Loading...
2023-06-28 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS JOINT PLANNING BOARD (including Joint Session with Citizens' Tree Board) Minutes of Hybrid Meeting June 28, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Martini Planning Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Richard Kuehn Jeremy Mitchell Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Planning Board Members Absent Lauren Golembiewski (excused) Lily Distelhorst (student rep; excused) Citizens' Tree Board Members Present Janelle Cass, Chair Bill Phipps, Vice Chair Wendy Kliment Kevin Fagerstrom Citizens' Tree Board Members Absent Ross Dimmick Crane Stavig Chris Eck Jenna Nand (City Council Liaison) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner David Levitan, Planning Manager MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXEWLL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 14 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 1 of 8 ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve W stated that there has been little or no discussion on the negative effects that some trees have on active or passive solar access. Is there any intention to do so? ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-00004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Property Owner Tree Removals. Under the current code, in most cases on developed single-family lots with no critical areas, it's basically unlimited tree removals. This code amendment is addressing that situation. Key concepts for consideration with this code update: • Number of removals • Frequency • Additional trees that can be removed (exceptions) • Landmark trees • Tree removal in critical areas • Replacement requirements Number of removals: Ms. Powers reviewed that at the April 26 meeting the Planning Board was supportive of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed under a notification process. There had been some question about whether it should depend on the property size and/or what frequency the removals would be allowed. She reviewed some sample code language. Another question was related to the size of the trees. The Planning Board had proposed that only trees 12" to 23.9" DBH would be "regulated" under the allowance. "Landmark" trees would be 24" DBH or greater. Frequency: Is 12 months between allowed tree removals appropriate? The Planning Board had thought that it would depend on the size and number of trees. Additional trees that can be removed: Are hazardous and nuisance trees reasonable exceptions to the number of allowances? These would be allowed to be removed in addition to whatever the allowance is. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Landmark tree removals: Should "Landmark" tree removals be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees? Fewer number of allowed removals? Greater number of months between removals? The Planning Board had indicated that Landmark tree removals (24"+ DBH) should be more limited than smaller trees. Ms. Powers reviewed some sample potential numbers with different allowances for different property sizes. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about having different standards for different neighborhoods rather than a one -size -fits -all approach in order to retain characteristics of specific neighborhoods. For example, he noted that the existing tree density in Westgate is way less than Perrinville. Ms. Powers acknowledged that this could raise equity concerns. She noted that they could made the code as complex or as simple as desired, but with greater code complexity there is usually less code compliance. Additionally, staff does not have the resources to deal with administering a complex code. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended not overcomplicating the process. She agreed that there are areas where there is a much greater canopy loss but having the same regulations across the city will be easier for everyone to understand. She said she liked the way the chart shared by Ms. Powers was set up even though she would be in favor of having two trees be the starting point for regulated tree removal allowances per 12 months rather than three trees. Critical areas: Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? The Planning Board had previously suggested only hazard and nuisance trees should be allowed to be removed in critical areas. A permit would be required to review whether the trees fit that criterion. Ms. Powers explained that the number one code enforcement issue they are having right now is unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. Replacement requirements: Should replacement trees be required for property owner tree removals? The response at the previous meeting was that it depends on the size and number of trees removed. Ms. Powers noted that no replanting is occurring with the current unlimited tree removals and reviewed a proposed matrix showing the removed tree DBH and the required number of replacements. Planning Board Member Maxwell asked the Tree Board their thoughts about regulating tree removals on private property. Tree Board Chair Cass explained that they are all passionate about trees and maintaining the tree canopy but they had mixed opinions about how to go about it. She referred back to a heated 2015 Planning Board public hearing about this topic. The decision then was to make sure there was an Urban Forest Management Plan which should extend at least 20 years out with good goals. She noted there is now a Plan with a good set of goals they haven't done and yet they are jumping to this action which wasn't necessarily in the Plan. She thinks it would be hard to re-engage with the public when they asked for an Urban Forest Management Plan with specific goals. She added that she noticed the consultant's report on the most recent public outreach related to the current code updates didn't go back to 2015 or include all the public input that went into the management plan. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps commented that he feels they should allow more trees to be removed on larger - sized properties. Tree Board Member Kliment expressed support for not allowing any tree removals in critical areas unless they are hazardous trees. She liked the simplicity of the proposed plan. She is concerned about compliance and whether or not they will lose more trees simply because of the fact that there is a tree code. A lot of people have made it clear they don't want a tree code. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Planning Board Member Mitchell asked the Tree Board if the Urban Forest Management Plan aligns with the existing tree code. Tree Board Chair Cass stated that the first goal was to maintain or enhance canopy coverage but there was a whole bunch of sub goals that were supposed to be encouraged. There was also supposed to be some tracking and reassessment after ten years. Planning Board Member Mitchell commented that it seems that there needs to be a regulatory framework aligned with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Chair Cass agreed and said she thought that the control of tree removal on private property did not meet the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Member Kliment said there is a statement in the Urban Forest Management Plan that says that the Edmonds population did not want any sort of control of tree removal on private property. Even in the current outreach done by the consultant, the number of people that responded is minimal and 19% of them did not even live in Edmonds. