The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-06-28 Tree 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. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-0004) 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 Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-0004) 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 Attachment A 8•A.e �3 c 0 .N N N U) Y L 0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY Edmonds, WA It Tree Code Amendment Project 2023 DV E D PlaniTGeo" developers of TreePlotter f'��. 1890 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment A 8•A.e INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1 Purpose..................................................................................................................................................................1 The Role of Community in Tree Code Updates......................................................................................................1 Education & Outreach Objectives..........................................................................................................................1 PROCESSOVERVIEW.........................................................................................2 AdaptiveApproach................................................................................................................................................2 ProjectTeam & Roles............................................................................................................................................3 ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES.................................................................................3 Document Review & Discovery.............................................................................................................................3 PublicSurvey.........................................................................................................................................................3 Community Conversation Meetings......................................................................................................................4 StakeholderMeetings............................................................................................................................................4 CityWebpage Content...........................................................................................................................................4 SocialMedia Campaigns........................................................................................................................................4 EngagementAnalysis.............................................................................................................................................4 Reporting...............................................................................................................................................................5 ProjectSchedule....................................................................................................................................................5 STAKEHOLDERS & COMMUNITY PARTNERS ............................................................7 Climate & Environment Groups.............................................................................................................................7 Underserved, Under -represented Groups.............................................................................................................7 Housing Developers and Related Groups..............................................................................................................7 CityStaff................................................................................................................................................................7 Community Partners Communications List...........................................................................................................7 TranslationServices...............................................................................................................................................8 MATERIALS OVERVIEW.....................................................................................9 DeliverablesTimeline............................................................................................................................................9 Branding................................................................................................................................................................9 DeliverableExamples..........................................................................................................................................10 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................13 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment A 8•A.e 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. This Community Engagement Strategy ("Strategy") ensures that the project team has a clear understanding of purpose, target audiences, strategies, messaging, and deliverables related to the project. 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. The Role of Community in Tree Code Updates Greater community involvement, partnerships with stakeholders and actively listening to participants representing diverse perspectives are key to community -driven decision -making. When community members, developers, business owners, landscapers, utilities, and tree care professionals participate in drafting tree regulations, the resulting codes reflect the broader community's goals and vision for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. In turn, a sustainable community forest increases the quality of life by contributing maximum health, environmental, social, and economic benefits. Education & Outreach Objectives ❑ Gather input and feedback from the community members of Edmonds. ❑ Conduct effective outreach to all neighborhoods and demographics. ❑ Provide project -related public education to all neighborhoods and demographics. ❑ Provide frequent updates to the community on progress. ❑ Find common ground and shared goals among stakeholders. ❑ Strengthen partnerships and leverage resources to achieve common goals. ❑ Be transparent about the planning process and proposed outcomes. ❑ Draft an ordinance developed and supported by the community. ❑ Establish a framework for continued outreach and engagement with the public beyond the project period City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment A 8•A.e The engagement process includes a variety of strategies to accomplish the project objectives, reach various target audiences, and align with the City of Edmonds' Equitable Engagement Framework model for determining levels of public engagement during a project. The approach for each engagement strategy is explained in each section of the Strategy document, including a description of the tasks, timelines, partners, audiences, and deliverables. Adaptive Approach As outreach and engagement efforts unfold, the Project Team will continuously evaluate outcomes. If an engagement session is not showing successful results, they will be adjusted for improvement. By performing regular check -ins, specific strategies that are causing issues can be identified. Project Team check -ins will analyze whether the session is reaching the intended demographics, if the data being produced is actionable, and if there are high levels of engagement. Periodic evaluations will ensure the best outcomes. Evaluations will consist of: Q Monitoring traffic on the City website (if possible) Q Monitoring traffic to public survey 0 Analysis of geographic and demographic representation at meetings 0 Analysis of geographic and demographic representation of survey results 0 Review of open comments in meetings 0 Other ongoing efforts and initiatives ✓Q Other means of feedback received ✓Q Other? City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment A 8•A.e Project Team & RoLes The "Project Team" consists of PlanIT Geo consultants ("Consultant/Consulting Team") and staff from the City of Edmonds Planning Division and other supporting departments as needed. The primary team members responsible for creating and implementing the Community Engagement Strategy are identified below with roles and Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner Deb will provide guidance and direction on engagement strategies, timelines, and methods that are pivotal to the success of the project. Deb will coordinate with additional City staff, the Planning Board, City Council and Tree Board as needed. Chris Peiffer (Project Manager), PlanIT Geo, Urban Forestry Consulting Services Director As the Project Manager, Chris is involved with the development of engagement strategies, methods, and timing Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo, Urban Forestry Climate Consultant Alex provided the Strategy outline and will support the development of education and engagement sessions, materials, and messaging. Alex will be the primary staff from PlanIT Geo for public education and engagement, with guidance from City staff and community partners. Alex will analyze the findings from these sessions to inform tree code amendments. Alex will lead the communications and coordination between PlanlT Geo and City staff. Michael Martini, PlanIT Geo, Urban Forestry Consultant Mike will assist in the design and delivery of materials with special attention to branding and messaging themes of the project. The following sections outline the objectives, tasks, project schedule and deliverables outlined in the final Scope of Work for this 2023 Community Engagement Strategy. Document Review & Discovery The consultant will develop a Document Index and Discovery Matrix consisting of relevant codes, plans, policies and other related documents for review and analysis with a summary of findings applicable to public engagement. Although the Matrix is a comprehensive list, not all documents and codes will be applicable to public engagement related to the tree code update project; however the primary relevant codes and documents include: • Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework • Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.10 (existing tree code) 23.40 (tree removal in critical areas) and 20.75.048 (tree retention with short plats and subdivision development). • Urban Forest Management Plan • Edmonds Tree Canopy Assessment • Edmonds Climate Action Plan Public Survey A public survey will be developed with questions that will gauge the community's sentiment on regulating tree removal on private property. The survey will be accessible from the project webpage, will remain open for at least 60 days and be advertised in social media posts and news releases. Preliminary results of the survey will be available for the second community conversation meeting, stakeholder meetings and Planning Board meetings. City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment A 8•A.e Community Conversation Meetings Two public meetings will be held (hybrid) to gather public input prior to a final presentation to the Planning Board for recommendations to the City Council for amendments to the tree code. The Consulting Team proposes the interactive and intuitive webinar platform, Zoom. Meetings will be recorded, and a draft and final agenda will be prepared at least one month in advance. The Project Team will work with community partners to announce and encourage participation from the diverse population. The meetings will strengthen the urban forest vision, discuss priority planting areas and strategies, and increase long-term commitments to stewardship. 1. The first public meeting (hybrid) will be held to inform residents of the tree code update purpose, approach, and opportunities to engage. An announcement of the meetings will be provided at least one month in advance and shared on the City website and other platforms. 2. The second public meeting (hybrid) will be informed by the previous 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. Stakeholder Meetings Four facilitated hybrid stakeholder meetings will be held to 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 and identify preferred solutions related to tree code amendment decisions. Under the guidance provided in the "Collaborative" Level of Engagement per the Equitable Engagement Framework, these groups have been 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. City Webpage Content The project -related website content will be updated to inform the public on the purpose, process and importance of updating the code. The content will introduce 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 will also link to the community survey, publish upcoming events and meetings. Social Media Campaigns The Consulting Team will work with City staff and any community partners for messaging, format, timing, and delivery of media messaging at key project intervals. The Consulting Team may provide suggested content for the City and its partners to launch social media campaigns upon request. When possible, it is helpful to align tree code amendment social media campaigns with existing partner networks and other City Department social media accounts. Engagement Analysis Findings from all engagement sessions will be summarized and analyzed to inform the development of the Tree Code Amendment Project. The summary will be provided to the City for review and a final version of the summary will be shared with the City and partners to utilize in their messaging going forward. The outcomes of the engagement efforts and analysis of results will be useful in guiding the City and its partners in future public engagement beyond the TCAP planning period. Reporting Once an engagement session has concluded, the feedback data will be analyzed. This analysis process is incredibly important to identify common themes and perspectives, which will inform tree code amendments moving forward. City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment A Inevitably, there will be a comment or statement that encapsulates public sentiment regarding a topic, and it is crucial to be able to attribute powerful quotes to individuals. When presenting findings to decision -makers, powerful quotes or ideas from specific community stakeholders can be impactful to display community sentiment in an easy -to -understand way. Reporting results to the community is essential. "Closing the loop" encourages future participation in other sessions and builds trust within the community. The community report is an opportunity to tell a community what was heard, what is going to be done in the short- and long-term, and why. The report to decision -makers will provide an overview of how the engagement process will be utilized in developing the amended tree code, key concerns identified, and unique opportunities for partnerships to achieve a shared vision. Once feedback is fully analyzed and reported back to stakeholders, the whole process will be evaluated. This step will identify the effectiveness of engagement sessions and areas for improvement. Information gathered during this step will inform future outreach and engagement after the project is completed to be led by the City. The City will be able to use this knowledge to improve new projects and associated engagement plans to be more beneficial to the City and community. Task Key Deliverable Public Presentation Team Meeting City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment A 8•A.e Final Public Outreach & Engagement Strategy Translation Services (3 Languages, up to 50 Word Pages)($15/language/page) Messaging Campaign #1 (web content, social media, fliers, email listservs, press release) Public Survey (online) (includes prep, delivery, & summary) Final Focus Groups & Stakeholders List Public Meeting #1 (hybrid): Kickoff (includes prep, delivery, & summary) Messaging Campaign #2 (web content, social media, fliers, email listservs, press release) Focus Group & Stakeholders Survey (online) Focus Group & Stakeholders Meetings (hybrid, up to 4 one - hour meetings) Draft Guides, Manuals, & Infographics Public Meeting #2 (hybrid): Draft Recommendations (includes prep, delivery, & summary) Outreach & Engagement Summary . Draft & Final Report Outline Draft Report #1 Public Presentations Separate from Task 2 (4 hybrid presentations) Draft Review Meeting (remote) Final Report Final Delivery & Training (remote) Key Project Deliverables Notes Document Index & Summary Matrix Index of documents and summary report (draft & final) Public Outreach & Engagement Strategy Comprehensive community engagement plan (draft & final) Messaging Campaigns (2) Web content, social media, fliers, emails, press releases, etc. Survey: Public Google Form hosted by PlanIT Geo to gather public input Survey: Focus Group & Stakeholders Google Form hosted by PlanIT Geo to gather stakeholder input Guides, Manuals, & Infographics Materials to assist in the public's understanding of project concepts Outreach & Engagement Summary Comprehensive assessment of outreach efforts Final Report Outline, draft, and final versions of the project report City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment A 8•A.e Community partners are essential to a successful code amendment project that engages all of Edmond's communities. A comprehensive Community Communications list including all stakeholder groups with contact information has been developed as outlined in the Equitable Engagement Framework "Collaborate" Level of Engagement. A strong network of stakeholders can share information and news about the code amendment project, recruit volunteers and attendees for community events, advise the City and consultants of issues and deficiencies in the outreach process, and provide input using the various strategies identified in this Community Engagement Strategy. Several of these organizations partner with the City of Edmonds on existing and/or recent initiatives such as the Climate Action Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Urban Forest Management Plan, Edmonds Tree Canopy Assessment and other planning efforts. The following priority partners are identified for direct communications through stakeholder group meetings. Climate & Environment Groups See Excel sheet for contact information. This group includes the Edmonds Citizen Tree Board, Mayor's Climate Protection Committee, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom, Sound Salmon Solutions, Snohomish- Stillaguamish Local Integrating Organization (LIO of Puget Sound Partnership), The Nature Conservancy WA, Edmonds Environmental Alliance, Sno-Isle Sierra Club, Pilchuck Audubon Society. Underserved, Under -represented Groups See Excel sheet for contact information. See Disability Access, Seniors/Elders, Ethnic & Cultural Organizations, Unhoused/Affordable Housing, LGBTQIA+, Indigenous, Youth & Education categories in the Community Communications List below. Staff is compiling information from the Washington Health Disparities Map, Equitable Engagement Framework demographic information and canopy cover data for additional inclusion in this group. Housing Developers and Related Groups See Excel sheet for contact information. This group includes the Edmonds Architectural Design Board, Alliance for Citizens of Edmonds (ACE), Master Builders of King & Snohomish Counties and frequent Edmonds developers and involved citizens, land use consultants, architects, engineers, and arborists that submit reports to meet development requirements. City Staff The Consultant will meet with City staff responsible for administering the current tree regulations to identify challenges and potential efficiency measures related to its application, including Planners, Code Enforcement Officer and permit coordinators. Community Partners Communications List This list identifies community partners to be included in an email distribution list for project news and updates, who might not be as intensely involved during the engagement process. This broader community list originated from the Equitable Engagement Community Partners Communications list. The following communications list is an excerpt of a more comprehensive list of contacts to be included in email blasts, social media, and other outreach strategies that are considered more passive engagement. When possible, cross -marketing and communications will occur with other City -led initiatives to not overwhelm groups with too much information. City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment A 8•A.e Community -Based Organizations Disability & The Arc of Snohomish County Developmental Disabilities Awareness Snohomish County, Access Hearing, Speech & Deaf Center Puget Sound Association of the Deaf Seniors/Elders Edmonds Senior Center Community of Color Coalition (0), Spanish, Korean, Chinese community organizations and Ethnic & media, Asian Pacific Islanders Coalition, Association of Washington State Hispanic Chambers Cultural of Commerce, Black Heritage Society of Washington State, Chief Seattle Club, Council on American -Islamic Relations (CAIR) Washington, (moved below), Familias Unidas: Latino