2023-06-28 Planning Board PacketOp E D
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
s71. ,HvREGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 28, 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.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 14 Meeting Minutes
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Amendments, AMD 2022-0004
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Update
10. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. June 28 Extended Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
June 28, 2023
Page 1
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
June 28, 2023
Page 2
3.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/28/2023
June 14 Meeting Minutes
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Staff Recommendation
Approve the draft minutes for the Planning Board's June 14, 2023 regular meeting.
Narrative
The draft minutes for the board's June 14, 2023 regular meeting are attached. The joint meeting with
City Council as advertised as a City Council special meeting, so those minutes will be approved by the
City Council.
Attachments:
June 14, 2023 Draft Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
3.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
June 14, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:07 p.m. at Edmonds
City Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Mitchell.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Nick Maxwell
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Richard Kuehn (excused)
Susanna Martini (excused)
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Susan McLaughlin, Planning and Development Director
David Levitan, Planning Manager
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jacob Steg an referred to Aurora and SR 104 and commented that it is a horrible route for bicyclists and
pedestrians. He recommended keeping this in mind as they discuss the Highway 99 Community Renewal Plan.
He noted that the information in the packet looks great.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Highway 99 Community Renewal Plan
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 14, 2023 Pagel of 5
Packet Pg. 4
3.A.a
Development Services Director McLaughlin noted that the draft Plan has been completed and was included in
the Board's packets along with staff s recommendation. She discussed previous planning efforts and
infrastructure challenges. Under a Community Renewal Plan (CRP), special tools would be available to start
getting development opportunities with the intention of catalyzing investment for both public and private
investment in the corridor. The analysis confirms that Edmonds is eligible to apply for a CRP based on physical
dilapidation of buildings, unsafe conditions, insufficient access to parks/open space, inadequate street layout,
inadequate lot layout, and excessive surface parking coverage. Additionally, there is a big gap in tree canopy
coverage along Highway 99. Assets of the area include proximity to the coming Sound Transit light rail station,
Ballinger Park, culturally relevant businesses and non-profit service providers, community gardens, City Hall
neighborhood office, full -service grocery, lively shopping plaza, Swift BRT stations, Mathay-Ballinger Park, N
bus transit hub at Aurora Transit Center in Shoreline, and businesses generating tax revenue for public services.?
c
Director McLaughlin discussed structural issues in the area. Highway 99 cuts through existing neighborhoods,
creating a barrier between the Lake Ballinger neighborhood and the rest of Edmonds. Several irregularly shaped
lots were created that have been difficult to develop because of their odd shape. The medians also present access
challenges. Construction of the interchange at Highway 99/SR 104 made access to the Burlington Coat Factory
site difficult. Access remains an impediment to redevelopment of the site. Site Design Safety Challenges exist
because physical barriers and poor sight lines create "dead zones", especially between and behind buildings
enabling crime along the corridor. Many buildings in the area are more than 50 years old and/or in "below 3
normal condition". d
She discussed potential implementation strategies: adopt a community renewal area, explore tax increment
financing as an option to address infrastructure needs, foster public -private partnerships, pursue Reconnecting
Communities Grant, and continue to invest in parks and transportation per the Highway 99 subarea plan EIS.
She explained that Reconnecting Communities is a federal grant created for the purpose of reconnecting
neighborhoods that have been inequitably bisected. It is not yet known whether Edmonds would be eligible but
it is an exciting possibility. Recommended projects include public -private redevelopment, access improvements
near the interchange, through block connections, neighborhood park, Green Streets, business revitalization, and
interchange replacement. General clarification questions and answers followed.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about the boundary of the Community Renewal Area versus the subarea.
Director McLaughlin explained that per the RCW definition they focus directly on the corridor itself and the
results of Highway 99 bisecting the neighborhoods. Board Member Golembiewski asked what happens with
the tax increment financing if it doesn't get built. Director McLaughlin explained this is a risk. She spoke to the
value of using the powers under a Community Renewal Plan to foster that and ensure that you get a return.
Board Member Golembiewski asked what happens to the property values of people who own property in a
Community Renewal area. Director McLaughlin was not sure but indicated they could look into that further.
Chair Gladstone also wondered if this would change over time. She stated she went to community meetings on
this and instead of focusing on being eligible for a Community Renewal Plan, the focus was on designating it
as a blight area. There was a lot of bristling at the idea of calling this a blighted area. Director McLaughlin
acknowledged that there is great sensitivity to the word blight. She explained that this tool is something that is
used for conditions that are undesirable or unsafe as a result of infrastructure. Chair Gladstone said she
appreciates the emphasis on being eligible for being a Community Renewal area rather than talking about blight.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 14, 2023 Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 5
3.A.a
Director McLaughlin concurred and expressed hope that these tools could provide the feasibility of tackling
larger scale issues.
Board Member Mitchell asked how the Community Renewal Plan would keep people consistently engaged.
Director McLaughlin spoked to the value of an implementation strategy associated with a master plan to create
a cohesive development. She commented that community engagement is key.
Board Member Maxwell commented that the area has been very stable (unchanged) for at least 30 years and,
without some sort of intervention, he believes it will not improve or change. He thinks it is a great idea to explore
this.
Student Representative Distelhorst commented that the narrative on Highway 99 is that it is unsafe and because
of that we shouldn't have development. However, what people don't realize is that redeveloping it can really c'
change it and benefit the city more.
c
W
Board Member Mitchell noted that when you put improvements in place or a plan for improvements in place,
it shows that you care about a neighborhood. Usually when you care about a neighborhood, crime starts to go
down.
as
c
Director McLaughlin added that through the Community Renewal Plan they would have more powers to help
people who have been displaced as a result of anything they would do along the corridor. d
Board Member Golembiewski wondered about the impacts of living in an area/building designated as a
Community Renewal Area and whether it made sense to include certain apartment buildings. Director
McLaughlin indicated she would go back to some case studies and talk to people in cities that have been through
this process.
Chair Gladstone said she thinks having a Community Renewal Plan for this area makes a lot of sense; however,
it seems to be lacking a sense of where the dollars will be targeted. She is hesitant to call it a plan. She also
asked how much of the plan is going to be community -driven versus other kinds of drivers. She referred to
community engagement and stressed that part of this is having results that the community cares about. She
thinks this plan identifies good strategies but doesn't give a sense of how they are going to decide what to do.
What is the community's role in determining that? When the Council approves it, what is their expectation for
the implementation of this? Director McLaughlin said her recommendation is to get the area designated as a
Community Renewal Area and then launch into comprehensive plan conversations. That scope will allow staff
the opportunity to work with the Highway 99 community, dust off the subarea plan, and reidentify the issues
and areas of focus to help inform the strategic plan moving forward.
Chair Gladstone referred to Green Streets and noted that in her opinion this would need more substantiation on
the stormwater side to make it worth spending the dollars that might otherwise be spent on other projects.
Director McLaughlin explained that Green Streets in Edmonds would be much different than Seattle. It is a full
cost continuum between adding additional street trees to the full blown engineered bioretention cell. The
feedback in this area has been that there is an absolute void of tree canopy, landscaping, and walkable streets.
Chair Gladstone stressed that Green Streets could provide some tree canopy which is valuable, but they are
absolutely not a substitute for parks.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 14, 2023 Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 6
3.A.a
Board Member Golembiewski asked how they would know when the Community Renewal Plan is done.
Director McLaughlin replied that it is never really done. It's more of a designation. Removing the designation
would also remove the tools they have access to. Board Member Golembiewski asked if a city can have more
than one Community Renewal Area. Director McLaughlin was not sure.
Board Member Maxwell recommended that the word blight be taken out of any of their conversations unless
they need to use it for application purposes. Director McLaughlin concurred. Board Member Maxwell said he
grew up in an area that was redeveloped and renewed and those are dirty words to him. In Philadelphia renewal
and redevelopment always meant the places you love were destroyed and replaced with huge concrete messes
that no one loved and no one wanted to be around. To avoid that he recommended maintaining the tax base.
This would help to guide away from things that the community would not actually want. Regarding business
revitalization, he suggested finding a way to support businesses. He discussed a program where businesses pay?
N
little to no rent for a certain period of time to see if they would be successful. A big part of what makes Highway
c'
99 currently unattractive is that it is not continuous. There are big areas where there are no businesses and you
lose the community sense. Finally, he stated he was amused that the study was enthusiastic about cut throughs.
There was some discussion about the difference between cut throughs and through -block connections. Director
McLaughlin explained how Washington State Complete Streets mandate and Reconnecting Communities fit
into this. Chair Gladstone referred to the map on page 27 which is trying to portray the potential through -block
as
connections. It looks like those are crossing Highway 99 as well as breaking up the long blocks in the residential
areas.
3
Board Member Golembiewski asked if the intent is to reduce the attractiveness of Highway 99 as a commuter
highway and make it more focused on local access. Director McLaughlin explained that it is.
There was discussion about potential next steps and the process going forward. Board Member Maxwell stated
he was generally comfortable with this. Chair Gladstone commented that it appears that the Board agrees
conceptually that it makes sense to have a Community Renewal Plan (or some sort of plan) for this area as a
tool for the City to provide best services to the community; however, there are differences in opinion about the
details of the projects. Board Member Golembiewski recommended getting answers to some of their questions
before sending this on to Council.
Director McLaughlin indicated she would try to bring this back in July with more information. She noted that
the nomenclature for Green Streets could be changed to be more generalized.
