2023-05-03 Tree Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
TREE BOARD
0Summary Minutes of Special Meeting
May 3, 2023
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers called the Tree Board special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Kerr Room of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North.
Board Members Present
Janelle Cass, Chair
Bill Phipps, Vice Chair
Wendy Kliment
Crane Stavig
Kevin Fagerstrom
Ross Dimmick (alternate)
Board Members Absent
Andy Lyon
Chris Eck
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Board Member Stavig read the land acknowledgement.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
Staff Present
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
Others Present
Alex Hancock, P1anIT Geo (online)
Mike Martini, P1anIT Geo (online)
FOCUS TOPIC: TREE CODE UPDATES STAKEHOLDER MEETING
A. Introductions
Alex Hancock and Mike Martini from P1anIT Geo introduced themselves and P1anlT Geo as the consultants on
this code update. Ms. Powers reviewed the format of the discussion.
B. Context/Background
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 1 of 7
ECDC 23.10 Review/Facilitated Discussion
Ms. Powers reviewed the context and background of the tree code amendments. The project scope includes
limits to property owner tree removals and minor code changes to address issues with existing code. Minor code
changes do not change the intent of the current code. The intention is to streamline the review process and
simplify or clarify the code.
Chair Cass noted that Ms. Powers provided background information from 2018 or 2019 but the issue
goes back even further. She referred to public input at a Planning Board meeting in 2015 where the
public was very adamant about being opposed to private property tree legislation. She asked if those
opinions have been considered. Ms. Powers explained they have not because the legislative process
requires decision -makers to consider the current public opinion. She explained the specific issues now
are not the same as in 2015 and that it is a different Council and Planning Board now, who have
determined the project scope. Ms. Cass acknowledged that but thought that the public sentiment might
still be the same. She noted it was a rough time then, and it could be rough again. She referred to the
tree canopy assessment from 2015 and commented that it is a difficult argument to make that they need
to do anything to control private property rights. It looks like 50% of the tree canopy is on private
property, and it was growing between 2015 and 2020. Ms. Powers explained that the process doesn't
allow going back and looking at public opinion many years prior to what was adopted as the current
code. That was part of public testimony then and cannot be considered public testimony now. That's
why they have a robust public engagement plan. All public feedback will be in front of the Council and
Planning Board who will make the decisions about the code. Chair Cass noted that there is a long history
to this topic. Ms. Powers concurred that is the case in any city that ever considers regulating trees.
Board Member Dimmick concurred. Even though staff may believe that there has been outreach and an
opportunity for people to provide input, there could be a similar reaction to 2015 with the same
comments. Ms. Powers commented that she is not able to include those comments as part of this process.
Vice Chair Phipps noted that tree codes are divisive in communities. He stated that the previous uprising
was generated and organized by people that lived in the bowl because they don't want trees going up in
the bowl. He was somewhat optimistic that the process might go a little better this time.
C. Property Owner Tree Removals
Ms. Powers reviewed how the current code works for tree removals on private property with no development.
For single family property that cannot be subdivided and is not in a critical area, there is basically unlimited tree
removal. If there are critical areas, the code is very confusing. If there is a vacant lot, you basically have to
follow the rules as if it were under development. When considering property tree removal, there is a basic
framework for a few key code concepts. At its simplest, codes address the number of tree removals allowed and
how often they can be removed. For example, in Kirkland the rule prior to 2021 was two trees per 12 months
no matter the size (anything under 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) was not regulated at all). This
achieved trying to slow the loss of canopy cover. The Planning Board is in favor of keeping whatever they
decide on as simple as possible. Beyond that, Ms. Powers explained the Planning Board considers that hazard
trees or nuisance trees are the exceptions. From there, a few additional things to consider about property owner
trees removals are landmark trees, critical areas, and replacement requirements, and mandatory minimums.
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 2 of 7
Shouldproperty owner tree removals should be limited to help slow the loss of canopy (with the exception of
hazard and nuisance trees)?
• Board Member Fagerstrom said they should even though there will be quite a bit of kickback in regard
to private property rights.
• Board Member Kliment agreed that there should be some sort of limit to what can be cut down. She
noted that is consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions. She agreed there will be a lot of push back.
• One board member asked if they are experiencing a loss of canopy under the current situation. Ms.
Powers explained there was an overall gain citywide but for single family lots there was a lot of loss
that was offset by growth for a net gain. In other areas there was a loss.
• Chair Cass commented that residential land contributed to the largest amount of new tree canopy to the
city and also where the most significant amount of tree canopy was lost from removals.
• Board Member Dimmick asked if they know why people cut down trees. Ms. Powers replied they do
not because it is not tracked. Board Member Dimmick thought that this was a critical piece of data to
inform a code. Anecdotal suggestions were shared about why people might remove trees. Ms. Powers
said that the lack of tracking this information was one of the reasons the Planning Board and Council
are considering limits to property owner tree removal with a notification, versus permit requirements.