Organizations Resource Center, Korean Women's Association, Korean Community Service Center, LETI - Latino Educational Training Institute Edmonds Diversity Commission, GLOBE, Edmonds College Queer Action Team LGBTQIA+ Indigenous Tulalip Tribes, The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Snoqualmie Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, Mother Nation, (Everett/Snohomish County) Herald, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon, Korea Daily Media Neighborhoods Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition Unhoused, Renters, Cocoon House (youth experiencing homelessness), Community Support Solutions, ARCH Affordable Housing Listsery Group Individuals who have requested updates on the tree code amendment project Youth and Edmonds Youth Commission, Friends of Youth, Edmonds Community College/Green Team Education and Queer Action Team, ECC/Quiet Heart Wilderness School, Cascadia College For -Profit Representatives Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance, Snohomish County Small Business Development Center, Business Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA), Groups Sustainable Edmonds Neighborhood Associations Neighborhoods Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition Associations Homeowners Particularly HOAs of developments located in heavily -treed critical areas Associations Translation Services The City of Edmonds materials will be primarily provided in English, with potential to translate select materials into up to three additional languages. The Project Team will decide on an as -needed basis which materials are most appropriate for translation. Translation from English to additional languages using PlanIT Geo's 3rd party is roughly $20 per page. City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment A 8•A.e k,,MATERIALS OVERVIE The Tree Code Amendment Project will engage as many Edmonds community members as possible throughout the project using a variety of media, platforms, and materials. The Project Team will align messaging with other City efforts, such as the One Water Plan, when possible. The various types of materials are outlined in the section so that the Project team has a clear understanding of deliverable types, styling, branding, languages, and other specifications that are essential to successful distribution of information. Deliverables Timeline Timing Frequency Material Type Target Audience Description March Social Media and Web City's Facebook 1. Announce TCAP Content Posts followers and/or 2. Announce Public Meeting #1 partner org social 3. Announce Public Meeting #2 media pages March Public Survey All Survey for community input March Social Media and Web City's Facebook 1.Announce Public Survey Content Posts followers and/or 2. Announce Additional Public partner org social Meetings media pages March Group & Stakeholder Targeted Group and Survey targeted groups for input Survey Stakeholders March Meeting Invite- Targeted Group and Create Postcard to invite Postcard Stakeholders stakeholder to partake in meeting March Guides, Manuals, and All Updated materials of ordinance Infographics amendment March -June Social Media All Final Code Change and Adoption Branding The Tree Code Amendment Project documents and educational materials will have consistent branding throughout the project timeline. The color, typeface, and font palettes provided below are PlanIT Geo's standard palettes. The City may decide to include specific elements from these palettes for project materials and branding, or they may instruct the Consulting Team to use an entirely different palette. A logo using these elements helps to distinguish the TCAP from other projects with a recognizable design that reflects the spirit of the project. A logo paired with a slogan or tagline helps give the public an idea of what the TCAP is hoping to achieve at a quick glance (see examples in the next section). alevvay Standard. :..All RaLeWay Raleway Caps.. RALEWAY RALEWAY ntserrat 7Calibri Montserrat Montserrat MONTSERRAT MONTSERRAT Calibri Calibri CALIBRI CALIBRI Arial Arial Arial ARIAL ARIAL 1 1 City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment A StandardPlanIT Geo Color HEX CMYK RGB #eef9ff 5/0/0/0 238/249/255 #2fa3f2 67/25/0/0 47/163/224 #0080ea 78/48/0/0 0/128/234 #0062a3 100/40/0/36 0/98/163 #004370 100/78/32/17 0/67/112 #00234d 100/55/0/70 0/35/77 #eef4df 7/0/19/0 238/244/213 #87c540 52/0/99/0 135/197/64 #588300 33/0/100/49 88/131/0 #365000 72/45/100/43 54/80/0 #253700 33/0/100/78 37/55/0 #e8bb00 ' #d03d27 10/25/100/0 232/187/0 12/91/100/2 208/61/39 #000000 0/0/0/100 0/0/0 _ . #666665 #f3f3f3 60/51/52/20 102/102/101 3/2/2/0 243/243/244 Deliverable Examples UFMP Slogan PlanIT Geo worked with the City of Tacoma, WA to develop the following project slogan which was used on project materials and graphics as a way to distinguish the UFMP. "A Strategic Plan for Tacoma's Urban Forest One Canopy: Benefiting All Residents & Future Generations" UFMP Slogan and Logo PlanIT Geo worked with the City of Renton, WA to develop the following project logo and slogan. Rooted in Renton A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR TACOMA'S URBAN FOREST`- ONE CANOPY • -=' BENEFITING ALL RESIDENTS & FUTURE GENERATIONS- (,� ROOTED W TW iN RENTON City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment A 8•A.e Event Flyer This flyer is made to be handed out at an event while tabling, to share information about the planning process and potentially announce upcoming events and how to get involved. Post Card Post Card with QR Code Social Media Post Content .low in.oac—. a,. �1Nttnn.m., lu6[enT —_ _— �e.+miu`ty Sarvsl R ' ' t� Aicndav_Odohcr%-2R11 TTl 7 1, - 61, om ,, � he rinvy.necnnp mik .wrc ..... [-+slMls�nusluvn �y 4WPLANITCEQ ONE TACOMA ONE CANOPY 4 r Lcollia •J hat do �s mean 0you? A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR OUR FOREST apr• lopm 4 nagem HOW CAN YOU HELP? mplo ueyat n.orytsnNays for a tna��=. 10 wi atso am tz.a� ��Bsat �a�to��a Vublic L3 ar/, Wli coloc'13�ancM1 BBao�l � [n st acoina ua p P f -yecm I .S.r��J,- The sn rvey Is loratrrl bore: h£ps klrkvrooCurbanforestc nm rnmm�init -she -7 =C J and wlfl 6e availrom April lsx to May 2nd, 2nd, 2022 TCr mom [Ie1niL '1exl to tha p[njeri u.eh5lte. MrkmeotlllrbanFareSLcem -1 City of Fremont, CA Government O ••. Yeste vat 1:15 PM-ia The City of Fremont wants to hear from you about the future of the urban forest in Fremont! You can help to develop a strategic plan to achieve a long-range vision for our community's urban forest. The project will include several opportunities for you to participate. Get more details and sign up to get involved by visiting https:ilfremontLrbanforest.com. 04 2Shares ID� Like Q Comment Share City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment A 8•A.e Survey Results Infographics Tree Canopy Fact Sheet This fact sheet summarizes the urban tree canopy assessment, results and findings, why tree canopy is important, principles of tree equity, urban heat and climate impacts, and the benefits of planning to grow the city's canopy. Can include maps, charts, tables, infographics, and text. Tree Inventory Summary This fact sheet summarizes the tree inventory process, findings, highlights, and recommendations. Can include maps, charts, tables, infographics, and text. AN aA55E5 -T OF E-INC AND PTENTAL URBAN TREE CANOPY IANVACNT� R{Sy4T5 E Tree Inventory CITY TREE INVENTORY RW0MMEN0Ari0N6 �PIANr GEO' � e�N'+roH � ut{ �NvkM � V uv wn..kvy�y N ICFIIlCMTB •i! r City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment A 8•A.e Flow/Process Charts and Infographics 4 a:..aWa�_w . s �Measere the Rae[Ball 3 Placo the Tree 4 6aackfill 2 P,apafe tha Spica a.rofo� ,1—dla., aZh-.� • Lessons learned during engagement in other planning efforts. • Translations beyond the surveys (as feasible). • Consistent messaging (clear description of the TCAP). • TCAP branding (colors, tagline, etc.). • Website content (project timeline, upcoming events, surveys, completed tasks, resources). • Meet to discuss and finalize community partners and stakeholders. • Timing for presentations to Edmonds Citizen's Tree Board and other committees, commissions, and City Council. City of Edmonds, WA Tree Code Amendment Project Community Engagement Strategy Plan February 2023 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment B 8•A.e CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT PUBLIC MEETING #1 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Edmonds' Tree Code was formally adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of gathering public input on potential tree code updates and amendments with the following objectives: 1. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments) 2. Consider regulations on private property tree removals As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, an initial public meeting was held for community to learn about the project and to voice their thoughts and opinions about potential updates and amendments to the tree code. The meeting was advertised using an event page and project page on the City's website, social media posts on March 16 and March 27, a press release on March 24, and additional direct outreach via email and with fliers. This meeting was organized in a hybrid format so that attendees could join virtually via Zoom, or in person at the Edmonds City Council Chambers. The meeting results analysis and summary are included in this document as a progress report. A second public meeting is scheduled for May 15, which will be held in person. Tree Code Amendment Community Conversation Date: March 27, 2023 Time: 6:00 - 7:30pm Location: Edmonds City Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Virtual Option: Zoom link provided on City's event page Zoom recording available at request Attendees: 37 (21 in person and 16 virtual) Summary and Assessment Contents Framework for Organizing Public Feedback Outreach Prior to the Meeting Feedback Gathered at the Meeting O Page 11 Plan Geo � I" Packet Pg. 67 Attachment B FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZING PUBLIC FEEDBACK Comments received during Public Meeting #1 were categorized into one of five 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 Management 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 o Requires certified arborist for paid private tree work o Requires certified arborist for public tree work o Requires licensing of private tree care firms o Defines official authority for public tree management - Management/Maintenance o Requires annual community tree work plans o Identifies formula for determining monetary tree value o Requires regular public tree maintenance o Requires particular types of maintenance (e.g. pruning) o Establishes permit system for work on public trees o Establishes provisions for penalties for non-compliance o Restricts burning of solid wood waste o Establishes an insect/disease control strategy o Defines tree maintenance requirements on public property o Prohibits tree topping o Regulates abatement of hazardous or public nuisance trees o Regulates removal of dead or diseased trees - Planting o Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on private property (approved tree list) o Requirestree planting around reconstructed parking lots o Requires replacement of removed publicly owned trees o Requires tree planting around new parking lots o Requires tree planting in new developments o Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on public property (approved tree list) - Preservation o Restricts tree cutting on private property o Identifies preservation of heritage or significant trees o Requires preservation of trees during development - Other o Citywide canopy cover goals and targets o Public education/engagement regarding codes o Other Page 12 Plan Geo "u. Packet Pg. 68 Attachment B 8•A.e OUTREACH PRIOR TO THE MEETING In preparation of the event, multiple engagement strategies were utilized for reaching community members and informing them ofthe event. All ofthe methods and strategies used align with the project's overarching Tree Code Amendment Community Engagement Strategy. Press Release in My Edmonds News � �not�w,�w�_Eommena�anahoremment ... e® fT &of E1.N iz cm ziaeringama�:"a�:z �c IRe�aa:::z{CC,dt01.1Tiz nei vfaPtle u'ptlates ie :c unsderllm�;in::•:: ': --_�:Gam'antl tc make mimr changes to the erN.— :, ._--..._. _._ :.: Lhd phiRtrees whh tl xdopmenE 13 pWtic is iuvltec:=-,c•=, -,,k rmwe ways So get invPNetl.Apuhlk s�.;rre': •::i-i s: �_ - _. _.. �a.ph �Nafal9th 4�nk 6ekxvl. free Coae 1—1— ". 'A— "eat^ 27 600-7.30, --il Chamhers a[250 ivh Are N. Edmonds WA 9 0 �... wetinar Pkadorm —.rwrcxcvrr wFFtkz.nxwwaw __.-.:-appreaa�ea: nnosllPlanr[geninomua� rWN}iYYTNIRfgsk2�N%wwpw .____ _, a.-cix tagin^rgl',a•:li=:;'n:^-c_.:�•n_gly'P158z�trll6shwMfiU -_ --__ - - - - -. a.3=rcrwsRlM1e WJectwebsiteat The City published a press release in My Edmonds News on " March 17, 2023. The press release and comments on the press release are included below. The comments and discussion posted in response to the press release were factored into the planning of the event as well as the public survey. Press Release: "Reminder: City sponsoring community conversation March 27 about changes to Edmonds tree code" Posted: March 16, 2023, Updated: March 24, 2023 F ED a The City of Edmonds is considering amendments to its tree code, including to limiting tree removal on private property. Minor changes are also being proposed for the existing tree code, which the city council adopted in 2021 to retain and plant trees with development. '4C, jg9" The public is invited to the participate in a Tree Code Amendment Community Conversation from 6-7:30 p.m. Monday, March 27. The meeting will be in the Edmonds City Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N. You can also attend virtually at this link. RSVPs are appreciated here. Following the meeting, the city will release a public survey running from March 28 through May 19. The survey link, which will go live March 28, is here. For more information, email deb.powers@edmondswa.gov or visit the project website at www.edmondswa.gov/treecodeupdates. u' Page 13 PIanIT Ceo Packet Pg. 69 Attachment B 8•A.e Press Release Comments Joe Scordino March 17, 2023 at 11:20 am What the heck is a "community conversation"? This City already had community engagement on tree retention when the `Urban Forest Management Plan' (UFMP) was developed. The UFMP established goals to "maintain and enhance citywide canopy coverage" and "promote the right tree in the right place". The balancing act to achieve UFMP goals involves restricting mature tree removal and planting of new trees on undeveloped property, developed residential/commercial property, and City property. Unfortunately, the recently approved 6-year City Parks Plan (the PROS Plan) did not set any requirements for planting trees in Parks (as it should have), so now, the burden falls on private property owners. So enough with the "conversations" and surveys as has transpired with the Comp Plan update. Just tell the public what the alternatives are to achieve UFMP goals and let the City's legislative body (the Council) decide, with public input, how to proceed. Clinton Wright March 17, 2023 at 1:26 pm Definition of an Edmonds "community conversation." We are from the Mayor's office and we are here to lead a seminar on what we think your visions for the city should be. Poll question: Is it just a good idea; or a great idea to place a specific moratorium date on cutting down trees greater than 24'' in diameter? Wait, what's that sound I hear? I think it's over 100 2 stroke chain saws suddenly belching fire to beat the moratorium. Deborah Arthur March 18, 2023 at 3:46 pm Ya Nailed it! The surveys I did try to use were much like this too. No real room for any suggestion or complaint. Counted by letter so we couldn't say much at all. You are correct again Clinton and you too Joe. Are we seeing the pattern now? It is clear to me what the problem is and much of it is just like trash news stations, enquirer ha type stories. They say oh we had such a big turnout. Right of people who feel exactly like they who put on the events. Because Idealism is so huge here we just need standard votes and reason on our council and in our Mayors office and every department that is in charge of such important things in our city. Surveys embellish, Polls embellish. Lots of embellishing around haha. IT seems to me. So stop it already and just be happy. And avoid cutting trees. Its ignorantto destroyyour own city. Consider your topography and you won't maybe have to pay so many taxes after we can fix what we have destroyed and stop a lot of what is trying to be destroyed. Chris Cantu March 19, 2023 at 10:28 am At least there is Clinton to provide a (sort of painful) laugh as we watch the city of Edmonds morph into a crowded Cali beach town complete with crawling traffic, no parking and divisive housing problems but minus the sunshine for 6 months a year. 1 Page 14 Plan Geo II" Packet Pg. 70 Attachment B 8•A.e Jim Fairchild March 24, 2023 at 6:19 pm Chris that is about right but you forgot about the loss of trees. It doesn't matter if the city chooses to buy into alternatives to our tree cover we the people will miss it eventually. But you can't have increased development without the loss of canopy. The government has gotten themselves in a bind, you can't have both. But yet they promote both. Have your cake and eat it too always leaves taxpayers paying more for less. Nathaniel Brown March 24, 2023 at 9:05 pm Clinton, you know perfectly well that trees provide shade, clean the air, help retain soil, and add beauty -and do it all in the presence of children! The soonerwe get rid of them, the sooner we can be Arizona by the Sea! Clinton Wright March 25, 2023 at 1:34 pm Nathaniel, right on. Trees are great. I have nothing against trees, here or in Arizona, which also has lots of really cool ones (think Saguaro National Park - Tucson). I do take some issue with overzealous tree boards and committees and Draconian bans and moratoriums that tend to do more harm than good. I'm just a little tired of Edmond's hypocrisy also. For years we've allowed the wholesale cutting of huge amounts of trees to build Mc Mansions on the one hand and then turned around and made cutting down trees illegal for the latest comers to the over development and sell Edmonds fest. On top of that we now have the state sticking it's collective nose in to demand more loss of trees and green space; to promote more development. Can't have it both ways. Steve Date March 24, 2023 at 7:24 pm Here we go again.......... Last time the city tried to pull this crap 6 trees were cut down on my street the week prior to the meeting and MANY more all over the city. I would sure hate to remove my beautiful tree however I'll be damned if I will pay the city (fees) to prune it or even remove it if it becomes a threat to my home or self. I planted my tree 50 years ago and have been taking care of it alone all these years. Last go -around we were going to have to obtain a permit ($$$) and pay an arborist ($400-$800) in order to do any work on our own tree, and pay a hefty fee to cut it down! I'm sharpening my chainsaw this weekend. If I remember correctly the residents made such a fuss the city council scrapped the idea (but quietly hired a couple of tree huggers to continue the process in the background) 'nuff said Diane T March 25, 2023 at 8:41 am The winter ice storm did a lot of the management work for us. The City does nothing to maintain those huge stands of trees in public parks. The winter storm took out here of my two of my large trees because the City trees which were rotten rained down huge J Page �5 Plan. Geo "u. Packet Pg. 71 Attachment B 8•A.e limbs and obliterated them, city gonna pay me for that? Another huge tree which was rotted was uprooted and leaning on another uprooted huge tree. City arborists said all was stable. No worries. Until it moved (duh) and then and only them did the City get a crew out. Now there is a fire hazard this summer from all of the uncleared branches, limbs and trees that were dropped. When our tree code only go one way, it is unsustainable. Huge trees crowd out any light so no young trees are there to replace them as they become more and more unhealthy. Edmonds is not interested in a healthy tree canopy, but rather in generating revenue by charging residents for an aging unhealthy ones with no effort to renewing of the canopy. My neighbors know what they are doing with their trees. The City does not. Chris Walton March 25, 2023 at 6:17 am I'm with Joe S. and Nathaniel B. In the end, there really is no healthy solution to the real problem: overpopulation. A 'community conversation' is basically just a way to kick the proverbial can down the street once again, rather than face difficult choices. But on the bright side, it'sa lotcheaperthan hiring a $250,000 consultant to tell uswhattodo (anothercommon method of kicking the can). ALAN MEARNS March 25, 2023 at 9:53 am Last week I watched, and listened, as three 50-foot tall firs came down in our Maplewood area. Smack dab in the middle of bird and wildlife nesting and breeding season. And just before the spring migration of birds from the south. Very bad timing. The neighborhood where the trees were cut will suffer more during the next heat waves. And so much for our community's contribution to carbon reduction. These things connect... shade, carbon, water and soil runoff, wildlife protection and enhancement, corridors connecting canopies, education. It's not just one thing ... like a tree cover number. The City's and residents' tree decision strategies need to consider the total of suburban ecologyand human welfare. I have no idea ifthe propertyowner will plant new trees, on site or nearby, as mitigation. Unfortunately maintaining a healthy environment does cost money. So does it's destruction. Cynthia Pruitt March 28, 2023 at 10:32 am Thankyou, Alan. I appreciateyour informed voice of reason. 