2023-05-10 Planning Board Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
V
REGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MAY 10, 2023, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION:
Meeting Link:https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287
2194 Passcode:007978
This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial
meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m
Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 26 Planning Board Minutes
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing to Consider Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a
Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Amendments, ADM 2022-0004
NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. May 10 Extended Agenda
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
May 10, 2023
Page 1
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
May 10, 2023
Page 2
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/10/2023
April 26 Planning Board Minutes
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes from the April 26 Planning Board regular meeting.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes from the April 26 Planning Board regular meeting are attached.
Attachments:
April 26 Draft Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
April 26, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds
City Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Martini.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Richard Kuehn
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Beth Tragus-Campbell,
Vice Chair (online)
Nick Maxwell
Board Members Absent
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
Chair Gladstone announced that Todd Cloutier had submitted his resignation due to work conflicts. Nick
Maxwell has now moved into a permanent board member position. She expressed appreciation to Todd Cloutier
for his many years of service on the Board. Staff will begin recruiting for a new alternate member.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED (4-0) WITH BOARD MEMBERS GOLEMBIEWSKI, KUEHN, AND MARTINI
ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Gladstone reviewed the agenda and noted that staff is requesting that the Hurst Property discussion under
New Business be moved to a future meeting.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Theresa Hollis commented on the opportunity for the City to purchase property from the Hurst family for a
future park. She commented that she believes the use of that land for hiking and as a small green belt is redundant
with the existing set of trails and green belt abutting the Madrona School property. She does not think it is a
good use of city funds. The City needs more funds to purchase parkland for general recreation purposes. She
discussed the status of the former Woodway Elementary school and suggested it might be feasible for it to
become parkland for south Edmonds.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department — Q 1 Accomplishments
This item was included in the packet. Chair Gladstone solicited feedback.
Board Member Maxwell said it appears that the responsibilities are well -matched to the budget. He referred to
the Perrinville Creek restoration project that was brought up recently and asked if there is some way that the
Parks Department could share some responsibility for that for the purpose of protecting natural resources.
Planning Manager Levitan indicated he could check in with Parks about that. Board Member Golembiewski
commented that as a public works contractor they are doing work on a project in Bellingham. It is a public
works project but the parks department has some funding they are funneling into that project. They have also
organized replanting events and gotten some grant funding in conjunction with this.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell responded to Board Member Maxwell's comment about the budget and noted that
it is important to recognize that this report from Director Feser is a list of accomplishments, not a holistic report
on the status of the department. It is not showing the tremendous amount of backlog that exists in all parks
departments or other projects they are not able to get to. They are accomplishing an incredible amount of work.
She cautioned against "scope creep". If they are going to request that the Parks Department take on more of the
Perrinville Creek project, they also need to be prepared for what is going to be taken away.
In her experience as a former parks staff member, the backlog of deferred maintenance always gets larger and
not smaller. Also, in terms of species management, historically, staff in parks departments are responsible for
invasive species removal like ivy. In terms of projects addressing wildlife that might be living within the natural
resources, directives are generally given by state or federal agencies which are implemented at local levels. She
doesn't want to expect that Parks can add in a large scope project to their responsibilities.
Board Member Golembiewski suggested it would be nice to see some of the major planning items coming up
as part of the Parks report in the future. She is interested in seeing the prioritization of projects. Chair Gladstone
agreed and suggested that seeing what they are not able to get to would be helpful.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued public hearing to consider ADB recommendations on permanent amendments to Chapters
16.60, 20.01, and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements
for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone to replace Interim Ordinance 4295
(AMD2022-0008).
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Senior Planner Clugston introduced this item and summarized the public hearing process to date. Due to some
absences on April 12 the Board had decided to continue the hearing to tonight. The public portion comment
period was closed at the last meeting. He noted that since the last meeting the Planning Board put together a
subcommittee of members who had some several options to present. The subgroup was comprised of Chair
Gladstone, Board Member Golembiewski, and Board Member Mitchell.
Board Member Mitchell reviewed the subcommittee's work and recommendation. He explained that their goal
was to come up with options for what to maintain from Interim Ordinance 4283. He summarized that if the city
is not planning to upzone the adjacent RS zones in order to effectively transition from the higher intensity uses
that are happening along Highway 99 by virtue of the CG upzone to 75 feet, it needs to explore ways to mitigate
the bulk or massing of certain elements. The current emergency ordinance that is in place now leaves a lot of
uncertainty for applicants which puts a lot of risk into the project. It also puts uncertainty into the adjacent RS
zones not knowing what to expect. The group wanted to remove the uncertainty and ambiguity that could come
with the ADB review and keep with the essence of what the planned action was really for - to view the whole
planned action area as one component. He stated that the old zoning map had a certain amount of transition area
along the perimeter where the CG zone abuts the RS zones.
The subcommittee came up with options for the Board in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They
included the following:
l . Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated.
2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by ADB
possibly).
3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or meeting
but staff decision.
4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25 feet and 30' step back at 55 feet for
buildings over 55 feet adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55 feet and under are
exempt from step back requirements. Step backs would not eliminate requirements to use other massing
techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting.
He reviewed a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options. There was some discussion
about how buildings under 55 feet would still have setbacks but would not be required to have step backs.
Graphics of the various options were reviewed. Board Member Golembiewski pointed out that in reviewing the
planned action, what was envisioned for these parcels was four-story buildings. Board Member Mitchell
commented that the parcels they are talking about next to RS zones are more than likely going to be all
residential, with no commercial on the bottom. Board Member Maxwell asked about design requirements for
the ground floor. Planning Manager Levitan added that there is a list of design components that developers can
pick from, and articulation and modulation is one of them. He pointed out that there would be an additional 10-
foot setback from the back of the sidewalk than is noted in these graphics.
Chair Gladstone commented that the current ordinance is a little bit taller than what was stated in the vision for
the planned action in that it would allow for five stories, not three to four. The step backs are intended to provide
some relief for that.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed strong support for Option 4. Her biggest concerns were equity and
consistency within the process. Having two different options that would be acceptable is a very good
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
compromise. It would eliminate the requirement for the ADB review and could streamline the process. It gives
the developer flexibility and clarity.
Board Member Kuehn concurred. Option 4 is thorough and gives two good options to keep things equal for
applicants. He commended the subcommittee for the work they did.
Board Member Martini thought this would make things simpler.
Board Member Golembiewski noted that the intention of the subarea plan is to spark development in the area
and produce more housing choices. The two-step review really delays the process and makes it more difficult
to get things actually built.
Board Member Mitchell noted that this would remove a lot of the risk, waiting time, and uncertainty for
developers.
Planning Manager Levitan clarified that if the process were to shift to a Type 2, to remove the ADB review, it
would be a staff decision. There would be public notice to properties within 300 feet and an opportunity to
appeal the staff decision to the hearing examiner. Chair Gladstone asked if there is a way to expand the 300-
foot notification area. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the 300-foot notification is for both Type 3 and
Type 2. This is the norm but they could consider options. Board Member Golembiewski commented that the
public notice signs for Edmonds are very small compared to surrounding cities. She recommended having larger
signs. Other board members concurred. Board Member Martini asked if someone could look up public notices
online. Planning Manager Levitan responded that they are all on the city website and postcards are mailed out
to neighbors within 300 feet.
Chair Gladstone noted that time is an issue with this matter. Since Council will be having their own public
hearing, she recommended not reopening public comments for this hearing. There was consensus.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
KUEHN, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 4 AS PROVIDED BY THE
SUBCOMMITTEE: RECOMMEND REVISING THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE 10' STEP
BACK AT 25 FEET AND 30' STEP BACK AT 55 FEET FOR BUILDINGS OVER 55 FEET
ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. BUILDINGS 55 FEET AND
UNDER ARE EXEMPT FROM STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS. STEP BACKS WOULD NOT
ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS TO USE OTHER MASSING TECHNIQUES IN CODE.
ELIMINATE ADB REVIEW BUT REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE AND/OR MEETING.
Board Member Maxwell commented that this recommendation is in the spirit of what citizen comments have
been.
Planning Manager Levitan stated that an introduction on this item is scheduled to be presented to the City
Council at next Tuesday's meeting (May 2). If the Council is comfortable a public hearing would be scheduled
for Tuesday, May 16 with potential adoption on Tuesday, May 23.
Board Member Martini asked about the recommendation to provide bigger signs. Planning Manager Levitan
responded that they could potentially look at it as part of the code modernization effort.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Gladstone thanked Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She
explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase D to achieve the goal of reducing
development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree
removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential
lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable
but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided.
Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini
asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would
just be a secondary use.
Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She
explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12
months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree
removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that
shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about
equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist.
Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals
if it is evident in a photograph.
Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact
is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree
canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be
very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five
or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments
in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was
going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different
specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in
looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact
of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy
loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no
account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or
requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time.
Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there
are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest
accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate
assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Should tree removal on private property be limited?
• Board Member Maxwell asked about trends they are seeing. Ms. Powers explained they have done two
canopy assessments. The second one showed a slight gain from the last assessment, but the
methodology was different than the first time. Also, there were losses in some areas and gains in others.
• Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed support for having limits on property owner tree removal. If
there aren't limits there is nothing to stop someone from removing all their trees.
• There was a suggestion to also look at minimum retentions such as not allowing a property owner to
remove the last two trees on their property.
• Board Member Maxwell agreed with establishing tree removal limits but wondered if they were trying
to solve a problem that doesn't exist. He moved here eight years ago and as far as he can tell the canopy
has only gotten thicker. People do cut trees down but he thought they were not cutting them down as
fast as they are growing. On the other hand, he would not want the tide to turn in the other direction.
Whatever they put in place should feel roughly like what they are doing now because it seems to be
working in Edmonds for the tree canopy.
• Board Member Golembiewski asked how many calls they get about taking trees down. Ms. Powers
noted Planning gets frequent calls about tree removals and they get some calls from neighbors about
enforcement issues, especially in critical areas. However, they aren't tracking tree removals in general
on private property. Planning Manager Levitan explained if someone calls about tree removals on
private property and there is no critical area or development happening there it is generally an allowed
tree removal. He said he gets several calls a week.
• Chair Gladstone commented that the challenge is that they don't know exactly how often this is
happening. Without the data it is hard to know the degree of urgency and the level of restraint that is
appropriate. She wondered if using a tree retention level, rather than removal allowances, with frequent
assessments made over time made more sense. What are they striving for in terms of the canopy cover?
What kind of loss are they trying to avoid?
• Board Member Martini noted it would be nice to have two studies comparing different years that used
similar methods. Ms. Powers explained the first assessment used different imagery but they still did the
analysis of gains and loss. The technology will always be changing so it is not likely they will have the
same methodology from one canopy assessment to another. They can still get a general idea. She noted
in Kirkland, residents were allowed to take out two trees per year. There were no replacements triggered
until they go to the minimum on the lot (three trees per lot). This was a simple method.
• Board Member Golembiewski said she was in support of having a limitation but was in favor of valuing
some sorts of trees over others. Ms. Powers noted that under the definitions anything over 6" DBH
(diameter at breast height) is considered a significant tree. They aren't regulating anything under 6"
DBH. If they want to define landmark trees (larger trees) they could do so. Board Member
Golembiewski said she would be in favor of a larger diameter than 6 inches because there are so many
landscape buffers and poorly placed trees that aren't necessarily nuisances or hazards but aren't actually
providing the kind of canopy cover they are aiming for. Ms. Powers noted they could determine the
exact sizes later. There appeared to be agreement that 6" DBH seemed too small to regulate.
• Board Member Mitchell noted that most cities that are 100% urbanized have a code like this to establish
single-family residential removal allowances. They can decide on the specificity at a later date. He
commented he did not want Edmonds to turn into Innis Arden.
• Planning Manager Levitan suggested they focus on landmark trees and any replacements related to that.
He gave an overview of the process.
• Chair Gladstone commented that the consensus seemed to be "possibly" depending on the specifics.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
• Board Member Golembiewski agreed and said they agree that there needs to be a tree code for private
property. They just don't know what it needs to look like.
Is 12 months between allowed tree removals an appropriate length of time?
• Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she wasn't sure about the timeframe until they knew what size tree
they were talking about.
• Board Member Kuehn said it depends on how many trees they are talking about for a 12-month period.
Does the Planning Boardfeel that landmark tree removal should beprohibited? (except for hazard or nuisance
trees)
Is minimum 24 " DBH an appropriate landmark tree size?
Should landmark tree removal be limited more than smaller trees?
Should time between landmark tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees?
• There was general consensus for limiting the removal of landmark trees.
• Board Member Maxwell said 24" DBH is a sizeable tree but not what he would consider landmark. He
thought 36" DBH was more appropriate. Other board members thought 24" DBH was appropriate.
• Chair Gladstone said regardless of what size they establish for a landmark tree she would still be more
inclined to go with limited (not prohibited) removals. It should be based on limited frequency or limited
per area (based on geographic location, etc.). She doesn't think an out-and-out prohibition would be
accepted politically.
• Board Member Mitchell asked about the frequency of canopy assessments. Ms. Powers explained it is
every five to ten years as resources allow. Chair Gladstone noted that this frequency does not allow for
much nimbleness in response. Ms. Powers agreed but noted that canopy assessments done more
frequently than every five years wouldn't show changes in a way that shows a trend.
• Board Member Golembiewski thought that a notification procedure for larger trees would be a useful
metric for shorter term monitoring. She thinks that the general community consensus when they are
thinking about tree loss is the 24" DBH and above size. She doesn't think people are concerned about
taking out a 12" DBH fruit tree or other decorative landscaping tree.
• Chair Gladstone recommended that, as they move forward, staff provide photos depicting what they are
talking about because it is difficult to visualize.
• Board Member Maxwell said he was fine with limiting 24" DBH and larger trees. He is supportive of
prohibiting removal of larger trees such as 36" DBH. Planning Manager Levitan noted that some cities
have larger trees designated as heritage trees.
• Ms. Powers commented that they are looking for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. They are making
decisions now for 20 years from now. This is important to keep in mind for the future. A healthy,
sustainable urban forest has diversity not only in species but in age and size.
• There was discussion about a desire to preserve certain species of trees over others. Ms. Powers
cautioned against this and suggested instead they list things they don't care about because they are
invasive, noxious, or weed trees. Board Member Maxwell suggested looking at native versus not native.
Ms. Powers commented that because of climate change they need to rethink this. When they think of
native, they are thinking of what was native 200 years ago, but this has changed.
Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas?
• Ms. Powers noted that in the public survey there was a lot of support for limiting tree removal in critical
areas. The current code is confusing on this topic.
• There was consensus that a permit should be required for tree removals in critical areas.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Should the same tree removal allowances (as outside of critical areas) apply in critical areas.
• Chair Gladstone commented that it would depend on what the allowances are and how generous they
are. Overall, she thought they should be more restrictive in critical areas.
• Board Member Maxwell commented that critical areas affect the safety of people who are downhill. He
doesn't think it should be the same allowance because they don't want to set up a mudslide for downhill
neighbors. Ms. Powers noted that most cities that don't even have a tree code have limitations to tree
removal in critical areas.
With the exception of hazard and nuisance trees, should tree removal in critical areas (steep slopes, wetland
buffers, stream buffers) be prohibited?
• Board Member Golembiewski said they should be prohibited without a permit.
• Chair Gladstone asked about the difference between hazardous and nuisance trees. Ms. Powers
explained that a hazardous tree is a tree that has a defect or disease that predisposes it to failure. A
nuisance tree is a tree that is causing significant physical damage, and whatever that nuisance is cannot
be mediated by reasonable practices or procedures. There was discussion about the need to take a photo
of the tree or provide some sort of documentation and justification for removing trees in critical areas.
• Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was in favor of heavier restrictions, especially for larger trees and
especially in critical areas because of the importance of preserving habitat and preventing landslides.
She is also in support of possibly having a larger size than 6" DBH being regulated. She thought 8-10"
DBH would be a good starting point.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property (continued to a future meeting TBD)
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Planning Manager Levitan noted there are a couple joint meetings proposed in June. Staff is proposing to invite
the Tree Board to this meeting on June 14 to discuss the Tree Code. They are also looking at having a joint
workshop with the City Council on some of the current housing -related topics at 6:00 preceding the June 14
meeting. Board members expressed concern that this could be too much for that meeting. Planning Manager
Levitan will continue to look at alternatives. He added that Multifamily Design Standards is a potential topic
for a separate joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 11
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/10/2023
Public Hearing to Consider Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary
Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001)
Staff Lead: Rose Haas
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rose Haas
Background/History
Title 16 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regulates uses and development
standards in the city's different zoning districts, with Chapter 16.45 covering the Neighborhood Business
(BN) zone. Per ECDC 16.45.010(C), day-care centers serving 13 or more children are identified as a
primary use in the BN zone requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which is a Type III-B land use
application that requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
The city has received a citizen -initiated code amendment proposal (AMD2023-0001) to:
1) designate day-care centers as a Permitted Primary Use in the BN zone under ECDC 16.45.010(A),
which would eliminate the need for a CUP; and
2) add outdoor play areas associated with day-care centers as an exception in ECDC 16.45.030 to
allow the use outside of a completely enclosed building.