Chair Gladstone also recommended having a community -driven prioritized list so the community can see the
results they want and continue to be engaged. She also wondered if this would even qualify for the Reconnecting
Communities grant because the real divide occurred between Shoreline and Edmonds with SR 104.
Board Member Mitchell asked if there is a specific way to highlight crime reduction as a goal for some of the
recommended projects. Director McLaughlin noted that public -private redevelopment would afford a police
substation and community wraparound facilities. She indicated they could clarify this.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Planning Manager Levitan reviewed the extended agenda.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 14, 2023 Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 7
3.A.a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Mitchell thanked staff for putting together the special meeting.
Student Representative Distelhorst thanked staff for the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 14, 2023 Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 8
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/28/2023
Tree Code Amendments, AMD 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 high level key code concepts and
considered new regulatory options for property owner tree removals as amendments to Chapter 23.10
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) (Attachment 1). As noted in the meeting minutes
(Attachment 2), the Board provided general direction for staff to return with preliminary draft code for
Planning Board and public review at the June 28, 2023 Planning Board meeting. Staff proposed inviting
the Tree Board to this meeting (originally scheduled for June 14) to discuss the draft code language. A
Notice of Special Meeting of the Tree Board has been issued to allow them to participate in the
discussion on June 28.
Staff Recommendation
No formal action is required at this meeting. Members are asked to review and discuss the issues,
options and sample code shown in Attachment 3 as well as the summary of community feedback
provided in Attachment 5 and provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred approach to codes
related to property owner tree removals. Staff will continue to develop draft code language for Planning
Board review and discussion at a subsequent Planning Board meeting, which is currently scheduled for
August 9, 2023.
Narrative
Initially adopted in 1928, Edmonds tree code was most recently updated in 2021 to address tree
retention and planting standards associated with development activity. During the 2021 code
amendment process, the City Council and Planning Board discussed a "second phase" of code
amendments that would consider property owner tree removals unrelated to development activity.
Currently, there are no limits to tree removal on developed multifamily, commercial, and single-family
properties that cannot be subdivided and do not have critical areas. Changes to ECDC that add new
requirements or substantially prohibit/ban something currently allowed, or amendments resulting in
significant changes to procedures or additional cost to permit applicants are considered major code
amendments. Therefore, new regulations that limit property owner tree removals are major code
amendments.
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
Packet Pg. 9
8.A
Board's recommendation, with any code amendments adopted by ordinance.
Regulatory Framework for Property Owner Tree Removals
Attachment 3 is organized by the same six key code concepts discussed at the April 26, 2023 Planning
Board meeting, showing the main issues, options under consideration and sample code language for
each. Concise, conceptual code language is shown in the right column with notes differentiating new
and current codes. From top to bottom, the sample code rewrite column shows how each key code
concept is related to the previous. Yellow highlights indicate areas that the Planning Board had not
arrived at a consensus (or majority) opinion or specific code direction during the April 26 meeting, which
may be good areas to focus on during this joint meeting with the Tree Board.
Requests for Information
At the April 26 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested information to assist in making decisions
regarding the key code concepts related to property owner tree removals. Attachment 4 provides
requested information that is supplemented by a series of hyperlinks, graphics, etc. Staff will provide
visual aids at the June 28`" meeting to assist in discussion regarding tree size.
Public Feedback
Staff has included a summary on all public engagement efforts, including the general public survey
results, two Community Conversation events and focus group feedback prepared by the City's public
engagement consultant (Attachment 5). Additional information related to focus group meeting
outcomes will be presented at the June 28 joint meeting with the Tree Board.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- April 26, 2023 Planning Board Staff Report
Attachment 2 - April 26, 2023 Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Attachment 3 - Property Owner Tree Removal Regulatory Framework
Attachment 4 - Additional Information Requested at April 26 Planning Board Meeting
Attachment 5 - Public Engagement Final Report
Packet Pg. 10
8.A.a
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2023
Tree Code Update Phase II - Private Property Tree Removals
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Deb Powers
Background/History
The Planning Board received a project update on Phase II of the Tree Code Update project and reviewed
the related Community Engagement Strategy at its March 8, 2023 meeting. Planning Board meetings to
address the remaining Chapter 23.10 Edmonds Community and Development Code (ECDC)
amendments are scheduled for April 26, May 10, and June 14, 2023. Staff will review potential options
for property owner tree removals (not related to development) at the April 26 Planning Board meeting.
On May 10, staff will review major code amendments proposed to the existing development -related
tree code. The anticipated outcome for each of these meetings is general direction for staff to develop
preliminary draft code for Planning Board and public review at the June 14, 2023 meeting, before
potentially holding a public hearing as early as July 12, 2023.
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 regulatory
options for property owner tree removal. Staff has included a summary of initial public feedback on the
topic prepared by the city's public engagement consultant (Attachments 2 and 3) as well as examples
from local jurisdictions. Board members are asked to provide direction to staff on the Board's preferred
approach to property owner tree removals so staff may develop preliminary draft code language for
Planning Board review and discussion on June 14, 2023. Staff is proposing to invite the Tree Board to
the June 14 meeting so that they may provide additional feedback.
Narrative
The primary purpose of the 2022-2023 tree code amendments is to consider code amendments to ECDC
23.10 (see weblink above) that limit tree removals on private property. The project aims to balance a
property owner's right to remove trees on their property with the community's interest in slowing the
loss of canopy cover and the role of the tree canopy in helping with climate change adaptation and
mitigation. Incentives, programs, public education and other tools that work towards a healthy,
sustainable urban forest are outlined in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP; see weblink) and
implemented by various groups or individuals as resources allow.
Scope
Changes to ECDC that add new requirements or substantially prohibit/ban something currently allowed,
Packet Pg. 11
8.A.a
or amendments resulting in significant changes to procedures/additional cost to permit applicants, are
considered major code amendments. Currently, there are no limits to tree removal on developed, single
family properties that cannot be subdivided and do not have critical areas. Therefore, new regulations
that limit property owner tree removals are major code amendments.
Regulatory Framework
In simplistic terms, codes that limit property owner tree removals establish two things: 1) a maximum
or limited number of tree removals, and 2) a specified timeframe for the tree removals to occur. Frorr
there, key code concepts form a regulatory framework for property owner tree removals, including
replacement and mitigation requirements. Attachment 1 lists these key code concepts, identifies
issues/gaps with the current code and provides examples of code options adopted by neighboring
municipalities. Staff has also included weblinks to private property tree removal regulations in a
number of local cities, which board members are encouraged to review and identify components that
they believe the city should consider implementing.
The main options identified in Attachment 1 are:
1) Tree removal allowances (number of trees that can be removed)
2) Tree removal frequency
3) Reasonable exceptions
4) Landmark trees
5) Removal in critical areas
6) Tree replacement requirements
Each code option presents questions that drill down to greater levels of code detail for the Planning
Board to consider - "How should the code regulate property owner tree removals in Edmonds?" Note
that increased code complexity or options that do not correlate to a streamlined review process
weighted lower in staff recommendations. At the April 26 Planning Board meeting, staff will be seeking
direction on these key code concepts to draft code to bring back to the Planning Board on June 14, 2023
Public Feedback
In addition to reviewing code options implemented by other cities, Planning Board should consider
public feedback provided thus far on the topic. The city recently distributed a public survey (see
weblink), with preliminary results (as of April 19) provided in Attachment 2. The survey was launched
just after the city hosted a March 27 "Community Conversation", which was attended by approximately
20 people and a summary of which is included in Attachment 3. Staff expects that additional code
amendments will be identified from public and stakeholder feedback and at subsequent outreach
events, Planning Board, Tree Board and City Council meetings. A second "Community Conversation" is
tentatively schedule for May 15 and the Tree Board will be holding their stakeholder discussion on May
3. Staff is also proposing to invite the Tree Board to the June 14 work session to review and provide
input on draft code language.
During development of the UFMP in 2019, a survey was conducted to gauge public sentiment on
trees/tree issues. While that survey focused on gaining information about public tree management,
some of the responses may be considered baseline information as a comparison to current public
sentiment:
Question 1 asked survey -takers to rank levels of agreement to the statement "Trees are important to the
quality of life in Edmonds," with the highest response (74%) as strongly agree.
Question 15 asked, "What are your biggest concerns for trees in Edmonds?" with the following
responses: Loss of wildlife habitat (72%), Healthy mature trees removed during development (68%),
Canopy loss (57%), Trees blocking my view (24%), and a range of responses under 20% concerned with
debris, shade, etc.
Attachments:
Packet Pg. 12
8.A.a
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
Relevant
Code Section
Key Code Concept
Options
23.10
• Allow a maximum number of property owner tree removals atone time. (Kirkland pre -
Tree removal allowances (not in current code)
2021)
Issue: currently, tree removals are unlimited on developed,
• OR, allow a certain number of tree removals based on the size of the property
single family properties (not subdividable).
(Redmond, Renton, Kenmore)
N/A
Issue: need to balance property owner's rights to remove trees
Q; SHOULD TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES BE ESTABLISHED TO SLOW THE LOSS
on private property with community interest in reducing canopy
OF CANOPY IN EDMONDS?
loss.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: YES, USING A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD
Issue: without tracking removals, the number of removals, tree
NUMERICAL ALLOWANCE, SUCH AS 2 OR 3 (PER 12 MONTHS, BELOW), NO PERMIT
size, etc. is unknown. The metric for tree canopy cover gain/loss
REQUIRED, HOWEVER, NOTIFICATION REQUESTED TO AVOID CODE
is with canopy assessments every 5-10 years.