1 �` � Page 16 Plan Geo ��T" Packet Pg. 72 Attachment B 8•A.e FEEDBACK GATHERED AT THE MEETING Attendees were provided multiple opportunities to provide input during this hybrid meeting. The following sections analyze the feedback received during live polling, breakout groups, and Zoom chat. When possible, this feedback has been categorized using the Tree Ordinance Checklist Framework to prepare for potential tree code recommendations. Live Poll Results A live poll was conducted during the public meeting � Mentimeter that allowed all attendees (virtual and in -person) to participate. The Mentimeter poll was four questions, with the first being a warmup question and the following three questions diving further into the event's topic of tree ordinance updates. Ql: How manytrees are on the propertywhere you live? Answer option 0 trees V• 0 1-2 trees 3 3-4 trees 3 5+ trees 13 02: How familiar are you with the current tree code? s,$ s NotFamiliarAtAll Somewhat Familiar:) it when I removed or planted a tree 13 0 0 1-2 3-4 5+ "6 Very Familiar: I reference it professionally and/or often y NP Planar Ceo Page 17 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment B 8•A.e Q3: How would you describe the current tree code? Answer option I'm not sure tes 5 Too lax 6 Just right 1 Too strict 10 I'm Not Su Too La) Just Right 04: How important are these tree code themes to you? Too Strict Answer Option Equitable tree canopy cover Score 4 Tree protection during construction (fence, signage) 4.3 Tree removal (when, where, which types) 4.8 There shouldn't be any codes for private property 5.1 Tree plantings (require with new development) 5 Replant trees after removal 3.8 4-1 Q c 0 0 E 4-1 O z Equitable tree canopy over Tree protection during construction (fence, signage) Tree removal (when, wherwhich types) There shouldn't be any tree codes for private property 5.1 Tree plantings (require wit 4ew development) Replant trees after ramoval c a 4-1 0 a a� ai X w n . Page 18 Plan-'!' Geo Packet Pg. 74 Attachment B 8•A.e Breakout Groups In this hybrid meeting format, breakout rooms were held both in person and virtually. Code - related comments were organized and categorized in the charts below, followed by the full transcripts of the breakout group notes with images of the original notes. Question 1: What changes would you make to tree codes relating Comment to new development? Ordinance Checklist Category Restrictions on size of trees that can be removed >: 24" o Preservation Requirement for licensed arborist Credential More code to restrict for new development / offsets Preservation + Planting No charges for worth of property owners' trees Management Native species Planting Care for new trees Management Needs to be simplified Other - General Seems all or nothing = so developers choose to pay to cut down Management NO alternative for developers to do anything but pay into the tree code. Depends on canopy goals or low-income housing Management Mitigation plantings to be based on dbh or canopy Planting Preserving viewsheds Preservation Create the desire for more tree canopy. Take the OS in public spaces and set an example of how we can do better. Planting Tree canopy downtown is a struggle Other - canopy Development will remove trees and plant in the small space. Look outside the development area in a park, etc. Need other options besides just paying into fund Planting No enforcement, no checkups, follow-up Management UTC is important but look at public spaces first Other - canopy Development is where the canopy disappears Other - canopy Question 2: What changes would you make to tree codes relating to private property --removal? Ordinance Checklist Comment Category Notify on property purchase / better notification Other - education Better definitions / locations for replacement / number of Planting replacement trees Define easement responsibilities 4 City/ owner Credential ECA requirements Management Property rights are very important. Critical areas are important. All Preservation circumstances are individual # of removals depends on the property Preservation Condition of the tree Management 'J 11,71 Page 19 Plan Geo "u: ' Packet Pg. 75 Attachment B 8•A.e Dead tree removal must be replaced Planting Remove within specific time Preservation Natives planted Planting Incentive for maintenance of significant trees Management Our group feels no need to control / have code (outside Critical Areas) Preservation Moratorium caused rush to cut trees Preservation A change should be made that no tree is untouchable, replanting trees should be tied to natives not undesirable Planting Defining significant trees: 6" or greater Preservation Trees are great and there are so many options but there is a real need for affordable housing Other - general For removal of significant tree, you can make a request with arborist report included Preservation + Credential Define landmark trees vs. heritage trees Preservation Nothing wrong with sharing the burden (public and private). Shouldn't do all or nothing Credential Private property rights should be preserved Credential 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 Consider equity when it comes to critical area protection Preservation • - - should City have on treeremoval? Comment Ordinance Checklist Category Greater role Credential More outreach / education / hotline Other - Education Maintenance tree limbing /topping Management Quarterlyfliers Other- Education Get involved if more than 30-50% of trees are cut down Preservation Trees are hazardous Management Depends on environment Management Minimal government role Credential Code enforcement by arborist Credential Modify/ update code - public process with expert tree Credential Arborist on staff to determine tree health Credential Mediation would be nice Credential Education - Critical Areas Other - Education Planting for right tree right place Planting Yes, with Code enforcement Credential Crown reduction instead of thinning should be penalized Management Only opportunities right now are redevelopment (city is built out). Preservation u' Page 110 PIann' Ceo Packet Pg. 76 Attachment B 8•A.e There are examples of how to bring UTC into urban setting Other - canopy Being proactive would be to adopt the public streets and not put it on the property owners Credential In -Person Breakout Groups The four breakout groups that met in person each had a flip chart for note taking. The pictures of the flip chart notes, as well as the typed transcripts, are included below. Breakout Group 1 1. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to new development? - Restrictions of size of trees that can be removed >_ NOW" . - Requirement for licensed arborist - More code to restrict for new development / offsets 2. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to private property tree removal? - Notify on property purchase / better notification - Better definitions / locations for replacement / number of replacement - Define easement responsibilities 4 City/ owner - ECA requirements 3. Role of City for managing tree activity - Greater role - More outreach / education / hotline - Maintenance tree limbing / topping - Quarterly fliers Breakout Group 2 1. What would you change on new development tree removal? - No charges for worth of property owners' trees 2. How do you feel about restrictions on your property? - Property rights are very important. Critical areas are important. All circumstances are individual. 3. What role should City have on tree removal? - Get involved if more than 30-50% of trees are cut down - Trees are hazardous - Depends on environment - Minimal government role No rJw�u fh '�rl "j nyiu:tom'. WhwF r5�^--,,4�,.Ar,( C''hlr hwwe o,��7ee. re�✓r v�e� 6-4- ;;�s MINIM,riL CKo'J� r Breakout Group 3 1. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to new development? - Native species - Care for new trees 1 me Page I11 Plar► Geo "C. a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment B 2. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to private property tree removal? # of removals depends on the property - Condition of the tree - Dead tree removal must be replaced - Remove within specific time - Natives planted 3. What role should the City have? - Code enforcement by arborist - Modify / update code - public process with expert tree - Arborist on staff to determine tree health Breakout Group 4 1. What changeswould you make to tree codes relating to new development? - Needs to be simplified - Seems all or nothing = so developers choose to pay to cut down 2. What changes would you make to tree codes relating to private property tree removal? - Incentive for maintenance of significant trees - Out group feels no need to control / have code (outside Critical Areas) i. Moratorium caused rush to cut trees 3. What role should the City have? - Mediation would be nice - Education - Critical Areas x rs eN 1} �byfl1y (��1.y3e. C=�Q LL-f�P bl�1 rows �.�'h 6}y�'Y7rw A('ppr15` AN �j laic iv f/'.'��YhM i. �(Iti `rur.3�� - M •e-1 s.,.. c._..v L e..sw u e�-•' qr..a Pr-� left do.> c�lY 4�-� n -a Mc E.7�ro o„Ad 5.� _ �cwc,ATto�—c�ykt� 0.r=� Virtual Breakout Groups The two breakout groups that met virtually via Zoom were assigned note takers from the project team who used Zoom's whiteboard feature to compile answers to the same three questions as the in -person groups. Screenshots of the whiteboards, as well as the typed transcripts, are included below. O T B T ■m; ,�mp�a Prorop� PraVla! aWrc Gavtlllpn as 1n!!!nlms 0(belf� n rer peepleW plain lRl6 in ureir yore lial paemg gyUln (prgla[pl�atMrtree att9� av! most a eats mr wrrmeen tp rcma.e �evasrye weep rvrc rry twro naure mrs �s ouas� MalMan pu0�s 4xs abng slrteh antl paM1sl remm�raepr albw trcn iemerala en prry M propenyp AlgYlrc tMl tr!!a anaultF ee rctame6 wAen d!�llepmenl pCCerc� Tree PrtRNalipn 1. ) �` Tree Moallarnp. t: a a �r Deng Tree Ptbn n] Mainrcmn�c ypepantlr Ri�ansn Ewsyslem ea 4M1a�xc... .,. Trve Planlmy r Page 112 PIanIT Ceo LL Packet Pg. 78 Attachment B 8•A.e Virtual Breakout Groups 1 and 2 Combined Ql: What changes would you make to tree codes relating to new development? - NO alternative for developers to do anything but pay into the tree code. Depends on canopy goals or low-income housing - Mitigation plantings to be based on dbh or canopy - Preserving viewsheds - Create the desire for more tree canopy. Take the OS in public spaces and set an example of how we can do better. - Tree canopy downtown is a struggle - Development will remove trees and plant in the small space. Look outside the development area in a park, etc. Need other options besides just paying into fund - No enforcement, no checkups, follow-up - UTC is important but look at public spaces first - Development is where the canopy disappears Q2: What changes would you make to tree codes relating to private property tree removal? - A change should be made that no tree is untouchable, replanting trees should be tied to natives not undesirable - Defining significant trees: 6" or greater - Trees are great and there are so many options but there is a real need for affordable housing - For removal of significant tree, you can make a request with arborist report included - Define landmark trees vs. heritage trees - Nothing wrong with sharing the burden (public and private). Shouldn't do all or nothing - Private property rights should be preserved - Trying to create a tree policy that handles all zones but zones have different needs. E.g., industrial canopy is different than residential zone. - Consider equity when it comes to critical area protection Q3: What role should the City have? - Planting for right tree right place - Yes, with Code enforcement - Crown reduction instead of thinning should be penalized - Only opportunities right now are redevelopment (city is built out). - There are examples of how to bring UTC into urban setting - Being proactive would be to adopt the public streets and not put it on the property owners P a g e 113 Plan Gea ,II" Packet Pg. 79 Attachment B Zoom Chat In the virtual Zoom meeting, the chat feature was enabled to allow participants to send questions, have dialogue, and send additional feedback. Code -related comments were organized and categorized in the chart below, followed by the full transcript of the Zoom chat. ZOOM CHAT Ordinance Checklist Comment Category Could you review what the current code says about private tree Other -Education removal? To the extent the City seeks to support''Right tree, right place," there must be acknowledgement of Wrong tree, Wrong place, and should Planting be supportive of curing those conditions. Reasonable exceptions considered. The city arborist is qualified to make these decisions and they can be supported by an arborist Credential report if needed, similar to zones having cliff codes/considerations. The role of the City should be to protect neighbors from erosion due to tree removal (meaning actual removal of a tree), and from Management hazardous trees. 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 Preservation trees that were a part of Yost's farm over 100 years ago. They should be protected. 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 Other -education needed Maybe a problem statement would help on current code. It kinda Other - goals feels like we are hunting for changes without a goal? Since the tree code affects single-family residential properties with critical areas, it may be informative for attendees and Council to Other - education understand what % of single-family parcels are a critical area. Here is the summary of what I hear: I want my trees. I want to cut my trees 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 Management 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. P a g e 114 Plan . Geo "u. Packet Pg. 80 Attachment B Zoom Chat Transcript 21:25:22 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: www.menti.com 21:25:31 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: code: 8814 9606 21:26:42 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: I'm here for anyone running into issues with the tool. Thanks for your participation! 21:37:53 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: For folks joining late, we are taking a poll and you're welcome to join us by copy/pasting the link above and entering the code 21:38:03 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: Looks like there was confusion on the yellow bar. 50% said too strict in last question.. 21:38:22 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: Double -negative makes it hard to answer. 21:39:00 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: I agree with the gentleman asking the question. it's a poorly worded question. 21:39:45 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: It does not appear that answers can be changed. 21:40:44 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: The 10 people who answered 0 or 1 may have not understood what Alex said at the time they responded. 21:44:00 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: +1 for reset 21:44:07 From robert to Everyone: +1 21:44:48 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: thanks for the feedback. You may need to refresh your window to resubmit 21:45:20 From Katy Bigelow to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message): i am sorry, I just jioned, is it possible for remote to vote? 21:45:32 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Katy Bigelow(Direct Message): Yes! Go to www.menti.com 21:45:39 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Katy Bigelow(Direct Message): type in the code at the top of the screen 21:46:09 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Katy Bigelow(Direct Message): 8814 9606 21:46:10 From Katy Bigelow to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message): I'm sorry, the screenshare info covers the code 21:46:38 From Lu Loree to Everyone: My screen is not working 21:47:19 From D. Landsverk to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message): no tree codes for private property 21:50:03 From Christian Saether to Everyone: Could you review what the current code says about private tree removal? 21:50:12 From robert to Everyone: Reacted to ''Could you review wha..." with 21:50:14 From Christian Saether to Everyone: 171 P a g e 115 Plait Geo ,II" Packet Pg. 81 Attachment B My understanding is there are no restrictions currently 22:14:09 From Edmonds Court to Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo(Direct Message): Are you guys ready to start back/full screen? 22:14:21 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Edmonds Court(Direct Message): yep we are tready 22:17:35 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: 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. 22:18:49 From Katy Bigelow to Everyone: reasonable exceptions considered. The city arborist is qualified to make these decisious and they can be supported by an arborist report if needed. 22:19:03 From Katy Bigelow to Everyone: similar to zones having dill codes/considerations 22:20:40 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: 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. 22:21:15 From Trudy Dana to Everyone: 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. 22:21:30 From robert to Everyone: It would me great to understand the current code, as well as the overall goal to modification of tree code. 22:22:10 From robert to Everyone: without this base information I am not sure we can understand what changes are needed 22:23:18 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: I documented the comments received from Brian, Katy, Trudy, and Robert, thankyou! 22:24:32 From Chris Peiffer to Everyone: more comments and questions are welcome ifyou'd like to share those in the chat here 22:27:55 From robert to Everyone: Maybe a problem statement would help on current code. It kinda feels like we are hunting for changes without a goal? 22:28:38 From Katy Bigelow to Everyone: how does someone sign up as a stakeholder? 22:29:00 From Brian Thompson to Everyone: 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. 22:30:00 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Everyone: Project Website: www.edmondswa.gov/treecodeupdates 22:30:18 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Everyone: Public Survey (goes live tomorrow at noon): 22:30:23 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Everyone: https://forms.gle/Afhdn H ufNJdGj LzD6 Page 116 Plan. Geo "u. Packet Pg. 82 Attachment B 22:34:20 From Alex Hancock, PlanIT Geo to Edmonds Court(Direct Message): Deb can you repeat the questions? We can't hear 22:36:42 From William to Everyone: Here is the summary of what I hear: I want my trees. I want to cut my trees 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. Public Comments Organized by Category Participants provided input during virtual and in person breakout sessions, and throughout the event in the Zoom chat feature. These comments were organized using the Tree Ordinance Category Framework, which will be used throughout all public engagement and for final tree code amendment recommendations. -- Ordinance Checklist Category Credential # 15 % 21% Management 15 21% Planting 11 15% Preservation 15 21% Other 16 22% Public Input by Category ■ Credential ■ Management ■ Planting ■ Preservation Other L Page 117 IT PIanCeo Packet Pg. 83 Attachment C CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT PUBLIC MEETING #2 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Edmonds' Tree Code was formally adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of gathering public input on potential code updates with the following objectives: 1. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments) 2. Consider regulations on private property tree removals As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, a second public meeting was held for the community to learn about the project and to voice their thoughts and opinions about potential changes to the tree code. The meeting was advertised using an event page and project page on the City's website, social media posts on May 5 and May 15, and a press release on May 13. This meeting was organized in a hybrid format so that attendees could join virtuallyvia Zoom, or in person at the Edmonds City Hall's Brackett room. The meeting results analysis and summary are included in this document as a progress report. Tree Code Amendment Community Conversation Date: May 15, 2023 Time: 6:00 - 7:30pm Location: Edmonds City Hall, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room, 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Virtual Option: Zoom link provided on City's event page Zoom recording available at request Attendees: -28 (-20 in person and 8 virtual) Summary and Assessment Contents Framework for Organizing Public Feedback Outreach Prior to the Meeting Feedback Gathered at the Meeting Pagell Plan. Geo "u: � Packet Pg. 84 Attachment C FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZING PUBLIC FEEDBACK Comments received during Public Meeting #2 were categorized into one of five 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 Management 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 o Requires certified arborist for paid private tree work o Requires certified arborist for public tree work o Requires licensing of private tree care firms o Defines official authority for public tree management - Management/Maintenance o Requires annual community tree work plans o Identifies formula for determining monetary tree value o Requires regular public tree maintenance o Requires particular types of maintenance (e.g. pruning) o Establishes permit system for work on public trees o Establishes provisions for penalties for non-compliance o Restricts burning of solid wood waste o Establishes an insect/disease control strategy o Defines tree maintenance requirements on public property o Prohibits tree topping o Regulates abatement of hazardous or public nuisance trees o Regulates removal of dead or diseased trees - Planting o Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on private property (approved tree list) o Requirestree planting around reconstructed parking lots o Requires replacement of removed publicly owned trees o Requires tree planting around new parking lots o Requires tree planting in new developments o Regulates tree species which may or may not be planted on public property (approved tree list) - Preservation o Restricts tree cutting on private property o Identifies preservation of heritage or significant trees o Requires preservation of trees during development - Other o Citywide canopy cover goals and targets o Public education/engagement regarding codes o Other Page 12 Plan Geo "u. Packet Pg. 85 Attachment C OUTREACH PRIOR TO THE MEETING In preparation of the event, multiple engagement strategies were utilized for reaching community members and informing them of the event. All ofthe methods and strategies used align with the project's overarching Tree Code Amendment Community Engagement Strategy. Press Release in My Edmonds News 1 ChyM WpenA-Canmukry antl Gneernmem r,5E[ONO TRM COOP VP-M COMMUNITY NVEIt£ItION TAKING 1U tMAY 150 ,tre Gq of [dmone:I:.onM1ag uvdam N dreg �da'ECl]C Zi.1o1.,Fs nert Pryare Imp eee removal on pmate popery aM m male minor m v [he emiing wdew M1lcn was adep[ed iv x031 [p mein and ploan Hess s Yn devewpmerrc /ne vabl,, a mwred 1ppm w: semnp publz:nlormon m Mry 15N to sM1are ideaaa�tl e re wf�a ga i�rolw<-d d.� puber survry is arauaee:n fng�eA 51ae•ar, aovea�nma�nd Crnn�e a ti eennea below. m WFem MM1ndayMaY I5, 20216A0]:3gpm [anrersanon WFws invesen in IFe &aderc Reana 3rd Flwr a Gry Hall lomsed at t2' SM1 Ave N. Ftlm ndpc/lm:nrnumw-guv.:omn+ JilA1'in,]6469,. gssoae. aome,. 111eGtir lU. B,22gt] 69g9 OI oll m N me meeting M 25312s561b2 A pueneaunry is aranaAe mmugF Mry 19m: nnpsl/ion:s,gkJPtsuzoieueseMnun (Korean'IFwl 1 - ��us<�E: FdmonasJ 4r�9w �r�rm 9M:app gq FN a ;'AI'DAher�EM1 nnp,:/3d� googl.mmr r,[Alpnlsdg3�w,�rslre.�we,.�� ([Mneeal ifids*2� drill6®. iRtstmaT3e�:S�SC%E41�?�. aMl'. 5vaneM Pmveno de inme�a al Cddgo del PNd nel� en Edmercb. iGmoazl nnps.//ers5oogl�m/ �[ Enlpnlsmvi.,vgviceb W: mrne �nlormaNpn email dvd,wwers®vdmpndp nnprsl wwaa:amonmxa.yw/oeecodeuvdales The City published a press release in My Edmonds News on May 5, 2023. The press release and comments on the press release are included below. The comments and discussion posted in response tothe press release werefactored intothe planning of the event aswell asthe public survey. Press Release: Announcing Second Tree Code Updates Community Conversation Posted: May 5, 2023 ofAI Moti 0 (Edmonds - WA) The City of Edmonds is considering updates to the tree code (ECDC 23.10). This next phase of code updates is to consider limiting tree removal on private property and to make minor changes to the existing code, which was adopted in 2021 to retain and plant trees with development. The public is invited to join our second public info session on May 15th to share ideas and hear more ways to get involved. To better understand public sentiment on trees and tree codes, a public survey is available in English, Spanish, Korean and Chinese at the links below. Tree Code Amendment Second Community Conversation When: Monday, May 15, 2023, 6:00-7:30pm Page 13 Plan Geo ,IT ,7 ., Packet Pg. 86 Attachment C Where: In -person in the Brackett Room, 3rd Floor at City Hall located at 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds WA 98020 Virtual Option: Zoom webinar platform at the following link: htps://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/81229176949? pwd=TVN I W Ulzd U I pbH pXeldta U IsU ktTZz09 Passcode: 400781, Webinar ID: 812 2917 6949 Or call in to the meeeting at (253) 215-8782 A public survey is available through May 19th: https://forms.gle/PkS8zQ]xUbsbwM6LA • (Korean) Edmonds 0-1T� iEll 7H 11 11 E: Edmonds°I LFTail EH�F LF LF�F z� _,_ =1 �H F d' �I4. Im d �I �F! (Chinese) ((A1War VJ, 7K�J iJ)) 11X1TRP: MIMMLl` TIPf 71R-aVJM�<7'0;i �gi-m ° VIC,! (Spanish) Proyecto de Enmienda al C6digo del Arbol de Edmonds: Responda esta breve encuesta sobre arboles en Edmonds. iGracias! For more information, email deb.powers@edmondswa.gov or visit the project website at https://www.edmondswa.gov/treecodeupdates. Press Release Comments Haydee Loucel May 9, 2023 at 9:48 am As an Edmonds resident, I would like to see more trees planted by the builders when they tear down homes to build more apartments and also underground parking for the residents. That should be a requirement for the builders! Clinton Wright May 9, 2023 at 11:44 am Fear not Haydee, the other night I saw a TV ad by the Master Builders Association that promises to plant two trees to replace one whenever they demolish a single family home to build a duplex on what used to be single family homes only zoned property (which is now illegal unless you are rich and live in Woodway, Broadmore or Innis Arden). Thus they are providing more housing and saving the planet as well; being the benevolent folks they are. Last night I saw Governor Inslee state that the new anti single family home laws will make up for past discrimination against minority groups and help solve the homelessness crisis. Well, great to know, there's no more problems to be dealt with regarding trees and housing. I'll sleep better tonight. Clinton Wright May 74, 2023 at 70:76 am I won't be attending the tree conversation because I will be attending Diane Buckshnis' Town Hall meeting with local residents at the Edmonds Lutheran Church on 84th. Ave. which is happening at the same time. Those residents are quite Page 14 Plan Geo "u: ' Packet Pg. 87 Attachment C concerned about a huge apartment planned that will abut their single family neighborhood and the possible purchase of a park property in the area that may not be appropriate to their needs and a waste of valuable Edmonds' tax money. These two meetings actually relate and overlap a bit since the state has now taken over our zoning rights regarding forms of housing. My take is that, based on the new laws, Edmonds won't have much to say about whether owners can or can't remove trees and as I noted in comment above the "propaganda" is that the new laws will promote the installation of more trees. Stay tuned. FEEDBACK GATHERED AT THE MEETING Attendees were provided multiple opportunities to provide input during this hybrid meeting. The following sections analyze the feedback received during live polling, breakout groups, and Zoom chat. When possible, this feedback has been categorized using the Tree Ordinance Checklist Framework to prepare for potential tree code recommendations. 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, followed by the full transcripts of the breakout group notes with images of the notes. Tree Removal, No Development Question 1: Does the City have a role in limiting property owner tree removals? 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 manytrees are removed Management 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 1 s Page 15 Plan Geo II"7 - Packet Pg. 88 Attachment C 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 Responsibility needs to be on an arborist or someone for 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 Credential Tree Removal, NoDevelopment 3: Should anyone be required to plant replacement trees when trees are removedQuestion on private property7 Ordinance Checklist Comment Category City shouldn't sayyes/no on removal, but should have a say in the Planting replant requirement Mitigation should be same for same species type (i.e. deciduous: Planting deciduous and evergreen : evergreen) Provide notification of trees removed (not a permit - no cost - no Management ability for the City to say "no") Replacement should consider the size of the tree being removed Planting in order to get the same ecological benefits With Edmonds turning over like hotcakes, trees are cut without Preservation 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 know Other what it is ... they can help to enforce y � Page 16 Plan Geo "u. Packet Pg. 89 Attachment C 8•A.e Tree Removal,Development 1: Does the City have a role in requiring tree retention with development? Replanting?Question - -- - 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 experts on Credential site design Planting requirements, no penalties Planting Tree diversity Planting Incentives to retain trees (esp drainage) Preservation 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 the Management urban forest Fees should be much higher than they are now Management The diameter classes do not capture the whole ecosystem cost, so Preservation 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 growth or Preservation 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 Edmonds Planting Overly complicated Other l Page 17 Plan Geo � T, Packet Pg. 90 Attachment C 8•A.e 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 areas. Preservation 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 Get away from single tree protection, but a whole ecosystem Preservation protection and do a pocket or a larger landmass protection for biodiversity. Change the name from tree code to forest code Breakout Groups- Fully Transcribed Comments Two breakout groups met in person and one breakout group met virtually via Zoom. Typed transcripts of the flip chart notes are included below. Tree Removal, No Development Breakout Group 7 (in -person) 1. Does the City have a role in limiting property owner tree removals? • No Not a fan of limitations on #/year • No bureaucracy City has a role, but it needs to be defined If the tree is a hazard, you should be able to cut it down Do we need to hire an arborist? o Yes, but not necessarily a permit Over-the-counter removal - proposed by Planning Board Aren't people planting more than removing? o We don't know because there's no tracking system Specify types of trees which are better for mitigation (i.e. deciduous vs conifer) o There should be notification of tree removal permits to surrounding neighbors 2. What's the one thina vou'd chanae about the current code related to Drivate property tree removals? • Maintain viewsheds o This is muddy/unclear in the current code o City should not regulate others'views • Consider different regs for "The Bowl" o Currently these regs are per geography Page 18 Plan. Geo "u. Packet Pg. 91 Attachment C 8•A.e Clarify and make consistent the regs in critical areas Include liabilities when landslides occur after tree removals. Require public notice to surrounding property owners o Require Geotech assessment Establish critical area public education program 3. Should anyone be required to plant replacement trees when trees are removed on private property? Yes. City shouldn't say yes/no on removal, but should have a say in the replant requirement. Mitigation should be deciduous: deciduous and evergreen : evergreen Provide notification of trees removed (not a permit - no cost - no ability for the City to say "no") Breakout Group 2 (in -person) 1. Does the Citv have a role in limitina oroperty owner tree removals? Yes -standard practice in municipalities -dependson capacity • Yes- public good Yes - protect adjacent property owners Yes- critical areas • No -standard properties o (can't read the rest of this page of notes, due to low picture quality) 2. What's the one thing you'd change about the current code related to private property tree removals? • Invasives should not be allowed - push for natives Climate adaptation (doug firs not adaptive) o Switch from regulating trees to regulating property • Protection for larger trees 30" DBH • Enforcement needs improvement Required replanting in commercial development • Clarity in CPA Surface H2O fear - decreased fee structure for tree retention. o Tax incentives 3. Should anyone be reauired to plant replacement trees when trees are removed on private property? • No -canopy is maintained or a No- no impact to small vs danger, not equivalent. Wrong tree, wrong place. Option to replant in public property (limitations) • Yes/no-not in non -CPA • Yes in CPA- not arborvitae, must be equivalent Yes/no - it depends if you don't want to do what you have to do No - enforcement is not feasible, we're not an "enforcement city" Page 19 Plan Geo W. "u. 1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment C 8•A.e Breakout Croup 3 (virtual) 1. Does the Citv have a role in limitina pro owner tree removals? • Kelsea- the city does -there is planning, from a biodiversity perspective they hope the city can link all that up and make a larger plan/ if the residents have remove all trees this would be a large loss since there is no central "manager" Christian- Yea, what data do we have on all this? My guess is that most trees are on private property. We should be clear why we have to have a role. The city does have a role in this since they have a responsibility to maintain the overall canopy. • Christian- question on whether the city has authority on the view covenant and having restrictions on anything over 6 ft tall and how these properties are being managed or exempt from any other ordinances -concern on how they are grandfathered out of some of the restrictions 2. What's the one thing you'd change about the current code related to private property tree removals? • Christian- at least a minimum on letting know the city is doing removal and why • Kelsea-echo the same and make it more strict and give a reason to why they are removing the tree -because there is a solid reason not just because it drops leaves on the lawn. Make people think about the tree being removed from a forest and know the impact. Review process to meet certain perimeters • Lu- educate the public on the importance of trees and keeping them because they are multi -generational entities and it is important to preserve them when possible. Is this possible to make people aware of this as a tree board? • Kelsea- responsibility needs to be on an arborist or someone for 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. 3. Should anyone be required to plant replacement trees when trees are removed on private property? • Christian- is there replacement on the same property or can it be somewhere? o Chris-i think this is left open for any input around either one of these scenarios o Christtan-should have something to do with the size of the tree being removed in order to get the same ecological benefits. 1 Page 110 Plan Geo 1 u ., Packet Pg. 93 Attachment C 8•A.e o 4257715033: With Edmonds turning over like hotcakes, trees are cut 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. Squares of ownership is a limitation and if each do removals we will lose the diversity. Need to protect the resource, talked about the rainforest and how important trees are to everything. o Sue von Derwies: (IN CHAT) I am confused. I live in a condo in the Edmonds bowl. In 2019, 2020 we were required by the city of Edmonds to replace 9 dying cedars. Why are the rules different for private owners? o Follow up by participant over speaker -How would we know if the trees are ever replaced? • Deb -Condos and multi -family residents have different rules based on the zoning and landscaping requirements in that zone. That's because a required number of trees are related to buffers or number of parking spaces, or other requirements that don't apply to single family properties. o Kelsea Ballantyne: (IN CHAT): Overall, I am also concerned that the developers/private property owners are be 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 o Kelsea Ballantyne: (IN CHAT): Recommendation: If there is a clear code and neighbors know what it is ... they can help to enforce Tree Removal, With Development Breakout Croup 7 (in -person) 1. Does the Citv have a role in reauirina tree retention with development? Replanting? Assessing fees in lieu? Fees should be used for tree planting • Yes Retention should be #1 focus • Dislike fees in lieu - no cap on amount Provide a basic framework but let developers be the experts on site design 2. What's the one thina vou'd chanae about the current tree code related to development? • Clarify it. 3. Should certain trees (landmark. trees in critical areas. etc.) have a hiaher decree of protection on development sites? Property of concern - on Shell Creek by Theatre - City owns 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? 1 Page I11 Plan . Geo "u: � Packet Pg. 94 Attachment C 8•A.e o Don't want any development in certain types of critical areas. Landmark o Cultural significance to community ■ Monkey puzzle tree Prefer incentives as opposed to regulations Use fees/fund for land acquisition • Area of concern - Perrinville development concerns Consider other development style that preserve more land Breakout Group 2 (in -person) 1. Does the Citv have a role in reauirina tree retention with development? Replanting? Assessing fees in lieu? • Planting requirements, no penalties o Tree diversity o Incentivesto retain trees (esp drainage) o Replanting - penalties • Incentives over penalties (e.g. "developers must use 10%for network in Seattle" 10% tree limitation) • Carrots over sticks- development incentives 2. What's the one thing you'd change about the current tree code related to development? Increase tree planting in commercial properties Weak/confusing and needs revision Ensure equity in fees so replacement are throughout Edmonds Overly complicated 3. Should certain trees (landmark, trees in critical areas, etc.) have a higher degree of protection on development sites? Natives and trees in critical areas Breakout Group 3 (virtual) 1. Does the City have a role in requiring tree retention with development? Reolantina? Assessina fees in lieu? • Kelsea- Yes, they have zoning for the community, so making sure there is retention and replanting or fees is important because this allows us to have the data for the urban forest care and educates the community on this, as well as we replant and retain the trees. Even more important because this affects exciting forest and wetlands so it impacts the loss of biodiversity. Balancing the wildlife and the developers' needs and what do we value out of these two. • Kelsea- the fees should be much higher than they are now, because development companies have a lot of money and actually know the Page �12 Plan. Geo "u. Packet Pg. 95 Attachment C 8•A.e capital(cost of the trees) what it is worth, so the value needs to be comparable to these losses and may have a developer think twice on removal of the entire area. • Kelsea- the diameter classes do not capture the whole ecosystem cost, so either lowering the DBH threshold or increasing the costs with these because the other factors involved • Kelsea- would prefer to make it more difficult to cut down old growth or second growth rather than the payout. 2. What's the one thing you'd change about the current tree code related to development? ■ HAD TO SKIP FOR TIME DEB ASKED US TO FOCUS ON 3 hould certain trees (landmark. trees in critical areas. etc.) have a hiaher dearee of protection on development sites? (2 ATTENDEES STAYED ON FOR THIS) • Sue- what is the definition of landmark? o Chris -depends by the city, generally is a historical or significant tree by the city specific definition, but a tree of importance and worth keeping. • Sue -Not aware of Edmonds having this type of designation, but knows Seattle does. • Kelsea- Yes but get away from the one two trees but a whole ecosystem protection and do a pocket or a larger landmass protection would be best rather than the 1 tree protection. It is the city's responsibility to protect the tree and the biodiversity of the ecosystem and protect that rather than the definition of a single tree or DBH that makes it special. Change the name from tree code to forest code to get away from the single stem protection. 