.80 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) and forward a recommendation to the Council to adopt the proposed code
language, with any additional modifications. The following is a draft recommendation for Board
consideration:
"The Planning Board recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment to
Chapter 20.80 ECDC to create a minor development code amendment process. This process will make it
easier for the City to make small code changes to promote clarity, eliminate redundancy, streamline
processes, and correct inconsistencies."
Narrative
The purpose of the code update to Chapter 20.80 ECDC (Text and Map Changes) is to create a new
process for minor development code amendments. Minor amendments would have a streamlined
process to make small code changes that would promote clarity, eliminate redundancy, streamline
processes, and correct inconsistencies. The standard code amendment process takes many months over
multiple meetings by the Planning Board and Council, and often other boards, commissions, and
stakeholder groups. For amendments with major policy implications, this will not change as it is
consistent with Edmonds codes and the Growth Management Act.
However, there are many small tweaks that could be made on a regular basis that will keep the code
current and more efficient. As an example, the "Development Services Department" was recently
renamed as the "Planning and Development Department". There are more than 100 references to the
"Development Services Department" in the ECDC. To update the reference using the current process
would require at least one meeting and public hearing at the Planning Board followed typically by one or
two meetings at Council and another public hearing... all just to change one outdated reference.
The proposed process would involve staff creating a list of minor code amendments on a semi-annual
basis (or more frequently if needed) to be presented to Council on their consent agenda. The
amendments would be listed and include the existing and proposed language, and context for the
change. During their review, Council could either accept the list in its entirety or pull the list off consent
Packet Pg. 10
6.A
to discuss one or more proposed amendments. If Council feels that a proposed amendment is not
minor and requires further discussion or analysis, that amendment would go through the regular code
review process while the other minor amendments could be approved on consent.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- PB draft ECDC 20.80 Text and Map Changes_minor amendment
Attachment 2 - PB221026 excerpt minutes
Attachment 3 - Hearing Notice
Packet Pg. 11
6.A.a
DRAFT Chapter 20.80
TEXT AND MAP CHANGES
Sections:
20.80.000
Scope.
20.80.010
Procedural and nonzoning related changes.
20.80.015
Minor zonine code and maD amendments.
20.80.020 Maior zoning code and map amend ments.Zening and planning changes
20.80.030 Pre -Annexation zoning.
20.80.000 Scope.
This chapter sets forth the procedure for amendment to the text and any applicable maps
adopted by and within the community development code, but does not apply to other chapters
of the Edmonds City Code. Because various provisions of the community development code
are adopted under different state regulations, this chapter is divided into twe three basic
divisions as set forth below.
20.80.010 Procedural and nonzoning related changes.
Amendments to the following text materials (and where applicable, maps and other
incorporated codes or codifications within them) shall be reviewed and made by the city council
and may be adopted in the same manner as any other ordinances. The city council may refer a
proposal to the planning advisory board, or other board, commission, committee, staff, or
other ad hoc group for its or their nonbinding recommendations.
A. ECDC 15.00.020, Application Fees;
B. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements, except Chapter 18.50, Official Street Map;
C. ECDC Title 19, Building Codes;
D. Chapter 20.15A ECDC, Environmental Review (SEPA);
E. Chapter 20.70 ECDC, Street Vacations.
20.80.015 Minor development code and maD amendments.
A. Intent. This process is used by City Council to review and decide on minor development
code and map amendments. It is a streamlined process used for proposed changes which
need little or no policy study.
B. Suitability. This process is used for:
L:\ECDC_Rewrite\AMD2022-0005, ECDC 20.80 Text —Map Changes\10.26.22 PB intro\draft ECDC 20.80
Text and Map Changes_minor amendment edits v2.rtf
Packet Pg. 12
6.A.a
1. Minor development code amendments to promote clarity, eliminate redundancy,
correct scrivener's errors, or to correct inconsistencies; and
2. Minor zoning map amendments to correct grammatical, labeling, scriveners, or similar
errors on the official zoning map.
C. Review process. The Development Services Director periodically prepares a package of
amendments for review and presents them to the City Council on their consent agenda.
At its discretion, the Council may:
1. Approve the entire package; or
2. Remove one or more of the proposed amendments from consent for additional
discussion about the suitability of an amendment for the minor process or remove an
amendment from the minor process roster altogether for processing as a major
amendment as described in ECDC 20.80.020 and then approve the remainder of the
package.
20.80.020 Major zoning code and map amendmentsZening and planning rphan„es.
A. Review. Amendments to the following text materials (and where applicable, maps and other
incorporated codes or codifications within them) before amendment by the city council shall
first be reviewed by the planning advisory board as a Type V decision using the purposes and
criteria set forth in the applicable chapters as the basis for its review and recommendations:
1. ECDC Title 15, Land Use Plans and Policies, except application and permit fees.
2. ECDC Title 16, Zone Districts.
3. ECDC Title 17, General Zoning Regulations.
4. ECDC Title 20, Review Criteria and Procedures, excluding:
a. Chapter 20.15A ECDC, Environmental Review (SEPA);
b. Chapter 20.70 ECDC, Street Vacations.
5. Chapter 18.50 ECDC, Official Street Map.
B. Notice. See ECDC 20.03.003.
E20.80.030- Pre -Annexation Zoning.
When the city council, in its discretion, deems it appropriate to adopt pre -annexation zoning
comparable to that in effect in Snohomish County for a proposed annexation area, the
procedural and notice requirements of RCW 35A.14.340 shall control over the provisions of this
L:\ECDC_Rewrite\AMD2022-0005, ECDC 20.80 Text _Map Changes\10.26.22 PB intro\draft ECDC 20.80
Text and Map Changes_minor amendment edits v2.rtf
Packet Pg. 13
6.A.a
chapter and Chapter 20.03 ECDC. In the event that the city council determines it appropriate to
zone property proposed for annexation to the city in a category which is not comparable to
zoning in effect in Snohomish County, the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 20.03 ECDC
shall apply. Any change to pre -annexation zoning proposed after annexation to the city shall
also comply with the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 3817 §§ 13, 14,
2010; Ord. 3736 § 69, 2009; Ord. 3112 § 20, 1996; Ord. 3080 § 1, 1996].
L:\ECDC_Rewrite\AMD2022-0005, ECDC 20.80 Text —Map Changes\10.26.22 PB intro\draft ECDC 20.80
Text and Map Changes_minor amendment edits v2.rtf
Packet Pg. 14
6.A.b
Ne-diQught that some of the statistics would be significantly modified based on a cross tab. He
recommen some cross tabs based on age, retirement, etc. Director McLaughlin replied that
they wanted to keep this very approachable and did not ask for race, age, or other demographic
information. That will come later as et into more topical areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Shipley noted they could do some cross tabs on 1 survey on things such as how long they have
lived here or neighborhoods.
He referred to packet page 216 regarding parking and said he was surpris t some people wanted
more parking and some wanted less. Director McLaughlin noted that there are some borhoods
where there is a lot of parking in some areas (like 5 Corners) and not enough in others.
The Board recessed from 9:05 to 9:10 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Development Code Update Work Plan
Senior Planner Mike Clugston and Director McLaughlin made the presentation regarding the Development
Code Modernization Work Plan. Director McLaughlin reviewed the purpose of development codes and the
history of Edmonds' zoning and ordinance codes. She referred to the datum point mentioned by Mr. Reidy
earlier and noted this was in the presentation just for levity since it is an obsolete reference. She reviewed staff
resources available for the code update. There will be a dedicated FTE to manage the code who will manage
the code, lead legislation, and work with consultants as needed. Staff will collaborate with in-house subject
matter experts and have a budget available for on -call services.
Staff views code rewriting as an interactive process of improvements to the Edmonds development codes. It
includes changes to both structure and content; ensures the code is representative of best practices; offers both
flexibility and predictability to developers, design professionals, and contractors; and is outcome focused and
mindful of implications. Staff recognizes that there are structural changes that can happen right away such as
reorganizing Titles 15-24 to be more accessible and usable and improving the search and interactive functions.
It is expected this first round of improvements will be completed by the end of 2022. Content changes are
proposed to be looked at in terms of "minor" and "major" categories. This allows for a more responsive process
that can quickly respond to policy decisions and can be implemented through changes to ECDC 20.80.Overall
changes are intended to use plain language, replace words with graphics and illustrations, and eliminate
unnecessary code.
Minor amendments would promote clarity, eliminate redundancy, streamline processes, better align with best
practices, and correct scrivener's errors. These would be presented directly to Council on a semi-annual basis
(December/June) or more frequently as needed. She reviewed the proposed changes to ECDC 20.80 in the
packet. Major amendments would take more time. They would be vetted thoroughly with detailed data/analysis
and include inclusive public engagement. There is a required process for these through GMA and the City's
code.
Board Member Campbell asked for more detail about the streamlining of processes. She recalled that for the
wireless code review, not having the stakeholders involved on earlier segments didn't come to light until there
was a public hearing. If they are talking about removing steps in the process, she wanted to make sure that public
involvement wasn't compromised. Mr. Clugston acknowledged that the process for the wireless code review
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 9 of 11
Packet Pg. 15
6.A.b
didn't go properly, but staff is working through that. He explained that the minor code amendments would have
no policy impact and are things that could be done very quickly. He reviewed more details of the proposed
amendments to Chapter 20.80. The new process for the minor amendments would streamline the process for
changes that need little or no policy study. Minor code amendments would not go through the Planning Board,
but just go straight to the Council on a semi-annual basis. Major amendments would still go through the Planning
Board process.
Chair Pence referred to section 10.40 of the Planning Board Charter which says that text amendments to the
Development Code come through Planning Board. He thinks they ought to see everything, and it may help to
deal with public skepticism. He noted that things that the staff thinks are minor might not seem minor to the
public.
Vice Chair Gladstone spoke in support of this as long as "minor" is defined well enough and is just basically
used for cleaning up the code. She thought making it go through the Planning Board would be overkill.
Director McLaughlin noted that the amount of time staff generally spends on very minor amendments is
enormous. The process is wildly inefficient, and things are not moving. Taking care of the minor amendments
in this way will allow more time to deal with real policy issues. Chair Pence suggested asking City Council to
amend section 10.40 to reduce the Planning Board's workload. Staff concurred.
Board Member Campbell said she has no problems with the process proposed for minor amendments only. She
wants to make sure that the Planning Board still reviews the more substantive items. She referred to the intent
of staff to replace words with graphics and recommended having processes in place to ensure appropriate
translations and appropriate ADA compliance. Mr. Clugston explained that Code Publishing offers those
features. Board Member Campbell thanked staff for their explanations.
Student Representative Distelhorst spoke in support of moving the minor amendments directly to Council
because it will be more efficient for the City and help things move along. She has noticed that some projects get
stuck at the Planning Board, and she has felt like the Board was slowing the process down too much.
Chair Pence noted that board members can still read the City Council packets and make comments if they feel
something needs to be addressed.
Mr. Clugston noted there would be a public hearing on November 30 on the changes to 20.80. He will talk to
the City Attorney to see if any changes need to be made to Chapter 10.40, the Planning Board Charter.
B. Motion to make a budget request to City Council to fund a communications system that supports remote
participation at in -person Planning Board meetings.
Chair Pence explained that Councilmember Teitzel had requested that the Board consider this motion asking
Council to provide funds to allow hybrid meetings to occur.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CAMPBELL, TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
WISHES TO RETURN TO IN -PERSON MEETINGS IN A HYBRID FORMAT, ONE THAT
PERMITS REMOTE PARTICIPATION BY MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC. THE BOARD
Plan�g Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 10 of 11
6.A.b
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL TO BUDGET FOR A
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS SUCH MEETINGS.
VICE CHAIR GLADSTONE OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE EDMONDS
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET FOR THE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT SUCH MEETINGS. THE
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0) TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
ANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
The exte ed agenda was reviewed. There will be a Special Meeting with City Council on November 1. There
was discuss' about the expectations for the format of that meeting as well as other topics on the extended
agenda.
Mr. Clugston asked ab t the origin and the prioritization of the list of future projects. Board Member Rosen
stated it was a list primaril enerated by Rob of projects that were on the radar. The list also reflects items that
could be brought up whenever re is time on the agenda. Mr. Clugston indicated he would review and possibly
edit the list if some things have be covered or can be deleted. Chair Pence suggested categorizing these items
in various ways such as whether thin eed an action by the Planning Board or are just updates, and whether
things are active or not active.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Student Representative Distelhorst requested help with accessing her e ail. Mr. Clugston indicated he would
follow up with her.
Board Member Rosen noted that the consultant PRR has been referenced quite a b ately. He wanted to make
it clear that he was an owner and managing principal of PRR in the past; however, he snot have any conflict
of interest. He has been retired from there since 2017 and is not involved in any way wit em now.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 11 of 11
Packet Pg. 17
6.A.c
OF EDAf
L� :-L UO CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
j'. 1890
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on amendments to Chapter
20.80 ECDC (Text and Map Changes) regarding creation of a new minor code
amendment process.
NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: AMD2022-0005
COMMENTS ON
PROPOSAL DUE: November 30, 2022
Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is
closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at
www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public
Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be
mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the
application file number for all inquiries.
PUBLIC HEARING: The public hearing will be held on November 30, 2022, at 7 P.M.
