2012-12-06 Tree Board MinutesCity of Edmonds
Citizen Tree Board
Approved Meeting Summary Minutes
December 6, 2012
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Anna -Marie Heckman, Chair.
Members present: John Botton, Steve Hatzenbeler, Anna -Marie Heckman, Susan Paine,
Sandy Seligmiller, Rebecca Wolfe
Members absent: none
Staff present: Kernen Lien, Dave Timbrook
City Council Liaison present: Joan Bloom
Public attendees: none
Approval of the November 2012 minutes was postponed for next meeting.
Old Business
Progress and discussion concerning Tree Code revisions was summarized. Priorities for the process are:
definitions, penalties/fees, and enforcement. It was suggested that the City may not be charging enough
for fees to cover overhead. The current fee schedule is adopted by resolution and is not in the code. It
was last updated in 2009. Susan mentioned Seattle's economic model.
Anna discussed the yearly Tree Board summary presentation to be made to Council in February. It will
include slides and cover these topics:
— our recommendations and what we need from Council
— our progress in our Tree City USA membership and yearly reapplication
Outreach: Edmonds Alive, Watershed Fun Fair, Farmers Market, Fourth of July parade,
Edmonds in Bloom. More than 180 trees were given away, visibility created, and valuable
contacts made.
Education:
— Lake Forest Park's `Community Forest Management Plan' presentation in March
— Linden Lampman-Mead;'s presentation on `the role and importance of tree boards'
in April
— 'Community Tree Management Institute' course taken by Board members Anna and
Sandy from March through October
Projects:
— Tree Canopy Cover Analysis
— Heritage Tree Program Proposal
— Planning and discussion for updating Tree Code
— Becoming a Tree City USA and meeting Growth Awards
We need to continue to develop new opportunities for educational outreach and education, both for
the Board and for the public, to continue to receive Tree City USA Growth Awards.
Possibilities include:
— Tree University (online program) for the entire Board, maybe a session per month?
— coordinate a speaker series to improve outreach
— tree labeling in the Parks. There are some existing ones, but they are in poor shape.
Dave can help with this. It could be a short term educational opportunity, or maybe an
Arbor Day campaign.
We also need to be thinking about possible partnership opportunities.
Rebecca suggested developing a program that motivates builders not to cut trees. Anna said we're not
yet in a position to consider canopy incentives. In 2012 we were able to verify the Tree City USA
requirement that the City spend at least $2 per capita on tree -related work, which was $80K. This year the
City's budget is only $30K for Parks and $30K for Public Works, which isn't enough, and we may have
trouble meeting the goal. Rich Lindsey is working on a better way of tracking expenditures and funding.
Dave mentioned that Parks staff timesheets don't show leaf control, which is a lot of additional hours.
The Planning department also has untracked time spent on tree -related issues such as permits and
complaint resolution.
At the January meeting, we need to get our GOALS set and clear. This means creating a focused, agreed
upon list. It would be great to have this before the Council presentation, but not necessary. The Heritage
Tree Program will need the approval of Council. We will send a packet of information about the proposal
before the Council meeting and Anna's presentation. It is unclear whether such a program would need to
be written into Ordinance or Resolution, and who decides this. Kernen will check into it.
Anna's Canopy Cover Analysis shows that Edmonds existing canopy is 27.3% (plus or minus 2%). There
is 15.1 % non -pervious surface, 27.1 % pavement, and 25.6% other pervious.
American Forests
recommended Edmonds
canopy goals canopy
50% 39% single family — 77% of Edmonds
25% 2% multi family — 8% of Edmonds
15% 1 % business/commercial — 8% of Edmonds
public open space — 5% of Edmonds
There was some discussion about how trees add to property value. Joan mentioned a presentation that
suggested that planting trees 30 feet apart in a retail area can increase profit by 50%. The slowing of
traffic by planting street trees was also mentioned.
We need to see where our Single Family canopy cover is. If it's already good, maybe we need to focus on
other areas such as Street Trees (Perrinville?). They are mainly along commercial strips in the existing
Street Tree Plan. It was asked how we assess meeting our goals, since a tree's canopy is smaller at
planting. This is a reason to have a Tree Inventory for the public, to create estimates of the canopy at
different timeframes. What is an appropriate recommended canopy? How many trees need to be planted
now to reach it? Let's make this canopy percentage a goal for farther away, such as 2030. Formulating a
timeframe is part of the process.
Joan reiterated that the Council has allocated no staff time to any of this. We need a Canopy Assessment
to do the other steps toward our goals. What are we asking for from Council? How do we get this done?
How does the Board get the help it needs? Susan asked how, if we get grants, will we accept and
administer them? Who manages this? When a project is ready to go, perhaps, then, we can partner with
City personnel. Rebecca asked whether we can partner with another organization to manage grants, one
with a common goal. Anna said that if we get this GIS work done (8 hours of staff time needed) and have
a canopy cover goal (maybe 40% or less), we can discuss a timeline. We need to discuss this as a Board
and we need more information. Once you have a canopy analysis, you can move to funding a tree
inventory and locate planting space availability, then create an Urban Forest Management Plan.
Where does arboriculture fit into our city? In a typical list of city resources and allocation of funding, trees
are at the bottom. Kernen mentioned that most Boards have wording that says something about
"professional and general staff at the discretion of City Council and the Mayor..." Could this line maybe be
added to the Tree Board's charter?
New Business
There was discussion about Engineering's policy concerning removal of trees in the Right -of -Way.
Adjacent property owners can apply for a permit to remove trees in front of their house. It is approved if
there is a safety issue or the roots damage public property. Should this be changed to include private
property damage? There was an instance where Public Works root -pruned a tree a homeowner was
concerned about, but the property owner wanted it removed. The City doesn't remove Right -of -Way trees.
The Board would like to amend it's website to clarify that we are an advisory entity only and don't have
anything to do with permitting or setting policy. There is evidence of public confusion on this issue. Sandy
will look into making this clarification.
There is an outreach opportunity at Edmonds Alive again this year, on January 10. Anna has a flyer she
can email to those interested. Also, Board members are requested to tally their volunteer hours for
the year, including meetings. Be generous.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Sandy Seligmiller