• Vice Chair Phipps agreed with limiting property owner tree removals. He was in favor of more
restrictive guidelines like Shoreline has (three trees in three years).
• Board Member Stavig was in support of having some limit.
• Board Member Dimmick was not in favor of limiting property owner tree removals at this time.
• Chair Cass also was not in favor of the limits because they don't have enough understanding as to the
reasons why people are cutting them down. There could be other ways to more positively encourage
people to keep trees.
Most of the group appeared to be in favor of having some sort of limit on property owner tree
removals. Two members were against it at this time because they felt there was not enough
information to justify it, however there was no specific request for additional information.
Should property owners be allowed to remove x number of trees within a certain timeframe with no permit?
(exceptions for hazard and nuisance trees)
• Chair Cass thought this would be more palatable to people.
• Board Member Kliment commented that that concept is very clear.
• The majority of the group appeared to support this.
Should landmark tree be defined as minimum 24 " DBH?
• After some discussion, there appeared to be consensus to leave it at 24" but the group then became
divided.
Should landmark tree removals be prohibited?
• Chair Cass commented that people are likely to remove their biggest trees in the "two per" if they do
this. She thought people might remove trees before they get to 24" in order to not have the restrictions.
• Vice Chair Phipps did not think this would happen. He thinks most people remove trees for a good
reason.
• Board Member Dimmick agreed that most tree removals are purpose driven.
• There was no consensus here.
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 3 of 7
Should landmark trees be limited when talking about tree removal allowances?
• Board Member Phipps said they should.
• Board Member Kliment said they should.
• Board Member Stavig wondered about requiring a permit for landmark trees so they have to explain
specific circumstances. Ms. Powers explained that would be a limitation. Board Member Stavig said he
would be in favor of having limitations for landmark trees.
• Board Member Fagerstrom said thought landmark tree should be limited but should also require
mitigation.
• Board Member Dimmick said he would want to know why they are taking it down.
• There was consensus that landmark tree removals should be limited more so than smaller trees
with general response: "yes, but it depends on..." (undetermined circumstances).
Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas?
• There was general agreement that tree removals in critical areas should require a permit.
What are appropriate tree replacement requirements for property owner tree removals in Edmonds.
• Most board members appeared to agree with some sort of tree replacement policy but there were
differing opinions about the practicality of this and how it should happen.
• Unclear with general response: "yes, but it depends on..." many factors.
D. Tree Retention with Development
Ms. Powers explained that one of the primary objectives of tree retention with development is you are making
decisions to try to achieve a healthy, sustainable urban forest now and 5, 10, 25+ years from now. She stated
that the priority for tree codes with development is to retain trees where you can. The next option is to replace
removals by planting on site. If you can't replace removals onsite, the last resort is to replace removals by
planting offsite (fees in lieu).
Vice Chair Phipps asked if the consultants should chime in since their time was almost over. Ms. Hancock said
Ms. Powers was doing a good job and was being consistent with what other cities across the region and across
the nation area doing.
Ms. Powers reviewed how the current code regarding tree retention with development works and how tree
retention thresholds are determined and met. She explained that the Conservation Subdivision is a mechanism
to achieve greater tree retention with a lot of "gives." She discussed issues with the current code experienced
by developers, staff, arborists, and changes that need to be made.
Should the code be reorganized using charts and graphics?
• Board Member Dimmick asked if the code is set up to be able to use charts and graphics. Vice Chair
Phipps replied that it is.
• Board Member Stavig asked who the user is — developers? Ms. Powers replied that it should be anybody.
Developers and arborists writing arborist reports are probably the primary users of this section of the
code, but it should be understandable for anyone. Board Member Stavig thought they should be asking
the people who are using the code rather than the Tree Board members. Ms. Powers explained that was
the reason that staff and the consultants held the Developers/Arborists' stakeholder meeting.
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 4 of 7
• Chair Cass thought the replacement numbers shown in graphs don't seem reasonable considering the
fact that if you are developing land, you have less land available for planting and yet you are required
to plant more trees than you removed.
• Consensus is that yes, that the code should be reorganized using charts and graphs.
Should the code use one method/calculation to determine the minimum number of trees required to be
retained/replanted?
• Ms. Powers brought up that there are multiple layers of requirements in the current code for tree
retention, replacement, and fees in lieu. She raised the topic of tree density credits, a unit that can equate
to trunk diameter or DBH, to calculate what you want to achieve in terms of tree density credits per
acre. The current code requires retention of a certain percentage of trees, which are essentially "sticks
in the ground." That can be inequitable because the percentage of a lot of existing trees is a lot. Tree
density credits are the desired inches of DBH that can be calculated using a combination of retained
existing trees or replanted new trees. Ms. Powers reminded the Board that Board Member Lyon was an
advocate for this system.
• Chair Cass thought this made sense.
• There seemed to be consensus that a single calculation for tree density would be better, but what
was "reasonable" was not clear.
