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