A proposed ordinance to require an extensive permitting system for removing trees from private residential property and other tree standards in Edmonds appears to be headed for rejection. The City of Edmonds Planning Board is recommending the City Council reject the proposed tree code. The issue is on the City Council’s agenda for June 9.
Here’s what the City of Edmonds had to say in an announcement Friday afternoon:
The City of Edmonds Planning Board is recommending the City Council reject the proposed tree code. The issue is on the City Council’s agenda for June 9th.
The Planning Board voted to recommend against the proposal after studying it over the last three months and holding a public hearing on May 27th. About 175 people came to the hearing, mostly to express their frustration with the proposal. In addition to requiring an extensive permitting system for removing trees from private residential property, the proposed tree code also would have required a minimum tree density for most properties within the city and set other standards that were seen as onerous by property owners and residents.
“Trees are an emotional issue,” said Mayor Dave Earling. “Most people love trees in the right places, but they hate anyone telling them they need to go through a difficult process to decide what trees they can remove or plant on their property.”
Developing a tree ordinance had been tasked by the City Council to a group of local citizens appointed to form the Tree Board. The Tree Board selected a consultant in early 2014, held public meetings, and worked on ideas for a new tree code. The members finalized a proposal and sent it to the Planning Board, a different group of citizens that advise the City Council on various planning and development issues.
“We had been hearing concerns from people about the Tree Board’s proposal,” stated Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, “but it wasn’t something that had come to us yet.” Proposals for changing the land use code typically go to the Planning Board for a recommendation before being sent to the City Council.
Fraley-Monillas says she has heard about the Planning Board’s recommendation. “But now,” she adds, “it’s time for the Council to get the formal report so we can put people’s concerns to rest. Trees are great, but property rights are important, too.”
According to the city’s Development Services Director, Shane Hope, the Planning Board’s recommendation has three main parts: first, rejecting the proposed tree code; second, considering minor changes to the existing code that would add clarity or make information easier to find; and third, developing a management plan with goals and policies for trees that the public can support. Hope’s department had also recommended rejecting the proposed tree code.
“The Planning Board wants to have a well-thought-out policy framework before considering any significant rule changes,” says Hope, noting that the framework could recognize the value of views and solar access, as well as good tree management, and identify how trees on public property should be maintained. It could focus on education and community priorities.
“Look,” said Mayor Earling recently. “The tree code proposal was far over-reaching. But I don’t fault the Tree Board members. They worked hard on drafting a code and didn’t have clear policy guidance to build from. I think we have all learned lessons from this process and I’m glad it doesn’t have to go any further or be repeated. Meanwhile, we appreciate the public’s message about the tree choices they want to continue making themselves.”
Great! Now can we please move on and address more serious problems?
Wait, let’s don’t toss the baby with the storm water! Maybe the proposed fines and regulations could be less rigorous, but Edmonds needs a sound policy to protect its urban forest. In recent years there has been a huge reduction in our forest and the massacre continues by housing developers. It’s a death of a thousand cuts. Birds and other wildlife depend on trees for their habitat. Large conifers (and the duff under them) help slow the dissipation of rainfall to prevent flooding, which helps protect Puget Sound from rapid run-off during heavy rains. Does anyone remember the flooding on I-5 near Chehalis after the clear cutting took place on nearby ridges? Let’s step back and take a science-based look at this.
Science has shown that the less we do to our natual environment by the shores of the sea, the less problems we will have with erosion at our seashores. There is right now a scientific map of the seashores all around the United States and they have been heavily eroded because of man. Many towns are having to bring in sand from elsewhere for their beaches. One can see the clear erosion in many places in Edmonds.
Maybe not such drastic fees (except for developers that have a history of taking down every tree on land they are developing) but having some regulation and EDUCATION so people are fully aware of the consequenses and destruction that is being done for future generations. …..and yes, fines for those that dont follow laws and rules. Again, no man is an island and we dont live in the holler here.