Should the code prioritize replanting over requiring fees in lieu, such as with landmark tree replacements?
• There was some discussion about how the fees in lieu are collected and used and interest in looking at
Tree Fund accounting.
When landmark trees are removed for development, should the code require replacement for those trees first
before skipping to fees in lieu?
• There was agreement that retention should be the number one priority for landmark trees. If not
successful, then tree replacement should be the priority. If that is not possible, then fees in lieu.
Should the $2 per square foot "cap " be eliminated from the code?
• It was unclear if that would pencil out enough to leave it in the code.
Should the 25% tree retention threshold that applies to multifamily development be removed from the code?
• The group was undecided about this.
Should the Conservation Subdivision code section sped a quantity for "greater tree retention "?
• Ms. Powers explained this chapter lists all the "gives" that are variations to development standards. The
problem is it doesn't specify what "greater tree retention" is and it's not in the tree code chapter, so it
can be unknown to some developers. The biggest problem is that there's no specific numerical threshold
for "greater tree retention."
• Board Member Kliment suggested they could use the same calculation they are using as the basis for
the residential code. Ms. Powers replied they could, or it could be higher because the developers get so
much in return.
There was agreement that Conservation Subdivision codes can use a similar formula as the
general tree density credit calculation, but maybe increased.
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 5 of 7
Alex Hancock, from P1anIT Geo, encouraged the group to think outside the box regarding things a Tree Fund
could be used for such as land acquisition, tree maintenance, or future staff positions for doing inspections or
outreach and engagement. Board Member Dimmick asked about the cost benefit of land acquisition when land
is so expensive. Ms. Hancock said it didn't look like there was much opportunity for land acquisition in
Edmonds. She noted there are other ways to use the money as mentioned above for a city that is mostly built
out. Tree maintenance is something that is often overlooked and could be a deliberate effort to maintain trees
and make sure they live long and healthy lives.
She also referred to the tree density credit system which would allow Edmonds to have more options but
simplify the code by organizing it into a chart. One thing that has been helpful in other cities when looking at
defining the measures of protection or defining exemptions is to keep in mind that you can make those
distinctions based on characteristics of trees (species, condition, size) and/or characteristics of the land (land
use, zoning, critical areas, utilities, easements, buffers from the house, etc.).
No discussion took place on Tree Retention with Development/Levels of Protection for landmark trees or
groves.
E. Conclusions
What's the one thing you would change with the existing code?
What are some ways Edmonds' tree code could be improved?
• Vice Chair Phipps said he would require conifers to be replanted if they are taken out.
• Chair Cass said having a simple requirement calculation that is more attainable and reasonable is
important so people will choose that rather than opting to pay fees in lieu. There was discussion about
what was reasonable. Chair Cass thought the current code was unfair because a lot of people live on
currently developed land with fewer trees and someone else might live on a lot with more trees and also
want some sunshine. It just needs to be more attainable. Ms. Powers noted that in Kirkland prior to
2021, 30 tree density credits were required per acre, which plays out to 5 or so new trees on a 7,500
square foot lot, if no trees were there to begin with. Depending on the trunk size of any existing trees
that were retained, no new trees may be required if the tree density credit "quota" was met. Board
Member Kliment noted that it depends on the size. Board Member Dimmick commented that
topography and site layout/constraints also matter.
• Board Member Dimmick agreed with needing simplicity. He suggested the need to remember the big
goal of preserving community canopy without being so concerned about each individual lot. Ms. Powers
noted that is what's so hard with tree codes, trying to balance community benefits with individual
property rights. She also raised that code predictability is also very important for developers.
• Board Member Fagerstrom spoke to charm and character. There was discussion about the different
nuances of this. Board Member Fagerstrom said he was referring to the nature of the entire city — the
tree canopy, the views, good street system, a charming downtown core, etc. Ms. Powers noted how
desirability and livability relates to tree codes. Board Member Fagerstrom stated that the longevity and
maintenance of the replacement trees needs to be prioritized. He expressed concern about properties
that change hands and then all the retention and planting can be undone by the next owner. Ms. Powers
explained that now, all trees resulting from development are protected by a notice on the title. Ideally,
only high retention value trees are protected in perpetuity and others are protected for 3 or 5 years under
a maintenance agreement. After then, they should be regulated like all other trees.
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 6 of 7
Board Member Stavig said he would like to see the fees in lieu go somewhere besides the Parks
Department like maybe into escrow or holding tank to be determined by Planning Board or Tree Board.
Board Member Stavig commented that it seems like it's getting siphoned off by Parks. He would like
to see some transparency with that.
Ms. Powers asked board members to consider any questions that were not asked that could go out as a separate
stakeholder survey. She encouraged the Board to also take a public survey and provide comments there. Vice
Chair Phipps expressed concern about the survey questions and answers. Ms. Powers invited him to have a
discussion with her offline to discuss suggestions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Tree Board Special Meeting Minutes
May 3, 2023
Page 7 of 7