The application form, applicant's project narrative, and an underline/strike eutversion of the proposed
code amendment are included as Attachments 1-3.
Consistent with ECDC Chapter 20.80, code amendments are a Type V legislative land use decision, with
the Planning Board reviewing the proposed code amendment and making a recommendation to City
Council following a public hearing. The City Council then holds a separate public hearing to consider the
Planning Board's recommendation, with any code amendment adopted by city ordinance.
Staff introduced the code amendment to the Planning Board on April 12, 2023; minutes to that meeting
are included as Attachment 4. Board members were generally supportive of the proposal and felt it was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and an appropriate use for the BN zone, and directed staff to
schedule the proposal for a public hearing.
Staff Recommendation
Following a short staff presentation, the Board is asked to take public testimony on the proposed code
language shown in Attachment 3 before deliberating on the proposal and making a recommendation to
City Council. As indicated below, staff is supportive of the proposed code language included in
Attachment 3. The Planning Board's recommendation is tentatively scheduled to be introduced to the
Packet Pg. 12
6.A
City Council at their May 16, 2023 regular meeting, and will be summarized in a letter to Council signed
by Chair Gladstone.
Narrative
Great Kids Academy and their representative, AD Shapiro Architects, are proposing to amend ECDC
Chapter 16.45 to:
1) Change day-care centers from a primary use requiring a CUP to a primary permitted use in the
BN zone; and
2) To exempt the outdoor recreation spaces associated with day-care centers from the operating
restrictions in the BN zone, which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed
buildings.
The applicant would like to establish a new day-care center at 24200 76th Ave. W to the north of their
existing day-care center, which is a permitted primary use in the adjacent Community Business (BC)
zone. While the proposed code amendment would benefit the applicant directly, the changes would
apply to all BN-zoned properties in Edmonds, which the applicant has listed (page 4) and illustrated
(pages 5-11) in Attachment 2.
Applicable Codes
According to Section ECDC 21.20.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), "day-care
center" means' [a] building or portion thereof used for the care of children under the age of 12 located
in a facility which accommodates 13 or more children regardless of whether such services are provided
for compensation."
Per ECDC 16.45.010.C, day-care centers are currently a primary use requiring a conditional use permit in
the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone.
Per ECDC 16.45.030.A, uses in the BN zone must occur within completely enclosed buildings consistent
with ECDC 16.45.030.A unless they are specifically identified as excepted, which currently includes uses
like off-street parking and loading areas, drive-in businesses, parks and public utilities.
Dav-care use in the BN Zone
The BN zone is located in neighborhood commercial centers such as Perrinville, Five Corners, and
Harmony Corners (212th and 76th). Day-care centers were a prohibited use in the BN zone until they
were added as a primary use requiring a CUP via Ordinance 3353 in 2001.
According to ECDC 16.45.000,
The BN zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which
offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood
area;
B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are
operated chiefly within buildings.
Per ECDC 16.40, the general purposes of the business and commercial zones are:
Packet Pg. 13
6.A
A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services
according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they
serve;
B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of
the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other,
C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may
appropriately locate in commercial areas,
D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities;
E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes,
and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke,
vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic.
ratine Restrictions in the BN Zone
The outdoor operating restrictions have applied since 1980. The following outdoor uses are currently
allowed per ECDC 16.45.030.A:
1. Public utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC.
Comprehensive Plan Context
The BN zone is one of the implementing zones for commercial land use types identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site where the applicant would like to establish a day-care as well as a
large majority of BN-zoned properties in the city are designated as 'Neighborhood Commercial'.
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies for Neighborhood Commercial
areas and other commercial land use designations (p 70-71):
Commercial Development Goal C. Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to
provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local
neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle
ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor/Medical
area and the Downtown Activity Area.
Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as
classically auto -oriented commercial "strip malls" with one- and two-story developments
primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood
commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as
appealing mixed -use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian -oriented development
that expands the uses and
services available to local residents.
C.1 Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial
intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic.
Packet Pg. 14
6.A
C.2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local
neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within
neighborhood commercial areas.
C.3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local
automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
C.4 Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable
development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing
gathering places.
C.5 Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial
spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street -level
entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows.
C.6 Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of
individual neighborhoods, thus are strengthening their importance as
neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional
specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity
they wish to achieve.
Current Permitting Process
To establish a day-care center in the BN zone, an applicant needs the following permits from the
City (additional permitting is required from the State of Washington consistent with RCW
43.216):
1. Land use permit - Type III-B conditional use permit reviewed and approved by the
Hearing Examiner consistent with ECDC 20.05
2. Building and engineering permits - reviewed, conditioned, approved, and inspections by
staff
3. Business license - reviewed, conditioned and approved by staff
Analysis of Applicant's Proposal
Based on its review of the applicant's narrative (Attachment 2) and the Comprehensive Plan, staff is
supportive of the proposed code amendment to allow day-care centers as a primary permitted use and
to allow outdoor recreational areas associated with the day-care use as an exception to the operating
restrictions. Day-care centers provide a vital service to residents of a neighborhood area on a daily basis,
which is consistent with ECDC 16.45.000.A. This is evidenced by the applicant's research which shows
that there are six existing day-care centers either within or immediately adjacent to the BN zone.
The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan's Commercial Development Goals and Policies,
including Policy Al (Reserve sites for well suited commercial uses) and Policy C2 (Permit uses in
neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood). If allowed as a
primary permitted use, any proposed day-care center would still have to meet all other existing zoning
standards for the BN zone as well as the titles identified in Chapter 20.80.020 for topics such as parking,
landscaping, traffic, sewer/water/stormwater, critical areas, etc. Compliance with those codes would be
verified through a building and engineering permits as they are today.
Packet Pg. 15
6.A
Making day-care centers a primary permitted use would eliminate the extra step of obtaining a
conditional use permit where an applicant must submit a land use application, pay the application fee
($3,329.00), and navigate the Hearing Examiner public hearing process which takes approximately four
months, and result in more clear and objective use and development standards.
Regarding property performance standards like noise, it should be noted that the sound from
unamplified human voices (such as children playing outside) is exempt from the standards in the noise
chapter (ECC 5.30) from 7AM to 10PM. Operating hours are verified, and can be restricted, during
business license review.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff is recommending that the Planning Board
forward a recommendation to City Council to amend ECDC Chapter 16.45 as shown in Attachment 3.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Land Use Application AMD2023-0001
Attachment 2 - Applicant Narrative AMD2023-0001
Attachment 3 - Draft BN Code Strikeout AMD2023-0001
Attachment 4 - May 12th Planning Board Minutes
Packet Pg. 16
6.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS nn BuildingPermit.com
Land Use Application #1268119 - Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone
Applicant
First Name Last Name Company Name
Tony Shapiro A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address
18105 Sunset Way tonys(�D_adshapiro.com
City State Zip Phone Number Extension
Edmonds WA 98026 (425) 778-5400
Contractor
Company Name
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number
City State Zip Phone Number Extension
State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address
Project Location
Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number
d
24310 76TH AVE W all r
0
City Zip Code County Parcel Number G
EDMONDS 98026 00491100001010 N
Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name N
Q
Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions).
C
O
cC
Work Location _V
Q
Q
a
Property Owner a)
N
First Name Last Name or Company Name
Rayka I & Stefan I Krumova
J
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number '
T_
23122 84TH AVE W
c
m
City State Zip E
EDMONDS WA 98026-8601
Certification Statement - The applicant states: Q
I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and
authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I
have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work E
requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. R
r
Q
Date Submitted: 2/13/2023 Submitted By: Tony Shapiro
Packet Pg. 17
Page 1 of 2
6.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com
Land Use Application #1268119 - Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone
Project Contact
Company Name: A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS PS
Name: Tony Shapiro Email: tonys@adshapiro.com
Address: 18105 Sunset Way Phone #: (425) 778-5400
Edmonds WA 98026
Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work
New Code or Plan Amendments and Interpretations Zoning Code Text Amendment
Project Name: Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone
Description of This application is seeking to permit Daycare Centers to be located within BN zoned
Work: properties outright without requiring a Conditional Use Permit, (in part based on the
historical Edmonds land use trends within the existing BN zoned properties).
