2015-06-04 Tree Board MinutesEDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD
APPROVED MINUTES
June 4, 2015
The Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Steve Hatzenbeler in
the Brackett Room, 3Id Floor City Hall, 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Steve Hatzenbeler, Chair
Ronald Brightman
Barbara Durr
Rick Zitzmann
Renee Travis (Alternate) [arrived at 6:12 p.m.]
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Anna Heckman, Vice Chair
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hatzenbeler called the meeting to order.
2. ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
See above.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Joan Bloom —City Councilmember
Chair Hatzenbeler relayed Item 7, Moratorium Against Street Tree Removal Downtown, will be
postponed to a future agenda due unavailability of staff.
Board Member Zitzmann moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by Board Member
Durr. Motion carried unanimously.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roberta Poletes, Edmonds, a resident on Daly between 71h & 81h, advised she had attended Tree
Board meetings in the past and returned after attending the Planning Board public hearing. She
relayed there are no longer any sparrows in her and her neighbors' yards, due in part she believed to
the absence of mid -range trees where small birds nest. Chair Hatzenbeler inquired about tree
removal/planting in her neighborhood in the past few years. Ms. Poletes replied there had not been
much in the past few years. A brief discussion followed regarding the impact of cats on the bird
population.
Dawn Runyan, Edmonds, asked what will happen as result of the Planning Board's public hearing.
Chair Hatzenbeler said the Board plans to discuss that under agenda item 6c. Ms. Runyan replayed
her observation that there are trees on every property between her residence on 8th & Pine and
Harbor Square. She questioned the concern with tree removal when there seemed to be an
abundance of trees and people caring for them.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented he was glad to see the incredible showing of citizens at the
Planning Board public hearing. He suggested the public needed to be educated about the role of
Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Minutes
June 4, 2015
Page 1
citizen advisory boards and how the Tree Board worked with staff and the consultant to draft the
proposed Tree Code. As a very strong advocate of private property rights, he did not support several
things in the proposed Tree Code, especially as it applied to singe family lots that cannot be
subdivided. However, there were valuable things in the 18-page ordinance such as the 4 pages of
definitions. He explained one of the drivers behind this effort was flaws in the current code; it is
inconsistent, regulations are in different sections of the code, it is difficult for citizens to understand
and for staff to enforce, and it has been enforced unevenly in past. He described tree removal that
has occurred on parcels surrounding his property. He summarized not all citizens who support
property rights are totally opposed to the Tree Code. He was hopeful some elements of the Tree
Code would be enacted in the future such as the definitions.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed there are concerns with development and suggested the Tree
Board educate the public about topping trees. At the Planning Board public hearing, the majority of
speakers felt very strongly about what was presented. He felt the Tree Code was a result of the
consultant and possibly the Tree Board not understanding the community although he assumed the
Tree Board probably did now. He recalled comments at the public hearing regarding the urban forest,
Tree City USA, view protection, private property rights, and the impact of trees on solar energy
generation. He suggested the most important topics related to the Tree Code are light and view. He
assumed the tree ordinance was driven by Tree City USA; Edmonds has enough trees and does not
need that designation.
Ken Reidy said this process was initiated by staff, the consultant and the Tree Board. His impression
from the Planning Board public hearing was people believed the Tree Board was empowered with
establishing law. In reality, the Tree Board plays a valuable citizen advisory role at the first level in
the process and multiple levels and opportunities for review will follow before any new regulations are
adopted.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 2015
Board Member Zitzmann moved; seconded by Board Member Durr to approve the minutes of May 7,
2015. Motion carried unanimously.
6. OLD BUSINESS/DISCUSSION
a. Marina Beach PAC
Board Member Brightman reported he did not attend the meeting as he was not informed the date
had been changed. He will inquire about next steps.
b. Street Tree Plan Update
Ms. Hope distributed minor amendments to the Street Tree Plan:
• Changes to Street Tree species
• New map(clearer version of old map)
She invited board members to inform her of any concerns with the Street Tree Plan update. The
Planning Board will review and hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan as a whole at
their June 10 meeting. She recognized the Street Tree Plan may need to be need additional
amendments in the future.
Discussion by board members, audience members, Councilmember Bloom and Ms. Hope
followed regarding identification of street tree locations on the map, material in tree wells to allow
roots to expand (silva cells), difference between street trees and trees in the right-of-way, failure
of street trees, right tree right place, view blockage, tree heights, importance of trees to habitat,
Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Minutes
June 4, 2015
Page 2
community benefits versus private property rights, trees in the document that are not suitable as
street trees, and inclusion of photographs in the Street Tree Plan in a future update.