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about goal number 3 with more of an incentivized approach to protecting and planting trees. Tree Board Member Kliment said she was very supportive of an educational approach. Critical areas are something that they really need to pay attention to and have some sort of regulations around those because of landslides. Planning Board Member Martini asked about focusing on critical areas where environmental impacts would be greatest. Tree Board Member Kliment replied that the Tree Board's idea was to have a computer at the fall market booth where residents can type in their address to see whether their property is in a critical area and get information about what that means. She noted that what people in critical areas do with their trees has an impact on their neighbors. Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged that the public outreach they have done with this current work is not statistically significant but said he would say the same for the 2015 comments at the public hearing. Tree Board Chair Cass said she heard there were close to 300 people in the chambers for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan said he didn't see the video but based on the minutes there were 15-20 people who provided oral testimony. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked Ms. Powers what has been undertaken to implement the existing Urban Forest Management Plan from 2019. She also wondered what triggered the notion of having a code that may not have been consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Powers explained there are quite a few goals in the Urban Forest Management Plan that have been achieved already. In 2024 there will be a gap analysis of the goals and consideration of the barriers to achieving the goals. She noted that the Urban Forest Management Plan goals are not just for the City to implement but for citizens, volunteer groups, the Tree Board, etc. She noted that Goal 1A related to development was achieved in 2021. At that point in time there was direction given to look at private property tree removal. Council was concerned that there was no accounting for or tracking of trees that were removed and no requirements for replanting. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked about the percentage of canopy cover that is on private property. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps replied that it was 87% - the vast majority of trees in Edmonds are on private property that has already been developed. Tree Board Chair Cass later added that 58% of the city's tree canopy is on single-family residential land. PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL MOVED TO REMOVE THE OPTION OF DOING NOTHING FROM THE TABLE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN SOME MANNER TO BE RECOMMENDED FURTHER ON IN Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 4 of 8 THIS DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER KUEHN. Planning Manager Levitan noted that this was a work session and not the traditional time to make a motion. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her goal was to spend time on the analysis and not discussing whether or not they should do the analysis because she feels like that has already been determined. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that there seems to be general agreement by the group that they would want to restrict tree removals in critical areas. He noted he is sympathetic to Edmonds residents who are concerned about taking away the ability to cut down trees on their own property given that they don't have a canopy problem. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked when the tree canopy would become a problem. Planning Board Member Maxwell replied that the canopy is growing and not shrinking. It may not be growing as fast as they would like but it is not shrinking. He noted that some of the documents indicated that there are concerns but those are about developers and newcomers. In general, Edmonds residents seem to value their trees and do not cut them down. Planning Board Chair Gladstone said it is very difficult to determine at what point they are going to act. She believes they are at a point where the canopy is important for so many things including affecting the urban temperature. She doesn't want to wait until there is a reduction in the tree canopy and a problem; she wants to retain it the way it is. She also wants to do it in an equitable way, understanding that there is a tension between private property ownership and communal good. She thinks they can come to some reasonable compromises in navigating that tension. It may not necessarily be what's recommended in the Urban Forest Management Plan, but it may complement it. She also recommended keeping it as simple as possible. Planning Board Member Kuehn agreed that simple is good. He also supported the motion. He acknowledged there may not be a problem right now with the tree canopy, but their job is to plan for the future before there is a problem. Playing catchup with something like this is a losing battle. He noted that having a nice big tree canopy is important for helping with climate change. MOTION PASSED 4-2. Planning Board Chair Gladstone urged the group to keep the code simple because the simpler it is, the less there is to argue about. Recognizing the strong tension between private property and tree protection and canopy protection she thinks they need to figure out the best way to navigate that and get something reasonable and workable to Council. Ms. Powers suggested that there seems to be a basic agreement that critical areas need to be protected. The next most basic form of regulations would be a simple allowance (a certain number of trees per year with notification) not based on property size. At this simplest level, landmark tree removal would not be distinguished. Nuisance and hazard trees would be over and above that numbers and would be subject to review to make sure they meet the criteria. There was some discussion about how this would be counted and documented. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Tree Board Chair Cass asked if they could consider rolling over allowed trees to future years to be more cost effective for property owners. Ms. Powers explained that in Kirkland that was considered "borrowing" from future tree removals. It was hotly debated and there were questions as to whether it was effectively and fairly slowing the loss of canopy. It also complicates tracking tree removals. Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that ultimately the Council will decide this following a public hearing and there will probably be a lot of public comments. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed tree replacement or fee -in -lieu requirements. He noted that he is in favor of tree replacement but the current standards are almost a joke because they don't replicate the environmental benefit from the trees that were removed. He wants to maintain people's private property rights but he also wants to do what they can to maintain if not increase the tree canopy to help protect the environment. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was generally in favor of tree replacements but agreed that the current standards are highly inequitable in terms of trying to make sure that they are trying to replace the same volume of impacted tree canopy. She would not be in favor of requiring homeowners to do replacements or fees -in -lieu because it would just add more negativity to the situation. It might be worthwhile to consider the outright allowance only for 12-24" DBH trees. If they want to remove larger trees, they could require a permit and replacements. She stated that she was opposed to allowing fees in lieu in any circumstance. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked about using a green factor metric to alleviate the controversies between how many trees they could remove and replace. He commented that some jurisdictions are doing this to simplify the issue. Ms. Powers agreed that this was a wonderful method, but it is also a much more complex level of code for both the property owner and for staff. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that the chart showing the number of trees that could be removed at one time (depending on property size) is more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make sense to him. He wondered why it wasn't a simple formula like 1 tree per 3000 square feet. Ms. Powers explained this was similar to the breakdowns in other jurisdictions but it sounds like the left side. (property size) is dropping off anyway in favor of a simplified number of trees. Planning Board Member Maxwell said it should change with the size of the lot. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps agreed that it should be graduated. He didn't think that was too complex. He also thinks that landmark trees should get special consideration because they are very large trees and hold in tremendous amounts of carbon. When you remove those there needs to be replacement trees. Planning Board Member Kuehn said he agreed that landmark trees should be treated differently because of what it would take to replace those. He thought the proposed chart was pretty simple if you can read a table. Planning Board Chair Gladstone commented that breaking it up by property size is an equity issue because it is a privilege to have a larger piece of land and be able to remove more trees. She wrestles with this because she also recognizes that it is a bigger lot with maybe more trees. She would be interested in discussing this more at a future meeting. She also wondered why staff chose three trees per year instead of the "two -per" trees concept that Kirkland used. Tree Board members departed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 6 of 8 NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Manager Levitan gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff is bringing forward the scope of work for the consultant team to Council on July 5. The proposed approach will have a big focus on the neighborhood level with six different neighborhood districts. In coordination with that staff has identified dates to do the first round of community outreach later in July. The intent is to go out to individual neighborhoods and hold a series of events. There has been significant focus on the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Council had a lot of discussion on the Community Renewal Plan as well as the property acquisition of the landmark site. In addition, there are a lot of community engagement opportunities with the Transportation Plan update, the Climate Championship Series, Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets, etc. Other topics which will be focused on include climate change and climate adaptation specifically related to the waterfront, housing needs, and conceptual land use possibilities within neighborhoods. A more detailed Comprehensive Plan update and scope of work will be coming to the Planning Board on July 12. He welcomed the Board's participation at upcoming public outreach events. Chair Gladstone said she really appreciated the public engagement going out into the neighborhoods. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted that she would be gone for work at the July 12 meeting but she would get comments back to the group via Planning Manager Levitan. Board Member Mitchell asked if it made sense to break the Tree Code discussion up into smaller chunks (like two concepts per meeting) so they can actually get a recommendation into place. Planning Manager Levitan noted that the concepts are very intertwined so it might be difficult to isolate topics. Board Member Maxwell recommended at the next meeting regarding the Tree Code they start with questions rather than background. Chair Gladstone thought there might be ways they could organize the way the material is presented to get through it more efficiently. She recommended that staff come back with a proposal reflecting what they talked about tonight as a starting point for the next discussion. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and indicated that is the plan for the next meeting. Chair Gladstone requested that Parks Director Feser come in once a year for her report rather than always just giving written reports. It would be valuable to have some facetime and ask questions directly to generate discussion. Other board members agreed and suggested maybe having Director Feser visit in person twice a year would be nice. Planning Manager Levitan suggested he could see if she could come in early in the year with a look back with an annual report. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Chair Gladstone expressed concern with the pace of the Comprehensive Plan and that November and December only have one meeting. She wondered if they might want to plan on an extra meeting in early December in case they need it. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and said he would look at some potential dates. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Kuehn said he and his family attended the opening of Civic Park last weekend. He was very excited for this to be part of the city. There is so much good that can come from this in terms of bringing the community together and the inclusive playground He was very proud to be part of the moment. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thanked everyone for the meeting. Board Member Maxwell thanked everyone for the good meeting. Board Member Mitchell echoed previous comments about Civic Park and the productive meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone said if anyone has not seen the Council survey on budget priorities, she recommended that they find it and voice their opinion on it. She is also pleased that the City is hosting a Pride Night on Friday night. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 8 of 8