Project Details
Development Type
Text Amendment
Packet Pg. 18
Page 2 of 2
MyBui ldi ngPe rm i t. ce m
Jurisdiction: Edmonds c
Project Name: Great Kids Academy modification of BN Zone c
Application ID: 1268119 �?
Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning
The applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify
defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any
action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant,
his/her/its agents or employees. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the
application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property.
I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje
property.
I do so certify.
r
O
O
O
M
N
O
N
0
Packet Pg. 19
6.A.b
U A
SHAPIRO
ARCHITECTS PS
January 24, 2023
Subject: Application to Modify Neighborhood Business, BN Zoning criteria
For Great Kids Academy currently located at: 24310 76'" Avenue W, Edmonds, WA 98026
Site: Property address: 24200 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026
Tax Parcel No: 00491100001008 Snohomish County
Contents:
Application to Modify Neighborhood Business, BN Zoning Criteria
Pages 1-3 Verbal reasoning for modification to zoning code
Appendix Al-A8 Zoning Maps of BN zones outlining existing Day Care Centers in BN zones
Explanation of Application:
This application is seeking to permit Daycare Centers to be located within BN zoned properties outright without
requiring a Conditional Use Permit, (in part based on the historical Edmonds land use trends within the existing BN
zoned properties). Additionally, we hope to reclassify Outdoor Recreation Space to be permitted outright within the
BN zone's Operating Restrictions, (ECDC 16.45.030). As stated below, we believe these modifications are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, while upholding public health, safety, and welfare, as well as being in the
best interest of the City of Edmonds by helping to streamline the land use review process and thus limiting some of
the uncertainties inherent in construction and/or renovated of daycare facilities within the BN zones.
Comp plan and zoning classifications:
Comp Plan Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning: BN Neighborhood Business
16.40 Business and Commercial Zones: Modify Neighborhood Business, BN zoning criteria to reclassify Day Care
Centers as a "Permitted Primary Use" instead of the current listing as a "Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use
Permit' as currently stated in 16.45.010 Uses, C Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
The existing nine zoned areas are scattered throughout Edmonds which are located immediately adjacent to single
family neighborhoods, many of which are comprised of young families seeking to utilize day care centers while many
already have existing schools in their proximity.
1. Existing BN Zones: Two of the existing nine BN zoned areas currently have daycare centers within their
zone, and four other zones have daycare centers adjacent to or across the street from these zones, for a
total of six of the nine, for a total of 67% of the BN zones. Please see the attached zoning maps of these
areas.
Comprehensive Plan: All nine of the BN zones are well suited to benefit from the placement of daycare
centers, which meet the Commercial Land Use Goals & Policies outlined in the initial three paragraphs
starting on page 69 of the Comprehensive Plan.
AD SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS
PO Box 0054 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0054
tonys@adshapiro.com MOBILE 425.280.5765 OFFICE 425.778.5400 adshapiro.com
Packet Pg. 20
6.A.b
Daycare Centers are a natural use for the smaller and more intimate commercial zones that comprise all BN
neighborhoods. Existing Edmonds land uses show a broad acceptance and even the expectation for daycare
facilities to be located within or adjacent to BN zones. The requirement for Daycare's to follow the existing
Conditional Use approval process burdens applicants, while we contend there are no significant community issues to
resolve. The removal of this step will save both time and effort for City Planning Staff, Hearing Examiner, and
applicants.
Additionally, we are seeking to have outdoor recreation space, (playgrounds), permitted within this zone, which
currently is restricted by BN zoning criteria. This criterion requires outside activities be contained solely within the
building, thus disabling the ability to comply with Washington State daycare requirements for exterior playgrounds.
Please note toddler play areas do not create the noise levels and potential neighborhood annoyance which the
typical elementary school playground may generate.
16.45.030 Operating Restrictions: Modify the existing operating restriction to permit daycare playgrounds to be
placed outside of an enclosed building, vs. existing criteria which states: "All uses shall be carried on entirely within a
completely enclosed building". WAC 110-300-0145 Daycare requirements stipulates in Outdoor early learning
program space, that an outdoor play area must be available, (see attached copy of this section). This disables the
ability to place daycare centers in NB zones unless there is an approved off site, (and outside of the BN zone),
outdoor play space with an approved safe route to access this play space from the Center.
Comp Plan Assessment:
Community Sustainability Element
The proposed code revision will enhance and support the sustainable objective of neighborhood commercial centers
by providing local and walkable access from their homes to Daycare business services which mirror existing daycare
facilities located throughout Edmonds. This reduces car usage, (and potential air pollution), while enhancing
opportunities for families to interact with one another while walking between their homes and the daycare, which is
more of a feature with elementary schools than middle or high schools which tend to be located further away from
families.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
We believe this proposed revision will fully comply with the comprehensive plan based upon the following Comp Plan
criteria. The below listed goals are specifically suited to this site, and land use/building type
Commercial Development Goal A:
Al Reserve sites for well suited commercial uses: the existing nine BN zoned centers have six Day Care
Centers utilizing properties within or immediately adjacent their respective BN zones; please refer to the
attached maps.
A3 Discourage Strip Commercial areas: Development should be consistent and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods as well as being economically feasible. Daycare centers provide a necessary
and desirable service to their respective neighborhoods as evidenced by the many existing daycare centers
situated within other BN zones; of the nine existing BN zones, there are six daycare centers situated within
or adjacent to these zones.
A4 Provide for convenient and safe access for customers employees and suppliers; enabling BN zoned
properties to house daycare centers will permit more residents to access these facilities without having to
drive to a centralized shopping area. We believe this close proximity is especially desirable for customers as
they commute to .
2
Packet Pg. 21
6.A.b
A5 Locate commercial developments to minimize adverse impacts of heavy traffic. as noted, earlier daycare in
close proximity to existing housing will relieve the need for car traffic traversing additional streets.
Commercial Development Goal B:
B2 Encourage mixed -use development to include a variety of uses: the need for daycare centers adjacent
to existing housing enhances family life by reducing drive time and encouraging walking while connecting
neighborhoods.
B8 Private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity: again, enabling and encouraging
daycare centers to be adjacent to and part of residential neighborhoods will encourage and enhance
interaction amongst families while reducing automobile traffic.
Commercial Development Goal C:
C2 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood:
daycare centers inherently are geared to families who tend to prefer Daycare Centers in close proximity to
their home.
C3 Provide for transit and pedestrian access: All BIN zone properties are on transit routes enabling
customers to utilized bus service for taking and picking up their children. The east boundary of the subject
parcel is bounded by 76th Ave West, which has a bus line traveling north and south. A east west line is one
block to the south of the site on SR 104.
Packet Pg. 22
6.A.b
U A
SHAPIRO
ARCHITECTS PS
Summary of BN Zoned Properties
Location/N&Ighborho od Area of zone Suro"i-19 Zones Zones with daycares in or adjacent
(SF) to BN zone
BC, RS-12, PRD-1990-2, R-1997-28,
1
Perrirnrllle 272,OW Olympic View Montessori
RS-8, R1985-3,
2
Ol m is View Dr and Puget Drive
119 O }
RS-12 Edmonds Elementary
Bloom Ea!rly Education
Grow with Us, adjacent to the
3
* Fibre Corners
293,ODD
RM-2.4, RSA, PRD,
southern boundry of BN zone
RS-MP BP R --81 Crow with Us, (across Ed_ Way)
Gen_ Comm, RIB-2.4, Sprouts Preschool & Childcare,
4
* Edmonds Way, 15th St SW 226th SW)72
O
S
* Ed/Woodwway High Schaal, 212th & 76tn
3N,0150EdmondslWoodwway
Ave.