Board Member Brightman said recommendations regarding tree selection that he emailed to Park
Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay are not reflected in the document. Ms. Hope offered to obtain
Board Member Brightman's email and forward it to the Planning Board. Board Member Brightman
noted the representations of mature tree sizes in the document are not accurate.
c. Proposed Tree Code Progress — Planning Board Public Hearing Recap
Chair Hatzenbeler acknowledged a significant percentage of the feedback on the proposed Tree
Code at the Planning Board public hearing was negative. Councilmember Bloom provided a
summary of the Planning Board's review and decision from the City's website: The Planning
Board reviewed the draft code over 4 meetings from February 2014 to a well -attended May 27,
2015 public hearing. The Planning Board made a three-part recommendation regarding the draft
tree code:
A. Defer any action on the currently prepared draft. Complete development and adoption of an
Urban Forestry Management Plan for the City of Edmonds as proposed within the
Comprehensive Plan,
B. Consolidate existing tree code sections under existing policy guidelines during the Edmonds
Community Development Code rewrite process currently in progress; and,
C. Following development of an Urban Forestry Management Plan, consolidation of potential
revised tree code could be written consistent with policy directions provided within the Urban
Forestry Management Plan.
Chair Hatzenbeler referred to a follow-up article in the today's Beacon with quotes from Mr. Lien,
Ms. Hope and him. Although many of the people at the public hearing were upset about the
proposed Tree Code, there was also a great deal of insightful information that the Tree Board
should have considered. He was disappointed some of those ideas were not introduced by the
consultant and was hopeful some elements in the draft Tree code will be carried forward. Input
from the public hearing will form a foundation for Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) when
that occurs.
Susan Paine, former Tree Board Member, explained an UFMP provides the framework for best
practices according to the policies set by the elected body for implementing a broad and
comprehensive plan for canopy coverage as determined by the community. Ms. Hope added a
UFMP also addresses tree management.
Discussion between board members, audience members, Councilmember Bloom and Ms. Hope
followed regarding the cost of tree maintenance to the City, heightened awareness that increases
community participation and results in a better product, availability of permitting systems to
reduce the cost of a tree removal permit, determining an appropriate canopy cover, limited
participation by the public at the Tree Board level, the public's resentment of the City forcing them
to do something, concern with misinformation in the City's press release, process for updating the
Tree Code, process for selecting the consultant, sharing responsibility for the draft Tree Code
instead of pointing fingers, public safety related to trees, including more information about trees
on the City's website, public outreach during development of the Tree Code, and concern
speakers at the public hearing did not represent all Edmonds citizens.
Discussion continued regarding misinformation and misrepresentation during public comment at
the Planning Board's public hearing, trees as a community asset not just a private property rights
issue, permits the City requires for other activities, the City's right to manage trees, concern the
public will push to have the Tree Board disbanded if board members continue to advocate for the
Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Minutes
June 4, 2015
Page 3
proposed Tree Code, the public's interest in managing their own trees, adopting an UFMP before
a Tree Code, value of some of the information in the proposed code, information included in the
proposed code at staff's request (definitions, consolidation, enforcement and fines for violations),
incorporating definitions in the code rewrite, funding for an UFMP, and public process as part of
the development of an UFMP.
Chair Hatzenbeler expressed frustration that staff did not inform the Tree Board of their
recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the proposed Tree Code; the Tree Board
thought staff supported moving forward with the Tree Code. Councilmember Bloom suggested
staff should have recommended the Tree Board rework portions of the Code they did not support.
Instead, the Tree Board has become a scapegoat for citizens' frustration regarding private
property issues and a lot of damage control now needs to occur to establish any level of support
in the community. Discussion continued regarding concern with misinformation in the City's press
release and staff's concerns with the proposed Tree Code.
d. Tree Board Staff Support Update
Councilmember Bloom explained a funding request for Tree Board support was presented to the
Council on Tuesday. The Council requested Mayor Earling investigate having staff provide the
necessary support to the Tree Board and the Diversity Commission. Ms. Hope said the Tree
Board has had administrative support as well as some staff support in the past although there has
not been a specific staff person assigned to the Board.
Discussion followed regarding tasks a consultant would perform, funds available in the budget for
Tree Board support, role of the Tree Board, difficulty providing staff support within existing
resources, adding a GIS layer to identify the existing canopy, the Council making a final decision
on the draft Tree Code, and minimal staff support provided in the past.
Chair Hatzenbeler expressed appreciation to audience members for their input.
e. Goals for 2015 — How Do We Get There?
Heritage Tre Program
No progress is anticipated until late 2015 when staff has more time available.
• Outreach and Education
• Right -of -Way and Easement Tree List
• Tree Board Website Update — Suggestions?
Chair Hatzenbeler requested board members bring suggestions to the next meeting. Board
Member Brightman suggested the main focus of the website be outreach and education.
• Staff Arborist
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Moratorium Against Street Tree Removal Downtown
This item was postponed to a future meeting due to unavailability of staff.
Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Minutes
June 4, 2015
Page 4
8. TREE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Zitzmann requested a copy of the inventory of trees of interest that Board Member
Brightman provided at a previous meeting.
Chair Hatzenbeler said he will be absent from the next meeting.
Board Member Durr reported on the Urban Forest Symposium she attended. She noted many cities have
plans that could be used as a model. For example Vancouver's Tree Board is integrated into Public
Works. A brief discussion followed regarding tree codes in other view cities.
Board Member Travis remarked the people upset about the Tree Code came to the public hearing; the
people that liked it did not. She expressed her appreciation for board members' time.
9. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Next Meeting: Thursday, July 2, 6:00 p.m., Brackett Room, City Hall
Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Minutes
June 4, 2015
Page 5