Council Chambers
250 - 5ch Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston AICP, Senior Planner
michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
Packet Pg. 18
6.A.c
File No.: AMD2022-0005
Applicant: City of Edmonds
DECLARATION OF POSTING
On the 16th day of November, 2022, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
posted as prescribed by Ordinance. However, it was not posted at the
Edmonds Public Library because it is currently closed due to a water leak that
occurred on June 24.
I, Mike Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 16th day of
November, 2022, at Edmonds, Washington.
Signed:
Packet Pg. 19
~] � o� ron y 0. � rn13 a a a m ac co
in
rD rr �? 3
' n 0 rt O
ccv a w � bo a �:I
rr O c3 CD 2Z va O m —1 n� - Q
�
CD O cD
CD
a.. z m
O C (D �1 0 C7 iv O n m o
O C CD `C W . t7CD CL
En CA
CCD 5 �• UG Z Q. r� N R� O n" (D o n
'-1 '� t/' C S N CD
n,
O CD
� n n Ql rn L0O
D w OcO O-rr o
c (D N
II O N o CD_ CD o CxrJ �s °1 CL
N CD �� � r•r O C� � VI cr Z C�D O Q (D O
E2 n n n CD n 7
O p � � W O Q. rJ. � O 0 � "0 Cr
CD o
LnCD
p� (➢ yy c➢ a'Lf �t
�T C.cna�1CD' nCD O d
OO cy�D R. CD 'dQ LA OCR
CL �� a"c➢ �? Co BCD CD �OZrr�
o 14.
a CD�a then O
o Cr 9 a, Cv ��� pyZ
.'' CD CD CD W _ b CD
Pr >1 v b O
CL Y rp r O. C➢
Attachment: Attachment 3 - Hearing Notice (Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment for Minor Code Changes in ECDC 20.80)
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/30/2022
Joint Meeting with the Tree Board (Tree Code Amendments AMD2022-0004)
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Deb Powers
Background/History
Last year, Edmonds' tree code was updated to support Urban Forest Management Plan Goal 1A to
reduce development impacts on the urban forest. At that time, the City Council and Planning Board
recognized that property owner tree removal regulations could be considered at a future date, as a
"second phase" of code amendments. Regulating property owner tree removals is a substantial, new
code requirement and as such, is a major amendment to the existing code. The Phase 2 code
amendment project was identified in the 2022-2023 Development Services Work Plan.
In the following twelve months, prior to initiating the Phase 2 code amendments, staff, permit
applicants and property owners were experiencing repeated code interpretation issues with the newly
adopted, development -related tree code. Certain code provisions that are unclear or difficult to apply
were contributing to lower quality permit applications, multiple plan revisions and undesirable trends in
code enforcement cases.
In response to these emerging issues, the Council and Planning Board affirmed that the scope of the
Phase 2 code updates would include minor amendments to clarify the existing code, without undoing
the enormous effort and public input involved in its recent development. Code amendment
classifications are determined by the impact of the modification:
Minor code amendments do not change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify
or further define something already in the code.
Moderate code amendments are relatively uncontroversial code restructuring and any minor
updates/new requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes
that require additional resources.
Major code amendments add extensive new requirements, result in significant changes to
procedures, or significant additional cost to permit applicants and/or change the intent of the
code.
Based on the Council and Planning Board direction and the revised scope, a project outline (work plan)
for the Phase 2 tree code amendments was developed (Attachment 1). The existing code provisions that
had been unclear or difficult in their application are shown in pale yellow in Attachment 2.
Considerations for new property owner tree removal codes are shown in orange in the same list of
preliminary code amendments.
Since initiating the Phase 2 project, the City Council, Planning Board and Tree Board have recommended
changes to the existing code that fall outside the project scope. These are distinguished by light gray
shading in Attachment 2. Potential code or policy changes raised by the City Council or Planning Board
Packet Pg. 21
7.A
that fall outside the area of urban forestry expertise and/or may involve placement on the Planning
Division Work Plan are noted in dark gray.
A summary of the Council, PB and TB input on Phase 2 tree code amendments thus far is provided
below.
City Council
Prior (2021) City Council considerations for property owner tree removal codes would:
Allow property owners a limited number of tree removals at one time
Require a certain amount of time in between allowed tree removals
Restrict "landmark" (large) tree removals
Vary the number of allowed tree removals, depending on property size
The City Council reviewed the Phase 2 tree code amendment project scope and approach at the June 21,
2022, City Council meeting. Additional Council feedback for property owner tree removals includes
considering tree replacement standards, differentiating if/when a permit/permit fee is required and
considering penalties for exceeding the number or certain size of tree removals (Attachment 3). The
Council also asked staff to consider code amendments in response to canopy study findings, such as the
loss of "forest patches."
Staff plans to check in with the City Council in early 2023 to provide an update on progress with the
Phase 2 tree code amendments.
Planning Board
The Planning Board (PB) reviewed the project scope and approach at the July 13, 2022, PB meeting. At
the September 14 meeting, the PB asked staff to consider significant changes to building/zoning
standards that could result in greater tree retention, a major code amendment that will be considered
with Comprehensive Plan and other ECDC updates outside Chapter 23.10. Overall, the PB indicated at
the September 14 and October 12 PB meetings a few clarifications were needed but that generally, the
preliminary minor amendments to the existing code would achieve the scope and direction of the Phase
2 tree code amendments (Attachment 4).
The PB requested a joint meeting with the Tree Board to check in at this stage in the tree code
amendment process, requesting that staff present at the November 30 special meeting:
An update on the public engagement plan
Draft code for all minor code changes, with markup/strikeouts
A comprehensive list of all potential code amendments, including the moderate and major code
amendments requested by the Council, PB and TB
Progress with developing a public engagement plan and how the new list was formatted in response to
the PB is discussed under the Narrative section below.
Tree Board
Staff presented the background, policy overview, project scope and code amendment process at the July
7, 2022 Tree Board (TB) meeting (Attachment 5). To better understand how the current code is applied,
the Tree Board participated in an exercise reviewing four mock development scenarios at the August 4
TB meeting, with the consensus that the current code requirements for tree retention, replanting and
fees in lieu are difficult to apply, may not be effective nor protect ecological functions as intended
(Attachment 6).
Following the mock development scenario exercise, a document was set up in the City's FTP server to
allow TB members the opportunity to provide written input on how to clarify the existing code, based on
findings from the development scenario exercise. At the following three TB meetings, there has been
some disagreement and confusion about the project scope, the code amendment process, and how the
minor, moderate or major definitions apply. The TB has not provided a consensus decision on minor
code amendments to date; however, the TB has recommended a few changes to the existing code that
fall outside the project scope as noted in Attachment 2.
Packet Pg. 22
7.A
Staff Recommendation
Review the requested additional information and provide staff direction to commence with codes
related to property owner tree removals, as scoped, per a pending public engagement plan.
Narrative
At the November 30 joint Planning Board/Tree Board meeting, staff will present the requested
information below for discussion with the Planning Board and Tree Board.
Public Engagement Plan
A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of a Public Engagement Plan related to the tree code
amendment project was published on October 28, 2022 (Attachment 7). The City extended the deadline
for accepting proposals to November 16, 2022 and is currently reviewing the top two candidates'
proposals. Staff expects to select a consultant and enter into a professional services agreement by early
December.
Comprehensive list of potential code amendments
The Planning Board requested staff combine all known preliminary changes to ECDC Chapter 23.10 into
one comprehensive list so that all code changes under consideration can be viewed simultaneously. The
updated list (Attachment 2) has been formatted by color:
Pale yellow - minor code amendments to the existing code that address code interpretation
issues that have emerged since its adoption. Staffs recommendation for resolving each issue
and the sample code language do not change the intent of the existing code and are within the
project scope.
Any changes to the existing code that fall under moderate or major code amendments are
indicated with an asterisk, bright yellow highlighting and will reference the related
moderate/major code amendment by number. They have been listed for tracking purposes for
later discussion and consensus decisions. These are not within the project scope of changes to
the existing code.
Orange - these are the considerations for property owner code amendments scoped under this
project. These changes are major code amendments within the project scope of the Phase 2 code
updates.
Gray - the light or dark gray code amendments involve zoning/building code amendments
outside of ECDC 23.10 and/or do not necessarily involve urban forestry expertise. These may be
added to future Planning Work Plan and/or Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Draft Code - Minor Code Amendments
The Planning Board has confirmed that the preliminary minor code amendments achieve the first
objective to further clarify the existing code and requested that draft code be shown to understand their
context within ECDC 23.10. An excerpt of sample code language with markups and strikeouts is shown
for each minor code amendment in Attachment 2.
The second objective of the Phase 2 code amendments is to develop codes that limit property owner
tree removals, major amendments to the existing code. The Planning Board recognizes that the
community's input is essential to the development of moderate and major code amendments and asked
staff to refrain from developing code language for these. Only the primary considerations and discussion
topics for property owner tree removal codes are shown in the "sample code rewrite" column in
Attachment 2.
At the November 30 joint Planning Board -Tree Board meeting, staff is seeking feedback on the
Packet Pg. 23
7.A
following:
Is the Planning Board/Tree Board ready to review and discuss Phase 2 property owner tree code
amendments as scoped?
At what point would the Planning Board/Tree Board want to consider a second joint meeting?
Third?
Staff is expecting that several additional code amendments will be identified from public and
stakeholder feedback and at subsequent Planning Board, Tree Board and City Council meetings.
Attachments
1. Project Outline
2. Comprehensive list of tree code issues & preliminary amendments
3. City Council Meeting Minutes
4. Planning Board Meeting Minutes
5. July 7, 2022 Tree Board PowerPoint Presentation
6. Tree Board Meeting Minutes
7. Request for Proposal - Public Engagement Consultant
Attachments:
Attach 1 Project Outline
Attach 2 Comp Code Amend List
Attach 3 CC 06212022 Mtg Minutes
Attach 4 PB Mtg Minutes
Attach 5 TB 07072022 PPT
Attach 6 TB Mtg Minutes
Attach 7 RFP_ECDC 23.10
Packet Pg. 24
7.A.a
ATTACHMENT 2
PROJECT OUTLINE - Tree Code Amendments/Phase 2
Done? TASKS
Estimated
Dates
Establish project scope, objectives, and acceptable levels of policy impacts
V
Compile relevant background information and prior City Council direction. Assess project
June 2022
resources (staffing, consultant services, etc.).
Develop preliminary list of amendments
July 2022
Check prior Council direction, assemble staff feedback on administering the current code.
Develop preliminary project timeline
• Schedule early scoping discussions and estimate future public meeting/hearing dates.
• Identify mandated deadlines for public noticing, SEPA review (addendum?), etc.
July 2022
• Factor turnaround time for board/Council review & feedback, including final TB, PB
recommendations to City Council.
• Tentatively schedule public hearings x2 (PB, CC)
Commence early discussions with City Council, Planning Board, Tree Board
Jul 2022
y
Finalize scope, objectives. Discuss public engagement and project timeline.
Conduct mock scenario exercise to review how current code works
Aug -Sept
• Tree Board
2022
• Planning Board (Tree Board report -out at joint meeting)
Develop robust Public Engagement Plan
• Identify capacity/resources for public engagement and seek funding if necessary
• Follow Equitable Engagement Framework model (available late August 2022)
• Schedule public outreach events and any related deadlines, consider concurrent public
engagement efforts
• Identify and list internal/external stakeholders, special interest groups and parties of
Aug -Sept
interest/parties of record.
2022
• Identify appropriate engagement methods: community survey, facilitated stakeholder
meetings, special events (i.e., open house, Farmer's Market, workshops, "town hall,"
neighborhood meetings), etc.
• Identify responsibilities for managing web content, news releases, social media, project
listserv, mailings, etc.
• Revise tentatively scheduled public hearings?
Establish draft code framework
• Show strikeouts/markups for no/none policy level impacts to determine public meeting
Sept 2022
dates to address increasingly higher levels of policy impact proposed code amendments
Identify needs for data/analysis related to project
• Identify canopy assessment findings related to potential code changes.
• Compile cases and analyze current code efficacy and trends concerning:
Sept -Oct
o Tree retention with development
2022
o Tree mitigation: planting vs. fee in lieu payments
o Current property owner tree removals
o Current tree code violations/enforcement
Finalize project tasks and timeline
• Assign formal file case number.
• Specify # public meetings for each decision -making body. Include ample time for PB/TB
Oct 2022
draft code review and their draft recommendations to City Council
• Complete Public Engagement Plan —specify dates, methods, and resources
• Data/analysis needs and approved resources to complete analysis
Packet Pg. 25
7.A.a
ATTACHMENT 2
PROJECT OUTLINE - Tree Code Amendments/Phase 2
ay
Jan-20M
Conduct public engagement per Plan
Develop draft code
Apr -June
• Develop a working draft code that addresses moderate to major code amendments with
2023
heavy stakeholder discussion
Code review, approval, and adoption
• Develop initial draft code for SEPA review/DOC noticing
• Specify PB/TB review/feedback meeting dates to refine draft code language
June -July
• PB/TB develop official recommendations to Council
2023
• City Council review/adoption.
• SEPA review
• Coordinate with Legal/City Clerk, Code Publishing
Code implementation
July -Aug
Includes internal training and public education on new codes: workshops, handouts,
2023
webpage content, etc.