ENFORCEMENT CALLS.
• 2- per 12 months (Kirkland pre-2021)
Tree removal frequency (not in current code)
• 5 significant trees allowed every 3 years (Bellevue)
Issue: unlimited # of removals at the same time maximizes
• 2 trees in 12 months and 4 trees in 24 months (Woodinville)
N/A
canopy cover loss.
• Not more than 4 significant trees per year ... etc. (Sammamish)
Issue: lack of limitations has inadvertently allowed preemptive
Q; IS 12 MONTHS BETWEEN ALLOWED REMOVALS APPROPRIATE?
tree removals in anticipation of development, which can result in
greater canopy loss than allowed in ECDC 23.10.060
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: YES. A SIMPLE 12 MONTH CYCLE IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SLOWS CANOPY LOSS OVER TIME VS. CALENDAR
YEAR CYCLE.
Allow reasonable exceptions to exceed the maximum # of
Consider exceptions to tree removal limits that don't count towards tree removal
tree removal allowances (current code doesn't have
allowances, such as removal of hazard or nuisance trees (Kirkland, Medina,
numerical tree removal limits, but allows removal of
Woodinville, others).
hazard/nuisance trees without a permit)
Q: WHEN SHOULD A PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR TREE REMOVALS?
N/A
Issue: promote best management practices in tree care on
private property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: HAZARD OR NUISANCE TREE REMOVALS SHOULD
NOT COUNT AGAINST TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES, SUBJECT TO REVIEW
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code
THROUGH PERMIT PROCESS. ALSO SEE CRITICAL AREAS BELOW.
amendments: consider requiring permits for all property owner
tree removals.)
Landmark tree definition and property owner removal
• Define Landmark/Legacy/Exceptional trees by size (DBH = trunk diameter at 4.5 feet),
restrictions (not in current code)
(Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Kirkland, Snoqualmie, Redmond, etc. range from 18"
DBH to 30" DBH)
N/A
Issue: although removals were banned under a prior moratorium,
• Determine appropriate number of Landmark removals within a given timeframe (1
there is no Landmark tree definition or removal restrictions in the
current code.
Landmark tree removal per 12 months — Kirkland, others vary widely. Seattle prohibits
Exceptional (30" DBH) tree removal.
a
Packet Pg. 13
8.A.a
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
Relevant
Code Section
Key Code Concept
Options
23.10
Issue: address incremental loss of canopy cover on private
Q: SHOULD LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL BE PROHIBITED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
property in response to canopy study findings, protect ecological
HAZARD OR NUISANCE TREES?
functions.
Q: CONSIDERING THE PRIOR LANDMARK TREE DEFINITION, IS A MINIMUM 24" DBH
AN APPROPRIATE SIZE TO DEFINE TREES WITH GREATER LIMITS TO TREE
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code
REMOVAL?
amendments: restrict or prohibit Landmark tree removals).
Q: SHOULD FEWER LANDMARK TREE REMOVALS BE ALLOWED? PROHIBITED
EXCEPT HAZARD OR NUISANCE?
Q: SHOULD MORE TIME BE REQUIRED TO LAPSE BETWEEN LANDMARK TREE
REMOVALS, COMPARED TO OTHER TREES?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ALLOW LOWER # OF >24" DBH LANDMARK REMOVALS
AND/OR OVER LONGER TIME PERIOD OR PROHIBIT LANDMARK TREE REMOVAL
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAZARD/NUISANCE TREES.
Tree removal in critical areas
Issue: contradictory and inconsistent code language in various
. Require a permit to remove hazard/nuisance trees in critical areas (Most cities/counties,
code sections results in high frequency of unauthorized tree
even those without tree codes)
removals in critical areas. For example, 23.40 says no tree
removal in critical areas and permit is required, while 23.10.040
• Only allow hazard/nuisance tree removals in critical areas (Most cities/counties, even
says no permit is required, etc.
those without tree codes)
040 & 050,
Issue: current code issues are directly related to numerous,
• Considering adding an appeals process (Most cities/counties, even those without tree
sometimes ongoing tree removal code violations in critical areas.
codes)
23.40.220
Issue: Current code leads to incremental loss of canopy cover
Q: SHOULD A PERMIT BE REQUIRED FOR TREE REMOVALS IN CRITICAL AREAS?
due to removal of "forest patches" per canopy study findings.
Q: SHOULD THE SAME TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES APPLY IN CRITICAL AREAS?
Risks protection of ecological functions in critical areas, negative
impacts to water quality and landslide hazard areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PROHIBIT TREE REMOVAL IN CRITICAL AREAS WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF HAZARD/NUISANCE TREES, SUBJECT TO REVIEW. PERMIT
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code
REQUIRED.
amendments includes greater restrictions on tree removals in
critical areas).
• Require new tree replacements based on size of removed tree (Edmonds ECDC
Tree replacement requirements for property owner -removed
23.10080)
080,
trees
• OR, use a formula based on replacement trees per increments of removed tree trunk
Issue: different, unclear replacement requirements in various
diameter (1 new tree for every removed 6" trunk diameter - Woodinville).
23.40.220,
code sections apply. Can be 2:1, appraised value or 1-3 new
trees, depending on size of removed trees, underlying zoning, if
• require tree replacements only when the number of remaining trees on the lot
20.13
critical areas are present or if multifamily/commercial
reaOR,
reaches a minimum threshold (Kirkland pre-2021)
landscaping requirements apply.
Q: WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY
OWNER TREE REMOVALS?
a
Packet Pg. 14
8.A.a
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
Relevant
Code Section
Key Code Concept
Options
23.10
• STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE SIMPLE 1 TO 3 NEW TREE
REPLACEMENTS, BASED ON SIZE OF REMOVED TREE, SHOWN IN TABLE
FORMAT.
Packet Pg. 15
8.A.b
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 I) to achieve the goal of reducing
development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree
removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential
lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable
but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided.
Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini
asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would
just be a secondary use.
Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She
explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12
months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree
removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that
shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about
equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist.
Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals
if it is evident in a photograph.
Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact
is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree
canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be
very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five
or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments
in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was
going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different
specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in
looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact
of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy
loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no
account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or
requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time.
Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there
are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest
accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate
assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 16
8.A.b
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. 17
8.A.b
• 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 Board feel 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. 18
8.A.b
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.
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. 19
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
8.A.c
ISSUES
OPTIONS
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
1. Should property owner tree removals be limited in Edmonds?
Key Code Concept: Allow a maximum number of property owner tree removals that may occur at once (not in current code)
• Allow a certain number of tree removals under a notification process (Kirkland pre-2021),
• Current code allows unlimited tree removals on developed SF, MF, COMM
or...
properties (where no critical areas are present).
• Allow a certain number of tree removals based on the size of the property (Redmond,
Note code defines "significant" tree as minimum 6" DBH (CURRENT)
• On SF properties, tree replanting does not occur.
Renton, Kenmore, Kirkland presently)
Define size of tree applicable to property owner tree removals at minimum
• The number and size of property owner tree removals is unknown.
Staff recommendation: use a simple numerical allowance administered through an over-
12" DBH up to 24" DBH (see 4 below) as "regulated" tree (NEW).
• The metric for tree canopycover gain/loss is with canopy assessments eve
g py every
the -counter notification process to check for critical areas No permit required, notification
request avoids unnecessary code enforcement response.
Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 3
5-10 years. Note that gains in tree canopy outpaced losses by a very small
regulated trees within [x] period with the submittal of a Tree Removal
amount between 2015 and 2020.'
PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION 4/26/23: ESTABLISH TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES
Notification form (NEW).
• Balance property owner's rights to remove trees on private property with
FOR (UNDETERMINED NUMBER) TREE REMOVALS THAT MAY OCCUR AT ONE
community interest in reducing canopy loss.
TIME, APPLICABLE TO LARGER TREES WITH A MINIMUM 12" DBH. GENERAL
SUPPORT FOR A NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
2. Is 12 months between allowed removals an appropriate time span?
Key Code Concept: Frequency of allowed tree removals (not in current code)
• Consider "2- per" tree removal allowance per 12 months (Kirkland pre-2021), or...
• 5 significant trees allowed every 3 years (Bellevue)
• Unlimited number of tree removals at the same time results in greater
incremental canopy cover Ioss.2
2 trees in 12 months and 4 trees in 24 months Woodinville
(Woodinville)
Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 3
• In some cases, unlimited SF removals inadvertently allowed preemptive tree
• Not more than 4 significant trees per year (Sammamish)
regulated trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree
removals in anticipation of development, resulting in greater canopy loss than
Staff recommendation: opt for simplicity and streamlined submittal/review; use a single
Removal Notification form (NEW).
allowed in the current development code provisions.
numerical allowance such as 3 per 12 months.
PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION 4/26/23: UNDETERMINED RATE OF FREQUENCY
BETWEEN ALLOWED REMOVAL OF TREES WITH A MINIMUM 12" DBH.
3. When should a permit be required for property owner tree removals?
Key Code Concept: Clarify permit requirements (in the current code) and identify reasonable exceptions to tree removal allowances (not in current code)
• Clarify when a permit is currently required for MF, COMM properties (for review of
landscaping/buffer requirements per ECDC 20.13), vacant and subdividable properties.