A favorite poem of mine and many by a man who cared deeply about our natural world and made us aware of how alive it is and part our living souls also, Mr. Robert Frost
Sand Dunes
“Sea waves are green and wet
But up from where they die
rise others vaster yet
And those are brown and dry
They are the SEA MADE LAND
To come at the fisher town
And bury in solid sand
The men she could not drown
She may know cove and cape
But she does not know mankind
If by any change of shape
She hopes to cut off mind
Men left her a ship to sink
They can leave her a hut as well
And be but more free to think
For the one more cast off shell”
I agree with Mr. Sanderlin….science based and not developers make a profit short term gain for few speak
We have this right here, “sea made land”
My research indicates that Sound Tree Solutions with the consultant , Elizabeth Walker, has been inactive under corporations since about 2013 and I thought I read this consulting business retired……….Perhaps I missed something
“While I have been working with a handfull of communities on urban forest strategic planning, my new life requires I focus on selling mature nursery stock (to clean the land) , feed pigs and ducks, train Teako to be a “farm dog”…etc. from Ms. Walkers farm blog for Stellaluna Farm
with notation of Spring 2015 – New Chapter On Farm
stellalunafarm.org
So I guess Im wondering if the corporation license for this business expired in 2013, is the consulting business under a different name?…….up to date on urban forest codes, laws, regulations, etc right now today right now, etc…….?? Did our city pay for a consultation by this person and where is that?…….
.I also did not see where the total plan has been rejected for the City of Edmonds and I guess if that is true the citizens should be able to review the consultation information given by Ms. Walker regarding this and the consultation fees paid and when
Maybe Ive missed something here
My research indicates that Sound Tree Solutions with the consultant , Elizabeth Walker, has been inactive under corporations since about 2013 and I thought I read this consulting business retired……….Perhaps I missed something
“While I have been working with a handfull of communities on urban forest strategic planning, my new life requires I focus on selling mature nursery stock (to clean the land) , feed pigs and ducks, train Teako to be a “farm dog”…etc. from Ms. Walkers farm blog for Stellaluna Farm
with notation of Spring 2015 – New Chapter On Farm
stellalunafarm.org
So I guess Im wondering if the corporation license for this business expired in 2013, is the consulting business under a different name?…….up to date on urban forest codes, laws, regulations, etc right now today right now, etc…….?? Did our city pay for a consultation by this person and where is that?…….
.I also did not see where the total plan has been rejected for the City of Edmonds and I guess if that is true the citizens should be able to review the consultation information given by Ms. Walker regarding this and the consultation fees paid and when
Maybe Ive missed something here
Ken, I looked at the Tree Board minutes and found them lacking in votes taken and discussions.
Don – I am a little confused about the time of your post…..it looks like you were addressing my posts made 4 hours AFTER your post with a time stamp of 9:49 AM. I know that My Edmonds News was down for a while yesterday afternoon….maybe the time stamp of your post is wrong.
I recommend reading the December 4, 2014 Tree Board Meeting Minutes. There are many examples of motions, seconds and votes.
The minutes also document that no public comments were made:
“Board Member Paine opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Board Member Paine closed the public hearing.”
I wonder why nobody was there for that important December 4, 2014 Public Hearing whereas “About 175 people came to the hearing” last Wednesday night.
There was an issue with time stamp of comments yesterday due to a hardware upgrade.
Another poem by Robert Frost:
“THE fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.”
It is time to move on.
I am alarmed by this press release.
The Planning Board voted to: “Defer any action on the currently prepared draft.” The Planning Board did not vote to abandon or reject anything. Rejecting the proposed Edmonds Tree Ordinance would be an action and the Planning Board clearly voted to “Defer any action….”
What motivated the City and Mayor Earling to issue a press release Friday that makes the following representation:
“The City of Edmonds Planning Board is recommending the City Council reject the proposed tree code.”
I see the possible benefit of deferring any action on the currently prepared draft…but why is Mayor Earling selling it as a recommendation to take action and reject?
Why did that Press release also fail to mention the role played by Mayor Earling’s staff related to the selection of a consultant in early 2014 and his staff’s related work on ideas for a new tree code? Instead, the Press Release only mentions the citizens appointed to the tree board….as if they did everything on their own.
The Press Release actually states the following:
“The Tree Board selected a consultant in early 2014, held public meetings, and worked on ideas for a new tree code.”