Packet Pg. 26
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
The current definition implies any tree with a minor defect is a
Hazard tree - dead-, dying, diseased damaged OF StFUGtura" ,ref Gti„e
hazard, resulting in excessive tree removals in critical areas.
as determined by , qua fi4ed tree nr„f ss a tree/tree part with an
Extreme or High overall risk rating using the most current version of the
Hazard tree definition
Development permit applicants claim healthy trees are "hazardous"
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) method, with the
Minor-1
020.H
Dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective
to justify removals or to avoid replanting/paying fees in lieu
following:
Both
as determined by a qualified tree professional.
associated with development.
1. A combination of structural defects and/or disease that makes it
subject to a high probability of failure,
Recommendation: define per industry standard.
2. In proximity to high -frequency use targets, persons, or property; and
3. The hazard condition cannot be reduced with reasonable and proper
'TO CONSIDER EXPANDING HAZARD TREE DEFINITION, SEE MODERATE #11
arboricultural practices, nor can the target be moved.
Vaguely defines tree protection fence locations that are required to
L8e.f d- ictu hanno _ the be rani between the area of minimm
un
are,uni-1 , tree -nri the 'n„'""'hle site d8sturbanne
proteGt'en
be shown on development site plans. Is often confused with other
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) - a defined area as determined by a
Limits of disturbance definition
limits of disturbance on site plans, ultimately resulting in trees
qualified professional applicable to tree trunks, roots, and soil. TPZ is
Minor-2
020.E
The boundary between the area of minimum protection
damaged during development.
measured in feet from the face of the trunk to an outer boundary, where
Development
around a tree and the allowable site disturbance.
tree protection fence is located. May be determined using critical root
zone formula, dripline, air spade excavations and is variable depending
Recommendation: define per industry standard.
on species, age and health of the tree, soil conditions and existing
infrastructure.
"Significant" damage is too subjective, results in frequent code
Nuisance tree ...is causing significant physical damage that is obvious in
Nuisance tree definition
interpretation issues. Remediation measures are not considered,
aphotograph to a nvate or public structure and/or infrastructure,
p p
Is causing significant physical damage to a private or public
implying that tree removal is the sole manner to address nuisance
including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
Minor-3
020.N
structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to
issues.
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
Property
Owner
sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities,
The problems associated with a nuisance tree must be such that they
driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
Recommendation: include corrective actions. Allow over -the -
cannot be corrected by reasonable practices, including, but not limited to
counter approvals for situations that clearly don't need an arborist's
branch or root pruning, bracing, or cabling.
expertise.
Qualified Professional definition
Qualified professional ...[has] relevant education and training in
...[has] relevant education and training in arboriculture or
The current list of professional credentials is outdated. The
arboriculture or urban forestry, having 2 or more of the following
Minor-4
020.Q
urban forestry, having 2 or more of the following
definition does not consider other qualifications.
credentials (or equivalent):
Both
credentials:
1. ISA Certified Arborist
1. ISA Certified Arborist
Recommendation: Add BCMA credential and "or equivalent."
2-4. Additional professional standards (TRAQ, ASCA, SAF)
2-4. Additional professional standards (TRAQ, ASCA, SAF)
5. Board Certified Master Arborist
Terms such as "or other land use approval" and "in conjunction
Development types that require a tree retention plan
with" are ambiguous, allows the City greater authority to require
030.0
030.0 - Tree removal associated with building permit,
tree retention plans for any development.
Minor-5
subdivision, or other land use approval...
Recommendation: clarify which specific development types require
List, use a chart format or provide examples of specific "other land use
Develo ment
p
approval" permit types, such as demolition, clearing and grading permits
060.A
060.A ...the city requires approval of a tree retention and
tree retention plans.
protection plan in conjunction with...
'TO CONSIDER TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS WITH OTHER
DEVELOPMENT TYPES (OFFICE, MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL, SEE MAJOR #10.
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 27
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
Without an understanding of the development review process,
some permit applicants "downgrade" tree condition to avoid tree
Tree condition related to development review process
replacement and/or fees in lieu, resulting in code interpretation
Viable tree - significant tree that a qualified professional
issues and prolonged review times.
Viable tree - significant tree that a qualified professional has determined
Minor-6
020.X
has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of
to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is
Development
failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or
Recommendation: Add "subject to review"
windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove and is a species that is
remains as part of a grove and is a species that is suitable
suitable for its location, subject to City review/approval.
for its location.
*TO CONSIDER TREE CONDITION DEFINITIONS (BASED ON INDUSTRY
STANDARDS) FOR TREES RETAINED WITH DEVELOPMENT, SEE MODERATE
#2
Which existing trees count towards retention goals or
Without "viable," some applicants interpret the code to include
require mitigation?
dead, dying or poor condition trees towards meeting required tree
060.C: 30% [retention is required] of all S@PffiGant viable trees...
060. C: 30% [retention is required] of all significant trees...
retention thresholds.
060.0
060.F.3:... existing viable priority one trees not impacted by the
Minor-7
0605.3,
060.F.3:... existing priority one trees not impacted by the
Recommendation: Replace "significant" with or add "viable" where
installation of said improvements must be retained...
Development
060.G, etc.
installation of said improvements must be retained.
needed.
G. Tree Retention Incentive. If a development retains 50% of the
G. If a development retains 50% of the significant trees on
*TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC TREE CONDITION DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO
signifiGant viable trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions... do not apply
a site, fee -in -lieu provisions... do not apply
TREE RETENTION WITH DEVELOPMENT, SEE MODERATE #2.
Tree protection fence shown on site plans
Various terminology is confusing to applicants, resulting in tree
iv. [Show] location of tree protection meaauFes fence at the proposed
060.B.2.b.iv
iv. [Show] location of tree protection measures...
protection fence locations incorrectly shown on proposals and/or
TPZs, with distances from the face of trunks to fence noted on the site
Minor-8
060.B.2.b.v,
060.B.2.c.ii
inadequate on -site tree protection.
plan, v In dirate limits Af disturbagro drawn to scale around all trees
Development
060.B.2.c.iii
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all
impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or
etc.
trees impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading,
Recommendation: Use "TPZ" industry standard. Clarify that silt
construction activities. Silt fence per TESC requirements may satisfy tree
demolition, or construction activities.
fence may be allowed if TPZs are observed.
protection fence requirements if TPZs are observed.
Incentives to retain trees on development sites are not prominent
Clearly identify incentives
enough in the code. Applicants interpret the 50% retention incentive
"cap"
If a development retains 50% of the significant trees on a
as a versus striving for greater than 50% retention rates,
o
G. Tree Retention Incentive. If a development retains at least 50% of the
Minor-9
060.G
site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not
inadvertently resulting in greater tree removals than what's feasible.
s@nffiGan viable trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC
Development
apply.
"at
23.10.080(E) do not apply.
Recommendation: Clearly identify tree retention incentives, add
least" to numerical thresholds.
Fee in lieu/appraised value process
The appraisal requirement does not reflect the development review
...After providing clear documentation to development
process and presents a conflict of interest as currently shown in the
After providing clear documentation to Gf9Ve!9PR4eRf 9e 4Ge the City
services that all replacement options have been considered
code. Inconsistent references to City and applicant.
that all replacement options have been considered... the developer
Minor-10
080.E
..the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each
Recommendation: Replace "developer" with "applicant." Replace
applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree... into the
Development
replacement tree... (1) into the city's tree fund. For each
"City," "Director," "development services," "Planning Official," "city
City's Tree Fund. For each significant tree greater than 24" DBH
significant tree greater than 24" DBH removed, a fee based
tree protection professional," etc. with appropriate terms consistent
removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the
on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection
with Chapter. Clarify that appraisals are to be submitted by
applicant's arborist shall be required...
professional shall be required...
applicant, subject to City review.
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
When an arborist report is required
Current code is unclear that an arborist report, although not
... After providing clear documentation, which may include the applicant's
Minor-11
080.E
. After providing clear documentation ... that all
required, may be needed to document infeasibility of replanting.
arborist recommendations ...that all replacement options have been
replacement options have been considered and are
considered... inGlUding
infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary...
Recommendation: Restructure sentence, add "may."
When a tree removal permit is required
030.8: Tree removal not specifically exempted will be
processed as a Type I permit...
Too many exemptions, followed by "exceptions to exemptions" and
other double negatives are confusing. Omission of clear code
040: ... activities exempt from the provisions of this chapter
requirements has resulted in code interpretation issues and
q p
[that] do not require a permit... except for...
lowered code compliance. Combining property owner tree removal
23.10.040 c*� Tree Removal Not Associated with Development
permit requirements with development permit requirements is
A Type 1 or Landscape Modification permit is required for.
040.F:...trees that do not meet the exemptions... may be
confusing.
0 Trees proposed for removal in critical areas that do not fit
removed...
hazard/nuisance criteria
Minor-12
030-060
Recommendation: Clarify when a Type 1 permit or Landscape
0 Tree removal on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties
Both
050.A: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as
Modification is required. Clearly define the condition or criteria for
0 Tree removal on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties
provided for in...
tree removal in critical areas, vacant lots, subdividable properties,
etc. using a list or chart. Add examples in code.
For hazard/nuisance tree removals, a permit is not required, however
050.B: ... removal of trees... is prohibited except as
documentation is required...
provided for in...
"To CONSIDER RESTRUCTURING CODE TO REPLACE "EXEMPTIONS" WITH
"ALLOWANCES" AND OTHER DOUBLE NEGATIVES TO DEFINE WHAT IS
060.A.5: ... the city requires approval of a tree retention
ALLOWED, VERSUS WHAT'S NOT, SEE MODERATE #1.
plan in conjunction with... for... any tree removal on
developed sites not exempted by...
The one tree retention incentive within the tree code (23.10.060.G —
the 50% tree retention threshold) is not very prominent or identified
Restructure 23.10.060 as follows:
as an incentive. ECDC 20.75.048 (an incentive for "greater tree
A. Introduction
"...incentives and variations to development
retention" using variations to development standards) is not located
B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan
060.A, last
standards"
Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards
in the tree code.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
Minor-13
sentence
provided in this section establish tree retention priorities,
(see nor ow )
Recommendation: Move 20.75.048 to 23.10 Minor #14 below).
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements
t,00� r�
E. that mom., e a fo❑ h,��(move to D, replace with) Tree
Development
incentives, and variations to development standards ... to
facilitate preservation of viable trees...
Clearly identify incentives and variations to development standards
Retention Incentives (insert 20.75.048 and 23.10.060.G)
as such or strike the last sentence in 23.10.060.A if superfluous.
F. Tree Retention Procedures
G. if developmentretains50% . (move to E)
'TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC TREE RETENTION THRESHOLD VERSUS THE
AMBIGUOUS "GREATER" TREE RETENTION, SEE MAJOR #8.
"Phased" short plat/subdivision review process
Phased review/tree removal typically results in lower successful
...If during the short [plat] or subdivision review process the
tree retention, gives the public the initial perception of greater tree
location of all proposed improvements... have not yet been
retention and incurs higher costs for tree removal.
Restructure 23.10.060 as shown above in Minor #13, or
060.B.3.a
established, the applicant may submit a tree retention
Minor-14
060.F.2
[plan] that addresses the current phase of development
and limits removal to the impacted areas....A new tree
Recommendation: Promote early planning for successful tree
Move ECDC 20.75.048, the Tree Conservation Subdivision Design
9
Development
retention... plan shall be required at each subsequent
retention with short plat/subdivision development by showing tree
incentive to 23.10.060.G, with the 50%tree retention incentive.
phase of the project as more information about the location
retention incentives and variations to development standards more
of the proposed improvements is known.
prominently in the code.
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
Tree replacement requirements — general
Multiple tree replacement requirements that apply to both
...Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits
development scenarios and property owner tree removals, when
Reformat 080.A as shown in the chart below under Minor #16. Clarify the
080.A
• • •and/or for tree removal associated with development.
spread over different code sections, are confusing.
order of priority for tree replanting.
Recommendation: Differentiate between property owner and
Note that new property owner tree removal requirements will likely
Both
development tree removal replacement requirements.
warrant creating a new code section, so that 23.10.080 may be
Tree replacement requirement (1)
consolidated into 23.10.060.
060.C.4
In addition to the [30%] tree retention requirements... every
CONSIDER FURTHER STREAMLINING TREE REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS, SEE MODERATE #3
significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be
Minor-15
replaced consistent with the requirements of
"Several new trees" indicates a certain number of trees need to be
ECDC 23.10.080.
planted to meet the deficiency, while 23.10.080 refers to replacing
1-3 trees according to the size (DBH) of each removed tree, which
Tree replacement requirement (11)
is confusing and causes code interpretation issues.
If there are not enough existing trees... to satisfy [the 30% retention
If there are not enough existing trees... to satisfy [the 30%
threshold], the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency by
060.F.4.a-b
retention threshold], the applicant shall be required to make
Recommendation: Strike reference to 080 to clarify that a certain
planting several new trees ^�� �� �n nQn that would be sufficient, in
p g
Development
p
up the deficiency by planting several new trees
number of trees are required to be planted to meet the 30%
combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy [the
per 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with
retention threshold.
30% tree retention threshold] .. .
the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy [30% tree
retention threshold] ...
*TO CONSIDER STREAMLINING TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, SEE
MODERATE #3
Tree replacement requirement (III)
Numerical requirements in a narrative format appear overly
..each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as
complicated.