HS (across st. and north of zone)
BC, RS-8 Great Kids Academy, adjacent to
6
, 76th Ave W (242"d St SW)
96,OW
the southern boundry of BN zone
RSA BC-EW RFC-1.6 NA
RIB-1.6 BC-EW BC RS-8 NA
RS43 NA
7
Edmonds Way 232"d St SW
36 00(}
s
Edmonds Way 236th St SW
12 000
9
14 th Ave W & Firdale Ave. f238th St SW)
46,E
* Daycares wvh1ch are adjacent to or across the street from BN zones
AD SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS
PO Box 0054 Edmonds, Washington 98020-0054
tonys@adshapiro.com MOBILE 425.280.5765 OFFICE 425.778.5400 adshapiro.com
Al
Packet Pg. 23
6.A.b
Existing Comp Plan of area:
Fp
MoNos `
�qY
■111■�11�11�H-�11�1
Plan Designations
Single Family Urbanl
Single Family -Resource
Neighborhood Commercial
Corridor Development
Single Family - Urban 1
Single Family - Resource
Neighborhood Commercial
Highway 99 Corridor
A2
Packet Pg. 24
Perrinville
6.A.b
A3
Olympic View Montesso
s4
5
F
10
F
Five Corners
6.A.b
Grow with Us Preschool
(at south edge of BN zone)
A5
Edmonds Way
6.A.b
Edmonds Way, (15th St SW, 226th SW)
Grow with Us Preschool
(across street)
76th Ave W & 212th St SW
8
IfHOW
w
a Q
2 2
'T SW
6.A.b
0
-0
0
U
prouts Preschool & Childcare
r
�� � � '_-2�AZ •i
VIP
Y ! +� + i�.
or
w
4A
tr
_
I
iPOW /Mr
s
J�
m
.F 11
�dW a �
e
A7 ` J ° � ; Y
LN T
0
iim .I 0
iffa - i
Packet Pg. 29
76th Ave W & 242 St SW
6.A.b
Great Kids Academy
w
F-
MMI1M11WNIM110fl'flim
6.A.c
Chapter 16.40
BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES - PURPOSES
Sections:
16.40.000 Purposes.
16.40.000 Purposes.O SHARE
The general purposes of the business and commercial (B or C) zones are:
A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the
different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve;
B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public
and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other;
C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately
locate in commercial areas;
D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities;
E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also
nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and
heavy truck traffic.
Chapter 16.45
BN - NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
Sections:
16.45.000 Purposes.
16.45.010 Uses.
16.45.020 Site development standards.
16.45.030 Oaeratina restrictions.
16.45.000 Purposes.4- SHARE
The BN zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business
and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods
and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area;
B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly
within buildings.
16.45.010 Uses.O SHARE
Packet Pg. 31
6.A.c
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone;
2. Neighborhood -oriented retail stores, retail service uses, excluding uses such as commercial
garages, used car lots, taverns, theaters, auditoriums, undertaking establishments and those
uses requiring a conditional use permit as listed below;
3. Offices and outpatient clinics, excluding commercial kennels;
4. Dry cleaning stores and laundromats;
5. Small animal hospitals;
6. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020-1
7. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R);
8. Day-care centers;
9.9-. Local public facilities designated and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
10. -9-. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or conditional use;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use;
3. One dwelling unit per lot, in the story above the street floor, with a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet;
4. Commuter parking lots that contain less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction
with any local public facility allowed by this section. Any additionally designated parking
spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall
subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection
(D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot
as specified in ECDC 21.15.075.
C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Commercial parking lots;
2. Drive-in businesses;
3. Businesses open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
Packet Pg. 32
6.A.c
4. Convenience stores;
5. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan,
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050-1
7. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums;
8. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the
criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033-1
9. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug
abusers;
10. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use;
2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a
facility meeting the criteria listed under subsection (C)(6) through (10) of this section. [Ord.
3353 § 3, 2001; Ord. 3269 § 1, 1999*; Ord. 3120 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2759 § 1, 1990; Ord. 2660 §
1, 1988; Ord. 2283 § 4, 19821.
*Code reviser's note: Ord. 3269 expired August 13, 2000. For provisions on the outdoor
display of merchandise, see Chapter 17.65 ECDC.
1 16.45.020 Site development standards. SHARE
F-11111111111100r4
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Minimum Minimum Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area
Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Setback Height
BN None None 20' None' None' 25' 3 sq. ft. per sq. ft. of lot
area
Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R-zoned property.
B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC.
Packet Pg. 33
6.A.c
C. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with
trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BIN lot. A six-foot minimum
height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback.
D. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050, and reviewed by
the architectural design board. [Ord. 3846 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2526 § 5, 1985].
1 16.45.030 Operating restrictions.O SHARE
A. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except:
1. Public utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Outdoor recreation spaces associated with day-care centers;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3320
§ 2, 2000].
Packet Pg. 34
6.A.d
Student Representative Distelhorst thought that the benefits of living in these areas would outweigh aesthetic
concerns over building heights and mass. She referred to downtown Seattle and noted this is a necessary part of
urban development.
Vice Chair Campbell commented that if a builder didn't want to do a secondary set of step backs, they wouldn't
have to build so high. She would like to go back to the intentions of the subarea plan talking about three to four-
story buildings. She is in favor of maintaining step back requirements and making sure they can mitigate the
bulk of the building. They have heard over and over that the neighborhood is very concerned about
overshadowing. They have only seen a small number of comments in favor of removing the step backs, and
those are from the developers. She thinks they can have community development without the overshadowing.
They also need to consider the good of the community now as opposed to the 2017 timeframe when the 2017
ordinance was adopted.
Vice Chair Campbell also noted they are missing four board members tonight; she doesn't feel it is appropriate
to make a recommendation to Council on any aspect of this even if all four members present who are present
came to a consensus. She proposed that they table the discussion until the April 26 meeting. Chair Gladstone
concurred. She also recommended doing some homework before the next meeting to explore some of the
concepts that Board Member Mitchell raised. Board Member Mitchell suggested that they also need to discuss
exceptions (such as distance) as it relates to the proposed language. He indicated he would look into examples
of how codes are applied in surrounding areas.
Board Member Maxwell was in favor of tabling this. He said he was not in favor of drafting the actual language
tonight. He commented that the community feedback is clearly in favor of step backs. He agreed with removing
the ADB review unless they want to allow removal of step backs. He is concerned that the review process would
be quite long due to issues that are not essential or beneficial. He has heard about backlogs and long review
processes. He thinks the Board's recommendation should say something about providing as quick a review
process as possible. Two months seems reasonable. He is not sure about the benefit of a two-phase process. He
is worried that it will just drag the process on unnecessarily. He also was in favor of ADB review for buildings
over 35 feet.
Chair Gladstone recommended they come up with one or more possible options including recommended
language before the next meeting. She offered to work on details of draft recommendations with Board Member
Mitchell.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MITCHELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN OF APRIL 26.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a Primary Permitted Use in the
Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023-0001)
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 35
6.A.d
Staff Presentation:
Rose Haas, Planner, made the staff presentation and noted that the applicant, Mr. Shapiro, was also present to
answer questions if needed. She explained this is a citizen -initiated amendment to allow daycares as a primary
permitted use in the BN zone. It would also exempt outdoor recreation space associated with daycare centers
from the operating restrictions in the BN zones which require most uses to be located within fully enclosed
buildings. This would benefit the applicant directly. It would also apply to all of the other BN zones. The
Planning Department is in support of this. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She
explained that there would be a public hearing followed by a recommendation to City Council. Staff is hoping
to schedule the hearing for May 10.
Discussion:
Vice Chair Campbell asked about the difference in the process if this were an allowable use. Ms. Haas explained
they would not be going through the Conditional Use Land Use process. It would also remove the hearing
examiner step. The applicant has identified that this is a use consistent with the intent of the BN zone.
Chair Gladstone said she thought the more they could do to make daycare affordable the better. She is looking
forward to the public hearing.
Board Member Maxwell asked about potential objections to this. Planning Manager Levitan commented that
staff didn't have any.
Mr. Shapiro commented that if a daycare isn't a natural use in the BN zone, he wasn't sure what is. Hopefully
the neighbors would utilize it and could even walk there. He thought close to housing was a natural place for
this type of use. The current code does not allow anything outdoors, but the WAC requires outdoor playground
areas.
Board Member Mitchell commented on the long waiting lists to get into daycare and expressed support for this.
Student Representative Distelhorst also thought that this makes sense.
Vice Chair Campbell asked about impacts to traffic in the area. Also, are additional precautions necessary for
the safety of children because of the traffic. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are general trip
generation rates associated with these facilities. There is also a rigorous licensing process though the State where
they look at things related to health and safety. Vice Chair Campbell said she was tentatively in favor of this
and looked forward to the public hearing.
Board Member Maxwell referred to the noise exception for human voices from 10 am to 7 p.m. and suggested
that this would need to start earlier in the day. Planning Manager Levitan stated he could look at that.
Vice Chair Campbell asked if it would be appropriate to put in maximum headcounts in different types of zones.
