The Edmonds City Council is scheduled to discuss draft Edmonds Tree Code during its Tuesday, Jan. 26 business meeting.
As we reported in our December 2020 story, developing a new tree code was one of the original tasks of the Edmonds Tree Board when it was created in 2010. Specifically, the board was charged to come up with a tree ordinance that would “preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees on parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur,” and in addition encourage Edmonds citizens to become “active stewards of the urban forest.” Prior to this, Edmonds did not have a tree code per se, with regulations related to trees scattered throughout other elements of the city code. A major goal of this rewrite was to bring all these pieces together into a comprehensive tree code (detailed background information is available here).
The year-long effort resulted in a draft tree code, which was reviewed by the Planning Board in 2015. The draft sparked considerable public controversy, pitting those who favored a less-restrictive code against those advocating for higher levels of protection and preservation of Edmonds’ urban forest. Ultimately the Edmonds Planning Board agreed that developing a tree code in the absence of guiding policy framework was like “putting the cart before the horse.” Instead, they recommended abandoning action on the tree code itself and instead develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to guide the code development process.
Now in place, the main goal of the UFMP is to “maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage” through updated tree regulations aimed at reducing clearcutting, changes to tree replacement requirements, and penalties for code violations. Further, it adopts a policy of no net loss to overall canopy coverage, ensures protection of trees in environmentally critical areas, and establishes a “tree bank” fund to cover the costs of plantings and other tree programs. The tree bank would be funded by donations and tree code violation penalty fees.
A public hearing on the tree code is scheduled for Feb. 2.
In other action, the council is scheduled to:
– Review two employment agreements: One for Acting Police Chief Jim Lawless and the other for City Council Legislative/Executive Assistant Maureen Judge.
– Review proposed building and fire code updates.
– Hear reports from councilmembers regarding board and committee assignments.
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. via Zoom. To join, comment, view or listen to the meeting in its entirety, paste the following into a web browser using a computer or smart phone: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261. Or join by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261
Those wishing to provide audience comments using a computer or smart phone are instructed to raise a virtual hand to be recognized. To provide audience comments by dial-up phone, press *9 to raise a hand. When prompted, press *6 to unmute.
In addition to Zoom, the meeting will be streamed live on the council meeting webpage, and via cable TV on Comcast channel 21, and Ziply channel 39.
If the top political contributions come from land developers, year after year, should the tree folks just cut to the chase?
The tree board and tree code are a waste of everyone’s time and money and shouldn’t even be in the context of the business of running a city. Be thankful we have the trees we still have in our parks; take care of them and move on. Let the private preservation groups and movers and shakers save all the trees they can. This isn’t city government’s business or in it’s best interest.
Good Morning Mr. Wright.
The Tree Board is a volunteer Board just like other Council advisory boards. The Tree Board IS NOT responsible for crafting code. Having said that, in 2010 when the Tree Board was established, it was placed under the management of Council as the Administration indicated they could not manage the new Board. As such one of its mission statement was to craft a Tree Code and well – most of us remember how those planning board and Council meetings turned out as the code was primarily crafted by a consultant, Councilmember Bloom, Tree Board Members and some administrative assistance. Soon after that debacle, the Tree Board was placed under the Administration like all committees/boards and the Tree Board’s Mission was completely revamped removing any code crafting. The Tree Board is included in any early discussions of Tree issues and can opine as individual members of the group.
I have been the liaison to the Tree Board for six years and the outreach and educational work this team has done in terms is noteworthy (they have received Tree City USA growth awards for past five years). Their Mission can be found on the website with one key statement being educating citizens on their motto “Right Tree, Right Place”.
Council member Buckshnis,
As the Council liaison to the Edmonds Tree board at the time you reference, I was NOT a voting member and was NOT involved in crafting the code. You are significantly mis-representing the role that Council members are supposed to play as non-voting liaisons to boards and commissions.
It’s surprising to me that you would make that error after the years you have served as a Council member. Can the citizens thus assume that you have used your Council liaison role to “lobby” boards and commissions in support of your own policy positions?
Dear Joan,
I am sorry…I meant you were the liaison and apologize that I made it sound like you were part of the crafting process as we both know, we are at board and committee meetings only as there as a resource and that can be found in all the Tree Board Minutes found on the website. So, gross error in that one sentence. You did a wonderful job as the liaison for so many years while it was under the City Council to manage which is NOT a role of the legislative branch. The onesous of the crafting of the first Code should have been the Administration. So, I am sorry I mis-wrote this sentence and mis-characterized the situation – but City records will show that you were the liaison and no more.
I hope what doesn’t get loss in this discussion is that the Tree Board is NO LONGER responsible for the crafting of code and that the Board is now under the Administration wing.
Council Member Buckshnis demonstrates a great deal of competency and political savvy by responding to former CM Bloom with a clarification, an apology and some genuine regret for how she said/wrote something. We don’t see this in politics very often, and imho we don’t see it nearly enough.
Good Morning Diane. Thanks for setting me straight on a couple things. I don’t always agree with you on Council but I think you are one of the best, if not the best at looking at and discussing all the issues. And trying to demand answers that need to be given by an often reluctant administration.
I have no problem with a tree board as an advisory group to the administration or just citizens in general. A great group of people with good intentions for sure. What I have a problem with is our city government getting into the business of creating fines and proclaiming tree winners and losers, more work for staff, and over intrusion into what should be private property decisions. In my view city government should just be about smooth and efficient running of a city and trees pretty much come into official consideration only in the context of safety and park care.