080.A.1-3
follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6-10" DBH removed,
Recommendation: Reformat 080 to chart form.
one replacement tree is required.
2. For each significant tree between 10.1-14" DBH
removed, two replacement trees are required.
Minor-16
3. For each significant tree greater than 14" and less than
Each laced as follows:
�t viable tree to be removed shall be replaced
24" DBH removed, three replacement trees are required.
Note the code lacks any replanting options to replace removed
080.E.3 Tree replacement requirement (I� viable trees >24" DBH.
...For each significant tree greater than 24"DBH removed,
a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city *TO CONSIDER REPLANTING OPTIONS TO REPLACE REMOVED VIABLE
tree protection professional using trunk formula method in TREES >24" DBH, SEE MODERATE #4.
the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be *TO RECONSIDER FEE IN LIEU OPTIONS TO MITIGATE REMOVED VIABLE
required. TREES >24" DBH, SEE MAJOR #7.
Both
Multiple tree replacement requirements spread over different code
Tree replacement requirement (V) sections are confusing.
For developing properties... that have fewer than three
Minor-17 060.C.5 significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that Recommendation: consolidate tree removal replacement
will result in the site having at least three trees, which will requirements into one section.
be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area
*TO CONSIDER STREAMLINING THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS,
SEE MODERATE #3
'POLICY IMPACT
Removed Tree DBH
Required Replacements
6-10"
1
10.1-14"
2
14.1 - 24"
3
>24"
Appraised Value
Less than 3 existing
trees on site
3 trees per 8, 000 sq. ft. lot
area
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 30
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
POLICYApplies to
CURRENT CODE•DDevelopment
i or Property
Owner?
Multiple fees -in -lieu in different code sections are confusing. The
difference between the $1,000/$2,500 fee is unclear, or if
applicable to >24" DBH trees. Current fee in lieu structure does not
reflect order of priority to retain and replant first and may be
marginally effective in achieving offsite tree planting.
Fees in lieu of replanting —general
060-080 $1,000 per tree fee in lieu relates to the number of trees required to
meet the 30% tree retention threshold per 23.10.060.C, however,
"of this section" relates to the number of replacement trees (1-3)
based on the size of removed trees per 23.10.080.
Fees in lieu of replanting (1)
080.E.1 ... the [applicant] shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each $2,500 per tree also relates to the number of trees required to meet
replacement tree required but not replaced [in] the amount the 30% tree retention threshold per 23.10.060.C. Where $1,000
of ... $1, 000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to per tree is an average standard cost of planting a new tree, $2,500
satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section... is an arbitrary and seemingly inflated cost.
Fees in lieu of replanting (11)
Viable trees >24" DBH removed with development are not replaced
Minor-18
060.F.4.b
If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection to
with trees replanted on site, which does not support priorities to
achieve the required number of trees, the applicant shall
retain, then replant before assessing fees in lieu (see Minor #16).
make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not
May be challenged as denying reasonable use of private property
planted pursuant to this subsection.
(RCW 82.02.020).
080.E.3
Fees in lieu of replanting (III)
Significantly reduces the total of the appraised values of removed
For each significant tree greater than 24" DBH removed, a
trees >24" DBH.
fee based on an appraisal of the tree value... shall be
required.
Recommendation: Combine 060 and 080 fee in lieu requirements in
sequence, according to retention, replanting and payment priorities
Removed
Required
Fee in Lieu of
Tree DBH
Replacements
Replanting
6-10"
1
$1,000 per
10.1-14"
2
required tree
14.1 - 24"
3
>24„
Appraised
Appraised
Value
Value
Less than 3
3 trees per
$1,000 per
existing trees
8, 000 sq. ft. lot
required tree
on site
area
Both
Fees in lieu of replanting (IV) using a chart format. Strike the arbitrary and redundant $2,500 fee
080.E.4 In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this in lieu. Examine effects of the $2 per square foot "cap."
subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area.
*TO CONSIDER A SINGLE RETENTION/REPLACEMENT SYSTEM USING A
FORMULA APPROACH, SEE MODERATE #3,
*TO CONSIDER ELIMINATING THE $2 PER SQUARE FOOT "CAP" SEE MAJOR
#7.
Code provisions for the Tree Fund are in a different Chapter (ECDC
3.95) and are not cross-referenced throughout 23.10, causing
procedural confusion.
Minor-19 080.E, et al How fees in lieu of replanting are paid .. deposited into the Cit 's Tree Fund per ECDC 3.95. Both
...fees shall be deposited into the city's tree fund. Recommendation: update Tree Fund references throughout ECDC p Y
23.10.
*TO CONSIDER MOVING TREE FUND CODE PROVISIONS INTO ECDC 23.10,
SEE MODERATE #12.
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
Redundant and incorrect code reference
Incorrect code reference: (F)(3) refers to the same section,
Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
whereas (F)(4) describes requirements if there are not enough
Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment,
Minor-20
060.C.1
redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection
existing significant trees. Use of term "substitute" is confusing.
e t .,nde .tiGn ) th;s seGtien be
Development
Ge as substituted ubse P(3i of shall
(F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows...
retained as follows...
Recommendation: Strike "substitution" reference.
Incorrect code reference
ECDC 23.10.040.E does not refer to hazard/nuisance trees, it
Trees... located within... critical areas and their associated buffers, or that
Trees... located within... critical areas and their associated
relates to routine landscaping and vegetation management. ECDC
forion
have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed
protection
Minor-21
060.C.2
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for
23.10.040.E does relate to hazard/nuisance trees.
except as provided fore ECDC hazard and nuisance
Development
protection shall not be removed except as provided for in
,
trees...
ECDC 23.10.040(E), hazard and nuisance trees...
Recommendation: replace E with F.
Overly complex code language is not user-friendly. Lack of code
simplicity/clarity leads to lower quality permit applications and lower
overall code compliance.
Moderate-1
040
"Exemptions"
Both
Recommendation: Reorganize disparate sections, separate
ADDRESSES MINOR #12, BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
property owner tree removal requirements from development
requirements. Restructure code to reduce "exemptions," add
"allowances" to define what IS allowed, versus what's NOT.
Code does not establish tree condition ratings to define trees
Tree condition related to development review process
worthy of retention and arborists' condition ratings vary widely,
020.H,
020. X,
Definitions for hazard, viable and specimen trees and
resulting in code interpretation issues and prolonged reviews.
Moderate-2
060.
"priority one" trees identified for retention with development.
Development
Recommendation: define tree condition applicable to trees retained
ADDRESSES MINOR #6, 7, BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
with development, based on industry standards, i.e., dead, poor,
good, excellent, etc.
The current code uses 5 different replanting methods and 3 fees in
lieu methods to mitigate trees removed by property owners or with
development. This combination of tree replacement systems is not
equitable across varying existing site conditions, i.e., no trees
060.C.5,
Tree replacement requirements
versus heavily wooded sites (Tree Board 10/6/22).
Moderate-3
0605,
080.A.1-3
ADDRESSES MINOR #15-18 BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
Recommendation: Consider using one methodology/calculation to
Both
determine the minimum number of trees to be replanted. For
example: x number of trees per area (square feet or acre), or x
number of trunk diameter inches per area (also known as minimum
required tree density).
Appraised values are subjective and logistically problematic with
phased development.
Appraisal requirement for trees >24" DBH
Moderate-4
080.E.3
Recommendation: Revise to require tree planting 1st, before
Both
ADDRESSES MINOR #16, BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
assessing fees in lieu.
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 32
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
PropertyPOLICY
`TO CONSIDER FEE IN LIEU OPTIONS WHEN PLANTING IS NOT FEASIBLE TO
REPLACE REMOVED VIABLE TREES >24" DBH, SEE MAJOR #7.
Location of trees required to be retained w/
Various terminology is confusing and does not establish clear
development
priorities for retained trees based on location. The code does not
"Developable site" is defined as the gross site area of a lot,
address sites entirely encumbered by critical areas.
020.D
minus critical areas and buffers.
Moderate-5
060.D.2.b
Recommendation: Revise definition/language for consistency
Development
0601.4
Other code language:
throughout Chapter. Clarify "outside of the improved area of the
trees within the required yard setbacks or around the
site..." Consider prioritizing tree retention by location (outside the
perimeter... existing trees outside of the improved
building envelope or within setbacks) or other defined location of
areas ... trees in non -developable areas...
high retention value trees.
When calculating tree retention requirements, the code doesn't
provide guidelines for fractions. Without guidelines, some
Moderate-6
060.C.1
Tree retention threshold calculation - fractions
applicants wish to interpret any fraction up to .99 less than a whole
Development
number as justification to round down.
Recommendation: round up or down at .5 fractions
Use of various terms (may, should, must, shall) can be confusing
and result in code interpretation issues, although the intent of many
0,
Code flexibility versus ambiguous language
of these terms is to allow some flexibility in the code.
Moderate-7
070.C.30C-F
080..D.2,,
Director may... [allow, require, approve, consider, etc.]
Both
090.A
Recommendation: Consider areas of the code that require
flexibility. Replace "must," "should" and "may" with uniform,
intended code language.
Code emphasizes assessing fees in lieu, versus tree planting to
mitigate removed trees. Application of the "cap" significantly
reduces opportunities to purchase/plant trees offsite.
Moderate-8
080.E.4
Fee in lieu "cap" at $2 per square foot
Recommendation: Adjust the code to prioritize tree planting to
Development
replace >24" DBH trees removed with development.
TO CONSIDER ELIMINATING/REDUCING THE $2 PER SQUARE FOOT "CAP"
SEE MAJOR #9
Performance and maintenance bonds
SF property owners assume developers will maintain protected and
C. A 2-year maintenance bond shall be required after the
newly planted trees due to maintenance bonds.
installation of required site improvements... to ensure
Moderate-9
090.C-D
adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and
Recommendation: Examine post -development tree mortality and
Both?
site improvements.
effectiveness of performance bonds. Consider emphasizing
property owner (not developer) maintenance responsibilities with a
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots
3-5 Year Maintenance Agreement. Consider bonds for commercial
from a maintenance bond...
landscapes (MF) only.
Moderate-10
020.1
Grove definition and retention priority
Consider changes to the code in response to 2015-2019 canopy
"forest
Development
study findings to slow the loss of patches" with development
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 33
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
060.D
Definition: a group of three or more significant trees with
and protect ecological functions (City Council 6/21/22, Planning
overlapping or touching crowns.
Board 9/14/22).
Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
Recommendation: Require that groves be identified on tree
following order of priority... [groves are not specifically
retention plans, assign a high priority retention status.
identified]
Without including noxious/invasive species language in the hazard
Hazard tree definition
tree definition, a permit or arborist report would be required to allow
Dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective
their removal. On development sites, they would be required to be
Moderate-11
020.H
as determined by a qualified tree professional.
retained or mitigated (Tree Board 11/3/22).
Both
ADDRESSES MINOR #1, BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
Recommendation: Refer to state/county noxious/invasive
regulators.
The code provisions for the Tree Fund are in a different Chapter
How fees in lieu of replanting are paid
(ECDC 3.95) and is not cross-referenced throughout 23.10, causing
Moderate-12
080.E, et al
...shall be deposited into the city's tree fund.
procedural confusion.
ADDRESSES MINOR #19, BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
Recommendation: move Tree Fund code provision from ECDC
3.95 into ECDC 23.10.
New codes that:
Address:
How many trees can be removed atone time?
• Limit the number of property owner tree removals within a
Is 12 months between allowed removals appropriate?
specific
What are appropriate replacement requirements?
Major-1
-
Property owner tree removals
• Don't require apame.ermit/fee, but tracks removals over time
require
using it notification process that can check for conditions
Should there be a minimum number of trees required to remain
Property
Not clearly identified in the current code
like critical areas.
on the property? Should a permit be required for their removal?
Owner
• Allow limited Landmark tree removal, with notification.
Should their removal be prohibited unless they're hazard or
nuisance?
(City Council 2021 direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments)
What resources are in place for tracking/processing permits?
• How to define Landmark tree (see Major #3)
Consider requiring permits for all property owner tree removals.
Permit requirements for property owner tree removals
Slow loss of "forest patches" on private property in response to
Property
Major-2
-
Not clearly identified in the current code
canopy study findings. Protect ecological functions.
0 Should process involve a permit/fee? Or a notification process?
Owner
(City Council 6/21/22 direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments).
Define Landmark trees to address incremental loss of canopy cover
on private property in response to canopy study findings, protect
Major-3
_
Landmark tree definition
ecological functions. Do not define by location on development
Is >24" DBH size appropriate?
Both
Not in current code
sites
(City Council 6/21/22 direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments).
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 34
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
IMPACT'
23.10...
or Property
and contradictory code provisions result in excessive
0 Should paid "tree cutting permits" be allowed for the removal of
unauthorized tree removals in critical areas, without adequate
healthy trees in critical areas?
resources to enforce or require penalty fines. Current code does
0Would permits to remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas
little to protect ecological functions and results in negative impacts
address code enforcement issues and lack of penalty fine
Major-4
040 & 050
Tree removal in critical areas
"may"be
to water quality and landslide hazard areas. Leads to incremental
collection?
Property
040.F ... removed with documentation...
loss of canopy cover due to removal of "forest patches" per canopy
Should hazard/nuisance tree removals be allowed on vacant lots
Owner
in critical areas (unless targeting adjacent property structures)?
study findings.