1 s P a g e 113 Plan Geo "u: ' Packet Pg. 96 Attachment C 8•A.e Public Comments Organized by Category Participants provided input during virtual and in person breakout sessions, and throughout the event in the Zoom chat feature. These comments were organized using the Tree Ordinance Category Framework, which will be used throughout all public engagement and for final tree code amendment recommendations. -- Ordinance Checklist Category Credential 3 s% Maintenance 3 s% Management is 26% Other 6 10% Planting 11 19% Preservation 20 34% Public Input by Category 5% co,, ■ Credential ■ Maintenance ■ Management ■ Other ■ Planting ■ Preservation u' Page 114 PIann' Ceo Packet Pg. 97 Attachment D CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT FOCUS GROUP #1 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Edmonds' Tree Code was formally adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of gathering public input on potential tree code updates and amendments with the following objectives: 1. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments) 2. Consider regulations on private property tree removals As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, a series of focus group sessions are scheduled to hear perspectives and ideas from various interest groups about potential 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 This meeting was organized in a hybrid format so that attendees could join virtually via Zoom, or in person at the Edmonds City Hall,121 5th Avenue N, on the 2nd floor in the Kerr Room. The meeting results analysis and summary are included in this document as a progress report. A second public meeting is scheduled for May 15, which will be held in person. Tree Code Amendment Focus Croup #1: Developers and Arborists Date: April 27, 2023 Time: 2:00 - 3:30pm Location: Edmonds City Hall, 2nd floor in the Kerr Room 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Virtual Option: Zoom link provided via email Zoom recording available at request Attendees: 10 (5 in person and 5 virtual) Page 11 Plan Geo "u: ' Packet Pg. 98 Attachment D 8•A.e /_Td : Iz I07_l 2:00 - 2:10 Introductions 2:10 - 2:15 Icebreaker -does anyone know when we started "Phase 2" tree code updates? 2:30 -2:45 Summary: how the current code works -the good, the bad and the ugly... • ECDC 23.10 development review matrix • The good: what's working well • The bad: Comprehensive Code Amendment list - shows many layers of requirements • The ugly: NOT a streamlined review process! 2:45-3:15 Facilitated Q&A • Round-robin style so everyone has an opportunityto provide feedback • Community -minded input versus unique situation or non- productive viewpoint • Bullet point responses captured on flipcharts 3:15 - 3:30 Report out/share if needed with virtual versus in -person attendees • What didn't we ask? • Ways to stay involved, provide input to decision -makers ATTENDEES CITY OF EDMONDS: Deb Powers PLA NIT GEO: Alex Hancock Mike Martini VIRTUAL ATTENDEES: John Mirante-Pacific Ridge Katy Bigelow Raven Campbell- Insight Engineering Anna Heckman Justina Kraus -Champion Tree Care IN -PERSON ATTENDEES: Susan Prince (consulting arborist working for developers) Linda Firkingstad (property owner) Michelle Dotsch Chrissy Roberts Lisa Conley Page 12 Plait Geo T Packet Pg. 99 Attachment D 8•A.e FACILITATED Q&A WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WORKING WITH THE TREE CODE? Key Points • Fee In Lieu = Punitive • Heavily wooded properties are devalued • Cost/feasibility of development is reduced (cannot be recouped) • Protected tree notice / encumbers vs maintenance agreement period regulated vs bond requirement • Adjacent properties not equitable, based on tree canopy cover • Critical areas not included in 30% requirement, but they should be • Fees in lieu multiple times in code, as opposed to retention and/or replanting • Doesn't incentivize grove retention Detailed Notes: John Mirante-Max Fee in lieu = $215k on a project that didn't go to the property owner, so this affects residents of Edmonds o General public has a lack of knowledge of the land development o Dev community has to explain why the seller why we can't pay them full value for their property. The fees in lieu feel punitive. This cost is going on to the property owner. The property value doesn't change whether the property has trees on it. o Key point: A property that has trees on it is devalued by $2 per sq. ft. (the max fee in lieu). $600k house next door to the $1.2million to make the same profit. o Everyone wants the trees on the lot next to them, but not on their lot. Essentially the City owns the trees because of this fee in lieu. John: it would be fair if the City would pick one to charge fees for - trees or critical areas, but not both. Critical areas are not Raven (in chat): I'll have to dip out between 3:15 and 3:20. But anyway, I will say that the tree code has as of the past couple years been the most difficult part of the code to work with for me as someone working in development. I'd like to see standards for going to each different level (retain/replace/FIL) clarified-- I want to know the standard of proof for being able to do a FIL be made more clear. Is there a maximum density of plantings for trees above which we can make the argument that the replacement/planted trees will not survive? o Deb -There is no qualitative data but quantitative of the trees being retained and this can be the "crappy" trees on the property and die overtime CONVERSELY, WHAT WORKS WELL WITH EDMONDS" TREE CODE? Key Points • "Viable" tree retention distinction was helpful • Addresses hazards Detailed Notes: • The change on "viable tree" was helpful. Only 2% of the land in Edmonds is developable, so why would someone build a home here. • Raven -in chat -While the conservation subdivision standards do hold some advantages and do help in some situations, in some cases, clients I've had with the city haven't been satisfied with what standards are loosened with that, and have further concerns with the 50% retention that often comes with it. u' Page 13 PIanIT Ceo Packet Pg. 100 Attachment D 8•A.e WHAT INCENTIVES WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER TREE RETENTION, WHILE DEVELOPING THE SITE TO ITS MAXIMUM POTENTIAL? CAN YOU POINT TO ANY EXAMPLES FROM OTHER CITIES? • Building height is too strict, so maybe variances or incentives for that • Greater density or housing types • Incentives for cluster development (20.75.048) • Twice as many "credits" for retention • Cottage housing BASED ON YOUR WORK WITHIN THE REGION, WHEN CONSIDERING DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCING (FROM FEASIBILITY TO FINAL INSPECTION/BONDING), WHAT TREE CODE REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES, ON -SITE TREE PROTECTION METHODS, MAINTENANCE PLANS, ETC. SHOULD EDMONDS CONSIDER? • In Woodway, there's a certain amount of trees that can be removed each year. • Katy Bigelow -in chat-BI code allows trees to be removed per 36 months ... but it functions as a guideline - ie. there's no one keeping track - i mean, noone has to submit anything if they are removing below the threshold so ... this is a slippery slope. yes, less people take advantage of this loophole than take advantage of it but something to consider. • Sammamish - example a landmark tree counts as 2 trees • Kirkland - cottages are working, but in other areas they aren't successful. • In Woodway, 25' from the house and driveway for safety TREE REMOVAL REPLACEMENTS: WHAT REPLANTING STANDARDS ARE YOU MOST IN FAVOR OF? • Planting standards credit system in the Kirkland or Woodinville code =1 acre/30 tree credits, o Important to note that site hydrology changes significantly after development, and that should be taken into account. WHAT CODE SECTIONS DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION ON? WHAT DIDN'T WE ASK? QUESTIONS FROM ATTENDEES: Anna Heckman (in chat): Deb- do you plan to put a required time period between private property tree removal and home sale, or applying for a development permit? Katy Bigelow (in chat): it would be helpful for this discussion or going forward to see any layers translated to percentages of those properties that have Critical Areas, those that have more/less than 30% to translate into really who/where this is affecting. It would also be helpful to have the discussion or thinking about how the new ruling for development will overrule (?) any existing tree codes. Justina Kraus -in chat- This discussion is making me thankful there is tree code because otherwise wouldn't all the trees be taken out for the profit and fear reasons? I deal with private property and people wanting to maintain and care for their yard, how do they handle the fees. Not turning a profit. So this is hard to hear national developers worried about profit and moving u' Page 14 PIanIT Ceo Packet Pg. 101 Attachment D 8•A.e on while Deb and COE is trying to maintain and enhance.) like to preserve 90 year old trees how can you refer to it as alcoholic trees? Having a hard time with this OTHER • Covenant language rather than easement, protecting in perpetuity Stealth o The definition of grove is semantics - based on canopy IN -PERSON WHITE BOARD NOTES �CNF.: •. s�r��° v, MMirt F*J f6�rf'x' TFc ryi `• _�"p_ f FAT.' f��t�%� f`��Yi�.��r Iki v 1 K fA€1 �I•bFc1+i� 44aGV1'� 4�`#ax �i • 41 . + CLR Cf'T L_ 0• 'i74 !ff tiff r' FM1°P 0 PIanIT Ceo Page 15 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment D 8•A.e ZOOM MEETING CHAT • You 5:26 PM o https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2310.html#23 .10 • Raven Campbell- Insight Engineering to Everyone 5:28 PM o My video is frozen completely. Can I log out and come back in? • You to Everyone 5:29 PM o Yes you should be able to • Katy Bigelow to Everyone 5:30 PM o this 23.10 that Deb is describing - is related to private property ? Just might want to clarify if someone is wondering if it applies to development AND private prop (or even sub dividable properties). • Anna Heckman, WA to Everyone 5:46 PM o Deb- do you plan to put a required time period between private property tree removal and home sale, or applying for a development permit? • Katy Bigelow to Everyone 5:57 PM o it would be helpful for this discussion or going forward to see an layers translated to percentages of those properties that have Critical Areas, those that have more/less than 30% to translate into really who/where this is affecting. It would also be helpful to have the discussion or thinking about how the new ruling for development will overrule (?) any existing tree codes. • Katy Bigelow to You (Direct Message) 5:59 PM o Hi Alex, can we submit our answers to these questions to you or Deb for review after this meeting? I can't stay the whole time. • You to Katy Bigelow (Direct Message) 5:59 PM o Yes, absolutely! We are taking thorough notes and I'll make sure Deb responds via email • Katy Bigelow to Everyone 6:04 PM o BI code allows trees to be removed per 36 months ... but it functions as a guideline - ie. there's noone keeping track - i meanm, noone has to submit anything if they are removing below the threshold so ... this is a slippery slope. yes, less people take advantage of this loophole than take advantage of it but something to consider. • Raven Campbell - Insight Engineering to Everyone 6:08 PM o IT have to dip out between 3:15 and 3:20. But anyway, I will say that the tree code has as of the past couple years been the most difficult part of the code to work with for me as someone working in development. I'd like to see standards for going to each different level (retain/replace/FIL) clarified-- I want to know the standard of proof for being able to do a FIL be made more clear. Is there a maximum density of plantings for trees above which we can make the argument that the replacement/planted trees will not survive? Katy Bigelow to You (Direct Message) 6:08 PM o Thank you Alex, I will submit answers to you and Deb soon. could you shoot me a test email to arboristkaty@gmail.com that I can send my thoughts to? I have to leave now. Thank you! Raven Campbell - Insight Engineering to Everyone 6:21 PM o While the conservation subdivision standards do hold some advantages and do help in some situations, in some cases, clients I've had with the city haven't been satisfied with what standards are loosened with that, and have further concerns with the 50% retention that often comes with it. Page 16 Plan. Geo "u. Packet Pg. 103 Attachment D 8•A.e o And with that, I'm out. please feel free to email me the results of this! • Justina Kraus - Champion Tree Care, LLC 6:33 PM This discussion is making me thankful there is tree code because otherwise wouldn't all the trees be taken out for the profit and fear reasons? I deal with private property and people wanting to maintain and care for their yard, how do they handle the fees. Not turning a profit. So this is hard to hear national developers worried about profit and moving on while Deb and COE is trying to maintain and enhance. I like to preserve 90 year old trees how can you refer to it as alcoholic trees? Having a hard time with this • Anna Heckman, WA 6:40 PM 0 NB recently changed their code and we have development in progress that are under both. it is not perfect but has helped equalize farm and forest properties. • You 6:44 PM o great, thanks for sharing! • Justina Kraus - Champion Tree Care, LLC 6:50 PM 0 1 can be reached at Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com • You 6:51 PM o Thanks Justina! 'J � Page 17 Plan Geo ,,..-.,. Packet Pg. 104 Attachment D 8•A.e FOLLOW-UP NOTES VIA EMAIL Powers, Deb Fromi Katy Bigelow <arboristkaty@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 3:17 PM To: Powers, Deb; aheckman@bartlett.com; Justina Kraus Subject: Re: Property Owner Tree Removal (No Development) Cheat Sheet Thanks Deb. Few notes pertaining to your email: BI code is non -critical area removal capped at>1 acre - 3 trees removed per 36 months, <1 acres = 6 trees per 36 months allowed. BUT no one keeps track of the trees removed - ie. the arborists certainly aren't submitting anything to the city so some people have gone around it with their tree companies who don't care. So, that technique kinda only functions like a guideline. Re. critical areas, ok, I think that's ok over a certain diameter - at least with a review (NOT review/approval - I know you see some bad reports but I'm hoping this will be a review of the report and data not really the situation, maybe that's splitting hairs..) I wrote a comment in the chat in the meeting that I was hoping would get forwarded to you -that the public and stakeholders with such limited time might be able to visually see how many people/properties would be affected by CA code if a layer was created overlaying all Edmonds. LM Trees: This has changed a bunch of times on BI in the last few years. I think a quick conversation with the current arborist, Drue Morris, in all your spare time could give you some good data about how that's going (the area affected expanded, then contracted, then size limits were changed..,) Few points pertaining to the slide with the final questions from the meeting: 4. We need stronger pre-dev understanding of tree protection goals and inspection of tree protection prior to the start of construction, We need stronger monitoring requirements of TP during the construction process. We need a final check of retained trees when the project is done to sign off on the project. 5. Is there anything that works with fees in lieu? The weakest point I've seen is a Tree "Fund" or "Bank" that never gets used for anything meaningful. I mean CoEdmonds Isn't going to purchase property to simply put trees on it or, plant more in parks .., so, I've never understood where fees are really going. If you are talking TREE replacements, the choices should not be limited to native species. 6. A version of the cheat sheet needs to be in the code and online, 7. Another data point (maybe discussed, I had to leave early) I was interested in is with the passing of the upzoning bill, does that supersede any CA or other zoning rags in Edmonds? Thanks again, Katy On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at B:59 PM Powers, Deb <deborah.powersc�edmondswa.eov> wrote: Hi Katy, Anna, Susan, Justina, et al, Thank you again for attending today's stakeholder meeting, and apologies again for the late start/tech issues. As promised, here's the cheat sheet I mentioned that I created to streamline review of property owner tree removal u' Page 18 PIanIT Ceo Packet Pg. 105 Attachment D 8•A.e requests. I would encourage you to view last night's Planning Board video to get an idea of staff recommendations and their direction concerning property owner tree removals. They're considering: Prohibiting tree removals in critical areas with exception of hazard/nuisance trees and requiring permit for review/approval. They don't have specific numbers, but they want to allow a certain number of tree removals within a certain period of time, like Kirkland's pre-2021 code "two -per" that allowed 2 tree removals per every 12 months, no permit but notification requested to avoid having to send code enforcement whenever neighbors here chainsaws/call City. Limit Landmark (DBH undetermined at this pointy tree removal with a higher level of protection than smaller trees. For example if the two -per allowance was applied, fewer Landmark trees could be removed at the same time, with longer time periods in between. FYI - watch for a stakeholder survey link that will go out later next week, too. Best, Deb Powers I Urban Forest Planner Planning & Development Department City of Edmonds, WA 425-771-0220, ext, 1278 Katy Bigelow 206351.1375 www.katvbiEelow.com ISA Board Certified Master Arborist"' International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist PN-6039B PNW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist" #490 Member -American Society of Consulting Arborists Find me on Facebook! At: Page 19 Play► " Geo" � ". Packet Pg. 106 Attachment E 8•A.e CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT FOCUS GROUP #2 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT TREE BOARD OVERVIEW Edmonds' Tree Code was formally adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of gathering public input on potential tree code amendments with the following objectives: A. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments) B. Consider regulations on private property tree removals As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, a series of focus group sessions are scheduled to hear perspectives and ideas from various interest groups about changes 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 This Tree Board special meeting was organized in a hybrid format so that attendees could join virtually via Zoom, or in person at the Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, on the 2nd floor in the Kerr Room. The meeting results analysis and summary are included in this document as a progress report. Tree Code Amendment Focus Group #2: Tree Board Date: May 3, 2023 Special Meeting Time: 6:00 — 7:30pm Location: Edmonds City Hall, 2nd floor in the Kerr Room 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Virtual Option: Zoom link provided via email Zoom recording available at request Attendees: 6 Tree Board Members in person, no virtual attendees AGENDA A. INTRODUCTIONS B. CONTEXT/BACKGROUND 1. ECDC 23.10 Review/Facilitated Discussion C. SUMMARY: HOW THE CURRENT CODE WORKS 1. Property Owner Tree Removals 2. Tree Retention With Development D. FACILITATED FEEDBACK 1. What's wrong with Edmonds tree code? Problems, issues, gaps 2. How could it work better? E. CONCLUSION F. TREE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS G. ADJOURNMENT `® �o, Page �1 PIanIT Geo Packet Pg. 107 Attachment E TREE BOARD COMMENTARY FOLLOWING INTRO/PROJECT BACKGROUND Tree Board: The City should include history farther back than 2018 and look at public feedback from 2015. Staff response - code amendments are a legislativeprocess with public engagement efforts tied to the specific code issues at that time. • Tree Board: It is very likely the same comments from 2015 will arise again because of the opposition to private property tree codes. The City should include public testimony from 2015 in the current process. Staff response -. we know it's a polarizing topic here, and in any city considering new tree codes in the past or now. That is why we hired a consultant to assist with a robust public engagement. • Tree Board: The tree code process may go a little better this time, but the City should still consider including prior public comments. FACILITATED Q&A FACILITATED Q&A: PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS (NO DEVELOPMENT) Should property owner -related tree removals be limited to help slow the loss of canopy? • Tree Board question/discussion: what are all the reasons why people remove trees? The Board discussed they never got an answer from Davey on this; the Board had asked Davey to include this question in their survey related to the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Board needs to understand the full picture of why people remove trees to answer the question. The Board's general assumption was that trees were being removed due to people moving into Edmonds from other cities and having a fear of trees from natural disasters such as fires... Staff response - there is no real data as to why people remove trees from their property. That information is not being tracked in Edmonds, which is one of the reasons for the proposed notification process. Anecdotally, removals are due to many reasons. The question is just to understand the Board's view on property owner tree removals. • Tree Board question/discussion: Are we experiencing canopy loss under the current code? It seems we don't need to add new codes if there are increases to canopy. Staff response — Edmonds canopy had a slight gain overall. When we look at individual land uses is where the differences can be seen where the greatest losses were. In some areas, gains were due to tree growth, which was greater than losses in those areas. YES: most of the group. There should be a limit to how many trees you can cut down, but we will experience pushback. NO: need more information Should property owners be allowed to remove x number of trees (within a certain timeframe)? • Tree Board: without requiring a permit, a notification process for tree removal may generally be supported by the community. The concept seems straightforward. Those that did not respond did not clearly state opposition or support. YES: some of the group NO: Unclear Is 12 months adequate between allowed removals? NOT ANSWERED /UNCLEAR Should "Landmark" tree be defined as minimum 24" DBH? • Tree Board discussion: originally agreed yes, but further discussion supports varying tree size thresholds. NOT ANSWERED/UNCLEAR ® IT Page 2 PIanIT Geo Packet Pg. 108 Attachment E 8•A.e Should "Landmark" tree removals be prohibited (except hazard or nuisance trees)? Or, if a tree removal allowance ("2-per" notification) was enacted, should Landmark tree removals fall under the same allowance? • Tree Board discussion: there should be a good reason for large tree removals, not just because of leaves or pollen. The Board discussed further the many good or unsupported reasons why people remove trees from their property, and some expressed a desire to have data on that. There were some assumptions on how people would work around the rules and the difference between prohibiting Landmark tree removals or allowing a limited number of removals. Staff response: regardless of the reason why people remove trees, allowing a certain number of removals still slows canopy loss over time. Code can allow hazard/nuisance tree removal without identifying every reason justifying tree removal. The question is whether larger trees should have a higher level ofprotection than smaller trees. YES: Landmark tree removals should be limited, with higher replacement requirements. Only Landmark trees that are hazardous should be allowed to be removed. Should the time between "Landmark" tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? NOT ANSWERED Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? NO: trees in critical areas should be regulated more strictly than other trees. Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas? YES: permits should be required for tree removal in critical areas. What are appropriate tree replacement requirements for property owner tree removals in Edmonds? • Tree Board discussion: there was a difference of opinion on replacement requirements, such as whether conifers or certain species should be required to be planted, what the site conditions may be, and other policies related to replanting removed trees/ UNCLEAR FACILITATED Q&A: CHANGES TO THE EXISTING CODE RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT Should the code be reorganized using charts and graphics? • Tree Board discussion: the Board inquired as to who primarily uses the code and whether graphs and charts can be added to the existing code. There was some confusion about the question relating to code content versus formatting and whether this is a question for the Tree Board at all. Staff response: The code is mainly used by developers, arborists, and property owners. Getting their feedback was the purpose of the first stakeholder meeting. There's an assumption that the Tree Board is familiar enough with the code that they are asked the same stakeholder questions as the Planning Board and other focus groups. YES: most of the group Should the code use one method/calculation to determine the minimum number of trees required to be retained/replanted? • Tree Board discussion: the specific formula would have to be "reasonable" but there was no consensus on what that would look like. Staff response: This would simplify the current development code by using a formula instead of all the multiple layers of retention, tree replacement and fee in lieu requirements in the existing code. It's based on the desired outcome of trees retained and planted on a lot. The "quota " considers a unit of trees per lot area. Board Member Lyon (Certified Arborist) advocated for this system. The question relates to the general concept, not necessarily the specific requirement. YES: most of the group NO: the calculation must be "reasonable", but no parameters were provided Page 3 PIanIT Geo Packet Pg. 109 Attachment E 8•A.e Should the code prioritize replanting over requiring fees in lieu? Currently, there are no replanting requirements for healthy trees removed on development sites >24" DBH. • The Tree Board discussed how/when fees are collected, the current balance of the Tree Fund (where fees in lieu are deposited) and asked how to initiate a Tree Fund reporting process. Staff response: the question relates to planting and fees: what is the higher priority? YES: the priority for Landmark trees is retain, then replant and pay fees as a last resort. UNCLEAR: planting or fee priorities for smaller trees Should the $2 per square foot "cap" be eliminated from the code? • Tree Board discussion: it depends on changes to the existing tree retention requirements. If it pencils out, then it may not be necessary. UNCLEAR Should the 25% tree retention threshold that applies to multifamily development be removed from the code? • Tree Board discussion: Tree Fund should support land acquisition rather than maintaining parks. (City budgets) should fund staff positions, inspections and education and promote better tree maintenance. UNCLEAR Should the Conservation Subdivision code specify a numerical tree retention threshold? YES: there should be a specific threshold, possibly the same calculation formula but increased. Note that the Tree Board communicated responses to the previous questions informally rather than by quorum vote. For reporting purposes and to gain greater clarity on questions that were not answered, unclear or divided in response, PlanlT Geo emailed a Follow -Up Survey to Tree Board members the week following the focus group meeting. Results from the Follow -Up Survey are shown at the end of this report. WHITEBOARD EXERCISE What's the one thing you would change about the existing code? Tree Board responses: • Require conifer replacements for conifer removals (like for like) • Use a calculation/formula approach for tree retention/replanting requirements that's "reasonable and fair" • Simplify the existing code • Streamline the current permit review process • Replace the current Protected Tree Notice on title with a 3 to 5-year Maintenance Agreement, so that new property owners know to care for trees that were protected. • Restructure the Tree Fund so the Planning Board and/or Tree Board have some input on expenditures. Require regular reports for greater Tree Fund accountability. What are some ways Edmonds tree code could be improved? NOT ANSWERED DUE TO TIME See Follow -Up Survey shown at the end of this report. Page I PIanIT Geo Packet Pg. 110 Attachment E 8•A.e ATTENDEES CITY OF EDMONDS: Deb Powers PLA NIT GEO: Alex Hancock Mike Martini TREE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Janelle Cass Bill Phipps Wendy Kliment Crane Stavig Kevin Fagerstrom Ross Dimmick TREE BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT. Andy Lyon Chris Eck r Page I PIanIT Ceo' Packet Pg. 111 Attachment E 8•A.e FOLLOW-UP SURVEY In an effort to clarify responses from Tree Board Members regarding the key questions asked during the meeting, a survey was distributed. Three members responded, with the following responses recorded: 1. Should property owner tree removals be limited* to help slow the loss of canopy? *Reasonable exceptions: hazard and nuisance trees 3 responses Yes No Undecided 2. Should property owners be allowed to remove x number of trees* within a certain timeframe (no permit)? *Reasonable exceptions: hazard and nuisance trees 3 responses 46 Yes No )�, Undecided Page I6 PlanI r Geo Packet Pg. 112 Attachment E 8•A.e 3. Is 12 months adequate between allowed removals? 3 responses 4. Should "Landmark" tree be defined as minimum 24" DBH? 3 responses Yes No Undecided Yes • No 40 Undecided 5. Should "Landmark" tree removals be limited?* *Except hazard or nuisance trees 3 responses 10 Yes No Yi Undecided Page 7 ® PIanIT Ceo' a.•K°°^° Packet Pg. 113 Attachment E 8•A.e 6. Should the time between "Landmark" tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? 3 responses Yes No 0 Undecided 7. Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas (compared with tree removals not in critical areas)? 3 responses 10 Yes • No to Undecided B. Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas? 3 responses Yes No Undecided 9. What are appropriate tree replacement requirements for property owner tree removals in Edmonds? 3 responses Page I c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment E 8•A.e I like the idea of a percentage rather than a specific number of trees per our discussion Owners choose from an approved tree list. Base on canopy coverage, not # of trees. depends on size of tree ... 3 replacements for large conifers. And the replacements should be conifers. 10. Should the code be reorganized using charts and graphics? 3 responses Yes No ! Undecided 11. Should the code use one method/calculation to determine the minimum number of trees required to be retained/replanted? 3 responses Yes No A,( Undecided Page I Plan Geo Packet Pg. 115 Attachment E 8•A.e 12. Should the code prioritize replanting over requiring fees in lieu, such as with Landmark tree replacements? 3 responses Yes • No 0 Undecided 13. Should the $2 per square foot "cap" be eliminated from the code? 3 responses • Yes 40 No * Undecided 14. Should the 25% tree retention threshold that applies to multifamily development be removed from the code? 3 responses Yes No 0 Undecided Page10 ® Plan r. Geo Packet Pg. 116 Attachment E 8•A.e 15. Should the Conservation Subdivision code section specify a quantity for "greater tree retention"? 3 responses Yes No Undecided 16. Should the "priorities and procedures" section include specific qualitative retention criteria vs quantitative "quotas"? 3 responses Yes No Undecided 17. Should Landmark trees have a higher degree of protection requirements than other trees? 3 responses Yes No i Undecided Pale 11 ® Plam r Geo Packet Pg. 117 Attachment E 18. Should groves have a higher degree of protection requirements than other trees? 3 responses Yes No Undedded 19. What's the one thing you would change with the existing code? 3 responses • Going to a percentage rather than number of trees • Strengthen tree RETENTION for developers. • Replacement trees for conifers lost should also be conifers We need to find a mechanism to plant conifers in nearby tree preserves as a sort of ecological offsets. 20. What are some ways that Edmonds' tree code could be improved? 3 responses • See answer above • Add transparency to "fees in lieu". Use funds for tree replacement. • Every tree cut down, for whatever reason anywhere in Edmonds should have replacement trees planted in its place Page I12 PIanIT Ceo' Packet Pg. 118 Attachment F 8•A.e CITY OF EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT FOCUS GROUP #3 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW Edmonds' Tree Code was formally adopted in 2021, and City staff is now in the process of gathering public input on potential tree code amendments with the following objectives: 1. Clarify the current tree code related to development (minor amendments) 2. Consider regulations on private property tree removals As a part of the Tree Code Amendment Project's Community Engagement Strategy, a series of focus group sessions are scheduled to hear perspectives and ideas from various interest groups about potential tree code amendments. City staff sent out invitations with the following stakeholder groups in mind: • Developers • Arborists • Environmental sciences • Tree preservation advocacy • Climate action • Underserved and underrepresented Public engagement efforts sought feedback from the community and stakeholders with a range of little or no familiarity with the current tree code to those with a considerable understanding of the existing code. The latter group includes developers and arborists that regularly submit development permit applications or written reports to the City for review. The Developer/Arborist focus group meeting was held on April 27, 2023, followed by a Tree Board special meeting on May 3, 2023 and then Edmonds' Planning/Development/Code Enforcement staff on May 10 and 12, 2023. While the Developer/Arborist and Planning staff groups focused on changes to the existing code pertaining to development, the Tree Board focus group meeting also included facilitated questions on new codes that would apply to property owner tree removals. Having implemented the code since its adoption two years ago, Planning and Code Enforcement staff have an interest in providing a high level of customer service by reducing revision cycles and in simplifying the code, streamlining the review process, and enabling effective code enforcement efforts. To the last point, feedback related specifically to code enforcement is noted in red text. This meeting took place in lieu of a regular staff meeting using a hybrid format so that attendees could join virtually via Zoom, or in person at Edmonds City Hall, 1215th Avenue N, on the 2nd floor in the Kerr Room. The meeting results analysis and summary are included in this document as a progress report. Tree Code Amendment Focus Group #3: Planning, Development & Code Enforcement Staff Date: May 10, 2023, 2:00-3:30pm/Planning & Development May 12, 2023, 9:00-10:00am/Code Enforcement Location: Edmonds City Hall, 2nd floor in the Kerr Room 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Attendees: 10 (9 in person and 1 virtual) FACILITATED Q&A WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WORKING WITH THE TREE CODE? It could be more concise and clearer if it was organized using charts and graphics instead of lengthy descriptions and overly narrated code language. Page �1 MW Packet P . 119 Attachment F 8•A.e • Different code sections bounce back and forth, resulting in some disparate code sections within ECDC 23.10 (tree code) that are not in sequence. • Outside of ECDC 23.10 (tree code), other code chapters relate to regulating trees, such as 20.13 (Required Landscaping for multi -family, commercial, etc.), 20.75.048 (Conservation Subdivision) and 23.40 (tree removals in critical areas) could be either cross-referenced from 23.10 more prominently or consolidated into 23.10. • Too many redundancies. • Overly complex • Lack of specific tree retention threshold for subdivisions to get design flexibility in 20.75.048 (Conservation Subdivision), difficult to require 50% since the code doesn't directly tie together. • Lengthy, verbose arborist reports ... are they necessary? Can we just ask for TRAQ forms for tree removal requests and only an inventory/site plan for development review? • Post -development tree protection (Protected Tree on Notice of Title) implies all trees on site are protected in perpetuity. Protected Tree Notice should apply to high retention value trees only, other trees should fall under a maintenance agreement for 3-5 years post -development (see below for other code examples). • "Priorities" for tree retention in 23.10.060.D seem subjective and unclear • 23.10.100 (code enforcement section) is too complex yet doesn't have enough "teeth" to effectively enforce. • Obtaining appraised values for unauthorized tree removals is a lengthy process, so that Notice to Correct response deadlines are not feasible. Appraisals can be subjective. The appraisal process is unnecessarily complicated for all involved: property owner, code enforcement, staff reviewer, etc. See suggestion below under examples from other cities. • Code doesn't distinguish high retention value tree criteria for critical areas, by species, etc. • Code complexity can result in neighbor disputes and the expectation that City mediate/resolve • Invasive species are not identified or prohibited CONVERSELY, WHAT WORKS WELL WITH EDMONDS" TREE CODE? • ECDC 23.10.060 (tree retention plan requirements) works like a checklist for applicants. • ECDC 20.75.048 (Conservation Subdivision) is an effective incentive for developers to retain trees with shortplats and subdivisions! • Bonding process for multifamily and commercial tree planting is a straightforward section, but code could clarify it doesn't apply to SF. • Not the code itself, but Planning resources help staff and customers overcome a confusing, complex code (i.e.: handouts, cheat -sheets, etc. and in-house subject matter expertise). CAN YOU POINT TO ANY EXAMPLES OF INCENTIVES AND CODES FROM OTHER CITIES THAT WORK BETTER TO RETAIN AND/OR MITIGATE TREES WITH DEVELOPMENT? ENFORCE TREE CODE? • Use the same system (formula) for the ideal tree "quota" that applies to both retained and planted trees, instead of so many different requirements for tree retention, replacement, fees. • Replant trees versus requiring the payment of appraised values for healthy trees >24" DBH removed with development. • Require a 3 or 5-year maintenance agreement be recorded on title of property and protect in perpetuity only high retention value trees (once defined clearly in the code). • For code enforcement of unauthorized tree removals, assess an $ amount for every inch DBH of the stump of removed tree (versus requiring the applicant to get appraised values of each tree). Or, a dollar amount for each illegally removed per tree per DBH. Make it simple, make it fair. Page 12 ' Packet Pg. 120 Attachment IN -PERSON WHITE BOARD NOTES fw r� CL ci��o low dw FWD ATTENDEES IN -PERSON ATTENDEES: Dave Levitan,Planning Manager Brad Shipley, Senior Planner Mike Ougoton'Senior Planner Amber Brokenohine,Planner Tristan Sewell, Planner Rose Haas, Planner Michelle Martin, Senior Administrative Assistant Dan Gooding, Code Enforcement Officer Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner (Meeting Facilitator) VIRTUAL ATTENDEES: Michele Szafran'Associate Planner pauc 13 Attachment G 8•A.e EDMONDS, WA TREE CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT 230 PUBLIC SURVEY RESPONSES AS OF 5-22-2023 (229 ONLINE,1 PAPER) Question 1: What do you consider to be part of Edmonds' urban forest? Check all that apply. ResponseResponders Forested Areas Question 218 23% 95% City Parks 207 21% 90% Street Trees 194 20% 84% Trees in my Yard 153 16% 67% Parking Lot Trees 176 18% 77% Other 18 2% 8% Total Selections 966 Total Responders 230 "Other" (freeform responses): Question 1 • All trees in the city • green space areas that give homes to small ecosystems in neighborhoods that are at ■ Forested Areas high risk of losing these green spaces b/c of ■ City Parks the larger lot sizes that only have 1 house ■ Street Trees on them (developer -interest) - i have seen 75 trres removed on one acre in my ■Trees in my Yard neighborhood and there was a clear ■ Parking Lot Trees isplacement of the wildlife that once ■ other depended on that area. There is more noise, wind, it's been notable over the 15 years i have lived here. trees are left vulnerable by this- more innovative low impact development ideas and codes are needed if we really care about preservation of old growth trees - which is a must. • Trees in vacant lots • Trees in municipal areas (PSE, water retention ponds etc) • Any where a tree could be planted • In public Education, PLEASE, teach kids to be citizens by teaching real civics and the pledge in the morning. Such a small thing but kids will then identify with being American. • All trees within city limits are part of the urban canopy coverage. • 1 don't consider "urban forest". • 1 mean, isn't it basically trees within the city limits? • Stay out of my yard !!! • Trees on sites of businesses, churches and other places of worship, hospitals, medical and professional offices, government offices, etc. w Page 1of12 Plan T Geo Packet Pg. 122 Attachment G 8•A.e • Office buildings, businesses, government buildings • Forested areas depend on location • Trees in schools • Trees in public areas such as city hall, library, port, etc. • Stupid question so I'm not answering • County parks within Edmonds boundaries • Any tree within the city Question 2: How would you rate your awareness and understanding of Edmonds' current tree code (adopted 2021)? Question Responsef Not familiar at all 68 ,. Total 30% % of Total .. . 