Planning Manager Levitan replied that they have different definitions. A daycare center such as this is different
than a home -based daycare. There are separate licensing processes and requirements. The zoning code generally
relies on state regulations.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 36
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/10/2023
Tree Code Amendments, ADM 2022-0004
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Deb Powers
Background/History
At the April 26, 2023 Planning Board meeting, the Board reviewed key code concepts, considered new
regulatory options, and provided general direction for staff on developing preliminary draft code related
to property owner tree removals (those not associated with development activity). At the May 10, 2023
Planning Board meeting, staff will review major code amendments proposed to the city's existing
development -related regulations, which can be found in Chapter 23.10 of the Edmonds Community and
Development Code (ECDC) and were adopted through a series of ordinances in 2021.
Similar to the discussion of property owner tree removals on April 26, staff is requesting general
direction on key concepts so that staff may develop draft code language to share with the public and
present to the Planning Board. Staff has included an updated summary on preliminary public survey
results (Attachment 1) and a report on the first focus group meeting (made up of developers and
arborists) facilitated by the city's public engagement consultant (Attachment 2). Feedback from the
second focus group meeting with the Citizens' Tree Board held on May 3, 2023 will be presented at the
May 10, 2023 Planning Board meeting.
Development and land use code amendments are a Type V decision consistent with ECDC Chapter
20.80, with Planning Board review of proposed code amendments and recommendation to City Council
following a public hearing. The City Council holds a second public hearing to consider the Planning
Board's recommendation, with any code amendments adopted by ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
No formal action is required at this meeting. Members are asked to review and discuss options and
provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred approach to amendments to the existing code so staff
may develop preliminary draft code language for Planning Board review and discussion at a subsequent
Planning Board meeting. Staff has preliminarily June 28 as the date for that work session is proposing to
invite the Tree Board to that meeting so that they may provide additional feedback.
Narrative
The primary objective of the "Phase II" tree code updates is to consider new codes that would limit tree
removals on private property. When the Phase II project launched in June 2022, the existing
development -related tree code had been in place for one year. Staff, permit applicants, arborists and
property owners were experiencing repeated code interpretation issues: 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
Packet Pg. 37
7.A
Phase II code updates would include minor amendments to further clarify and simplify the existing code,
without undoing the enormous effort and public input involved in its recent development. As scoped,
the Planning Board considered minor amendments to the existing development -related tree code that
would address the issues that had emerged since its adoption. At the time, it was anticipated that minor
amendments to the existing ECDC would be adopted under a new, streamlined process created to
efficiently expedite minor code updates.
Minor code amendments 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. In
considering minor amendments to the existing tree code, the Planning Board and Tree Board expressed
some concern whether certain issues could be adequately addressed with minor code updates. For
example, to further clarify the existing code and streamline the development review process related to
tree replacement requirements, a minor code amendment "fix" could involve placing the five different
levels of tree replacement requirements found in different code sections into table format, located in
the code according to development sequence. Addressing the complexity of tree replacement
requirements would involve changes to the requirements, which does not fall under the purview of a
minor code amendment.
At the December 14, 2022 joint Planning Board -Tree Board meeting', the Boards considered which
preliminary minor amendments to the existing code may involve changes to the requirements, review
process, or significant code restructuring as a moderate/major tree code amendment (link to meeting
minutes). 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.
Comprehensive List of Preliminary ECDC 23.10 Code Amendments
Anticipating that several additional code amendments will be identified at subsequent Planning Board,
Tree Board, City Council, and stakeholder meetings and from public feedback, the list of preliminary
code amendments is organized by scope, policy impacts and tracks prior discussion and consensus
decisions. Consequently, Attachment 3 has become quite detailed over the course of the project and 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.
The list indicates with an asterisk any code amendment initially considered minor that may be addressed
with a moderate/major code amendment. Bright yellow highlighting reference the corresponding
moderate/major code change by number. 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.
Note that the recent Planning Board discussion on property owner tree removals is not shown here;
however, the list and resulting draft code will be shown at subsequent Planning Board meetings. These
changes are major code amendments within the project scope of the Phase 11 code updates.
Gray - the light or dark gray code amendments involve Comprehensive Plan, 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.
The focus of the May 10, 2023 Planning Board meeting is the group of preliminary Moderate or Major
code amendments related to the existing code shown in light gray shading. Some of these code
amendments may be further defined, reformatted, or involve additional requirements. The Urban
Forest Planner will give a presentation on these code amendments, provide insight into other
jurisdictions' approach to the related code issues and provide feedback from the Tree Board stakeholder
focus group meeting held May 3, 2023.
Packet Pg. 38
7.A
'https://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3305&Inline=True
Attachments:
Attachment 1- Preliminary Survey Feedback
Attachment 2 - Focus Group 1 Summary
Attachment 3 - Preliminary List of Code Amendments
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.b
CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT
FOCUS GROUP #1 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
Edmonds' tree code was adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of gathering
public input on potential tree code amendments with the following objectives:
1. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments)
2. Consider regulations on private property tree removals
As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, a series
of focus group sessions are scheduled to hear perspectives and ideas from various interest
groups about potential tree code amendments. City staff sent out invitations with the
following stakeholder groups in mind:
• Developers
• Arborists
Environmental sciences
• Tree preservation advocacy
• Climate action
• Underserved and underrepresented
This meeting was organized in a hybrid format so that attendees could join virtually via Zoom,
or in person at the Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, on the 2nd floor in the Kerr Room.
The meeting results analysis and summary are included in this document as a progress report.
c�
The Edmonds Planning Board requested that Tree Board feedback be provided separately E
from other focus group sessions. A Tree Board special meeting is scheduled for May 4, 2023. A
second general public meeting is scheduled for May 15, in hybrid format.
Tree Code Amendment Focus Group ##1: Developers and Arborists
Date: April 27, 2023
Time: 2:00 - 3:30pm
Location: Edmonds City Hall, 2nd floor in the Kerr Room
121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020
Virtual Option: Zoom link provided via email
Zoom recording available at request
Attendees: 10 (5 in person and 5 virtual)
•� Page 11
Plan Geo
T Packet Pg. 40
7.A.b
UTAKWXPT
2:00 - 2:10 Introductions
2:10 - 2:15 Icebreaker- does anyone know when we started "Phase 2" tree code
updates?
2:30 - 2:45 Summary: how the current code works -the good, the bad and the ugly...
• ECDC 23.10 development review matrix
• The good: what's working well
• The bad: Comprehensive Code Amendment list - shows many
layers of requirements
• The ugly: NOT a streamlined review process!
2:45 - 3:15 Facilitated Q&A
• Round-robin style so everyone has an opportunity to provide
feedback
• Community -minded input versus unique situation or non-
productive viewpoint
• Bullet point responses captured on flipcharts
3:15 - 3:30 Report out/share if needed with virtual versus in -person attendees
• What didn't we ask?
• Ways to stay involved, provide input to decision -makers
ATTENDEES
CITY OF EDMONDS:
Deb Powers
PLA NIT GEO:
Alex Hancock
Mike Martini
VIRTUAL ATTENDEES:
John Mirante-Pacific Ridge
Katy Bigelow
Raven Campbell- Insight Engineering
Anna Heckman - Bartlett Tree Company
Justina Kraus -Champion Tree Care
IN -PERSON ATTENDEES:
Susan Prince (consulting arborist working for developers)
Linda Ferkingstad (property owner/developer)
Michelle Dotsch
Chrissy Roberts
Lisa Conley
u' Page 12
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 41
7.A.b
FACILITATED Q&A
WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WORKING WITH THE TREE CODE?
Key Points
• Fees In Lieu = Punitive
• Heavily wooded properties are "devalued" by having greater retention/replacement
requirements imposed upon them, compared to properties with fewer trees
• Cost/feasibility of development is reduced (cannot be recouped)
• Protected tree notice / encumbers vs maintenance agreement period regulated vs bond
requirement
• Adjacent properties not equitable, based on tree canopy cover
• Critical areas not included in 30% requirement, but they should be
• Fees in lieu multiple times in code, as opposed to retention and/or replanting
• Doesn't incentivize grove retention
Detailed Notes:
• John Mirante-Max Fee in lieu = $215k on a project that didn't go to the property owner, so this
affects residents of Edmonds
General public has a lack of knowledge of the land development
Dev community has to explain why the seller why we can't pay them full value for their
property. The fees in lieu feel punitive. This cost is going on to the property owner. The
property value doesn't change whether the property has trees on it.
Key point: A property that has trees on it is devalued by $2 per sq. ft. (the max fee in
lieu). $600k house next door to the $1.2million to make the same profit.
o Everyone wants the trees on the lot next to them, but not on their lot.
Essentially the City owns the trees because of this fee in lieu.