Should there be an appeal process for property owner tree
removal permits?
(City Council 6/21/22 direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments).
0 Should there be a fee in lieu of replanting 2:1 in critical areas?
Tree topping in critical areas
020. V. Tree removal - direct or indirect removal of a
tree(s) ... through actions including... clearing, cutting,
girdling, topping...
050.D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all
native growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per ECDC 23.40-23.90...
Frequent, numerous, complex code enforcement cases resulting
from tree removal/topping in critical areas resulting from
020.V
23.40.220.8.b. (Allowed activities in critical areas include...)
contradictory and inconsistent code language in various code
The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are
sections. Difficulty in verifying previously approved topping in the
050.D
hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an
past 5 years.
Should wildlife snags be required for the removal of
Property
Major-5
imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas?
Owner
23.40.220.8.
ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown
thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified
Protect and avoid negative impacts to critical areas. Slow the loss
23.40.005
professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not
of canopy cover due to large tree removal in critical areas and loss
sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed
of "forest patches" in response to canopy study findings, protect
or converted to wildlife snags;
ecological functions.
23.40.005 Critical area definitions
"Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of
shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch
diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other
year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has
been previously approved by the city in the past five years.
Emergency tree removals
vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or
23.40.220.C.
danger to public health or safety, to public or private
The current code does not consider that emergency tree removals
Move applicable text from 23.40.22.C.8.b.vi or other in 23.10.040 with
Property
Major-6
8 b
property, or of serious environmental degradation may be
may be applicable to property owners, outside of critical areas.
new property owner tree removal code provisions.
Owner
removed or pruned by the landowner prior to receiving
written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days
following such action, the landowner shall submit a
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDCDevelopment
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
IMPACT'
23.10...
or Property
Owner?
restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the
provisions of this title;
Under the current code, removed trees >24" DBH are not mitigated
through planting, only through fees in lieu based on appraised
Fees in lieu for removed trees >24" DBH
values. Applicants typically opt for the $2 per square foot "cap,"
For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH
reducing the mitigation potential.
removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value...
Major-7
080.E.3
using trunk formula method in the current edition of the
Still, a fee in lieu option is needed if replanting is not feasible;
Both
Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required.
however, appraised value method is subjective and logistically
Problematic with phased development (See Minor #16)
WORKS IN TANDEM WITH MODERATE #4 (REPLANTING OPTION)
WHEN REPLANTING IS NOT FEASIBLE.
Recommendation: codify replanting options. Provide a simple
formula or calculation ($ per inches DBH) versus appraised value.
Consider changes to the Conservation Subdivision design
standards, ECDC 20.75.048 (City Council 6/21/22).
20.75.048 &
Conservation Subdivision
Major-8
060, 0601.2
Recommendation: require a minimum tree retention threshold that
Development
ADDRESSES MINOR #13, BUT WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
is higher than the 50% fee in lieu exemption in addition to moving to
23.10 as described in Minor #13.
Code requires payment of fees in lieu to replace >24" DBH trees
Fee in lieu "cap" at $2 per square foot
removed with development, versus tree planting. However, data
In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this
indicates the "cap" significantly reduces fees in lieu for trees
Major-9
080.E.4
subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area.
removed with development (Tree Board 11/3/22).
Development
ADDRESSES MODERATE #8 WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
Recommendation: Eliminate or reduce the cap. Emphasize on -site
tree planting to replace trees >24" DBH removed with development.
Consider other land use/development types that may have
Tree retention with other development types
opportunities for tree retention (Planning Board 9/14/22).
Tree retention plan/review is required for single family,
Major-10
030.C, 060.A
multifamily, short plat and subdivision development only.
Recommendation: Examine data on existing tree retention within
Development
ADDRESSES MINOR #5 WITH GREATER POLICY IMPACTS
required buffers of COMM, Office, Mixed Use, etc. and consider
tree retention requirements.
MF zoning allows max build -out and greater impervious surface
areas for fire lanes, parking lots, other structures. Tree planting is
required per MF landscaping requirements/buffers already. Fees in
Major-11
060.C.1
MF/unit lot subdivision 25% retention requirements
lieu may be considered a takings challenge (RCW 82.02.020).
Development
Recommendation: Examine MF 25 /o tree retention effectiveness
versus time spent in review. If tree planting on MF sites through
buffer/landscaping requirements is acceptable, strike MF retention
requirements to simplify code and streamline review process.
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 11121122
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Applies
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENTCODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Development
Property
Owner?
Code emphasizes "meeting a quota" instead of retaining trees of
merit (quantitative vs qualitative). Adjust to respond to canopy study
findings loss of "forest patches" in critical areas and protect
ecological functions.
Major-12
060.D., F
Tree retention "priorities and procedures"
Recommendation: Reformat to chart form, adjust priorities. Replace
Development
subjective Priority Ones with specific qualitative retention criteria.
Strike "over 60 feet in height" and replace with (new) Landmark
definition. Move "trees within required yard setbacks," groves and
critical areas to Priority One. Revise "priorities and procedures" so
focus is on high -value viable trees located in setbacks or other non -
buildable areas (Planning Board 9/14/22).
Revise general zoning/development codes' maximum allowed
MULTIPLE
setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, etc. for greater tree retention
Outside OF
COMP
COMP
Not in ECDC 23.10, not in UFMP
beyond what's allowed with a Conservation Subdivision Design
Development
scope
PLAN
(20.75.048). [Major ECDC code amendments, possibly
Comprehensive Plan updates] (Planning Board 9/14/22).
Ensure Landmark trees/groves are protected in perpetuity to
preserve canopy cover and protect ecological functions.
Recommendation: Consider program that compensates property
Outside OF
New
INCENTIVE
Not in code, not in UFMP
owners for large tree retention with development (Transfer of
Development
scope
Development Rights program). Use funds collected from fees in lieu
or create a new account [check with Finance]. See TDR state laws.
City Legal to draft covenant template, property owner required to
submit with site plan, (+maintenance plan?), recorded on title.
Voluntary Tree Conservation Easement (Covenant?) to protect
Outside OF
scope
New
INCENTIVE
Not in code, not in UFMP
trees in perpetuity, preserve canopy cover and protect ecological
Property
Owner
functions. City Legal to draft covenant template.
Outside OF
No process, may be outcome of Equitable Engagement
Unknown
Framework or Comp Plan process to analyze/revise City
Build greater equity into the tree code (Planning Board 9/14/22)
Both
scope
codes for diversity, equity, and inclusion
'POLICY IMPACT
Minor - Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references,
including industry standards, Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate - Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any amendments above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major - Adds extensive new requirements or substantially prohibits/bans something currently allowed; amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Packet Pg. 37
7.A.c
ATTACHMENT 1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes - June 21, 2022
...Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis declared a 5-minute break at 9:29 p.m.
:u ►�u
Acting Planning Manager Kernen Lien recalled in 2021, the council spent a significant amount of time
developing a new tree code which was adopted for the final time in July 2021. At that time, there were
discussions about stage 2 of the tree code update, but that has been delayed due to the director retiring and
advertising for an urban forest planner. Now that a new director and an urban forest planner have been hired,
phase 2 of the tree code is beginning.
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers reviewed the Tree Code Update Phase II:
• Context (benefits)
RE000IXG RATES
AL
COOEIXG.��t..rr.N.l� z-t" v,
fTL7ERIXG uri,,..luN n[Me
�.n'�rM rv=la�r.�o.aafa
►ROTE[TIRGBIO0FYM N DMFNG OBESITY LEVELS
�ixltidinr O.Im.if•� a I.. .. xiA�. i .
h,M• nl rv�llirai••ry in iw �oR...� w.nl � Ynp
MAXAGIX4 STORMWAI[R,
W S
lNCRCASIMG
R+d�•I�.oe L�c.+sY nle..
SSOW1MSSTSifipndEYR
FtlMnER PILXsIea
Mr�ft+ed•Ip.�
Project scope
1. Follow 2021 council prior direction
• Develop draft code that allow:
• Certain number of tree removals at a time
• Time period between allowed removals
• Limited landmark tree removals
2. Consider minor changes to current code
• Council prior direction related to regulating property owner tree removals
• Simplify!
Minor code updates - don't change intent of code
BMPs, industry standards
Interpretation issues/challenges
Reflect canopy data findings
o Landmark trees
o Forest patches
Continue to implement UFMP goals
Council minutes reflect concern with how goals in UFMP would be implemented in
relation to phase 2 code amendments
12 UFMP goals have been achieved since UFMP was published in 2019
• Estimated project timeline
o June 2022: June 2023 - Monthly Planning Board Meetings
o June 2022: Project Scoping
o July 2022: Tree Board Retreat
o Aug 2022 - Jan 2023 Public Engagement
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.c
o September 2022: Joint Tree Board -Planning Board Retreat
o November 2022: Council check -in
o Jan 2023: Joint Tree Board -Planning Board Retreat
o April 2023: Council Check -in
o June 2023: Final Code Adoption
Planning Division Work Plan - OF Efforts
o Development permit review (ongoing)
o Property owner tree removals (ongoing)
o Code enforcement (ongoing)
o Tree Code Amendments
o Street Tree Plan - Parks, Public Works, Planning
o Review UFMP goal implementation (2024)
Ms. Powers advised staff is not seeking council action; council direction is welcome.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed during the past year one citizen, Linda Ferkingstad, has provided
comment to the council on a weekly basis regarding property where she wanted to develop three homes.
She encouraged staff to include Ms. Ferkingstad in the community engagement because she is very upset
and concerned and anything staff can do to communicate with her would be a step in the right direction.
Ms. Powers advised a stakeholder list is being developed and Ms. Ferkingstad would be a great stakeholder.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was not on council during the last deliberation. He liked the idea of limiting
the number trees that can be removed at one time and establishing a period of time before others can be
removed. He did not see a recommendation in the materials regarding replacing trees. For example,
someone may remove a very large native tree and replace it with two fruit trees. A requirement to replace
with native trees may be appropriate. With regard to limiting the number of trees that can be removed, he
recalled talking with a neighbor about diseased trees in another neighbor's yard. He suggested the City
would not want to limit the removal of diseased trees, but there should be an expectation for replacement.
Councilmember Tibbott said his house was built in the 1960s so at one point all the trees were cleared
except for one very large, well -placed tree that he did not expect to ever remove. Another neighbor also has
a very large, perfectly placed native tree. Replacing trees with better placed trees on the lot is preferable to
just removing trees. Ms. Powers said options 5 and 6 provided to council and included in the memo address
tree replacement. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a recommendation related to the size of a
replacement tree. Ms. Power said that will be considered. There is currently 1:1 which may not be sufficient
when a very large or landmark tree is removed and replaced with a new 2" tree. There can also be
replacement requirements based on the size of the tree, for example the trunk diameter of the tree removed
equals a certain number of replacement trees.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to recommendations but was not opposed to a 1:1 replacement as
long as the replacement tree was larger. It was his understanding that larger trees with larger root balls grow
more quickly. Ms. Powers said larger trees also provide more benefits. The development code replacement
requirements are related to the size of tree that is removed. She suggested starting there.
Councilmember Paine commented review of the tree code last year was a lot of work and a lot of changes
were made from dais, so she was certain there was some repetition in the existing code. She strongly
encouraged consideration of permitting for all tree removal. It could be a low-cost permit; tracking permits
will allow the City to track loss of canopy and degradation of the environment. She commented on the
importance of concentrating on canopy preservation. The preserved canopy and developing the canopy
more fully conveys a lot of benefits to the greater community. She was glad Ms. Powers had been hired and
was also pleased with the development code changes, moving away from the destruction of every blade of
grass to preserving some tree canopy. She looked forward to more discussion.
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.c
Councilmember Chen said he was not on the council for the last round of tree code discussions. Protecting
the environment is of utmost importance for the community and he thanked staff for their hard work in that
regard. He recalled while campaigning, having conversations with homeowners who were concerned with
the City implementing a tree code and sacrificing their private property to retain trees. He encouraged staff
to look at options such as establishing a tree fund to compensate property owners who have problems with
their trees such as diseased trees or trees on property they are planning to develop. He suggested looking at
ways to give them the freedom to the replace trees so they can realize their dreams while protecting the
trees and the environment. Ms. Powers said with the adoption of the tree code for development last year, a
tree fund was established as a result of trees mitigation. For example, if trees were required to be planted
for development and the site was too small or other reasons, the applicant can pay fees in lieu of planting.
There are very specific expenditures from the tree fund that are outlined in the code. The fund also includes
penalties and fees from unauthorized removal. Councilmember Chen emphasized the need to inform
homeowners about those resources via social media or other methods.
Mayor Pro Tern Buckshnis said she was on tree board for five years. Last year, everything was handled
very disjointedly late at night so the code needs to be simplified. She offered to provide Ms. Powers
information from last year instead of her reviewing all the minutes. She recommended looking at the design
standards which were blindly passed and did not address 20.48.075, conservation subdivision design
standards. She agreed with Councilmember Paine about a low-cost permit process for tree removal because
people are still removing trees. She also was interested in a heritage tree program. The tree board was not
supportive of a heritage tree program because it could eventually get diseased. The tree board wanted other
ways to incentivize or recognize trees.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING
NO.