30% Somewhat familiar: I used it when I removed or planted a tree 98 43% 43% Very familiar: I reference it professionally and/or often 36 16% 16% Other 27 12% 12% Total Selections 229 Total Responders 230 "Other" (freeform responses): • New to town but reviewed the code Question 2 • From its beginnings ■ Not familiar atall • Aware of the tree code feel the city should manage the parks property they own. ■ Somewhat familiar: • Yes I used it when I • It is not related to my profession, removed or but I have followed the issue for planted a tree several years ■ Very familiar: I reference it • Familiar, but not when removing a professionally tree or as a professional and/or often • Have talked to people at the City ■ other about the code. • The code violates my personal property tights • 1 read through it, and wished there was a synopsis • Somewhat familiar • In public Education, PLEASE, teach kids to be citizens by teaching real civics and the pledge in the morning. Such a small thing but kids will then identify with being American. • I'm opposed to any sort of official tree code that mandates behavior • Survey response is on what should be - not what is. • I've re -read the entire tree code, formerly engaged a City arborist � Page 2of12-16 Plan T Geo Packet Pg. 123 Attachment G 8•A.e • Somewhat familiar I am a professional who uses tree codes in other jurisdictions but reside in Edmonds • I've heard of it and know there are regulations on removing trees • Familiar only from news stories regarding its development. • Tried to stop the deforestation of 2.5 acres for a development. • 1 am aware of this because it has become excessively expensive to develop our property to build our family a new home • Somewhat familiar from a Glen street condo I used to own • Very familiar but I do not reference it profly &/or often • We "tuned in" last time there was discussion about a new tree code • Somewhat familiar although I haven't used it • familiar, not used. • It's confusing and designed to protect the developer not citizens • 1 have read the code • 1 called the city when the land was cleared on 104 by the pot shop and I was told there is no current tree cutting enforcement. Question 3. In your opinion, the current tree code is: Question Response.. Too lax/flexible 3 58 .Total 25% . 25% Just right 16 7% 7% Too strict 38 17% 17% Confusing 32 14% 14% I'm not familiar enough to say 67 29% 29% Other 18 8% 8% Total Selections 229 Total Responders 229 Plan�Geo Page 1 3of12 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment G 8•A.e "Other" (freeform responses): • A mess • improved but still not seeming to be effective in preserving significant trees where development projects occur. 30% is not a high enough threshold and/or it s/b focused on old gowth significant trees , or else the developer leaves onlly smaller younger trees t omeet the threshold • Just another way to tax residents and does little to actually save Question 3 ■ Too lax/flexible ■ Just right ■ Too strict ■ Confusing ■ I'm not familiar enough to say ■ Other trees • Should not be applicable to private property • Confusing AND strict in weird areas AND unenforced (multiple answers should have been able to be checked) • First I have no problem with the present code, our condo actually had to use it when we need to remove some diseased trees. BUT - I thought this current tree board effort was to 'refine,' but after the 3/27/23 meeting, it sounded the rules that condo owners needed follow were different from private resident owners regarding tree removal and replacement. Shouldn't these requirements be the same? Also, I remember with Northwood Apartments converted to condos in 2005. A lot of trees were removed - because it was in 98045. 1 was told that if it was 98020, it would not have been allowed. Again I think same rules should apply. • I'm opposed to any sort of official tree code that mandates behavior • Not relevant to my survey responses. • 1 have never needed help but I should know. I'll find out. • Too open to exemption, penalties lack prevention value, empty enforcement system • Incredibly strict and an extreme financial burden on families trying to build a new home • Too strict, confusing, contradictory and way overboard. For example, too many plants required for the glen st condo such that we had issues hitting siding, etc • Not familiar but apparently it doesn't allow trimming. Our canopy is overgrown. • Penalizes treed property owners and created disproportionate costs for those living outside the bowl. • inconsistently enforced • To lax for developers to strick for home owners • It is pro developer and builder and con for citizens • What current the code? P a g e 1 4of12 PlanGeo Packet Pg. 125 Attachment G 8•A.e Question 4: How should trees be protected in Edmonds? Question ResponseResponders Save some trees when development occurs 30 . 13% . 13% Limit the number of trees that a property owner can remove at one time 19 8% 8% It depends on the size of the property and how many trees 25 11% 11% People should be able to remove trees on their property if they want or need to 51 22% 22% Large/mature trees should have greater levels of protection 59 26% 26% Other 45 20% 20% Total Selections 229 Total Responders 229 "Other" (freeform responses): • All trees under individual Question 4 circumstances should be ■ Save some trees when protected to some extent development occurs • Protect all trees ■ Limit the number of trees • Home owners should be that a property owner can able to remove remove at one time dead/toppled trees in ■ It depends on the size of adjacent Edmonds the property and how protected property and many trees replant healthy trees to ■ People should be able to protect slope stability. remove trees on their • All of these topics should property if they want or be addressed. need to • Depends on the size of the property, how many trees AND the health of the trees. • Save trees when development occurs and greater protection of large/mature trees • All of the above • If trees pose a safety risk they should be readily removed. So too, if there is significant obstruction of view that has evolved after the property was purchased. • There should be more than one option here. Large trees are my priority but the first 3 options are all important • AGAIN, multiple answers should be able to be chosen. I choose 1, 2, 3 and 5. • Need to save trees everywhere; on private property or elsewhere- and special care for mature trees special care for mature treesrequire replanting • you know this poll is so limiting, all of these options are valid except for option 4. we do need to limit tree removal on private property. • Save trees with grandfathering: require tree protection only of owners who purchase properties after restrictions have been placed. 'J P a g e 5 of12 Plan T Geo Packet Pg. 126 Attachment G 8•A.e • Edmonds needs to augment its tree canopy. Trees need to be preserved wherever possible, especially large and mature trees. • 1 think we need to recognize a rule needs to be enforceable. For example, we followed the rules, replacing trees if they did not live - but for one tree, we have replaced it twice and still it died. • Provisions for replanting, right tree in the right place. • Save some trees when development occurs. Protect critical areas from slides. • There should be a number of trees/sqft. Prunus, Pyrus, and Fraxinus trees should not be seen as replacement trees. • The city should only be conscerned withtrees in parks and public spaces • Depends on amount of trees andlocation of property. • All of these answers are true. This question should allow multiple answers. You are not going to increase tree canopy without doing all of these answers. With allowance made for flolks who want to remove some trees on their property. wers. You not going to get increase in tree canopy by doing any one of these answers. You need to do all of them with allowances made for property owners who want to remove some trees.s • Significant trees that are not considered a nuisance should not be removed under any circumstance. • Incredibly strict and an extreme financial burden on families trying to build a new home • 1 am in favor of some regulation but I also wonder if more outreach and education regarding the importance of trees or alternatives to removal would be helpful? • Only on public property • Developments should have much more strict requirements to leave more trees. Allowing them to pay a small fine and plant a tiny tree if they go over the restriction is ridiculous. • 1 feel that People should be able to remove trees on their property if they want or need to - particularly for the small DT Edmonds lots. However, if there is a larger property that is next to greenbelt, perhaps there should be some restrictions for the goal of maintaining forestry • Protect mature trees, develop spaces that replant when others are taken down, integrate into all living spaces in ways that add beauty and are good living spaces for trees, prioritize ecology over the one species called humans • This question should allow multiple answers!!! No one answer fits. • We should have been able to check more than one box! • One choice is not enough: large trees are priority, so is saving trees in development and limiting cutting on private property • The diameter and health of a tree should be the only consideration for tree removal, as in, if a tree has a 6 inch diameter a permit is needed for removal. • If trees must be removed for development, we might have an area where developers are required to pay for trees to be planted in order to offset that carbon. • Need to take circumstances into consideration, like views. • Save some trees when development occurs, limit the number that can be removed, large/mature trees should have more protection, provide $& to plant and successfully tend new trees • Large trees on city property should be pruned properly • This is a biased question, and misses the point of promoting trees. People need to be able to remove trees when needed from their property. • Lines 1, 3 and 5 • Ecological analysis y PlanR�wGeo P a g e 1 6of12 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment G • Pretty much all of the above. However people should be limited on how many trees they want to remove on their property, or they should be required to donate to planting more elsewhere if they remove too many. Something along those lines. • Your survey is flawed as it only allows one response. Protect trees with new development and allow property owners freedom to cut their trees when needed • Prohibit clearing of trees for new development; also bullets 2 & 5 • Our sweet old city is pretty much screwed. Thank you developers and whoever else allows that to happen. • All the above EXCEPT property owners need to adhere to standards for tree protection. Trees should only be removed in certain circumstances. Question 5: When property owners remove trees, how important do you think it is to plant new trees? Question Response.. 1 (not important) 19 . 8% . . 8% 2 7 3% 3% 3 11 5% 5% 4 3 1% 1% 5 19 8% 8% 6 5 2% 2% 7 13 6% 6% 8 23 10% 10% 9 18 8% 8% 10 (extremely important) 112 49% 49% Total Selections 230 Total Responders 230 F�w Plan Geo Page 1 7of12 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment G 8•A.e Question 5 120 100 80 60 40 19 19 23 18 M 2013 ��-■=M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 z "1 Plan Geo 112 Page 1 8of12 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment G 8•A.e Question 6: Critical Areas are defined as high landslide hazard areas, streams, wetlands, and their buffers. Should the same rules apply to tree removals in critical areas as those not in critical areas? Question ResponseResponders Yes, the same rules should apply regardless of critical areas 19 . 8% . 8% No, there should be stricter rules on tree removals in critical areas 145 63% 63% It depends on the situation 46 20% 20% 1 don't know enough about the subject to say 7 3% 3% Other 12 5% 5% Total Selections 229 Total Responders 229 Question 6 "Other" responses): freeform : res onses ■Yes, the same rules should • Depends on who Owns the apply regardless of critical property: a yes for public areas ■ No, there should be land, no for private land stricter rules on tree • Common sense should removals in critical areas prevail. ■ It depends on the situation • Critical area tree removals are only enforced after the ■ I don't know enoughabout trees have been removed ,as the subject to say in the Union oil condo ■ Other project near the dog park • Want to trim branches • If the trees pose a safety risk to lives or homes, they should be removable. • Rules should be strict everywhere, but • especially in critical areas. • No rules for private property • The city should consult with experts and file lawsuits for injunction if harm of people or the environment is expected • Critical area tree regulations should apply to all areas uniformly J P a g e 9 of12 Plan T Geo Packet Pg. 130 Attachment G 8•A.e Question 7: What strategies should the City use in enhancing Edmonds' urban forest? Check all that apply. Question Responsef Public education to increase awareness of the tree code 148 ,. Total 19% % of Total .. . 65% Tree giveaways, neighborhood planting events, and pruning workshops 154 20% 67% Incentives for developers to preserve and plant trees (fee waivers, faster permitting, etc.) 147 19% 64% Codes that require tree preservation and planting with development 157 20% 69% Fees and fines for violating code requirements 124 16% 54% None of the above 14 2% 6% Other 32 4% 14% Total Selections 776 Total Responders 229 "Other" (freeform responses): • Too many rules • Plant more trees in Edmonds parks • are there zones where certain legacy tree growth exist- for instance, we have 3 old prune plum trees on our proerty- the area i live in apparently used to be all fruit tree orchards- Question 7 0 Public education to increase awareness of the tree code ■ Tree giveaways, neighborhood planting events, and pruning workshops ■ Incentives for developers to preserve and plant trees (fee waivers, faster permitting, etc.) ■ Codes that require tree preservation and planting with development ■ Fees and fines for violating code requirements ■ None of the above ■ Other can ammowl- neighborhoods have a legacy /historical idea to rally around? • Incentivise private property owners to plant trees • If the City owns the property they can manage it • Planting the correct size trees for the landscape • How about all of the above? • Much is written about preserving views. Educated the public on how to accomplish that and don't cave to loud voices like those objecting to the Civic Park tree plan. Plan�Geo Page I 10ofl2 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment G 8•A.e • Encouragement and incentives like fees waivers or faster permitting, but NO allowance for disregarding the tree code, and vigilance in checking to see that large fines and public exposure if developers but down trees • Plant as many trees in public parks and other public areas. If we really own our property we should have the rights to maintain our views and safety from falling branches. • institute a "tree voucher" program in Edmonds. Use the carrot and stick approaches. If we are to limit tree removal, we should also encourage tree planting by subsidizing it dmprovide • Educate on right tree for right space. • In public Education, PLEASE, teach kids to be citizens by teaching real civics and the pledge in the morning. Such a small thing but kids will then identify with being American. • Do as much as possible to increase awareness of tree codes. Farmers markets, fliers, no -topping sings... • Fee in -Lieu when replanting on -site isn't an option. • Restrict tree removal on already developed lots. Such as no more than 4 significant trees removed in a three year time period, depending on lot size,. • Put teeth in preserved tree planning. Preserved trees that are part of an approved development plan that don't survive are not preserved trees. Establish a fee -based retention account for property development projects, funds held in escrow. Funds are returned to developer four years after permit of occupancy date. Preserved trees that are part of an approved development plan that are determined by City arborist to be dead or dying prior to the end of the retention period are charged current valuation against the retention account in accordance with 21.10.100 C2d. Retention balance is returned to the developer. • Ban CC&Rs that require tree removal or "topping" for the sake of neighbors'views. Promote trees as view -enhancing, rather than view -blocking. • Do what works and has an overall assessment of advancing the ecosystem, not just this for that if the overall impact is no good. • More carrots than sticks. • Creative solutions like thinning of large trees to improve views. • Education around the impact of removing trees on the environment (release of carbon); permits required for tree removal • Look at actual science, Focus on where it appropriate to have trees and where it is not. • Pruning workshops for city and county tree maintenance. • Address planting correct mature tree sizes for the space. • the city should use the strategies in the UFMP not make up new ones. Correctly apportion fees for properties that remain in an un-treed state. • Lower property tax for plots with trees. • Help paying for the care of large and older trees. If you are under an income threshold the city could buy large trees or invest in smaller ones. • Developers should not be able to cut down large/mature trees for housing development. Our ecosystem and biodiversity needs those trees more than we need more housing. • How about we get real talk about the desire for citizens to have better views in the bowl that's what makes property values go up and increases tax revenue • How about if you start with the developers and everyone who's in bed with them. It won't happen. So I answer these silly questions and get so worked -up and upset. I love trees. A lot. It feels almost insulting answering these questions knowing developers will simply continue doing what they do. • fees should be high enough to keep developers from taking all trees. y PlanV�WGeo Page I 11of12 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment G 8•A.e Question 8: If you have concerns or comments about a specific section of the tree code, please provide your feedback here. If possible, include the code references. Click here to view Chapter 23.10 Tree Related Regulations. 