23.10.040-,� Tree Removal Not Associated with Development
• Current code uses excessive exemption language with double negatives
• Consider hazard or nuisance tree removals as exceptions to tree removal allowances
Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 3
such as "exceptions to exemptions" across multiple code sections, making it
(Kirkland, Medina, Woodinville, others).
regulated trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree
difficult to understand when a permit is required (ECDC 23.10.030-060).
Staff recommendation: Restructure code to reduce exemption language and clearly define
Removal Notification form. (NEW).
• Current permit requirements for MF/COMM properties, critical areas, vacant
what IS allowed, versus what's NOT. Do not count hazard/nuisance tree removals against
The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit. The proposed
lots, subdividable properties, etc. are unclear (ECDC 23.10.040-050,
the number of allowed tree removals.
removal of:
23.40.220.C).
PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION 4/26/23: A PERMIT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
• Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW)
• Best management practices for tree care may be encouraged by not counting
EXCEED TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES WITH HAZARD/NUISANCE TREES AND
• Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties
hazard and nuisance tree removals with number of allowed tree removals.
FOR CRITICAL AREA TREE REMOVALS (SEE 5 BELOW).
(CURRENT)
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: consider requiring
• Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT).
permits for all property owner tree removals.)
1 Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3.
2 "The vast majority of tree canopy cover and gains/loss occurred on residential lands." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3.
Packet Pg. 20
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
8.A.c
ISSUES OPTIONS
4. Should Landmark (large, mature) trees be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees?
Key Code Concept: Landmark tree definition and removal restrictions (not in current code)
• Although Landmark tree removals were banned under a prior moratorium,
there is no Landmark tree definition or removal restrictions in the current
code.
• Address incremental loss of canopy cover on private property in response to
canopy study findings, protect ecological functions.3
• Define Landmark/Legacy/Exceptional trees by trunk size/DBH - diameter at 4.5 feet.
(Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Kirkland, Snoqualmie, Redmond range in size from
18" DBH to 30" DBH).
• Note that the prior moratorium defined Landmark trees as 24" DBH, which has become
familiar to residents based on removal inquiries.
• Determine appropriate number of Landmark removals within a given timeframe (1
Landmark tree removal per 12 months - Kirkland, others vary widely. Seattle prohibits
Exceptional (30" DBH) tree removal.
Staff recommendation: limit landmark tree removal to hazard or nuisance trees, require a
permit for review of the latter.
SAMPLE CODE REWRITE
Define Landmark trees measuring minimum 24" DBH (NEW)
AND
Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 3
regulated trees within a 12-month period or 1 Landmark tree within a 24-
month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form (NEW)
OR
The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit. The proposed
removal of.-
* Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW)
PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION 4/26/23: GENERAL SUPPORT TO DEFINE LANDMARK
TREES AS 24" DBH. ALLOW FEWER (UNDETERMINED NUMBER/LANDMARK) TREE • Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties
REMOVALS AT ONCE, OVER A GREATER TIME PERIOD (UNDETERMINED (CURRENT)
FREQUENCY/LANDMARK) THAN SMALLER TREES. • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT)
(Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments: prohibit Landmark . The removal of Landmark Trees (NEW)
tree removals).
5. Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas?
Key Code Concept: Prohibit healthy, significant tree removal in critical areas
The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit. The proposed
• Contradictory and inconsistent code language in various code sections • Limit the removal of trees in critical areas to hazard/nuisance trees through a permit removal of. -
results in high frequency of unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. For process (Most cities/counties, even those without tree codes)
example, 23.40 says no tree removal in critical areas and permit is required, • Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (NEW)
while 23.10.040 says no permit is required, etc. Consider adding an appeals process
y p q Trees located on commercial and multi -family -zoned properties
• Current code issues are directly related to numerous, sometimes ongoing Staff recommendation: prohibit tree removal in critical areas with the exception of (CURRENT)
tree removal code violations in critical areas. hazard/nuisance trees, subject to review. permit required.
• Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (CURRENT).
• Current code leads to incremental loss of canopycover due to removal of PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION 4/26/23: REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OF
HAZARD/NUISANCE TREES IN CRITICAL AREAS. The removal of Landmark Trees? (NEW)
"forest patches" per canopy study findings. Risks protection of ecological
functions in critical areas, negative impacts to water quality and landslide (Note 6/21/22 City Council direction for Phase 2 tree code amendments includes greater • Trees located in wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high
hazard areas. restrictions on tree removals in critical areas). landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% that qualify
as hazard or nuisance trees
6. What are appropriate replacement requirements for property owner -removed trees?
Key Code Concept: Tree replacement requirements for property owner tree removals
• Multiple tree replacement requirements that apply to both development
scenarios and property owner tree removals, in narrative format spread over
different code sections, are confusing.
• Different replacement requirements in various code sections apply. Can be
2:1, appraised value or 1-3 new trees, depending on size of removed trees,
underlying zoning, if critical areas are present or if multifamily/commercial
landscaping requirements apply (ECDC 23.10.060-080, 20.13, 23.40).
• Require new tree replacements based on size of removed tree (ECDC 23.10080)
• OR, use a formula based on replacement trees per increments of removed tree trunk
diameter (1 new tree for every removed 6" trunk diameter - Woodinville).
• OR, require tree replacements only when the number of remaining trees on the lot
reaches a minimum threshold (Kirkland pre-2021)
Staff recommendation: Require simple 1 to 3 new tree replacements, based on size of
removed tree, shown in table format.
PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION 4/26/23: UNDETERMINED TREE REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Each significant viable tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
Removed Tree DBH
Required Replacements
6 to 40 12"
1
4n�04—'12.1to18"
2
444-�"18.1"+
3
Less than 3 existing
trees on site
3 trees per 8, 000 sq. ft. lot
area
"'Most canopy gains came from incremental growth of existing trees, highlighting the importance of preservation efforts." Edmonds 2015-2020 Tree Canopy Assessment, Findings p. 3.
Packet Pg. 21
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 22
8.A.d
Attachment - Requested Information
• How many calls or emails does staff field related to property owner tree removals?
Planning and Development staff estimated that a combined 10-12 calls, counter visit
questions, online inquiries and emails are fielded each week inquiring about property owner
tree removals, not including code enforcement issues. The top inquiries are asking if
Landmark tree removals are (still) limited, whether a permit is required, or if the property
has critical areas or any other limitations to tree removals.
What were the analysis findings in Edmonds' tree canopy assessment?
See below for general findings or for the full report. Note that the city-wide overall tree
canopy cover was assessed at 34.6% in 2020. Over 162 acres of tree canopy cover had been
removed from 2015 to 2020 but the losses were offset by 180 acres of new growth, or 0.9%
relative change in tree canopy cover.
Packet Pg. 23
8.A.d
Attachment - Requested Information
• What is the City striving for in terms of the canopy cover? What kind of loss is the City
trying to avoid?
Edmonds has not adopted a city-wide overall canopy cover goal. Goal 1B in the Urban
Forest Management Plan states the need to "adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall
tree canopy...". Recognizing the importance of a specific, quantifiable metric to measure
canopy cover and gauge efforts in maintaining and enhancing canopy cover over time,
the Planning Division will be establishing an overall canopy cover policy goal with the
upcoming Comprehensive Plan updates. Because canopy assessments are done on a
periodic basis every 5-10 years, it's prudent to strive towards canopy gains where and
when possible, as incremental canopy loss in any given area may take up to ten years to
reverse by replanting alone. Some cities establish a tolerance threshold for canopy loss
by comparing canopy loss acreage to park size. In this last canopy cycle, Edmonds lost a
total of 162.4 acres of canopy cover. The City webpage indicates there are a total of 230
acres of parks in Edmonds — so by comparison, about half of all park acreage in Edmonds
in canopy cover was lost between 2015-2020.
Packet Pg. 24
TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT:
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
CITY OF EDMON DS, WA
JUNE2023
/PlaniTGeo"
developers of TreePlotter
8.A.e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ProjectOverview...............................................................................................................................................3
Purpose..........................................................................................................................................................................................3
DesiredOutcomes.................................................................................................................................................................4
Edmonds' Tree Code Background...............................................................................................................................5
Tree Code Amendment Project Timeline...............................................................................................................5
Manuals, Guides, and Forms............................................................................................................................................5
EngagementStrategies & Results.............................................................................................................6
CityWebpage Content and Email................................................................................................................................6
SocialMedia Campaigns.....................................................................................................................................................6
PublicMeetings........................................................................................................................................................................7
FocusGroups...........................................................................................................................................................................12
PublicSurvey Results..........................................................................................................................................................IS
Incorporatingthe Input................................................................................................................................20
Tree Ordinance Checklist Framework....................................................................................................................20
Credential...................................................................................................................................................................................21
Maintenance............................................................................................................................................................................22
Management...........................................................................................................................................................................22
Planting......................................................................................................................................................................................23
Preservation.............................................................................................................................................................................24
Planting......................................................................................................................................................................................26
Attachments......................................................................................................................................................
27
A. Community Outreach and Engagement Strategy................................................................................27
B. Public Meeting Report#1.......................................................................................................................................27
C. Public Meeting Report#2......................................................................................................................................27
D. Focus Group#1..............................................................................................................................................................27
E. Focus Group#2............................................................................................................................................................27
F. Focus Group#3............................................................................................................................................................27
G. Public Survey Results................................................................................................................................................27
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 26
8.A.e
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Edmonds' Tree Code Amendment project represents an important step in
protecting, understanding, and managing the urban forest. This project used a planning
approach consisting of extensive research and reviews of existing code and documents and a
public outreach strategy to gather public input and shape ordinance development.