Councilmember K. Johnson said a lot had been done with codes and penalties and suggested thinking about
a carrot approach. For example, a program where a homeowner is given $1000 to preserve a landmark tree
or maintain a tree on their property. She anticipated more trees could be saved that way. With the existing
tree code, people are cutting down trees because they don't want to be charged to remove them as evidenced
by a lot of logging occurring in her neighborhood. She encouraged staff to look at what other communities
are doing or incentives to protect trees from removal. Ms. Power agreed there are many tools for preserving
healthy, sustainable urban forest and codes and a regulatory approach is one of the tools. Within the scope
of implementing the goals of the UFMP, a lot of the incentives for a heritage tree program already exist
and it is simply a matter of implementing them as resources allow. The conservation subdivision, which is
within the framework of a regulatory approach, is an incentive for developers to retain more trees, and that
has worked. This project will focus on the regulatory side since it is a code update, but consideration will
also be given to other incentives in the code, public education, the work the tree board does, etc. along with
the tree code update.
6. PRESENTATION OF 76TH AVE. W A 220TH ST. SW INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT UPDATE
Packet Pg. 40
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 12, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
Board Member Campbell recommended moving the Park and Facilities maintenance building up in the
schedule, if possible, based on current conditions and the expansion of the Parks Department. Board
Member Rosen concurred.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Amendments AMD2022-0004
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers presented the remaining minor tree code amendments and some related
moderate/major code amendments. She explained that the new list shows potential code amendments
arranged by policy impact. Minor Code Amendments #1-11 have already been discussed at a previous
meeting. Ms. Powers stressed that the intent of the amendments is to clarify and simplify the code, not
change the intent.
Minor Code Amendments 412-19 / Easy to Fix per Scope:
12. Add "subject to review"
13. Clarify when a permit is required
14. Identify priorities, incentives, and variations ...
15. Emphasize Conservation Subdivision Design
16. Clarify requirement for replacement trees
17. Use chart format, add "viable"
18. Reformat to clarify order of priority: retain, plant pay fee
19. Consistently reference "City Tree Fund"
Ms. Powers then introduced possible related moderate/major code amendments which change the existing
code:
12. Define tree condition for retention with development
13. Restructure as "Allowances"
17. Consider replanting option for >24" DBH (diameter at breast height) trees (major)
6. Retain trees with more development types (major)
7. Define tree condition for retention
20. Reorganize ECDC 23.10
21. Define location of high priority trees retained with development.
Chair Pence expressed a concern that if they make "major" or "moderate" changes there is a possibility
that they will be undoing what they did in the minor category. He wondered if they should tackle the
major or moderate amendments first. Ms. Powers explained why they were progressing through the code
amendments this way.
Board Member Campbell said she would like to see the minor changes included (redlined) when
reviewing the minor and major code amendments so they can better understand what they are considering.
Ms. Powers agreed that would simplify the process. She stated she would show all the minor code
changes in a marked -up code and they could move forward with looking at the moderate and major code
amendments. She reviewed the next steps on the project timeline and suggested that November 30 could
be a special joint meeting with the Tree Board. Chair Pence thought that would be helpful and indicated
he and Tree Board Chair Janelle Cass would try to get together prior to that.
Packet Pg. 41
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Board Member Rosen also encouraged the joint meeting and the idea of looking at all the minor code
amendments incorporated into the code. He referred to public engagement on the timeline and asked what
they have in mind. Ms. Powers replied they are behind schedule, but they are internally reviewing an RFP
to send out to find a consultant to help with developing and implementing the plan. Board Member Rosen
expressed concern about the timeline. He noted that they are moving on from minor amendments to
moderate and major ones, but the public stakeholders haven't had an opportunity to weigh in, and staff
doesn't have an RFP out yet. He thought this could send the message that they don't really care and are
just going to move ahead.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 12, 2022 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Powers pointed out that the minor
amendments they have finished are things that don't change the intent of the code. The joint meeting with
the Tree Board is just the first of several that will likely be happening. The purpose is just to check in with
each other at this early stage in the process. Board Member Rosen didn't think they should assume that
the public would necessarily see the minor amendments the same way they do. He thinks it sends a poor
message if they go too far without stakeholders. Ms. Powers concurred. Mr. Lien agreed that the sooner
they could get public engagement the better, but he thought it would be fine to have the joint meeting with
the Tree Board early in the process and prior to the public engagement.
There was consensus to have a joint meeting to touch base with the Tree Board about the minor code
amendments (integrated into the code) and talk about what the public engagement might be. There was
agreement to not go any further with code changes until the City has a consultant on board and has
developed the public engagement plan. Chair Pence referred to a letter from Natalie Seitz and noted that
this would be in line with her concerns about stakeholder involvement.
B. City Council Joint Meeting
September 14, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Amendments
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Phase II Tree Code
Amendments. She stated tonight's focus was on the low-level policy code amendments and that
staff will be asking if this general direction is appropriate. The current tree code was adopted in
response to the Urban Forest Management Plan Goal IA: Update tree regulations to reduce
clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree
replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Both the Planning Board and the
Council directed staff to do the Phase 11 Tree Code Amendments in 2022. The project scope for
the Phase II Tree Code Amendments is to limit property owner tree removal (major) and
consider minor amendments to the current code that would simplify, match industry
standards/BMPs, streamline the review process, and address code interpretation issues.
Packet Pg. 42
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
She started by reviewing preliminary code amendments that would have no policy level impact.
She invited board members to give feedback on their attempts to work through development
scenarios she had provided.
Vice Chair Pence brought up a project at 240th and 87th and noted that developers routinely
clearcut the entire lot of trees and replant trees. He asked if this would no longer be possible. Ms.
Powers explained that the current code strives to retain as many viable trees as possible while
letting the development move ahead in a timely manner. The code requires a certain threshold for
tree retention depending on what type of development it is. From there the code acts to prioritize
how and what they are retaining. Developers are not able to just pay the fees right off the bat;
they are required to show infeasibility if they are unable to retain the required trees. Vice Chair
Pence commented that the project site had a cluster of very significant trees that were removed.
He wondered if the project could have been worked out in a way to preserve the trees.
Board Member Gladstone asked about the development scenarios provided by staff. Ms. Powers
explained these are examples of what the Planning Division reviews. They help to illustrate
issues with the current Tree Code. Vice Chair Pence asked about flexibility to allow developers
to have sub -minimum setbacks if that will allow the saving of trees. Ms. Powers explained that
setbacks are a requirement separate from the Tree Code. The Tree Code does not focus on saving
trees in setbacks, but this could be one way to simplify the code. She explained that the
Conservation Subdivision Design has incentives to give leeway in development standards if they
commit to greater tree retention right from the beginning.
Board Member Campbell stated she is also concerned about developers that are able to clearcut.
Because of negative examples of this she is opposed to allowing fees in -lieu -of. She is also
somewhat against replanting and prefers focusing on saving as many trees as possible upfront
with code amendments because replanting often results in poorly maintained plantings. She
noted that if developers are paying fees -in -lieu of they will just pass it on to the property
owner/renter thereby increasing housing costs in addition to destroying the environment. She
would like to see every possible barrier to using fees in -lieu -of. She asked why they want to
focus on no impact policy amendments. She thinks the big clearcutting examples would be more
important.
Ms. Powers explained that ultimately the Tree Code is trying to establish a healthy urban forest
20 years from now. It is a balance between growth/development and tree retention. Not every
tree should be retained on a development site if it can't sustain development impacts and is not
the kind of tree in 20 years that will be part of a healthy urban forest. She agrees with the
prioritization of retention, replanting, and then fees -in -lieu as the lowest priority. Finally, she
referred to the no -impact policy amendments are just a start to create a basic framework before
they move up to the other code amendments.
Board Member Campbell expressed concern about the time it will take to address these small
things while damage is allowed to continue. She is looking forward to addressing the
prioritization aspect.
Packet Pg. 43
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Ms. Powers explained that there are 11 preliminary amendments which fall into the categories
of:
• Definitions — hazard tree, Limits of Disturbance (LOD), nuisance, qualified professional
• Property owner tree removal — clarify emergency tree removal process
• Tree retention with development — show development types that require tree retention,
add "viable", allow silt fence, strike "must", replace "developer" with "applicant".
Board Member Rosen commented that the City needs to reconcile the tension between the desire
to have additional housing and the desire to save habitat and trees. They also have to be aware of
unintended impacts such as increasing housing costs which conflicts with other goals. He asked
if they are looking at legal liability risks related to tree codes. He heard that Kirkland was being
sued over their tree code, and a Michigan township went to federal court that said having people
who remove trees pay into a tree fund was unconstitutional. He asked for clarification about what
constitutes risk (for "tree at risk"). He asked if the City is certifying arborists so they maintain a
level of excellence. He wondered about using the phrase, "The director may ..." since it seems
subjective.
Ms. Powers acknowledged the tension between cost of housing, development, and growth and
the loss of canopy cover and habitat. Reconciling this is the purpose of the Tree Code. She
commented that Kirkland is not being sued, but the Master Builders of King and Snohomish
County have filed a petition with the Growth Management Act Hearings Board on the
constitutionality of Kirkland's tree code. Mr. Lien commented that staff has been in consultation
with the City Attorney as part of the code development process.
Ms. Powers stated that there is a methodology described by the International Society of
Arboriculture to come up with a score for the risk of a given tree. The code would refer to this
methodology to determine risk. Regarding having certified arborists, she noted that the City
requires one of two of five different credentials. She referred to the "director may" verbiage and
acknowledged that this is subjective, but it also provides flexibility. This is another point of
balance — between predictability and flexibility.
Board Member Gladstone commented that in the scenarios the trees had to be planned around the
buildings. She recommended looking at this more holistically. For, example, she suggested that
maybe the building requirements need to be reconsidered so that the buildings have a smaller
footprint to preserve more trees. Perhaps this would result in a smaller, lower -priced building
with more trees. Ms. Powers explained that would be a major code amendment, but it could be
looked at. Director McLaughlin agreed with looking at the symbiotic relationship between these
things. Board Member Gladstone recommending thinking about how they balance the tree code
requirements with existing homeowners, so they don't end up with disparate impacts.
Board Member Campbell said that after listening to the various concerns raised in the discussion
tonight, she understood the justification of addressing the "low hanging fruit" first and is
supportive of trying to get these minor amendments resolved.
B. Climate Action Plan Update
Packet Pg. 44
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 13, 2022 Planning Board Meeting
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Clugston said staff would look at the extended agenda to see when they could bring this
back.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Phase II Tree Code Amendments.
The City's new Urban Forest Planner, Deb Powers, made a presentation regarding the Phase II
Tree Code Amendments. She briefly reviewed the benefits of trees which is the basis of the tree
codes. The City of Edmonds' Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is the guidance document
which has a goal (Goal IA) of updating tree regulations "to reduce clearcutting or other
development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements
and penalties for code violations." This was accomplished last year with the adoption of the
current Tree Code. At that time the Council indicated they wanted to consider codes that limit
property owner tree removal with what is known as the Phase II Code Amendments. Council's
preferred options for property owner tree removals was to limit the number of tree removals,
have a certain waiting period between removals, and consider limiting landmark tree removals
without a permit or fees.
Questions related to this are:
• What should trigger a permit or fees?
• Should there be a minimum number of existing trees?
• What about replacements?
There is now consideration of expansion of the Phase II Code Amendments. The expanded scope
would be to limit property owner tree removal, consider minor changes to the current code (both
development and property owners) and continue UFMP implementation. Minor code
amendments relate to simplifying the code, align with Best Management Practices (BMPs),
streamline the review process, address code interpretation issues, and address canopy study
findings. Attachment 2 is a list of the preliminary code amendments with justification and pros
and cons of the proposed amendments. Ms. Powers solicited Board feedback about the scope of
the project and the general approach.
Comments/Questions:
Board Member Cloutier spoke in support of the scope and acknowledged the challenge of
balancing tree preservation with personal freedoms.
Board Member Rosen also agreed with the scope and welcomed Ms. Powers to Edmonds.
Vice Chair Pence asked about the community engagement process. Ms. Powers replied that tree
codes are complex and controversial. She stated that there will be a robust public engagement
Packet Pg. 45
7.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
process. The Planning Board will be hearing Director McLaughlin's presentation about the
equitable engagement framework which will be used for the outreach. Some methods of
collecting public feedback include: a community survey, events like the farmers market, possible
open houses, and developing stakeholder lists by groups.
Vice Chair Pence asked about the possibility of ending up with a code that is acceptable to all
stakeholder groups. Ms. Powers replied that would be ideal but acknowledged there are very
polarizing points of view with regulating trees on private property. The goal is not necessarily to
please everybody.
Board Member Gladstone acknowledged the difficult task of developing this code. She hopes the
public feedback that they receive will include what types of solutions people have and not just
their likes and dislikes. Ms. Powers agreed that this will be important and what they hope to
draw out of people. She discussed the challenges of balancing growth with a livable city and
environmental quality.
Vice Chair Pence suggested focusing on incentives rather than penalties. He suggested fewer
"sticks" and more "carrots". Ms. Powers agreed and noted that the UFMP is a toolbox that
includes both "carrots" and "sticks".
