2012-10-04 Tree Board MinutesCity of Edmonds
Citizen Tree Board
Approved Meeting Summary Minutes
October 4, 2012
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Anna -Marie Heckman, Chair.
Members present: Steve Hatzenbeler, Anna -Marie Heckman, Susan Paine, Sandy Seligmiller
Members absent: John Botton, Rebecca Wolfe.
Staff present: Dave Timbrook
City Council Liaison present: Joan Bloom
Public attendee: Jenny Anttila
The September 2012 minutes were approved with no corrections.
27-year Edmonds resident Jenny Anttila brought some concerns to the Board concerning large English
Laurel hedges that overhang and block public sidewalks or create other safety hazards in terms of their
height or width. She asked if they should be no more than 6 foot tall, and could we look at what exists or
could be done in city code about this issue. Although this is more of a vegetation rather than tree matter,
we discussed the city's role. Typically, if a complaint is received by the City, the property owner is
requested to remove anything blocking the sidewalk or right-of-way. There are restrictions described
under existing right-of-way maintenance guidelines. Education is a key element in encouraging more
appropriate plant material for a given situation, but the city has no ability to control what or where a home
owner actually plants.
An example was mentioned of the city asking that a private a hedge (not Laurel) be reduced, the property
owner failing to comply, and the city doing the pruning and billing the owner. In this case, the hedge
subsequently died and the city was sued and ended up replacing the plants. It was suggested to
recommend language in the guidelines that would indemnify the city against repercussions in such a
situation. Where trees are overhanging one property from another, homeowner's insurance can be
notified and utilized as a tool to encourage removal of a (arborist documented) safety issue.
Unfinished business:
The Arbor Day booth at Edmonds Market on Saturday October 6 was discussed. It was unclear if an
announcement had been sent to media. Susan will try and get something on My Edmonds News in time.
Hours will be 8 am to 3 pm and probably in 2-hr shifts, or as we feel able.
New Business:
Joan Bloom discussed some of the limitations and concerns we are faced with in working toward rewriting
code. She feels reluctant to charge the Board with rewriting, when we were established to have no staff
allocation whatever. Many other Boards do have staff minutes -takers, agenda creators, etc.. She is
looking at staff providing more support.
She recently met with Rob Chave and city attorney Jeff Taraday. Basically the code gives no guidelines.
Penalties range widely for Critical Areas and Right of Way, from $0 to $1000 on trees up to 3" caliper, and
up to $3000 for trees larger than 3" caliper in a Critical Area. In 2010, The City Council added tripling in
Critical Areas. The staff is frustrated in handling complaints and presenting them to the hearing examiner.
In the case brought to the Board's attention in July by Karen Launceford (regarding an across -the street
neighbor cutting her right-of-way trees and shrubs), the assessed $9000 penalty was reduced to $7000
and no replanting was required, and the slope issue was not enforced. This was decided through appeal
to the hearing examiner. Dave Timbrook said he was called in and he noted that the cedar had been
topped many times in the past. To replant, all vegetation on the slope would have had to be removed,
and to plant on the top of the slope brought plants within 2 feet of the sidewalk. He didn't recommend
replanting and disturbing the soil, but stated he's not a geotechnician.
There is no uniform code enforcement or definitions. Hearing examiner Phil Obhrect is focused on fine
amounts and Rob and Jeff express other concerns. Questions were raised about there not being general
agreement in the arborist community, whether there is a checklist (for arborists), and if there is a definition
of topping or hazard in the code. Anna said some arborists will allow topping if the tree is maintained until
a substitute tree grows nearby (20 years?). It all depends on the arborist's own experience, knowledge
and opinion. Dave said there are standards and a form all arborists must use to assess hazardous trees,
but individual answers. If an arborist is hired by the property owner, s/he is more likely to take their
client's side.
The code "doesn't speak arborist". It needs clearer definitions of terms. What are the pruning standards—
ANSLA, ISA? Standards change over time and with the source. What are options for the arborist issue?
We need a 3rd party arborist report, and a list of approved arborists to draw from that is updated regularly.
Do arborists apply to be on it? Would an arborist on staff be fundable? or could existing staff (Dave?) be
designated to do reports?
Longer term issues discussed: `view covenants' in some Critical Areas conflict and have lack of clarity for
dealing with them. Anna mentioned Dave's attempts to create an Urban Forestry Division in the past.
Joan is looking at non -represented positions, and what specialties are needed on staff. Can existing
positions be used? What are the Tree Board's recommendations or needs? Consultants? We need
stronger, clearer enforcement guidelines. Anna mentioned finding funding for additional staff with fees
(permits, fines, ?) geared to support this.
In The Board's November meeting, we will be talking about Tree Code with staff present.
Jeff had suggested we temporarily adopt an existing tree code from another city to bridge the gap until we
get ours revised. The last major rewrite was before 1980 and was focused more on tree clearing than tree
protection. If speed is a concern, we should focus on Title 18 and work directly with Council. The Board
should look at both 18.45 and 23.40 for inconsistencies and make recommendations to Council. Critical
Areas stuff would go to the Planning Board and a public hearing.
Possible city codes to study/use:
Mercer Island, Bellevue, Issaquah, Lynnwood, Shoreline.
Public information is important —a newsletter to update people? A panel discussion with arborists on view
issues? Susan discussed some of the problems with Seattle's interim code, but one goal was to plant as
much as possible. There is $0 permit fee for homeowners, but education provided when applied for. `Baby
steps' are best when creating standards for Public Right -of -Way, etc.
Could 2 or 3 Board members meet and come up with an agenda and compile info on existing codes
before next meeting?
Other business:
Should we start recording the meetings and produce "summary" written minutes, to save on note -taking?
Anna talked about her Canopy Assessment project and that a staff member can be of great help if 8 hours
of his time can be budgeted.
Homework: please read codes 18.45 and 23.40.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Sandy Seligmiller