Edmonds' tree code, Chapter 23.10 ECDC was adopted in 2021 to primarily protect trees with
development and to achieve Urban Forestry Management Plan Goal 1A. It was recognized that
limitations on property owner tree removals could be considered at a future date. The scope
of the 2022-2023 Tree Code Amendment Project ("project") is to consider limitations to
property owner tree removals and to further clarify and simplify the existing development -
related code with minor code changes.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Strategy is to ensure the 2022-2023 tree code amendment process aligns
with the City's Equitable Engagement Framework in identifying the community's preferred
solutions for property owner tree removals in Edmonds. This Strategy ensures the community
has full access to information and opportunities to propose ideas for collective solutions
related to private property tree removal in Edmonds. The resulting community input will
support City board and council decision -making by providing a thorough understanding of
how those decisions might impact the public.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 27
DESIRED OUTCOMES
Gather Community Input with Robust Engagement
The City of Edmonds recognizes the value of
community -driven decision -making. Using the
Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework, this
project invites community members, developers,
business owners, landscapers, utilities, and tree care
professionals participate in discussing Edmonds'
tree regulations. This project seeks to reflect the
broader community's goals and vision for a healthy,
sustainable urban forest.
Clarify and Simplify the Existing Development -Related Tree Codes
Chapter 23.70 Tree Related Regulations of the
Edmonds municipal code was adopted in 2021 to
primarily protect trees with development and to
achieve Urban Forestry Management Plan Goal IA.
Since its adoption, various opportunities for
improvement have been identified that will clarify
and simplify the code language without changing
the meaning. This project seeks to identify and
discuss these minor amendments to the code
relating to tree removal associated with
development.
Consider Limitations on Tree Removal Not Associated with Development
Chapter 23.70 Tree Related Regulations currently
exempts developed single-family properties from
tree removal requirements, except for critical areas
or their associated buffers. This project seeks to
consider varying levels of limitations on tree removal
40 for developed properties, and to generate healthy
discussion with stakeholders and community
members around potential recommendations to
amend Chapter 23.70.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 28
8.A.e
EDMONDS' TREE CODE BACKGROUND
In recent years, momentum for urban forestry has resulted in great progress for the Edmonds
community leading up to this Tree Code Amendment Project. A summary of significant
milestones is included below.
Urban Forest
Goal lA reads: Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting
Management
or other development impacts on the urban forest and to
Plan
consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
penalties for code violations.
Code updated to reflect Goal lA of the UFMP. The City
Tree Code
Council and the Planning Board recognized that in addition
Update
to retaining and planting trees with development,
regulations to limit tree removal not associated with
development could be considered at a future date.
Canopy
This assessment is guides canopy -enhancing strategies such
as tree planting programs, public education, and tree code
Assessment
updates.
Tree Code
Process to engage the community for guidance on clarifying
Amendment
and simplifying the existing development -related tree codes,
Project
and considering limitations on tree removal not associated
with development.
TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT TIMELINE
0 0
DIGITAL PUBLIC
PROJECT OUTREACH OUTREACH MEETINGS AND ENGAGEMENT
KICKOFF STRATEGY (SURVEY AND FOCUS ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT SOCIAL MEDIA)
GROUPS
DEC 2022 JAN-FEB 2023 MAR -MAY 2023 MAR -MAY 2023 JUN E 2023
MANUALS, GUIDES, AND FORMS
Should the Edmonds City Council adopt any Tree Code Amendments, City Staff will need to
update all existing manuals, guides, and forms that reference outdated tree and landscape
codes. New guides should be easily understood by staff in any City Department and any
resident of Edmonds. Often, permit application forms need to be created or heavily modified
upon adoption of new tree -related regulations so that the process is streamlined.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 29
8.A.e
ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES & RESULTS
A Community Outreach and Engagement Strategy (Attachment A) was developed to ensure
that the 2022-2023 tree code amendment process aligns with the City's Equitable
Engagement Framework in identifying the community's preferred solutions for the project
objectives. With this Strategy, the community is given access to information and
opportunities to propose ideas for collaborate solutions related to private property tree
removal in Edmonds. The community input will support City Planning Board and Council
decision -making by providing a thorough understanding of how those decisions might
impact the public. A summary the engagement strategies and their results are included in
this section.
CITY WEBPAGE CONTENT AND EMAIL
Project -related content was made available to the public on the City's website on the
following webpage: https://www.edmondswa.goy/treecodeupdates. This site informs the
public on the purpose, process, and importance of updating the code, and was updated
periodically with progress updates. The content introduces residents to the importance of
trees and their benefits, and that enhancing tree protection can combat climate change,
strengthen community resilience and public health and address issues identified in the
canopy assessment. The project webpage provided links to engagement opportunities such
as the community survey, upcoming events, and public meetings. An email account
trees(d)edmondswa.gov was created for community members to receive project updates.
SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS
The City of Edmonds used social media messaging to inform the public of engagement
opportunities at key project intervals. The posts were provided in English, Chinese, Korean,
and Spanish to avoid barriers to engagement.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 30
8.A.e
PUBLIC MEETINGS
This City of Edmonds hosted two public meetings to
gather public input on tree code amendments. The
meetings were held in a hybrid format, using the
interactive and intuitive webinar platform, Zoom,
which allowed the City to provide similar
opportunities for engagement between in -person
attendees and virtual attendees. The meetings were
recorded and made available on the City's website.
r— r bi
Community Conversation #1 s
The first meeting began with an educational
presentation by City staff and was followed by live polling
using Mentimeter and breakout group discussions. The
presentation at this meeting informed residents of the tree code update purpose, approach,
and opportunities to engage. The live polling results are included below, and the full event
report is included at Attachment B.
Q1: How many trees are on the property where you live?
Answer Option
0 trees
Votes
0
1-2 trees
3
3-4 trees
3
5+ trees
13
3 3
0 1.2 3-4 5+
Q2: How familiar are you with the current tree code?
s 8
Not FamiliarAtAll Somewhat Familiar: I AO-d it when I removed or
planted a tree
!!t
Very Familiar:I reference it professionally anchor
often
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 31
8.A.e
Q3: How would you describe the current tree code?
Answer Option
I'm not sure
V• -
S
Too lax
6
Just right
1
Too strict
10
Q4: How important are these tree code themes to you?
Answer Option
Score
Equitable tree canopy cover
4
Tree protection during
4.3
construction (fence, signage)
Tree removal (when, where,
4.8
which types)
There shouldn't be any codes
S.1
for private property
Tree plantings (require with
S
new development)
Replant trees after removal
3.8
I'm Not Su
Too La;
• Just Right
• Too Strict
Equitable tree canopy over
Tree protection durin_Wnstruction (fence, signage)
Q .pr
aTree removal (when, wherewhich types)
49
LThere shouldn't be any tree nodes for private property
z I Tree plantings (require with,&ew development)
Replant trees after rf.Lnoval
0
0
Q
E
a�
E
2
w
Community Conversation #2
The second public meeting was informed by the first public meeting, the survey results from
City staff and stakeholder groups including the Edmonds Citizen's Tree Board, data analyses,
and other key findings from planning tasks.
Attendees were provided multiple
opportunities to provide input during
this hybrid meeting. The following
feedback was received during
breakout groups and the Zoom chat.
When possible, this feedback has
been categorized using the Tree
Ordinance Checklist Framework to
prepare for potential tree code
recommendations.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 32
8.A.e
Breakout Groups
In this hybrid meeting format, breakout groups were held both in person and virtually. Code -
related comments from all breakout rooms were organized and categorized in the summary
charts below. The full transcripts of the breakout group notes are included in the meeting
report as Attachment C.
Removal,Tree .Development
Question 1: Does the City have a role in limiting property owner tree removals?l
Ordinance Checklist
Comment
Category
If the tree is a hazard, you should be able to cut it down
Preservation
Require prop owner to hire an arborist, but not get a permit
Credential
Over-the-counter removal process
Management
Establish tracking system to know how many trees are
Management
removed vs planted
Specify types of trees which are better for mitigation (i.e.
Planting
deciduous vs conifer)
There should be notification of tree removal permits to
Management
surrounding neighbors
Removal,Tree .Development
Question 2: What's the one thing you'd change about the current code related
. private property tree -
Ordinance
Comment Checklist
Category
Allow property owners to maintain viewsheds
Maintenance
Establish different regs for "The Bowl" (e.g. overlay district)
Management
Clarify critical areas regs
Preservation
Include liabilities when landslides occur after tree removals.
Management
Require public notice to surrounding property owners
Management
Require Geotech assessment.
Management
Establish critical area public education program
Other
Invasives should not be allowed - push for natives
Maintenance
Climate adaptation (doug firs not adaptive)
Maintenance
Switch from regulating trees to regulating property
Management
Protection for larger trees 30" DBH
Preservation
Enforcement needs improvement
Management
Require replanting in commercial development (Clarify in CPA)
Planting
Surface H2O fear - decreased fee structure for tree retention.
(Tax incentives)
Preservation
Require the city to notice that they are doing removal and why
Management
Educate the public on the importance of preserving trees
because they are multi -generational entities
Other
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 33
8.A.e
Responsibility needs to be on an arborist or someone for Credential
knowing the proper code and way to take the trees down.