Board Member Cheung pointed out the importance of protecting the interests of people who
might be impacted by this but don't know it yet.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed and facilitated discussion regarding the extended agenda and pending items
for future
Packet Pg. 46
rc�• , "� � _�' `�+.'�,+ 1` j •� 1 ���� \}�' v •tom ---.1 �'p} •i `^' _ y'-,�•��, .��
- • : ` - � AA � �.e _ .. 1 ri'y; 1 if �iL'tii � a R `i�''� s..�tY7�{ � ,A �r� '*�L'.�_ 1y, T. r :•• i
`' `' �: • 1 .1�1 •\i;, ".' tea. .._y n' Vl-
_
Aj
UP
IN
� �-. � � ,y �l �+- , � ��� •• � 'lam � `a• ��` +1 t�•-w.'+�+ ,�� -, :� ,$ •'C •.�' , �.� r+, �� .`'HA•. r
� •,��` � •' � • `: }may*��� `_ �•�+ `� �' � . � f _ �'•`^� r�i.. ' :r !r�• .^ j _ a+� _ " ti � ,�
- r ..}. .t�,.� r. � ,-'� } mot..• •R'•'.r - w:� � k '� :. � .r{C_'��- - ,�
r ♦ yy ii ff.r}p
1 f: w � V . l.cu � ',ti a�`� l• 1 Y� 1•''F. •'�� r }.�1► r7r5 •A, i�_�YS! y�
I - 1
', �� .. l•�k �.q •� f� f. b '•�' wigs. .'A Y' i 1. y � y i
y C�.� r ( f �yy,pr ���r ' � .. % 6 �'1������ y�aj� -.� sr� .} � �, .FF.��'�. ��� •, •.._ __
Hn r, 4, %Y•f �� � ~�.
� : �..- ��,� "-, a=� '�,.�A..`� ,�# Ft�.�;; «fir, y ,�' , 'a .� i •.
iN
\ � �� - •�< ~ � -ya t� �� ,,�` 1 � •�- � 1 _''.' �'�i��'� t ;in J4'a('•. • I , ' .� , .. i •3yy r~ - - L'r •��i .
��,�1 Yt4v� ;- r. +„�Ili�'h:-+JK . 1.. 'r�l�p±, ("!.}�,i.. .'/�S �;� r' a e *,• L . ( .. �• ... .p-� -�� F �;'J r7
_ i� t �� .� r , , � ' � �� �� 4,+r� f`e " .+.s �,•.: r �, • i ::i�f�'s-_,��,�`� !. 1► � � -'�' , ?`q' � ."'�pr x� P""-- `"4�
_ S, 4 - f fi � �.� , � ¢F_ _+F ;�i ,.��� I +t +S '4 _ ► .i1 '�' . • y r _ - • t �`f _ '
•+ ,.� ' :" "4.az
•- _'�4 �h Y� �J "!u. ��h''':r°';" .�' ° �� "r}�,,'+ 1' * ' - mod' •}rJ - ,s-
h• •t�� t�.5 _ -_ • �s*w .� �. �._ ^-$ p�.'* M��� � 1 't (i��• 1.Tr-, �fi' Al ° � •.�? �!. �.� " A 1•.y �i� ,- ���" y,�.e'1�.y ji 'tF• � r' l=3'..• i �R'4 t.. 'r �t r � :�-..
.o y, s• .• • Y � Y 1 w� _� ? 'il+
. h. �/y���"{rt' 4: -,.., ,,aate� •�f� P` '�•� ��i; Y`M.
•s'�~ i�. ���u+ yt•t 9�.� �i ,* "rt�"Vf•'3 � - '•...+ -* - ;f C"�Tc.`�+'.��. '�`�;c �"�-' � _-+'.,r` .:t r - -
AS Aft An
An An
.t . w�iiti: La;�`-•� ��"c� ��}s d �+ r � ��p'�M � ti 'e�; .r_� �''� t .. �,,. * i; `'� ; es" '��'�'•a �-
� � ' �� s i -.a- a � �b '.tom �' r �. '�. � -r f • '� - 4V-•. J _«.'„ � •e
3r
...�
~
�M
w..
.
,�
. I ���SL. �� '^�r - • .i �_ r�Y'' a y'-I' �` ..
.N _•� rt' �.
/+P•1 �'���iy_.y, �`�^
I
'
I�.�._.•_•-L�_�..
• '��
.M •.k.
iS1 � � W •rlrs ---
�. y� ,,yes.,. -{�I ,� ,r sec'
yi!^
4001,
.t `� '" -
" �r�-
..,. ._. - "•"'�I� �4 Y...;:
� .;..
�; - ..
,..�w11P•
_
r
Alp
Owl
Nk,
..
-. Alf
$W.
Background
American Forests' Puget Sound Regional Ecosystem Analysis, 1998
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 49 1
Background
PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY REDUCING OBESITY LEVELS
including habitat for migrating by increasing physical activity
birds and pollinators including walking and cycling
REDUCING RATES
of cardiac disease, strokes, and
asthma due to improved air qualil
ik
COOLING city streets by 2-40 F,
reducing deaths from heat and
cutting energy use
FILTERING up to a third of fine
particle pollutants within
300 yards of a tree
*health, social, economic, environmental, aesthetic...
7.A.e
AANAGING STORMWATER,
eying pollutants out of waterways,
and reducing urban flooding
y`- $
INCREASING
neighborhood property values
REDUCING STRESS by helping
interrupt thought patterns that
lead to anxiety and depression
TheNature
Conservancy (N
Packet Pg. 50
T
Urban Forest
20,000 foot Overview
we
r
0
CD
c
m
Growth Management Act (RCW 6.70A)
v
a
- a
Compr ensive Pla
N
O
O
Zoning/Development Code LO
im
Guiding Documents, Internal Policies
Procedures, Incentive
Attachment: Attach 5 TB 07072022 PPT (Joint Meeting with the Tree Board (Tree Code
Code Update Process
Project management
• Scoping
• Establish timeline
• Public Engagement Plan + public hearing (draft code)
• SEPA, WA Dept. of Commerce (draft code)
• Recommendations to City Council (draft code)
•Adoption by Ordinance
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 53
I-V MILAWN, IL - �
4
0..
c
Mw
Scope
Objectives:
1. Follow City Council's prior direction (Phase II)
2. Consider minor changes to current code
3. Continue to implement the UF Management Plan
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 55
City Council Direction
2021
Develop draft code that allows:
• Certain # of tree removals at a time
• Time period between allowed removals
• Limited landmark tree removals
• What triggers apermit/permit fees?
• Minimum # existing trees?
• Replacements?
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 56
Minor Changes to Current Code
(Development -related)
• Minor = don't change intent of code
v/ Simplify, provide greater clarity
,vl Consistent with BMPs, industry standards
,vl Address interpretation issues
• Reflect canopy data findings
I/ "Forest patches"
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 57
Estimated Project Timeline
Tree Board
Retreat Joint TB-PB Council Joint TB-PB
7/7 Meeting Check -in Meeting
I
Monthly Planning Board Meetings
Project Scope _
----------------------
2022
Public Outreach
PLANNING DIVISION/URBAN FORESTR
• Development permit review (ongoing)
• Homeowner tree removals (ongoing)
• Code enforcement (ongoing)
• Tree Board —staff (ongoing)
• G^inepy AssessmeRt
• Phase II Tree Code Amendments
• Street Tree Plan — Parks, PW, Planning
• Review Ur -MP goal implementation (2uz_4)
Council
Check -in
7.A.e
Final Code Adoption
June 2023
Packet Pg. 58
7.A.e
In summary...
Phase II Tree Code Updates
1. Follow Council's prior direction
2. Consider minor changes to current code
3. Continue to implement UFMP
1
Deb Mo wers, r an Forest Planner
deb.powers@edmondswa.gov
A-h.-.Oh
0
4'
A
Packet Pg. 59
O
L
72
L
M
O
m
d
d
0
a
a
N
N
O
N
ti
O
ti
O
m
F-
LO
t
L)
ate+
Q
C
a
7.A.f
ATTACHMENT 6
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
November 3, 2022 DRAFT Tree Board Meeting Minutes
• Staff update on status of tree code amendments/Planning Board meeting report out — Ms. Powers gave
an update on the outcomes of the October 12 Planning Board meeting regarding the tree code
amendments. She summarized that the Planning Board is looking forward to touching base with the
Tree Board on the minor code amendments before moving forward.
Review process for input on tree code amendments. Board members discussed their experiences
using "track changes" in the FTP server. Some members expressed frustration about the process.
There was discussion about how all the comments will be incorporated. Ms. Powers noted there is
only one comment. Chair Cass thought that a shared document would be a little easier for board
members to use. Ms. Powers reviewed that it is a shared document and how all comments are tracked.
Ms. Powers explained that the FTP server is set up by the City's IT for all boards for this purpose.
Board Member Kliment noted she was opening the document live -time and using tracked changes
without difficulty. Councilmember Nand wondered if there was something that would be easier for
lay people to use and suggested if members are uncomfortable with the FTP process, they could bring
paper comments to the meeting as an alternative. Ms. Powers noted the comment sheet was requested
by the Tree Board so if it's not working, consider how other boards and Council review materials
before the meeting, then discuss and reach consensus at meetings. There was discussion about ways
they could compile written comments and help each other work this out. Councilmember Nand noted
that the Tree Board could have working groups outside of regular meeting times as long as they were
below quorum (three or fewer members). Ms. Powers deferred to the Director to decide on this.
Consensus on minor code amendments — review and vote. Vice Chair Phipps raised a concern about
what to do with Landmark Trees (greater than 24-inch DBH) under minor 16, Tree Replacement
Requirements. He recommended having a flat fee for those. Board Member Lyons moved that minor
code amendments 16-18 be reclassified as moderate because they require significant change to be
fully functional. Ms. Powers reviewed the difference between minor and major code amendments and
explained we're just trying to reach a consensus on the minor code amendments now. Board Member
Lyons thought that is why they should change those to moderate since they would likely be addressing
those at a later time. Ms. Powers agreed that the degree to which the code is changed will push it into a
moderate or major, as shown in the table. After significant discussion about the process Board
Member Lyons withdrew his motion and acknowledged that his recommendation of flagging
moderate and major code amendments was already shown in the table. Councilmember Nand spoke
to the importance of the detailed work that the Board is doing. She stated the by-laws say they can
make recommendations to the Council. Ms. Powers acknowledged that is why staff is working with
the Board at this level of detail.
Motion made by Board Member Eck, seconded by Vice Chair Phipps, to extend the meeting
for 15 minutes until 7:45. Motion passed unanimously.
Board Member Stavig referred to minor amendment 3, regarding the definition of a nuisance tree. He
wondered if this ought to be expanded to be "potential" or "threatening". Board Member Lyons said
he would like to see it defined as invasive or on the noxious weed list like hollies or cottonwoods as
opposed to potentially causing structural damage because almost any tree could do that. He said that
what Board Member Stavig was referring to was a "high risk" or hazard tree. Councilmember Nand
Packet Pg. 60
7.A.f
ATTACHMENT 6
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
cautioned that over the past few years she has heard of developers using very loose definitions of
nuisance trees to intimidate homeowners to cut down trees for aesthetic reasons. Ms. Powers noted
that the word "significant" within the nuisance tree definition is very subjective. There was discussion
about the difference between nuisance trees and high risk or hazardous trees. Board Member Lyons
recommended everyone write their comments on this for the next meeting.
Vice Chair Phipps referred to minor amendment 18, and said he had a problem with the $2/square foot
limit on fees -in -lieu of. He doesn't think this adequately takes into account the loss of significant trees and
weakens the tree code. Ms. Powers clarified that what he was referring to would be a major code
amendment.
• Moderate code amendments - timeline — continued to December meeting
October 8, 2022 Tree Board Meeting
1. 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 PlanningBoard?
oard?
— 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
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.
Packet Pg. 61
7.A.f
ATTACHMENT 6
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
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.
Regarding 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.
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.
Packet Pg. 62
7.A.f
ATTACHMENT 6
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
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.
September 19, 2022 Tree Board Special Meeting
Tree Code project status — Ms. Powers reported on her meeting with the Planning Board last week
regarding no -policy -impact code amendments and the systematic approach she was taking to
address the Tree Code amendments. She also discussed the Planning Board's major code
amendment recommendations to maximize tree retention. She encouraged the Tree Board to listen
to that meeting and be prepared for the upcoming joint meeting. Staff is recommending a focus on
simplifying the code and streamlining the review process.
Vice Chair Phipps spoke in support of counting trees greater than 24" as special trees. He argued
that the proposed change was not a minor change. Ms. Powers clarified that minor refers to the
policy impact and does not refer to how important the changes are. Chair Cass requested that staff
provide printouts of the proposed minor amendments.
There was discussion about expectations for the Tree Board's level of involvement in making code
changes and in the joint meeting. Vice Chair Phipps commented that the code states the Tree Board
is to be involved, but they have not been in the past. He expects to be involved either on his own as
a citizen or as part of the Tree Board but cautioned against expecting them to go through the code
on a line -by-line basis. Board Member Dimmick commented he didn't think the Tree Board was in
a position to write code but stated that they were interested in reviewing what others have written
and offer input. Board Member Eck spoke to the possibility of the Board's role being one of making
the code more understandable for the average Edmonds resident. Ms. Powers concurred.