I can find no evidence that the Tree Board selected a consultant in the 2014 Tree Board minutes.
The June 5, 2014 Tree Board Agenda contained the following:
8) New Business – discussion of the consultant selection process and next steps.
Despite this, the June 5, 2014 Tree Board Minutes state the following:
Elizabeth Walker has been contracted to review and organize areas of the City of Edmonds city code that pertain to tree ordinances, policies, etc.
Does this mean Elizabeth Walker was contracted by somebody before the June 5, 2014 Tree Board Meeting? Hopefully Mayor Earling and his staff will clarify this promptly.
I have searched the Tree Board meeting minutes for any mention of Elizabeth Walker prior to June 5, 2014 and have found no such mention. If true, how and when would the Tree Board have selected a consultant?
The more I read this Press Release….the more I am disgusted by it. I salute our volunteer Citizen ADVISORY Boards….including the Tree Board. The Tree Board has no authority to pass Ordinances and change laws.
There was a significant public process that was supposed to follow the work that was done by Mayor Earling’s staff, the paid consultant and the Tree Board.
Mayor Earling states that the Tree Code proposal was “far over-reaching”
I trust that will be worked out via the public process in the future. In the meantime, our existing tree related code remains “….fragmented, difficult for citizens to understand, often conflicting, and cumbersome for staff to implement.” The words in quotes are City staff’s words, not mine.
Well Edmonds used to have farm land, when we moved to Edmonds years ago there were horses, cows, chickens, goats and a lot of rambler type homes. There were large lots. I agree the building and tearing down homes to put in 3 -5 more homes should stop. I miss seeing the horses. If we want to bring Edmonds back to its original state how many years are we going back to and why only the trees lets bring back the horses and other farm life!
Can I start my own Committee maybe I should for the right to farm life on your property, I will remove your dogs and cats and replace them with cows and horses of my Committee’s choice!
I am just saying – no I am not serious.
I attended the Planning Board’s meeting on the proposed tree ordinance. It was a fantastic experience. Rarely, in a public meeting have I heard opposition to a proposal met with such thoughtful and intelligent comment.
Although My Edmonds News reported that there was booing and hissing at this meeting, I heard no such expressions and I did not leave until the meeting was adjourned. On the contrary, without exception, every speaker upon leaving the podium received applause. Some applause was resounding and some merely polite, but it was there. Toward the end of the evening, Dawna Lathi, spoke as an advocate of a tree ordinance. She was pretty much a lone voice and yet she received a polite round of applause. Amazing.
This is clearly a group of citizens willing to work together to save what is most unique and iconic in our city, our water views prime among them. I am among those who believe we need a balanced approach to preserving what we love here. Western Washington is tree filled; however, not every community has a waterfront, views of the Sound and the Olympic Mountains. I believe we can preserve a lush environment without sacrificing what is iconic in our city. When we moved here 19 years ago, views of the water, the ferries and the Olympic Mountains were on display as we headed west on either 212th St or 196th Street. Those views are now choked out by the rampant overgrowth of Alder trees hanging out over the streets.
As we work to preserve the beauty that surrounds us, let us also think of the travesty of the wires, cables and boxes stretching across our skies. How did we let this happen and can we please do something to correct this oversight? It truly trashes up our beautiful natural environment.
As for the Findings (for ordinance):
I wish to address a few:
“The trees in the city of Edmonds:”
#1. “Improve the value of properties.” I spoke with Matt Terwilliger, County Appraiser, and he said landscape is not considered in property appraisal.
#12. “Contribute to human health improvement by lowering level of fear of residents, and less violent and aggressive behavior by it’s citizens.” Wow! That’s quite a statement. I believe it came from the definition of an Urban Forest but does it really apply here? I think not and find it far reaching at the least and embarrassingly ridiculous to have this a part of the “findings”.
Finally, I don’t think we need to spend time or money pursuing the Urban Forest designation. Let’s take care of the streets, sidewalks, overgrowth and hanging wires first. That should keep us busy for quite awhile.
Let’s come together with a plan for the beautification of Edmonds as a complete entity. From what I saw and heard at the Planning Board meeting, we have the natural resources and committed citizenry to do just this.