Some kind of mechanism knowing the proper removal steps
and ensuring they are followed
Tree Removal, No Development
Question 3: Should anyone be required to plant replacement trees when trees
- removed on private ..-
Comment Ordinance Checklist
Category
City shouldn't sayyes/no on removal, but should have a say
Planting
in the replant requirement
Mitigation should be same for same species type (i.e.
Planting
deciduous: deciduous and evergreen : evergreen)
Provide notification of trees removed (not a permit - no
Management
cost - no ability for the City to say "no")
Replacement should consider the size of the tree being
Planting
removed in order to get the same ecological benefits
With Edmonds turning over like hotcakes, trees are cut
Preservation
without much consideration with consideration to the
overall impact they have on the homeowner and other
residents. Trees are not respected for their benefits over
time, they are multi -generational.
Concerned that the developers/private property owners are
Preservation
approved to cut down huge swaths of 100 yo forests and
then are able to "replant" which does not support the
MAJOR biodiversity is lost
Recommendation: If there is a clear code and neighbors
Other
know what it is ... they can help to enforce
Tree Removal, With Development
Question 1: Does the City have a role in requiring tree retention
with
development? Replanting? Assessing fees in lieu?
Ordinance Checklist
Comment
Category
Fees should be used for tree planting
Planting
Retention should be #1 focus
Preservation
Dislike fees in lieu - no cap on amount
Management
Provide a basic framework but let developers be the
Credential
experts on site design
Planting requirements, no penalties
Planting
Tree diversity
Planting
Incentives to retain trees (esp drainage)
Preservation
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 34
8.A.e
Replanting - penalties
Planting
Incentives over penalties (e.g. "developers must use 10% for
Preservation
network in Seattle" 10% tree limitation
Carrots over sticks - development incentives
Preservation
Gather data on replacement, planting, preservation, etc. for
Management
the urban forest
Fees should be much higher than they are now
Management
The diameter classes do not capture the whole ecosystem
Preservation
cost, so either lowering the DBH threshold or increasing the
costs with these because the other factors involved
would prefer to make it more difficult to cut down old
Preservation
growth or second growth rather than the payout.
Tree Removal, With Development
Question 2: What's the one thing you'd change about the
current tree code
related to development?
Ordinance Checklist
Comment
Category
Clarify it.
Other
Increase tree planting in commercial properties
Planting
Weak/confusing and needs revision
Other
Ensure equity in fees so replacement are throughout
Planting
Edmonds
Overly complicated
Other
Tree Removal, With Development
Question 3: Should certain trees (landmark, trees in critical
areas, etc.) have a
higher degree of protection on development sites?
Ordinance Checklist
Comment
Category
Property of concern - on Shell Creek by Theatre - City owns
Preservation
property on other side of the creek, but this property is up
for development (asking for variance, which we don't think
they'll get). How is this possible?
Don't want any development in certain types of critical
Preservation
a reas.
Landmark trees = Cultural significance to community (e.g.
Preservation
Monkey puzzle tree)
Prefer incentives as opposed to regulations
Preservation
Use fees/fund for land acquisition
Management
Area of concern - Perraville development concerns
Preservation
Consider other development styles that preserve more land
Preservation
Natives and trees in critical areas
Preservation
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 35
8.A.e
Get away from single tree protection, but a whole Preservation
ecosystem protection and do a pocket or a larger landmass
protection for biodiversity. Change the name from tree
code to forest code
FOCUS GROUPS
As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, a series
of focus group sessions were scheduled to hear perspectives and ideas from various interest
groups about potential updates and amendments to the tree code. City staff sent out
invitations with the following stakeholder groups in mind:
• Developers
• Arborists
• Environmental sciences
• Tree preservation advocacy
• Climate action
• Underserved and underrepresented
Under the guidance provided in the "Collaborative" Level of Engagement per the Equitable
Engagement Framework, these groups were identified to provide advice and innovation in
creating solutions so that decision -makers
(Planning Board, City Council) may
incorporate their advice and
recommendations into the decisions to
the maximum extent possible. The three
facilitated stakeholder meetings were held
with two main objectives in mind:
1) Understand how trees are currently
regulated in Edmonds and
2) Develop partnerships with advisory
boards and community groups that
can provide input on alternatives
4Fna"d ES WO
I
KPpRT LWO `SdR`I f-
-RES DES ►,vWL�Uf�,
1R Ma'- 4f.� YF�"a6^e_TS�
�Pt.�A�iCI(5, G1+� �EE�Sram[
-�oTFC.`[Ep TRH
Nt+ocEC}E
V L ilY�E� ld;�l'�'T KKIFPA,
NAP.r F�
`.�'�:- �
'af✓j?�oR��4 �1 (may. / �j` [f]
�5+ llil/J����/iG !1 IlV4�ll4�
r�V•R.Y i.if qhE
"'�
��`.
:, 1L' ll7fj Wv ca,r�a; 4FT lx* TEE'rnV
pig
i�;� w�wc �.+..•�'�!
and identify preferred solutions
related to tree code amendment decisions.
Focus Group #1
Developers, arborists, and community members involved in development -related activity
were included in the first focus group meeting. Five people attended virtually and five
attended in person at Edmonds City Hall. The following questions were asked to guide the
conversation and collect meaningful feedback. A full report is included as Attachment D.:
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 36
8.A.e
1) What challenges have you experienced working with the tree code?
2) Conversely, what works well with Edmonds' tree code?
3) What incentiveswould you consider to achieve greater tree retention, while developing
the site to its maximum potential? Can you point to any examples from other cities?
4) 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?
S) Tree removal replacements: what replanting standards are you most in favor of?
Focus Group #2
The Edmonds Tree Board participated in the second focus group meeting to gather input
from these subject matter experts who have been involved with Edmonds' urban forest for
years. The Tree Board discussed the focus questions at great length and while consensus was
not achieved for each question, the discussion which is outlined in Attachment E provides
great value to the Tree Code Amendment Project process.
Tree Removal
In -Person Answers
Follow -Up Survey
With or Without
Question
Development
(Yes/No/Undecided)
(Yes/No/Undecided)
Without
Should property owner tree
Undecided
Yes - 3
removals be limited to help slow
No - 0
the loss of canopy?
Undecided - 0
Without
Should property owners be
Yes (3) / Undecided
Yes - 3
allowed to remove x number of
No - 0
trees (within a certain
Undecided - 0
timeframe)?
Without
Is12 months adequate between
Undecided
Yes-1
allowed removals?
No-1
Undecided -1
Without
Should "Landmark" tree be
Yes
Yes - 3
defined as minimum 24" DBH?
No - 0
Unclear-0
Without
Should "Landmark" tree removals
Yes, limited
Yes-3
be prohibited? Limited? (Except
No - 0
hazard or nuisance trees)
Unclear - 0
Without
Should the time between
Undecided
Yes - 2
"Landmark" tree removals be
No - 0
longer than what's allowed for
Undecided -1
smaller trees?
Without
Should the same tree removal
Yes/ Undecided
Yes - 0
allowances apply in critical areas?
No-3
Undecided - 0
Without
Should a permit be required for
Undecided
Yes-3
tree removals in critical areas?
No - 0
Undecided - 0
Without
What are appropriate tree
Yes/ Undecided
Freeform
replacement requirements for
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 37
8.A.e
Tree Removal
In Answers
Follow Survey
With or Without
Question
-Person
-Up
Development
(Yes/No/Undecided)
(Yes/No/Undecided
property owner tree removals in
Edmonds?
With
Should the code be reorganized
Yes
Yes - 3
using charts and graphics?
No - 0
Undecided - 0
With
Should the code use one
Undecided
Yes - 3
method/calculation to determine
No - 0
the minimum number of trees
Undecided - 0
required to be
retained/replanted?
With
Should the code prioritize
Yes/ Undecided
Yes - 3
replanting over requiring fees in
No - 0
lieu, such as with Landmark tree
Undecided - 0
replacements?
With
Should the $2 per square foot
Undecided
Yes -1
"cap" eliminated from the code?
No-1
Undecided -1
With
Should the 25% tree retention
Undecided
Yes -1
threshold that applies to
No-1
multifamily development be
Undecided -1
removed from the code?
With
Should the Conservation
Undecided
Yes - 3
Subdivision code section specify
No - 0
a quantity for "greater tree
Undecided - 0
retention"?
With
Should the "priorities and
Undecided
Yes - 2
procedures" section include
No - 0
specific qualitative retention
Undecided -1
criteria vs quantitative "quotas"?
With
Should Landmark trees have a
Undecided
Yes - 3
higher degree of protection
No - 0
requirements than other trees?
Undecided - 0
With
Should groves have a higher
Undecided
Yes-3
degree of protection
No - 0
requirements than other trees?
Undecided - 0
With
What's the one thing you would
Undecided
Freeform
change with the existing code?
With
What are some ways that
Undecided
Freeform
Edmonds' tree code could be
improved?
Focus Group #3
A third Focus Group was hosted by City Staff for City Staff to inform the Tree Code
Amendment Project process. A full summary of the discussion is included as Attachment F.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 38
8.A.e
PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS
A public survey was developed with questions to gauge community members' understanding
of the urban forest and their sentiment on regulating tree removal on private property and in
critical habitats. The surveywas accessible to the public from March 28- May26, 2023 on City's
project webpage, in social media posts, and in news releases. Public survey progress reports
were made available for the second community conversation meeting, stakeholder meetings
and Planning Board meetings. A total of 230 responses were received (229 online, 1 paper). A
summary of the results is included below, and the detailed Final Results Report is included as
Attachment G.