John: it would be fair if the City would pick one to charge fees for - trees or critical areas, but not
both. Critical areas are not
Raven (in chat): I'll have to dip out between 3:15 and 3:20. But anyway, I will say that the tree
code has as of the past couple years been the most difficult part of the code to work with for me
as someone working in development. I'd like to see standards for going to each different level
(retain/replace/FIL) clarified-- I want to know the standard of proof for being able to do a FIL be
made more clear. Is there a maximum density of plantings for trees above which we can make
the argument that the replacement/planted trees will not survive?
o Deb -There is no qualitative data but quantitative of the trees being retained and this can
be the "crappy" trees on the property and die overtime
CONVERSELY, WHAT WORKS WELL WITH EDMONDS' TREE CODE?
Key Points
• "Viable" tree retention distinction was helpful
• Addresses hazards
Detailed Notes:
The change on "viable tree" was helpful. Only 2% of the land in Edmonds is developable, so why
would someone build a home here.
Raven -in chat -While the conservation subdivision standards do hold some advantages and do
help in some situations, in some cases, clients I've had with the city haven't been satisfied with
what standards are loosened with that, and have further concerns with the 50% retention that
often comes with it.
c�
E
E
Page 13
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 42
7.A.b
WHAT INCENTIVES WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER TREE RETENTION, WHILE
DEVELOPING THE SITE TO ITS MAXIMUM POTENTIAL? CAN YOU POINT TO ANY EXAMPLES
FROM OTHER CITIES?
• Building height is too strict, so maybe consider variances or incentives for that
• Greater density or housing types
• Incentives for cluster development (20.75.048)
• Twice as many "credits" for retention
• Cottage housing
BASED ON YOUR WORK WITHIN THE REGION, WHEN CONSIDERING DEVELOPMENT
SEQUENCING (FROM FEASIBILITY TO FINAL INSPECTION/BONDING), WHAT TREE CODE
REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES, ON -SITE TREE PROTECTION METHODS,
MAINTENANCE PLANS, ETC. SHOULD EDMONDS CONSIDER?
• In Woodway, there's a certain amount of trees that can be removed each year.
• Katy Bigelow -in chat-BI code allows trees to be removed per 36 months ... but it functions as a
guideline - ie. there's no one keeping track - i mean, noone has to submit anything if they are
removing below the threshold so ... this is a slippery slope. yes, less people take advantage of
this loophole than take advantage of it but something to consider.
• Sammamish - example a landmark tree counts as 2 trees
• Kirkland - cottages are working, but in other areas they aren't successful.
• In Woodway, 25' from the house and driveway for safety
TREE REMOVAL REPLACEMENTS: WHAT REPLANTING STANDARDS ARE YOU MOST IN FAVOR
OF?
• Planting standards credit system in the Kirkland or Woodinville code = 1 acre/30 tree credits,
o Important to note that site hydrology changes significantly after development, and that
should be taken into account.
WHAT CODE SECTIONS DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION ON?
WHAT DIDN'T WE ASK?
QUESTIONS FROM ATTENDEES:
Anna Heckman (in chat): Deb- do you plan to put a required time period between private
property tree removal and home sale, or applying for a development permit?
Katy Bigelow (in chat): it would be helpful for this discussion or going forward to see any layers
translated to percentages of those properties that have Critical Areas, those that have more/less
than 30% to translate into really who/where this is affecting. It would also be helpful to have
the discussion or thinking about how the new ruling for development will overrule (?) any
existing tree codes.
Justina Kraus -in chat- This discussion is making me thankful there is tree code because
otherwise wouldn't all the trees be taken out for the profit and fear reasons? I deal with private
property and people wanting to maintain and care for their yard, how do they handle the fees.
Not turning a profit. So this is hard to hear national developers worried about profit and moving
c�
E
E
u' Page 14
PIanIT Ceo
Packet Pg. 43
7.A.b
on while Deb and COE is trying to maintain and enhance. I like to preserve 90 year old trees how
can you refer to it as alcoholic trees? Having a hard time with this
OTHER
• Covenant language rather than easement, protecting in perpetuity Stealth
o The definition of grove is semantics - based on canopy
IN -PERSON WHITE BOARD NOTES
. • pEJCs�i L"� 4� . - .
GO7SkGtC�r rt 'C.:LoPrKf M-
1"*i f5t�1�'I� f�,FPI:DD�- x dEt�G�J
Ve f�,T�If�Ipa.r,fR�pC ftJY�N3
II f�f C T=rt rN nN
~I\E5 ¢Lrt el iT ` �'n'.4L
A,.P
*5 vAjF'C�
w[415r warred �rar6
ar "W r* t
PIanIT Ceo
Page 15
Packet Pg. 44
7.A.b
ZOOM MEETING CHAT
• You 5:26 PM
o https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2310.html#23
.10
• Raven Campbell- Insight Engineering to Everyone 5:28 PM
o My video is frozen completely. Can I log out and come back in?
• You to Everyone 5:29 PM
Yes you should be able to
• Katy Bigelow to Everyone 5:30 PM
o this 23.10 that Deb is describing - is related to private property ? Just might want to
clarify if someone is wondering if it applies to development AND private prop (or even
sub dividable properties).
• Anna Heckman, WA to Everyone 5:46 PM
o Deb- do you plan to put a required time period between private property tree removal
and home sale, or applying for a development permit?
• Katy Bigelow to Everyone 5:57 PM
o it would be helpful for this discussion or going forward to see an layers translated to
percentages of those properties that have Critical Areas, those that have more/less
than 30% to translate into really who/where this is affecting. It would also be helpful to
have the discussion or thinking about how the new ruling for development will overrule
(?) any existing tree codes.
• Katy Bigelow to You (Direct Message) 5:59 PM
o Hi Alex, can we submit our answers to these questions to you or Deb for review after
this meeting? I can't stay the whole time.
• You to Katy Bigelow (Direct Message) 5:59 PM
E
o Yes, absolutely! We are taking thorough notes and I'll make sure Deb responds via email
in
• Katy Bigelow to Everyone 6:04 PM
a
o BI code allows trees to be removed per 36 months ... but it functions as a guideline - ie.
o
there's noone keeping track - i meanm, noone has to submit anything if they are
L
t9
removing below the threshold so ... this is a slippery slope. yes, less people take
3
advantage of this loophole than take advantage of it but something to consider.
• Raven Campbell - Insight Engineering to Everyone 6:08 PM
Lo
o I'll have to dip out between 3:15 and 3:20. But anyway, I will say that the tree code has
04
as of the past couple years been the most difficult part of the code to work with for me
a)
as someone working in development. I'd like to see standards for going to each different
level (retain/replace/FIL) clarified-- I want to know the standard of proof for being able
to do a FIL be made more clear. Is there a maximum density of plantings for trees above
a
which we can make the argument that the replacement/planted trees will not survive?
• Katy Bigelow to You (Direct Message) 6:08 PM
E
o Thank you Alex, I will submit answers to you and Deb soon. could you shoot me a test
email to arboristkaty@gmail.com that I can send my thoughts to? I have to leave
a
now. Thank you!
• Raven Campbell - Insight Engineering to Everyone 6:21 PM
o While the conservation subdivision standards do hold some advantages and do help in
some situations, in some cases, clients I've had with the city haven't been satisfied with
what standards are loosened with that, and have further concerns with the 50%
retention that often comes with it.
•� Page 16
Plan Geo
"- Packet Pg. 45
7.A.b
o And with that, I'm out. please feel free to email me the results of this!
Justina Kraus - Champion Tree Care, LLC 6:33 PM
o This discussion is making me thankful there is tree code because otherwise wouldn't all
the trees be taken out for the profit and fear reasons? I deal with private property and
people wanting to maintain and care for their yard, how do they handle the fees. Not
turning a profit. So this is hard to hear national developers worried about profit and
moving on while Deb and COE is trying to maintain and enhance.
0 1 like to preserve 90 year old trees how can you refer to it as alcoholic trees? Having a
hard time with this
• Anna Heckman, WA 6:40 PM
0 NB recently changed their code and we have development in progress that are under
both. it is not perfect but has helped equalize farm and forest properties.
• You 6:44 PM
o great, thanks for sharing!
• Justina Kraus - Champion Tree Care, LLC 6:50 PM
0 1 can be reached at Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com
• You 6:51 PM
o Thanks Justina!
c�
E
E
•� Page 17
Plan Geo
T Packet Pg. 46
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or Property
Owner?