34 Responses: • Government should have less control over private property. Please stop trying to regulate our PRIVATE PROPERTY that we've owned for years. Protect property rights!! • Total waste of time and $'s. Typical Edmonds council BS Waste!!! • Please don't restrict my ability to manage trees on my • Private property. • Developers are not held to account when it comes to the code- although improved from prior code- it just doesn't protect the important and large growth trees, the ecosystems, and they just pay the fines to get around it. I have seen it multiple times in my neighborhood even since the new code was implemented. There needs to be more vision and attention put on which trees are preserved not just the number of trees. Private citizens should have the freedom to decide what they do with their land, but at the same time, they could be incentivized to take a preservationist approach, where it can be achieved. It's a slippery slope to achieve desired results without stepping on the rights of a landowner. Perhaps the focus c/b on properties that meet a "designated threshold" of tree canopy/clusters (need to get the data//science to back up and validate this thought) as removal or loss of these could most impact the vulnerable ecosystems that I spoke of previously. whereas a single tree on a property that is just poorly located might be handled differently. Doesn't seem to be a 1-rule for all approach.... • Good lord! My comment pertains to private property. Do whatyou want with public areas. Cutting down or planting a tree on my property is none of the cities business. • With respect to fees/permits: Housing costs are insane. City, state and federal taxes/fees/permits are a large part of those costs. Politicians complain about the lack of affordable housing all the while imposing extra costs for builders, homeowners and potential homeowners. I am not a builder or developer but I am a homeowner. My advice, stop it. • More emphasis is needed on proper tree maintenance/care/pruning. Stricter fines to discourage topping and improper care of existing trees of any size. • This group does not intervene when a home owner has trees they want to save ,they lack any support • The current exemptions are fine. Adjusting those to restrict private property owners from removing trees would effectively make a property owner like myself (numerous mature conifers that were topped decades ago and then subjected to subsequent further damage to roots and canopies from adjoining property development) unable to remove a hazardous tree due to cost considerations. As it's working now for us, we must remove every 2-3 years or so a tree that has declined, in order to prevent a threat to our house. In addition, a neighboring property has dropped FOUR mature trees onto our property, all of them narrowly missing our house. As it is, arborist costs are right on the edge of prohibitive, and adding city permit costs designed to be further prohibitive, would mean we wouldn't be able to manage tree hazards on our property. • The fee allowance for developers to remove and not replace trees is laughably low. The cost is a no brainer when weighed against the benefits of clear -cutting. Ref. 23.10.080, E and 23.10.060, F.4.b. Developers should be required to maintain or plant X number of trees per Y development size ... no exceptions. Housing density is removing all green space due to single family mega- y PlanF�wGeo Page I 12of12 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment G 8•A.e houses. Coding can force development upwards or drive to more compact housing to protect green space footprint. • Our neighborhood is surrounded by trees, which we love. But in the past few years several older and large trees have fallen, damaging community and private property and very nearly striking homes. However, because of the city's tree code it has been terribly and unwisely difficult to reduce the threat of more trees of the exact same age and type falling because they are near a small creek that runs through the neighborhood. As the result, our homes and potentially lives are left in danger every time there's a high wind. If two trees of the same type, age and location have now fallen, it stands to reason that others just like and adjacent to them may also come down in the next storm, but because an arborist cannot prove they are an "immediate threat", we are stuck. This is unwise and ridiculous. So too, if an owner wants to replace an unsightly and unhealthy tree on their private property, not necessarily one that is an immediate hazard, they should be able to do so without terrible bureaucracy, cost, or threat of a fine. It should be a simple online process indicating which tree is getting removed, why, and how it will be replaced. Finally, and similarly, if the view of a property begins to become obscured by growth of secondary trees, e.g. alders, maples etc., the owner should be able to think or prune the trees, not necessarily clearcut a whole hill side, to preserve the view. • 1 have a comment about item #5 above. Planting new trees is better than not, but let's not lead people to believe that planting a new twig will take the place of a mature tree in any way. Carbon sequestration is the most important, but water absorption and alleviating heat zones are also critical. • 1 already filled this out, but didn't see a place where it said "submit" Did I miss it? • Maintaining our urban forest should encompass ways to also maintain views of the water and Olympics. Opportunities for'window-planing' views should be accommodated. • 1 don't want it to apply to residences. Trees are already expensive to own. They have to be maintained and the debris has to be removed all the time and especially after a storm. And there is no easy way to get rid of waste now that the solid waste facilities are not accepting yard waste. • While I love trees, and am a firm believer in the "right tree, right place" mantra, I believe there also should be strong view protection laws. • 1 am very concerned with the ability for developers to avoid planting trees by paying fines. Under the current plan where do the fines go that developers pay and how are those fines managed to support planting trees and providing for their care? This needs to be managed with transparency to the public. • Developers should be required to plant native trees at a set % of the trees they remove and provide care for those planted trees for a set period of time instead of allowing them a way out by paying fines. • How can building occur on a creek? • Under tree replacement , 080.d.3: replacement of conifers should be conifers. There is a true cost/value in carbon emissions from the loss of a big Doug Fir. And it should be taken into account. A weeping cherry tree does not take the place of a mature doug fir.! There needs to be true accounting for the loss of big conifers, due to development. Don't let the developers say that they have a landscaping plan and then not question that plan... • Every big conifer taken down, for whatever reason , needs to be replaced with multiple conifer tree replacement trees. That's basic forestry practices. That's basic carbon accounting. • Private property that citizens pay tax on should have no restrictions on cutting trees on their property or fee's, we already pay taxes to the city y PlanR�wGeo Page I 13of12 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment G 8•A.e • When critical area trees are removed, replacement trees are then planted but there is no protection for the new trees as they are too small. So they can be cut down. What can be done to protect them? • Please consider having a preferred tree list that favors aggressive shade trees such as hornbeams and zelkovas over high -maintenance fruit trees. 23.10.090 Bonding: Please consider increasing the maintenance period to 4 years, to ensure saplings receive enough water to survive our new drought cycles. Deep infrequent watering! Turn irrigation doesn't count. • 2310 030 Does Edmonds auto -grant permit to "Davey?"/ PUD to remove mature trees instead of providing some financial support to low income owners to appropriately trim back? Because they topped mine. after second time in around 10yrs the tree grew crazy and became a leaning mess. Third time they insisted removal due to its growth, which they created the problem in first place. • As a home owner I should have final right to remove a tree. It's okay to have some rules around when/where/how but it should be simple. • 1 don't understand why Edmonds can't model our code on the Sno County tree code which apparently has been successful for over 10 years • Need high fees to remove a tree. Look to Lake Forest Park's tree code • We should consider ecological offsets for accounting for replacement trees that can't be planted on the site of development, such as contributing to a regional Tree Bank/preserve. • 23.10.060.B.2.b.ii: I have a significant tree right next to my property line. If the adjacent property is ever developed a tree retention and protection plan must include this tree and it's critical root zone (which extends well into the neighboring property). However, I have no rights as to the protection of my tree's root system on the said property. Shouldn't some sort of protection for neighboring trees be added to this section? At least during major developments of a property? I know the tree code is a work in progress, but this seems like a big oversight. • Currently, trees can be removed from single family lots without a permit so long as they are not in a critical location. Requiring that trees be removed with a permit, preferably where one or more replacements are planted would do a lot to offset older/dead/dangerous trees that do need to come down and make sure we have the next generation growing to replace them rather than treading water by allowing our tree numbers to fall by attrition. • The following comments are related to Chapter 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. o Deterrence and prevention are two different things. Penalties enforced after illegal tree removal do not preserve trees. The City needs to establish a quick -reaction enforcement system that can respond to illegal tree cutting in real time. That would be a notification network whereby citizens are able to notify the City of tree cutting activity beginning in their neighborhood. City Arbor Enforcement cross references the property address with the tree cutting permits database to determine if the tree cutting activity is permitted or illegal. If illegal, police enforcement is dispatched to the address to halt the activity and issue citations. The City needs the assistance of an alert citizenry to successfully apply real prevention measures, not just gamble on deterrence as prevention. o Too many trees are removed by casual, drop -by and non-professional cutters. Only bonded tree cutting services listed, licensed and approved by the City should be allowed to remove trees in Edmonds. Regulating tree cutting service companies incentivizes code compliance and provides for oversight. Hiring a non -bonded, unapproved cutting service for tree removal should be a misdemeanor enforced by fine. Fines as stated in 21.10.100 C2c and C2d are insufficient deterrent for tree cutting services that remove trees without the prior verification of the existence of a current tree cutting permit. Besides fine -sharing already in the code, cutting without a valid permit should result in a two-year Plan�Geo Page I 14of12 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment G 8•A.e disbarment of a company and severally its owners (who could otherwise simply start a new Ilc) from providing cutting service in Edmonds. A second infraction should result in permanent disbarment. Disbarred individuals and companies discovered performing cutting services should be subject to additional penalty. • Home owners should not be penalized for landscaping their private yards while developers clear cut land. • We have a neighbor's tree that has cracked our driveway and is now a tripping hazard. There should be a way to deal with that through the city without hiring attorneys. • Once again this survey and study wasted money • Trees on private property should be up to the owners discretion to remove. It can impact both their ability to maintain/improve property value and mitigate risk/liability of property damage to their home or their neighbors. Unless the city is going to reimburse for damages associated with a tree they won't allow to be removed, they should not put this burden on property owners. I have a tree greater than 24" in diameter in my backyard less than 20 feet from our house. During the ice storm multiple branches crushed a play structure and came a few feet from hitting our house. I can't tell by reading your code whether big trees on single family lots are considered 'protected' or not. • It should not cost $40,000 to remove some ( —50%, not all) of the trees on a 0.5 acre lot to make room for a single family home. • 1 am unfamiliar with all of the details, but I am wondering if (for example) tree health, safety concerns, or overcrowding are part of these considerations, particularly with regard to private property. For example, if a homeowner has trees that are unhealthy or growing too closely to other trees or damaging property, would that be considered a reasonable removal without fines or penalties? If removing an established unhealthy tree, what would be the timeline for replacement? Some established trees have impressive root structures that make it difficult, even with stump grinding, for new life to thrive in the same spot for years (considering that some homes may not have enough space to plant in a different spot). Would there be a calculation of trees to available land on property? What size of trees would be considered? Although I believe in preservation, I wonder how this will play out as each decision is unique and complex, particularly in established neighborhoods with thick canopies. Thank you for seeking input. I am hopeful that we can continue to work to preserve our environment while also providing reasonable accommodations. • Because the majority of Edmonds' urban canopy is on private property, it is clear that property owners are already doing a FINE JOB of maintaining the canopy • Do not count invasive trees, require thier removal and replacement with natives. • Do not allow invasive trees to be counted as canopy. • 1 would like to provide the following comments to aid in your deliberations about the proposed tree code amendments. I would like to specifically ask that you: o A. Follow the current urban forest management plan (UFMP) and do not regulate the maintenance or removal of trees on private property outside of development. o B. Follow the current UFMP and compensate the owners of treed properties through surface water fee incentives. o C. Require funds gathered from the tree code be spent in the sub -area from which they are harvested. o D. Apportion surface water fees and redevelopment penalties to un-treed properties to correctly assess the increased public investment needed to provide stormwater flow control, stormwater treatment, stormwater conveyance to properties maintained in an y PlanV�wGeo Page I 15of12 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment G 8•A.e un-treed state (i.e. stop subsidizing the downtown view corridor with surface water fees from treed areas of the City). Additional fees should also be considered for un-treed properties that reflect the increased public health burden for not providing urban heat protection, mental health benefits, wildlife benefits, or benefits to public roadways. If you want to encourage trees in the urban environment and through re -development you need to make it a benefit not a liability to maintain properties in a treed state. o E. Prohibit property owners from entering into agreements/covenants that restrict the growth of trees. No generation should be able to restrict tree growth on property in perpetuity through a private view agreements. If we are "One Edmonds" then we all must equitably share the burden of protecting and enhancing the environment. Property owners who maintain properties in a treed state provide incredible ancillary benefit to the public at tremendous personal cost; it costs property owners tens of thousands of dollars through the life of each large tree in the urban environment. This is not an exaggeration, in past 4 years for a subset of trees- >$1.7K to remove dead wood from canopy, >$500 moss treatment, >$5K electrical line damage during winter storms. If a property owner can no longer afford trees (or wants other use and enjoyment) on their properties you should not compel them to maintain them for your benefit. The correct response from the City should be "thank you" and not increased costs, regulatory burden and fear for their health, safety and property. Suggestion D honours the existing UFMP and should be strongly considered, it simply asks those who want to maintain their view, sunlight, etc. to fully pay for the public impact that is currently subsidised by surface water fees from underserved and treed areas. I happen to be a person who is not served by the City storm sewer, in a basin where stormwater is not treated by the City on a treed property. I am directly harmed by these continued attempts to disproportionately burden underserved areas to meet the City's urban forest goals. Also basing the future urban forest on where trees are currently located is completely arbitrary and penalizes those living outside the bowl. By 2080 this will no longer be habitat for Douglas fir (Kralicek, et. al 2022). It is ridiculous (and costly) for the City to require property owners to maintain trees outside of their habitat and there is no reason that tree codes need to disproportionally penalize properties where trees are currently located. The tree code should be future -focused. Please watch and consider all tree -related public comments provided at the following meetings: o City council - 4/20/21 o City council - 4/27/21 o Planning Board - 4/28/21 o City Council - 5/4/21 o City Council - 5/11/21 o Planning Board - 5/12/21 o City Council - 8/18/21 o City Council - 5/25/21 o Planning Board - 5/26/21 o City Council - 6/1/21 o City Council - 6/8/21 o Planning Board - 6/9/21 o City Council - 6/15/21 o City Council - 6/22/21 o Planning Board - 6/23/21 yPlan Geo Page I 16of12 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment G o City Council - 7/13/21 o Planning Board - 4/14/21 o City Council - 7/27/21 o Planning Board - 7/28/21 o City Council - 8/3/21 o City Council - 8/10/21 o City Council - 8/17/21 o City Council - 8/24/21 o Planning Board - 8/25/21 o City Council - 9/7/21 o Planning Board - 9/8/21 o City Council - 9/21/21 o Planning Board - 9/22/21 o City Council - 10/19/21 • Native trees should be required whenever physically suitable for the site. • 1 think nuisance trees should be a challenging thing to prove for specimen trees. For example, if a specimen tree is tearing up a driveway, I feel that should be insufficient for removal approval and alternative driveway materials should be considered. • 1 think developers get off way to easily while home owners are over regulated. I would sooner chop down any tree that is closing in on a regulated size then deal with tree code compliance. This could limit tree cover as people like myself will just chop down large trees. Also we should focus on re -developing de -forested land not chopping down woodland. Develope downtown. Urban forests and biodiversity are more then just trees. What good is an old growth holly tree? What good is one old growth Doug fir? The holly tree has no ecological benefit, and the solitary Doug for is not an effective habitat unit. • Much like gender or racial covenants are illegal now, so called view covenants should potentially be disallowed, especially when mature trees are involved. • 1 wasn't able to tell, but some sort of enforcement requiring trees over a certain age and/or size to be preserved should be part of the code. • The tree code is perfect the way it is but forests and parks should be protected but home owners should b able to rove trees at they please • Too detailed and will need to submit later. The curretn code is quite complex and hard to understand. • 1 want the tree code to also protect views which people pay a lot of money for. There should be a tree height limitation code. • Failure to disclose and provide easy access to the draft text of the proposed expanded and modified tree code does nothing to promote public confidence and support. The implication is that Edmonds bureaucrats fear the expansion/revisions will encounter early opposition if disclosed. Hasn't the Edmonds city council declared its (alleged) commitment to transparency? • Again, flawed survey. Stop protecting developers and start protecting citizen rights • New development on previously un-constructed land should prohibit any removal of substantial existing trees. Designers/developers/builders need to re -learn how to work around heritage trees and not just destroy them (even with intent to replace later) • Let's just keep allowing developers to do as they please - soon enough we won't have to worry about any trees. • How do I find out or report someone I think is illegally removing a tree? y PlanR�wGeo Page I 17of12 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment G 8•A.e Citizens should be able to do what they want with the landscaping in their own yards. Especially when you give developers carte blanche to strip lots and build to the lot lines. Codes are only effective if enforced. Don't rely upon public to do the city's job of oversight. And even when complaints are made, it can be too late to intervene . Developers are issued permits more readily than enforcement of tree codes. When the codes are violated, there should be a fine, court, and threat of loss of license, and/or stricken from list of qualified builders. Otherwise all this is just talk and trees continue to fall. Demographic info Do you live or work in Edmonds? 126 responses PlanFrGeo Live Work r' Both 10 Neither 1 recreate in edmonds Retired Frequently visit and recreate (walk, dining, arts) Live and work Trying to build a home for my family in Page 1 18of12 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment G 8•A.e What is your race/ethnicity? (Select all that apply and use the "other" option to include a more specific answer) 126 responses White 91 (72.2%) Black or African American7--2(1.6%)American Indian or Alaska...Spanish ! Hispanic / LatinoAsian IndianChinese 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 (0%) Other Pacific Islander (Sel... 0 (0%) Prefer not to say 23 (18.3%) What does ethnicity have t... 1 (0.8%) Has no relationship whate... - 1 (0.8%) Scandinavian -American —1 (0.8%) Not necessary 1 (0.8%) human 1 (0.8%) none of your damned busi... 1 (0.8%) Cowichian 1 (0.8%) 3rd generation European i... 1 (0.8%) This is an immaterial ques... - 1 (0.8%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 How long have you lived in Edmonds? 126 responses • 1 - 5 years 49 6 - 10 years 11 - 20 years 40 21 - 30 years 49 30+ years 1 don't live in Edmonds Prefer not to say Page I 19of12 PIaWY Geo Packet Pg. 140 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. 141 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. 142 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. 143