Loading...
2018-04-05 Tree Board MinutesE �Notes of Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board City Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA April 5, 2018 6:00 pm 1) Call to Order Doug called the meeting at 6:00 am. Roll Call/Introductions Attendees: Tree Board Members: Steve Hatzenbeler (absent), Doug Petersen (chair), Vivian Olson, Barbara Chase, Frank Caruso (vice chair), Bill Phipps, Gail Lovell, Suzanne Juergensen (Alternate) Diane Buckshnis as City Council Liaison Carrie Hite and Shane Hope Directors from City Ian Scott and Keeley O'Connell from Davey Resource Group — Consultants for Urban Forest Management Program (UFMP) Audience Members that signed in: Ed Beaulier, Phil Lovell (Planning Board), Larry Vogel (MyEdmondsNews), Gary Nelson, Ross Dimmick, Minna Dimmick, Peter Kalapaca, Wendy Wisdom, Chris Walton, Kristi and Steve Bowman, Joe Scordino, Karen Fionito, Dawna Lahti, Joe Schmous, Todd Echlebarger, Carreen Rubenkonig (Planning Board), Eric Sull. 2) Approval of Agenda Moved and approved with no changes. 3) Audience Comments (We respectfully request that guests limit comments to 3 minutes or less) Ed Beauliere — He had a California Redwood in a little jar and said that maybe Edmonds might want to consider a grove of Redwoods. He said that trees are being removed all over the city and that folks are being contacted to have their timber purchased from timber buyers. Chris Walton — He said he was totally in favor of supporting any aspect that related to trees. He said he had many questions when reading the report: 1) there was some analyses of a 6% reduction in canopy and it was unclear as to how that happened? 2) There was public trees of 12% and private land of 88% on private land and could not understand how the report only addressed the 12% of trees on public land? 3) There was a goal to increase canopy from 30% to 50% and yet it doesn't correlate with the 6% reduction comment as well as only focusing on the 12% of Tree canopy. He wanted to know how to increase tree canopy on both public and private land. Gary Nelson - He enjoyed the graphics of the report but that there were many errors in the report: one timeline error concluded in 2048? P 7 says Edmonds is oldest City in Snohomish Cty and he questioned that fact. One table lists the prominent specifies of trees in Edmonds and he didn't think list was long enough. Talked of GMA guidelines and private property rights. James Clarke has named misspelled. Priority of planting and blockage of views is a big issue and report didn't seem to touch upon this factor. P 37 gave a long list of pests but nothing prominent to Edmonds — anyone could have provided that list. Survey — it's clear that 40% from Bowl (view) area answered the questions and these people want control of the trees and protection of views. Ross Dimmick — He is a scientist and writes EIS statements for a living and likes to focus on "purpose and need" and "what and why". From a scientific perspective, this report is a disaster as example, it refers to USFS region of HI and CA and the intercepting rainfall was in accurate as was the increased soil capacity. The fundamental science was quite disappointing from this report. Wendy Wisdom — Report needs a lot of work in the area of habitat and wildlife and that snag trees are very important to the that eco system. Dawna Lahti — She had not finished report but found that the report did not have a vision. The goals were not clear in terms of private or public property or the issues of snags or corridors. 4) Approval of Meeting Notes Moved and Approved with no corrections. 5) Old Business/Discussion • Appoint Student Rep. to Citizen Tree Board Vivian Moved and Frank seconded the approval of Leslie Smith. • Tree board pamphlet final bids for printing Moved by Vivian and seconded by Barbara that Shane would have Denise print 500 copies of the tri-fold brochure. • Update on upcoming events activity o Discussed the Earth Day Celebration at Yost Park. Diane will buy the snacks and Gail will buy the coffee. It is April 21 st starting at 9am. Doug is filling in for Steve (absent) for meeting on April 6, 2018 with Jennifer Leach (City of Edmonds). o Barbara is working with Debra Dill (City) on the Summer Market Tree Give Away. o Gail and Frank are working are working on Edmonds in Bloom Tree Identification. UFMP presentation by Ian Scott of Davey Resource Group (Power Point Presentation Part of notes) o Please refer to the entire Power Point Presentation for the full breakdown of overview, structure, principals of adaptive management and goals. Each slide was highlighted with the main themes being that the City is reactive rather than proactive. The City doesn't know the condition