Summary of Results
The responses reflect a well-rounded urban
forest, with responders acknowledging that
forested areas and City parks are thought of
first in considering Edmond's urban forest.
Results reflected a focus on publicly
maintained trees, whereas in reality the
majority of urban trees are located on
residential property.
Summary of Results
The majority of respondents (43%) rated
their awareness of the tree code as
"somewhat familiar," 29% were not familiar
with the code at all, 16% were very familiar,
and 12% had a different level of familiarity.
This information was vital in understanding
that additional education about the tree
code would be beneficial for the Edmonds
community.
Parking Lot Trees
18%
Trees in my
Yard 16%
Street Trees
20%
Other 2%
Other 12%,
Very familiar: I reference it
professionally and/orb
often 16%
Somewhat familiar: I
used it when I removed
or planted a tree 43%
sted Areas
23%
City Parks
21%
Not familiar at all 29%
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 39
Summary of Results
The majority of respondents (29%) did
not feel comfortable expressing an
opinion because they felt they were not
familiar enough with the tree code.
Those who did respond mostly felt that
the code was too lax/flexible (2S%), 17%
felt it is too strict, and 14% thought it is
confusing. These results help the City
understand that the participants are
divided in their opinions, but that the
majority would say the code is too
relaxed or flexible and would therefore
Other, 8%
I'm not familiar
enough to say,
29%
Confusing, 14%J
'flexible, 25%
Just right, 7%
Too strict, 17%
be open to stricter regulations. With such a high percentage of participants expressing
confusion (14%), additional education is necessary in Edmonds.
Summary of Results
Most participants responded that
large and mature trees should have
greater levels of protection (26%).
22% of respondents stated that
people should be able to remove
trees on their property if they want
or need to. This sentiment was
consistent throughout the project's
engagement for a significant
number of those engaged in this
project.
Other 20%
Save some trees when
occurs 13%
Large/mature trees snouia
have greater levels of
protection 26%
Limit the number of trees
that a property owner can
remove at one time 8%
It depends on the size of
the property and how
many trees 11%
People should be able to
!move trees on their property
if they want or need to 22%
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 40
8.A.e
Summary of Results 120
112
The vast majority of participants say it is
"very important" to plant new trees 100
when property owners remove trees (on
a scale of 1-10 with 10 being "very 80
important" and 1 being "not important
at a I1"). 60
Summary of Results
When asked about trees in critical
areas, 64% of participants agreed that
there should be stricter rules on tree
removals in critical areas. 20% stated
that it depends on the situation.
40
23
19 19 18
20 11 13
0
�M■=1=■
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I don't know enough about other. 5%
the subject to
It depends on the
situation, 20%
Yes, the same rules
should apply regardless
-ritical areas, 8%
No, there should
)e stricter rules on
tree removals in
critical areas, 64%
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 41
8.A.e
Summary of Results
Of the strategies listed under this
question, only 16% of participants
selected "fees and fines for violating
code requirements," as a preferred
strategy for the City to use for
enhancing Edmonds' urban forest.
This means that the Edmonds
community would like the City to
explore other avenues before
penalizing people financially.
Summary of Results
A wide variety of responses were
received to this question in "free form"
long answer format. The word cloud on
the right was created from all answers
to question 8. Long answer responses
to all questions can be read in
Attachment G.
None of the above, 2%
Other, 4% Public education to
increase awareness of
Fees and fines for the tree code, 19%
violating code
requirements, 16%
Tree giveaways,
IV
neighborhood
Codes that require planting events,
tree preservation and pruning
and planting with workshops, 20%
development, 20%
Incentives for developers to preserve and plant trees (fee
waivers, faster permitting, etc.), 19%
s CIIV
tines
pleaset �emvinr
,.�%4t�,remMl needs
� _.,it able_ .. _w1
Costs
JMAAls,;tet06
E°$ _
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 42
Do you live or work in Edmonds?
126 respom
• Live
19 Work
,11P Both
49 Neither
1 recreate in edmonds
Retired
10 Frequently visit and recreate (walk,
dining, arts)
Live and work
Trying to build a home for my family in
How long have you lived in Edmonds?
126 responses
1 - 5 years
6 -10 years
11 -20 years
21 - 30 years
30+ years
1 don't live in Edmonds
Prefer not to say
What is your race ethnicity? (Select all that apply and use the "other" option to include a more
specific answer)
126responses
Black or African American
2 (1. 5 %)
American Indian or Alaska...
1 (0.8%)
Spanish 1 Hispanic 1 Latino
3 (2,4%)
Asian Indian
1 (0,M)
Chinese
0 (0%)
Filipino
0 (0%)
Japanese
-0 (0%)
Korean
-0 (0%)
Vietnamese
-0 (0%)
Other Asian (Select and s...
0 (0%)
Native Hawaiian
-0 (0%)
Guamanian or Chamorro
-0 (0%)
Samoan
-0 (aD/0)
Other Pacific Islander (5el..,
-0 (0%)
Prefer not to say
What does ethnicity have t.-
1 (0.8%)
Has no relationship %hate...
-1 (0.8%)
Scandinavian -American
1 (0.8%)
Not necessary
1 (0.8%)
human
1 (0_121%)
none of your damned busi...
-1 (0.8%)
Cowichian
-1 (0.8%)
3rd generation European 1...
1 (0.8%)
This is an immaterial ques...
-1 (0.8%)
0
20
91 (72.2%)
-23 (18.3%)
ii 6b P,0 100
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 43
8.A.e
INCORPORATING THE INPUT
Comments received during both public meetings were categorized into one off ive categories
(listed below with associated activities). These categories and activities are part of the
framework utilized in the Tree Ordinance Checklist, which was created for the Municipal Tree
Care and Manaaement in the United States: A 2074 Urban & Community Forestry Census of
Tree Activities. This framework provides a starting point to assess and organize the comments
received and prepares the feedback to be integrated into potential code recommendations.
TREE ORDINANCE CHECKLIST FRAMEWORK
Credential
• Requires certified arborist for paid private tree work
• Requires certified arborist for public tree work
• Requires licensing of private tree care firms
• Defines official authority for public tree management
Management/Maintenance
• Requires annual community tree work plans
• Identifies formula for determining monetary tree value
• Requires regular public tree maintenance
• Requires particular types of maintenance (e.g. pruning)
• Establishes permit system for work on public trees
• Establishes provisions for penalties for non-compliance
• Restricts burning of solid wood waste
• Establishes an insect/disease control strategy
• Defines tree maintenance requirements on public property
• Prohibits tree topping
• Regulates abatement of hazardous or public nuisance trees
• Regulates removal of dead or diseased trees
Planting
• Regulates tree species which mayor may not be planted on private property (approved
tree list)
• Requires tree planting around reconstructed parking lots
• Requires replacement of removed publicly owned trees
• Requires tree planting around new parking lots
• Requires tree planting in new developments
• Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on public property (approved
tree list)
Preservation
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 44
8.A.e
• Restricts tree cutting on private property
• Identifies preservation of heritage or significant trees
• Requires preservation of trees during development
Other
• Citywide canopy cover goals and targets
• Public education/engagement regarding codes
• Other
EDMONDS PUBLIC INPUT BY ORDINANCE
CHECKLIST CATEGORY
Credential
13%
Preservation Maintenance
28% 2%
Plant
170,
CREDENTIAL
Other
17%
Management
23%
Comment
Arborist on staff to determine tree health
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Credential
Being proactive would be to adopt the public streets and not put it on the
property owners
Credential
Code enforcement by arborist
Credential
Define easement responsibilities a City/owner
Credential
Greater role
Credential
Mediation would be nice
Credential
Minimal government role
Credential
Modify / update code - public process with expert tree
Credential
Nothing wrong with sharing the burden (public and private). Shouldn't do
all or nothing
Credential
Private property rights should be preserved
Credential
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 45
8.A.e
Comment
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Reasonable exceptions considered. The city arborist is qualified to make
Credential
these decisions and they can be supported by an arborist report if needed,
similar to zones having dill codes/considerations.
Requirement for licensed arborist
Credential
Yes, with Code enforcement
Credential
Provide a basic framework but let developers be the experts on site design
Credential
Responsibility needs to be on an arborist or someone for knowing the
Credential
proper code and way to take the trees down.
Some kind of mechanism knowing the proper removal steps and ensuring
they are followed
MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT
Comment
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Care for new trees
Management
Condition of the tree
Management
Crown reduction instead of thinning should be penalized
Management
Depends on environment
Management
ECA requirements
Management
Here is the summary of what I hear: I want my trees. I want to cut my trees
Management
when I want to cut my trees. I want my views. I want my shade, oxygen,
and green canopy. But most of all - I want my views. I want to be free of
controls or costs from my community. Property uses are complex and big
developers with deep pockets will rule. It is hard to develop a shared tree
policy when everyone has their own axe to grind.
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 46
8.A.e
Comment
Incentive for maintenance of significant trees
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Management
Maintenance tree limbing /topping
Management
NO alternative for developers to do anything but pay into the tree code.