The current definition implies any tree with a minor defect is a
Hazard tree - dear,, dying, diseased damaged, eY StFUGtUF211y def ^tive
hazard, resulting in excessive tree removals in critical areas.
as determined by a r„asfied tree ,,,-„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
Lim.its--n-.f distu rhanne _ the boundary hot1e1oon the area of minimum
teG n tie are,und- ' tree and- the alIP- abie site disturh�noe
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�
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
approval" permit types, such as demolition, clearing and grading permits
Development
p
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. 47
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or 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@nifiGant 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
060.F.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 mea'suFes 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. lnd,�G to fi itS Of „iStU baRGe 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,
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.
signifiGan 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 Gfeve apmept eA4Ges 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
p
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. 48
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or 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 documentationthat all
...
required, may be needed to document infeasibility of replanting.
g.
arborist recommendations ...that all replacement options have been
replacement options have been considered and are
considered... iRG!U inn aFbeFi t Fe eds as neGessa „
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 1 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
that do not require a ermit...exce t for...
[that] q p p
lowered code compliance. Combining property owner tree removal
Exemption
23.10.040 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
Tree removal on commercial and multi -family -zoned
Y- 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,
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements
Development
incentives, and variations to development standards ... to
Recommendation: Move 20.75.048 to 23.10 (see Minor #14 below).
E. ...+.eon that w,a„ he a fou haxa (move to D, replace with) Tree
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 a deveiepn9ent retains 5�� (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. 49
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
7.A.c
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or 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.
In addition to the [30%] tree retention requirements... every
CONSIDER FURTHER STREAMLINING TREE REPLACEMENT
060.C.4
significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be
REQUIREMENTS SEE #3
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 (II)
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
planting several new trees that would be sufficient, in
po mina several
Development
P
up the deficiency by planting several new trees
ocertain
number of trees are required to be planted to meet the 30%
with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy the
Y Y
per 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with
retention threshold.
o
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 signifisapt viable tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
24" DBH removed, three replacement trees are required.
Note the code lacks any replanting options to replace removed
080.E.3 Tree replacement requirement (IV) 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
>241,
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. 50
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
Applies to
POLICY ECDC CURRENT CODE WHAT'S THE ISSUE? SAMPLE CODE REWRITE Development
i or Property
Owner?I& Amil
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. 51
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or 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.
t ,,nde th;s be
.tiGn (9()
Development
eXGe as substituted ubse of eGti„n 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
have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed
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 for in ECDC 23.10.040(€F), 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.X1
Definitions for hazard, viable and specimen trees and
resulting in code interpretation issues and prolonged reviews.
Moderate-2
060.D-F
"one" trees identified for retention with development.
Develo p ent
mpriority
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
0601,
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 (or square feet), 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. 52
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or Property
Owner?
'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
060.F.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. 53
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or 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 as determined
Dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective
their removal. On development sites, they would be required to be
by a qualified tree professional and trees listed as noxious or invasive
Moderate-11
020.H
as determined by a qualified tree professional.
retained or mitigated (Tree Board 11/3/22).
species by WA State or Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control
Both
Boards.
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:
• Limit the number of property owner tree removals within a
• How many trees can be removed at one time?
specific
Is 12 months between allowed removals appropriate?
• Don't require apame.ermit/fee, but tracks removals over time
require
What are appropriate replacement requirements?
Major-1
-
Property owner tree removals
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.
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. 54
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or Property
• Do not allow paid "tree cutting permits" for the removal of
Unclear and contradictory code provisions result in excessive
healthy trees in critical areas
unauthorized tree removals in critical areas, without adequate
0 Require a permit to remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical
resources to enforce or require penalty fines. Current code does
areas to address code enforcement issues and lack of penalty
little to protect ecological functions and results in negative impacts
fine collection.
Major-4
040 & 050
Tree removal in critical areas
040.E ...`may" be removed with documentation...
to water quality and landslide hazard areas. Leads to incremental
Clarify that hazard/nuisance tree removals do not apply to
Property
loss of canopycover due to removal of "forest patches" per canopy
p p pY
vacant lots in critical areas unless targeting adjacentpropertyOwner
( 9 g 1
study findings.
structures).
• Add an appeals process.
(City Council 6/21/22 direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments).
Consider fee in lieu of replanting 2:1 in critical areas.
• Strike "rectify" and replace with "remedy" or other.
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.
• Consider creation of wildlife snags for the removal of
Property
Major-5
23.40.220.8.
imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
hazard/nuisance trees only in critical areas.
Owner
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.
'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. 55
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or Property
Owner?
Emergency tree removals
vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or
The current code does not consider that emergency tree removals
g Y
fix]. Emergency Tree Removal. Any tree that requires City approval for
danger to public health or safety, to public or private
may be applicable to property owners, outside of critical areas.
removal may be removed by the property owner if it is determined to
23.40.220.C.
property, or of serious environmental degradation may be
pose an imminent threat or danger to public health and safety, public or
Property
Major-6
8 b
removed or pruned by the landowner prior to receiving
written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days
Recommendation: Move applicable text from 23.40.22.C.8.b.vi (left)
private property, or of serious environmental degradation; provided, that
Owner
following such action, the landowner shall submit a
or use sample code provision (right) in 23.10.040 with new property
within 14 days, the property owner notifies the City and demonstrates
restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the
owner tree removal code provisions.
compliance with the provisions of this title.
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, 0605.2
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
Note: should be consistent with any new language in 060.A.
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
Major-11
060.C.1
MF/unit lot subdivision 25% retention requirements
areas for fire lanes, parking lots, other structures. Tree planting is
Development
required per MF landscaping requirements/buffers already. Fees in
lieu may be considered a takings challenge (RCW 82.02.020).
'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. 56
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDC
CURRENT CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
Development
i
or Property
Owner?
Recommendation: Examine MF 25% 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.
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
ECDC,
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).
COMP
Should be policy goal in Comp Plan. Not in ECDC, typically
Does Edmonds have a canopy cover goal?
Part of
PLAN,
noted in Intent and Purpose section. UFMP Goal 1 B
"no
Comp Plan
ECDC
suggests that net loss" is adopted as a canopy goal,
Recommendation: establish an appropriate city-wide overall canopy
Both
Update
23.10.010
which is vague, not a measurable metric that correlates to
cover goal percentage.
canopy assessment or inventory data.
'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. 57
7.A.c
Comprehensive Tree Code Issues & Preliminary Amendment List
Revised 11121122
POLICY
ECDCDevelopment
CODE
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Applies
PropertyCURRENT
Ensure Landmark trees/groves are protected in perpetuity to
preserve canopy cover and protect ecological functions.
Outside OF
New
Recommendation: Consider program that compensates property
scope
INCENTIVE
Not in code, not in UFMP
owners for large tree retention with development (Transfer of
Development
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.
No process, may be outcome of Equitable Engagement
Outside OF
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 holistically 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. 58
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/10/2023
May 10 Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Narrative
Staff has updated the extended agenda to incorporate feedback from the April 26 meeting, including
pushing out the final tree code work session so that it doesn't occur on the same date as the joint
meeting with City Council (June 14). Staff is in the process of selecting a Comprehensive Plan consultant
and has identified June 14 as a potential date for a kick off meeting with the consultants. Staff has also
remove the Comp Plan community events and instead will schedule those to occur outside of the
board's regular meetings.
A new planner with a strong background in urban design will be starting at the city on May 8. Staff is
looking to juggle a few items so that the discussion on Multifamily Design Standards currently scheduled
for July 12 can occur a bit earlier.
Attachments:
May 10 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 59
9.A.a
Planning Board Extended Agenda - May 10, 2023
O
.--I
It
N
4
r-I
00
N
N
r-I
l0
N
Ol
M
N
M
c-I
l0
N
I�
N
BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment)
PH
Tree Code Update (Code Amendment)
D/R
D/R*
PH
Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment)
I
PH
Recommendation on Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
D/R
Joint Workshop with Council - Recap of 2023 Housing -Related
Legislation and Impacts on Comp Plan and Code Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Kick -Off with Consultants
I
Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment)
I**
D/R
Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update
B
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No
Presentation)
R
Planning Board update to City Council - Report rather than
presentation?
R
Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment)
I
D/R
Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment)
I
* Invite Tree Board to Discuss Draft Code Amendments
** Joint Meeting with Architectural Design Board
KEY
I- Introduction & Discussion
PH- Public Hearing
D/R- Discussion/Recommendation
B- Briefing
R- Report with no briefing/presentation
Future Items
Parks Acquisition - Hurst Property (TBD)
Neighborhood Center Plans
ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
CIP/CFP
Comp Plan Goal/Policy Review
Housing Policy Implementation
Packet Pg. 60