She discussed potential objectives of the Tree Code and how it is or is not achieving those. If the
highest priority of the Tree Code is tree retention with development, it is doing that. If tree replanting
is the goal, it is not achieving that with the fees -in -lieu. Developers are retaining 50% of trees, but
they are not necessarily replanting trees that were greater than 24 inches. Board Member Dimmick
Packet Pg. 63
7.A.f
ATTACHMENT 6
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
commented that the City could collect and use the fees -in -lieu in an efficient way to do some sort
of conservation on a larger scale. Ms. Powers replied that is how it is supposed to work.
Chair Cass commented that the Tree Board is listed as an advisory board to the Tree Code, and it
does have a huge impact on the residents of Edmonds. All board members indicated an interest in
being part of this code amendment process. Board Member Lyon suggested that the Board's focus
be on simplifying the code. Ms. Powers was supportive of that and encouraged them to point out
any proposed changes that would not simplify or streamline things. There was discussion about how
this process could work.
2. Special Events/Projects
August 4, 2022 Tree Board Meeting
• Tree Walk at City Park — There was interest in the event but consensus to table the discussion for the
next meeting when Member Kliment would be present.
• Tree code mock scenario "pop quiz," discuss proposed code amendments list —Ms. Powers discussed
issues with code complexity, that it should be easy for all users.
Board members discussed various code interpretations relating to different mock scenarios and possible
code amendments/clarifications. Questions and answers followed. There appeared to be concern about
the code's effectiveness with tree retention and replanting on development sites and collection of fees -
in -lieu for tree replanting elsewhere. There was concern that the requirements are not equitable when
applied to the heavily treed lots, versus less heavily tree lots.
Vice Chair Phipps brought up the concept of net ecological gain and stated that any tree that is removed
should be replanted. Ms. Powers agreed, said critical area requirements are an example of how that can
be achieved. Ms. Powers said code should emphasize tree retention, then replanting, then fees in lieu to
replant elsewhere in the city in order of priority.
• Planning Board Tree Code update briefing report out —The new date for the joint meeting with the
Planning Board is October 12. This gives the tree board two more meetings to delve into this topic.
NEW BUSINESS
July 7, 2022 Tree Board Meeting
MS. ruwcrs COIInneTlLCU LIM one wuncil had asked staff to include Ms. Ferkingstad as a stakeholder as they
proceed with the tree updates.
Ms. Ferkingstad acknowledged this but noted that this has taken an inordinate amount of time, and they have
been obstructed by the Planning Department throughout the process.
NEW BUSINESS
Packet Pg. 64
7.A.f
ATTACHMENT 6
Tree Board Meeting Minutes
Tree Code Update Project
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed the scope of this project (Phase 2
Tree Code Amendments). There are three objectives which were established by the City Council and
reaffirmed by the Planning Board:
• Phase 2 Code Amendments related to property owner tree removal
• Minor changes to the current code
• Continued implementation of the Urban Forest Management Plan.
She discussed tree code within a policy framework and the code amendment process under the lens of
project management. Clarification question and answers happened throughout the presentation.
There was discussion about how the Board should bring up and discuss their suggestions throughout
the process. Joint meetings with the Planning Board will be important in this process. Ms. Powers then
discussed the current code, gave a broad overview of prospective amendments, and reasons for those
amendments.
Board members discussed details and clarifications of the current tree removal and replacement
regulations; fees -in -lieu regulations, tree retention incentives, pros and cons of tree banks, the legality
of the City's claims on trees on private property, the equity of forcing people to keep their trees, and the
ramifications of taking no action.
Councilmember Johnson gave some historical perspective of Council's actions related to this. She asked
about the possibility of fast tracking the parts of this that are known to be troublesome for people. Ms.
Powers discussed the complexities and limitations of speeding up certain parts. She spoke to the benefits
of working on all parts simultaneously and summarized that speeding up one part still would not shorten
the overall timeline.
There was further discussion on the timeline for the updates and the Board's role in proposing
amendments and making recommendations. There was a consensus by the Board to set aside time on
the agenda over the next few months to take a more detailed walk through the code. TREE
BOARD MEMBER IDEAS AND COMMENTS
None
Packet Pg. 65
ATTACHMENT 7
7.A.g
'nC. 18y12
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Request for Proposals
Public Engagement for 2022 Tree Code Amendment Project
SUMMARY
The City of Edmonds seeks professional assistance to develop a public engagement strategy, provide
professional facilitation, synthesize public feedback, and make suggestions on amendments to the
City's tree code, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. based on public feedback.
To be considered for this project, interested firms must submit a proposal by 4:00pm on November 11,
2022.
BACKGROUND
The City of Edmonds (pop. 42,470) is in Snohomish County, 15 miles north of Seattle and 18 miles south
of Everett, and is bordered by the cities of Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and the Puget
Sound coast. For more information, see the City's website.1
Edmonds' tree code, Chapter 23.10 ECDC2 was adopted in 2021 to primarily protect trees with
development and to achieve Urban Forestry Management Plana Goal 1A. It was recognized that
limitations on property owner tree removals could be considered at a future date. The scope of the
2022 Tree Code Amendment Project is to develop ECDC 23.10 code amendments that limit property
owner tree removals and to further clarify and simplify the existing code with minor code amendments
BUDGET
The budget for this project is $30,000.
GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK
The successful firm will, in consultation with the City, develop and implement a public engagement
strategy related to amendments to the tree code. Special consideration must be given on how to
reach residents, stakeholder/special interest groups, and to be very broad, including households of all
income levels. Possible outreach methods may include:
• Online and/or physical surveys
• Virtual and/or in -person Open Houses
1 https://www.edmondswa.gov/
z https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2310.html#23.10
ittPs://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server 16494932/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Services/Planni
ng%20Division/Plans%2OLong%2ORange%20PIanning/UFMP/EdmondsWA%20UFMP%202019 MidResolution.0
Packet Pg. 66
7.A.g
• Social media outreach and recommended project webpage content consistent with the
City's project webpages
• Press releases to be routed to the City's Public Information Officer
• Facilitated stakeholder meetings
• Development of information material and graphics
• Materials for translation to multiple languages
Project deliverables include:
• Project overview - identifies project tasks, team, timeline with key milestones, partners, etc.
• Equitable engagement checklist — outlines equitable engagement strategies to reach
underrepresented communities
• Survey results
• Synthesized lists of issues generated from stakeholder meetings
• Numerical quotas of respondents and participants
• Electronic files of informational materials, graphics and other materials
KEY TASKS
Key tasks involve:
• Cursory review of ECDC 23.10 to become familiar with the project for the purpose of
developing a public engagement strategy and materials
• Review of the draft Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework process
• Review of the Urban Forest Management Plan
• Review of the 2021 Canopy Assessment Report findings
• Review of related codes: ECDC 23.40 (critical areas), 20.75.40 (Conservation Subdivision
Design), etc.
• Biweekly check -ins (usually by phone or online) with the City's project manager
• Stakeholder/special interest group meeting facilitation with summarized comments and
synthesized lists of tree code -related issues identified by stakeholders
• Two to four presentations at public meetings about tree code -related public engagement,
using graphics that help the public understand key points.
TIMELINE
The project is expected to begin in mid -November 2022, upon execution of a contract, and to end
circa June 2023.
CITY RESOURCES
The City will contribute its expertise, relevant documents, and historical knowledge about the issues
to be addressed. The project manager, with input as needed from the Planning Division, will
provide information, support, and guidance for the project. The City will schedule public meeting
sessions (whether virtually or in -person) at which the consultant will present information.
Packet Pg. 67
7.A.g
QUALIFICATIONS
The ideal consultant team for this project will have strong facilitation skills, experience in
assessing/promoting social equity, as well as familiarity with tree ordinances and urban forestry
expertise. Prior experience in working with small to mid -size cities will be useful. (NOTE: The
consultant team may include subconsultants that provide specific assistance.)
CRITERIA
The City will use the following criteria in evaluating each response to the RFP:
Criteria
Points
Project Approach
0-30
Clarity and responsiveness to City's RFP
0-15
Team's tree ordinance and urban forestry/expertise
0-15
Team's public engagement and facilitation/expertise
0-15
Team's social equity experience/expertise
0-15
Experience working with similar communities
0-5
References and past performance
0-5
MAXIMUM POINTS
100
SUBMITTALS
One electronic copy of the proposal shall be submitted via email to devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov
or via a flash drive delivered to the City of Edmonds, Development Services Administrative Assistant,
121- 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020-3145. The deadline for proposals for this project is
November 11, 2022, by 4:00 PM. Respondents assume the risk of the method of dispatch chosen.
The City assumes no responsibility for delays caused by any delivery service. Postmarking by the due
date will not substitute for actual receipt of proposal. Proposals should be limited to the equivalent
of 12 pages total, including a cover letter. (Exception: The applicant may include excerpts or links
from past work that is not subject to the equivalent of 12 pages total.) Content shall be formatted
as follows:
1. Cover letter/Executive Summary (max. 2 pages): Show the address, email, and telephone
number of the respondent's office from which the project will be managed. Describe your
interest in assisting the City and commitment to provide the services described in the General
Scope of Work.
2. Project Team: Describe each team member's relevant experience and qualifications related to
this project and identify who will be the project manager/principal contact with the City.
3. Approach: Describe your approach to this project and key factors, including timeline, to be
considered.
4. References/Past Performance: Provide reference information for no more than three (3)
relevant projects with similar scope and size:
a. Description of project, location, and status
b. Project results and challenges
c. Identify the project manager for each and describe the professional services provided by
each member on the consultant team for each project
d. Project initial budget, final cost, and end date (if applicable)
Packet Pg. 68
7.A.g
e. References (name, title, address, phone number and email)
5. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflict of interest due to any other
clients, contracts, or property interests regarding private development of any property
within the City of Edmonds.
SELECTION PROCESS
The Consultant must have demonstrated experience in establishing and amending municipal tree
ordinances. After review of the submitted proposals, the City may, at its discretion, schedule
interviews with one or more firms. During the selection process, the City may choose to contact
officials from other jurisdictions regarding the Consultant and their prior work experience and their
ability to successfully complete the scope of services.
The City intends to enter into an agreement with the Consultant who provides a proposal that, in
the opinion of the City, best meets all the below listed evaluation criteria as determined by the
City's selection committee. Upon selection of a Consultant, the City intends to enter into an
agreement using its standard Professional Services Agreement to secure the Consultant's services.
The City of Edmonds reserves the right to reject any or all qualification packages received, and to
waive any irregularities or information in the evaluation process. The final selection is the sole
decision of the City of Edmonds, and the respondents to this formal request have no appeal rights
or procedures guaranteed to them.
FINAL SCOPE OF WORK
The final scope of work will be developed with the top candidate for this project as part of a standard
professional services agreement.
QUESTIONS AND UPDATES
Any questions must be submitted by email to the City's administrative specialist for this project at:
devserv.admin @edmondswa.gov, the same email address as above. Substantive responses to
questions will be available to all interested parties. Any updates to the RFQ will be posted on the City
website: https://www.edmondswa.gov/doing business/bids rfp s and rfq s.
REMINDERS
General
Any firm failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth in the RFP may
be subject to disqualification. The City reserves the right to change the qualifications schedule or
issue amendments to the RFP at any time. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to waive
material irregularities contained in the proposal. The City reserves the right to reject all proposals
at any time, without penalty. The City reserves the right to refrain from contracting with any
respondent. Firms eliminated from further consideration will be notified electronically by the City
as soon as practical.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
Packet Pg. 69
7.A.g
The City of Edmonds in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), commits to nondiscrimination based on disability, in all its
programs and activities. This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing
Debbie Rothfus at devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov or by calling (425 )771-0220.
Title VI Statement
The City of Edmonds, in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42
U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation,
Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally- assisted programs of the
Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all bidders that it will
affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement,
disadvantaged business enterprises as defined at 49 CFR Part 26 will be afforded full opportunity to
submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, or sex in consideration for an award.
Packet Pg. 70
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/30/2022
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda attached.
Attachments:
11.30.2022 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 71
v 4'"6
n c, l 890
November 2022
PLANNING BOARD
Extended Agenda
November 21, 2022
Nov 23 1. No meeting - Day before Thanksgiving
Items and Dates are subject to change
Nov 30 Special Meeting
1. Public Hearing on Minor Code Amendment Process in Chapter 20.80
ECDC
2. Joint Meeting with Tree Board
December 2022
Dec 14 1. Election of Officers
2. Introduction to CG Step Back Interim Ordinance/Code Amendment in
Chapter 16.60 ECDC
3. Highway 99 Community Renewal Program
Dec 28 No meeting — Holiday Break
rdIiudry cvc3
Jan 11 1. Public Hearing on CG Step Back Code Amendment in Chapter 16.60
ECDC
2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Quarterly Report
3. Civic Park Rules
Jan 25 1. Comprehensive Plan Update
reoruary cucs
Feb 8 1.
a
1
Packet Pg. 72
Items and Dates are
o change
For 1. Tree code update
Consideration 2 Comprehensive Plan work
In 2023
3. Critical Aquifer Recharge code update
4. Wireless code update
5. CIP/CFP
Future 1. Housing Policy Implementation
Consideration
2. Neighborhood Center Plans (5 Corners)
3. ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
4. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
b. Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First
meeting after previous quarter (1/11/23, 4/12, 7/12, 10/11)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
5. Annual Retreat (Q1)
a
2
Packet Pg. 73