Depends on canopy goals or low-income housing
Management
No charges for worth of property owners' trees
Management
No enforcement, no checkups, follow-up
Management
Seems all or nothing = so developers choose to pay to cut down
Management
The role of the City should be to protect neighbors from erosion due to tree
removal (meaning actual removal of a tree), and from hazardous trees.
Management
Trees are hazardous
Management
Use fees/fund for land acquisition
Management
Dislike fees in lieu - no cap on amount
Management
Gather data on replacement, planting, preservation, etc. for the urban
forest
Management
Fees should be much higher than they are now
Management
Provide notification of trees removed (not a permit- no cost- no ability for
the City to say "no")
Management
Establish different regs for "The Bowl" (e.g. overlay district)
Management
Include liabilities when landslides occur after tree removals.
Management
Require public notice to surrounding property owners
Management
Over-the-counter removal process
Management
Establish tracking system to know how manytrees are removed vs planted
Management
There should be notification of tree removal permits to surrounding
neighbors
Management
PLANTING
Comment
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
A change should be made that no tree is untouchable, replanting trees
Planting
should be tied to natives not undesirable
Better definitions / locations for replacement / number of replacement
Planting
trees
Create the desire for more tree canopy. Take the OS in public spaces and
Planting
set an example of how we can do better.
Dead tree removal must be replaced
Planting
Development will remove trees and plant in the small space. Look outside
Planting
the development area in a park, etc. Need other options besides just
paying into fund
Mitigation plantings to be based on dbh or canopy
Planting
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 47
8.A.e
Comment
Native species
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Planting
Natives planted
Planting
Planting for right tree right place
Planting
To the extent the City seeks to support "Right tree, right place," there must
be acknowledgement of Wrong tree, Wrong place, and should be
supportive of curing those conditions.
Planting
Increase tree planting in commercial properties
Planting
Ensure equity in fees so replacement are throughout Edmonds
Planting
Fees should be used for tree planting
Planting
Planting requirements, no penalties
Planting
Tree diversity
Planting
Replanting - penalties
Planting
City shouldn't say yes/no on removal, but should have a say in the replant
requirement
Planting
Mitigation should be same for same species type (i.e. deciduous
deciduous and evergreen : evergreen)
Planting
Replacement should consider the size of the tree being removed in order
to get the same ecological benefits
Planting
Require replanting in commercial development (Clarify in CPA)
Planting
Specify types of trees which are better for mitigation (i.e. deciduous vs
conifer)
Planting
PRESERVATION
Comment
Defining significant trees: 6" or greater
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Preservation
# of removals depends on the property
Preservation
Consider equity when it comes to critical area protection
Preservation
Define landmark trees vs. heritage trees
Preservation
Get involved if more than 30-SO% of trees are cut down
Preservation
I would like the city to adopt a provision to protect certain "Heritage" or
"Historic" trees. In our area there are three very large Douglas Fir trees that
were a part of Yost's farm over 100 years ago. They should be protected.
Preservation
Moratorium caused rush to cut trees
Preservation
Only opportunities right now are redevelopment (city is built out).
Preservation
Our group feels no need to control / have code (outside Critical Areas)
Preservation
Preserving viewsheds
Preservation
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 48
8.A.e
Comment
Ordinance
Checklist
Category
Property rights are very important. Critical areas are important. All
Preservation
circumstances are individual
Remove within specific time
Preservation
Restrictions on size of trees that can be removed >> 24" 0
Preservation
Property of concern - on Shell Creek by Theatre - City owns property on
Preservation
other side of the creek, but this property is up for development (asking for
variance, which we don't think they'll get). How is this possible?
Don't want any development in certain types of critical areas.
Preservation
Landmark trees = Cultural significance to community (e.g. Monkey puzzle
Preservation
tree)
Prefer incentives as opposed to regulations
Preservation
Area of concern - Perraville development concerns
Preservation
Consider other development styles that preserve more land
Preservation
Natives and trees in critical areas
Preservation
Get away from single tree protection, but a whole ecosystem protection
Preservation
and do a pocket or a larger landmass protection for biodiversity. Change
the name from tree code to forest code
Retention should be #1 focus
Preservation
Incentives to retain trees (esp drainage)
Preservation
Incentives over penalties (e.g. "developers must use 10% for network in
Preservation
Seattle" 10% tree limitation
Carrots over sticks - development incentives
Preservation
The diameter classes do not capture the whole ecosystem cost, so either
Preservation
lowering the DBH threshold or increasing the costs with these because the
other factors involved
would prefer to make it more difficult to cut down old growth or second
Preservation
growth rather than the payout.
With Edmonds turning over like hotcakes, trees are cut without much
Preservation
consideration with consideration to the overall impact they have on the
homeowner and other residents. Trees are not respected for their benefits
overtime, they are multi -generational.
Concerned that the developers/private property owners are approved to
Preservation
cut down huge swaths of 100 yo forests and then are able to "replant"
which does not support the MAJOR biodiversity is lost
Clarify critical areas regs
Preservation
Protection for larger trees 30" DBH
Preservation
Surface H2O fear - decreased fee structure for tree retention. (Tax
Preservation
incentives)
If the tree is a hazard, you should be able to cut it down
Preservation
For removal of significant tree, you can make a request with arborist report
Preservation +
included
Credential
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 49
8.A.e
PLANTING
Comment
Clarify it.
Ordinance
CheCategory
Other
Weak/confusing and needs revision
Other
Overly complicated
Other
Recommendation: If there is a clear code and neighbors know what it
is ... they can help to enforce
Other
Establish critical area public education program
Other
Educate the public on the importance of preserving trees because
they are multi -generational entities
Other
Development is where the canopy disappears
Other - canopy
There are examples of how to bring UTC into urban setting
Other - canopy
Tree canopy downtown is a struggle
Other - canopy
Trying to create a tree policy that handles all zones but zones have
different needs. E.g., industrial canopy is different than residential
zone.
Other -canopy
UTC is important but look at public spaces first
Other - canopy
Could you review what the current code says about private tree
removal?
Other - Education
Notify on property purchase / better notification
Other - education
Since the tree code affects single-family residential properties with
critical areas, it may be informative for attendees and Council to
understand what % of single-family parcels are a critical area.
Other - education
Education - Critical Areas
Other - Education
It would be great to understand the current code, as well as the overall
goal to modification of tree code. Without this base information I am
not sure we can understand what changes are needed
Other -education
More outreach /education / hotline
Other- Education
Quarterly fliers
Other - Education
Needs to be simplified
Other - General
Trees are great and there are so many options but there is a real need
for affordable housing
Other - general
Maybe a problem statement would help on current code. It kinda feels
like we are hunting for changes without a goal?
Other - goals
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 Packet Pg. 50
8.A.e
ATTACHMENTS
A. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
B. PUBLIC MEETING REPORT #1
C. PUBLIC MEETING REPORT #2
D. FOCUS GROUP #1
E. FOCUS GROUP #2
F. FOCUS GROUP #3
G. PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS
City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project 2023
Packet Pg. 51
�t
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/28/2023
Comprehensive Plan Update
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Narrative
City staff is currently finalizing a contract with the consultant team for the Comprehensive Plan Update
and Highway 99 Subarea Plan and will provide a brief update on the work plan and initial round of
community engagement. A more detailed discussion will occur at the board's July 12 meeting. As noted
in the Extended Agenda item, staff intends to provide at least a brief update on the Comp Plan Update
at each Planning Board meeting.
Packet Pg. 52
10.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/28/2023
June 28 Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss the June 28 version of the Planning Board's extended agenda.
Narrative
Staff has updated the extended agenda based on feedback provided at the June 14 regular meeting.
Several items have been shifted, while additional details on the Comprehensive Plan schedule (and
topics for individual meetings) will be available at the next meeting. Staff proposes to provide quick
updates on the Comprehensive Plan at each meeting, either as a separate agenda item or as part of the
Extended Agenda discussion.
Based on board input, recent Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services quarterly reports have been
provided as written reports with no presentation. The board chair has suggested inviting the
department director once or twice a year to provide an oral presentation; board member feedback on
this proposal is requested.
As we look out into the fall and winter, staff anticipates cancelling the November 22 and December 27
regular meetings, and will work with the Planning Board chair to determine whether any special
meetings are required to accommodate the board's work plan.
Attachments:
June 28 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 53
10.A.a
Planning Board Extended Agenda - June 28, 2023
Q
Ln
Ln
O
O
O
z
O
4
�
00
N
N
l0
N
Ol
M
N
M
r�
N
r
.--I
Ln
N
i
00
N
N
M
I'
N
BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment)
PH
Tree Code Update (Code Amendment)
D/R
D/R*
D/R
PH
Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment)
I
D/R
PH
Recommendation on Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
D/R-
6 pm Special Meeting with Council - 2023 Housing Legislation
I
Comprehensive Plan Discussion
I
D/R
D/R
D/R
D/R
Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment)
I**
D/R
Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update
D/R
D/R
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No
Presentation)
R
R
Planning Board update at City Council - Report rather than
presentation? September 26 City Council
Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment)
I I
I
1D/R1
Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment)
I
I I
I
I
I PH
* Joint Meeting with Tree Board
KEY
I- Introduction & Discussion
PH- Public Hearing
D/R- Discussion/Recommendation
B- Briefing
R- Report with no briefing/presentation
Future Items
Highway 99 Subarea Plan Update and EIS
Neighborhood Center Plans
Additional Code Modernization Projects
ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
CIP/CFP
Comp Plan Goal/Policy Review
Housing Bills Policy Implementation
Packet Pg. 54