or inventory of the urban forest. Comments were later made that some felt the City Staff did have a pretty good understanding of the street trees and tree inventory. Davey's rebuttal was that it is not documented. o Examples of the City Resources were provided as well as city resources utilized. Comments were brought forth regarding questioning this table and Davey's rebuttal was that the information was given by staff personnel and only identified Administration and now volunteer groups. o Survey was reviewed of which the data showed: 40% from Edmonds Bowl; 15% from Seaview area (view area) and 29% from other neighborhoods and consensus was city is in reactive management mode and regulations on private property should be limited. Comment was made that the survey was skewered because it is based on over 50% of the population is in view area. o Goals were then provided on How to get to the 50% canopy or to sustain a no new loss in canopy and that City needs to move toward proactive management. City should establish a departmental working team that could document trees and work towards work plans that have adaptive management. Community goads were also given to assist in moving towards tree sustainability and adaptive management. o Next Steps came forth with meetings and public hearing at Planning Board then revisions and then update to Council. Council Member Buckshnis requested that the Council be part of the "draft revision stage" so that Council can provide the necessary input to the draft and that it would not fall on the planning board. QUESTIONS and Comments: • Tree Board Commissioner Phipps - How did the plan come up with planting 700 trees a year. Davey's Group said that was an example of a number to be used so to complete a no -net loss concept. Phipps than stated that it seemed that this goal needs to go beyond the inventory of public trees. • Chair Petersen — Stated that the report needs a lot of work and that the "tree" solution for public property and private property seem different and that the models should reflect a solution for the entire canopy. • Tree Board Commissioner Chase — Stated that there should be a list of preferred trees and deal with the goals of diversity. Some trees are more resilient and the report didn't really address the diseases and the trees affected. • Tree Board Commissioner Phipps asked to look at the priority of planting slides and said that the majority of read was right in the area of views and that it would appear that the area was fragmented. • Vice Chair Caruso (who has his doctorate in insect infestations) indicated that the report needs to provide specific pest to the Edmonds region and he named a few that should be highlighted. He also said that the conifers were not really discussed and he agreed with Ms. Chase that there needs to be more distinction and diversity in the report. Tree Board Commissioner Phipps brought up that there was not recommendations or discussion regarding a Tree Ordinance and that the report merely cited all the areas in the code that related to trees. Davey's Group stated that it was not the intent of the report to advise on any code and that Best Available Science would be of use for any code. Chair Peterson brought forth an email question regarding the cutting down of very old evergreens and replacing them with flowering trees and that cutting down a Douglas Fir and replacing it with a deciduous tree is not even addressed in the report. It was also commented that developers are just clear cutting a lot and building. Davey's Group responded that clear cutting and retaining trees is a Development Code issue and not a function for this report. He did say it is important to keep in mind "how much canopy is at risk" and what are mortality rates and this all needs to be documented in a proactive manner. Tree Board Commissioner Olsen brought up the issue of the California Redwoods and that the City needs to be cognizant as to where to place these trees that grown majestically and can be hundreds of feet high. New Business • Logo and Banner. Discussed and looked at material for banner and then discussed a runner and table cloth. Moved by Vivian and seconded by Frank to spend up to $400 for the banner (3x3 square) and table runner. • Suzanne provided a three -fold brochure of an example "small trees" and/or "trees in small places". She was asked to send that to Diane and she will have the City try and convert it to a word doc or pdf for Tree Board Members to review. 6) Tree Board Member Ideas and Comments 7) Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:45 8) Future Meeting: May 3, 2018 April 19t" in Brackett Room is next Public Open House regarding the Urban Forest Management Program