More generally speaking I think our city government is in serious trouble as constituted presently, with too many special interests and special causes just getting in the way of general good management of the basics. I see you as more part of the solution than part of the problem. Thanks for all your time and efforts to make Edmonds an even better place to live. Clint
Wait, I thought racism was the problem here? Now we have tree issues too? I can’t take the stress of it all anymore, so I might have to move to a town with less systemic racism and without any trees. I know Phoenix is nice this time of year.
Just to make clear, the Tree Board did not write the proposed Tree Code before the City Council this week. It was written by Mr. Kernen Lien of the Planning Division under the Development Services Department.
The Tree Board is an educational tree advocate citizens group. The tree board made no tree code recommendations to the City Council. The tree code draft was presented to the Tree Board by Mr. Lien last November. The Tree Board asked questions of Mr. Lien but did not request any changes to the proposed Tree Code. The Tree Board did not take any votes concerning the tree code.
It is the norm for cities of our size and larger to have a Tree Code as part of their city codes. All of our nearby neighboring cities have tree codes except Mount Lake Terrace and Mukilteo.
Most tree codes address all the trees in a city including trees on developed private property.
The proposed tree code before Council only concerns retaining a percentage of trees on lots up for development. That is about 3 % of the residential land in Edmonds.
The 97% of our residential area that is already developed holds most of our cities’ tree canopy. That already developed land is where most of our tree canopy loss is occurring.
It is my opinion that all trees should be valued. A notification system should be set up to notify the city of any tree loss. Any tree, any where, at any time, for what ever reason should be accounted for. The city should set up an “offset” tree bank where multiple replacement trees can be planted to replace all the trees being cut down.
Trees are renewable. But we gotta plant the new ones to replace the ones we’re losing. Thank you.
“Any tree, anywhere at any time, for whatever reason should be accounted for.” Man, the tree police and city records clerks are going to be pretty busy around Edmonds with that task put before them. In other words someone at city has to tell me what trees I can take out or put in by location; when I can do this; what variety of trees I can and can’t remove or plant; and what I can and can’t do in relation to water views in view corridors.
Bill, I totally respect the fact that you are trying to work for the good of our environment but I can’t support that draconian idea of how the city should help save the planet. Repeating what I’ve said before on MEN, I will never buy a tree permit to remove or plant on my property and I won’t pay any fines or fill out any records required in this regard. I encourage everyone in town to do the same. They can’t put us all in “tree jail” but with the way things seem to be going in this town, I’m sure they will try.
I want to preface this with I love my trees on my property but I’m not sure if anyone really realizes that Edmonds was originally a logging town with shingle mills packed along the waterfront until the early 1950’s. Most of Edmonds was clear cut by the 1900’s, you can still find remains of old growth trees cut down along Olympic View Drive in Southwest County Park. Look at any photo of Edmonds in the early 1900’s and there is barely a single tree to be found anywhere. The idea that the city is preserving Legacy or landmark trees is false in most cases. Take a walk into the Edmonds Museum you can see the pictures for yourself. Nearly all the trees you see today where planted in the last 90 years by private homeowners and developers. It’s private property, what happened to property owners rights? Also the city Edmonds has clearly established that the rules with development don’t apply to them. Look at the construction of the waterfront center right next to the Puget Sound, tons of concrete bulkheads and stairs right into the sand and the waters edge. But a land owner next to a stream cant even build a deck within 40-90 feet of it and now someone cant cut a tree down. I think its time to give homeowners their rights back and stop the city from deciding whats best for our properties. Guess what, the beauty of trees, they are a renewable resource that grow back and pretty fast at that.
Snohomish County has had a tree code for years. I understand it is working well, at least according to annual reports the County issues. Have not heard of complaints about it from environmental groups or from property owners.
Why does Edmonds have to reinvent the wheel for something as basic as preserving/expanding tree canopy? It would be pretty simple to do and hopefully not as intrusive to private properties. Adopt the Snohomish County tree code and move on to other issues.
Hi John. I invite you to read the minutes from the last Planning Board meeting we had about the tree code (starting with Packet Page 11 of the link provided). We did initially share your sentiment and asked staff to bring it back for comparison and review. We discovered once we did that it would not have been the most beneficial choice. I even asked if it would be of benefit in the long run, and the answer was no.
http://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2776&Inline=True
I struggle with trees that have been “topped” over time to clear view corridors for more people to the Sound. I have six (now widow makers) that were topped about 20-25 years ago to open up the view for newer homes on the hill in the community. So my predicament is – I want the trees, but the only way to keep my yard safe and my house safe is to have them topped again or to have them cut down entirely. They are about 48-60″ in diameter – now I have to let someone else determine, probably file a permit, have a study done, when you can look at them and say, “Hell, that isn’t safe…” Coming from Florida – where there are tree point systems, upland, wetland, clear cut, impact fees, and the like (there are a million schema, and when they come in and clear beautiful cedar, magnoila, oak, and southern yellow pine to build 500 spec homes, it is sad). Having a penalty based system (that cannot be waived for the City itself or the community) does not sound all that bad. I liked the description of the fees as as well, as long as those fees are limited by law to go to the preservation and development of the tree canopy. I watched the presentation, and agree, we need to preserve and protect the canopy. A good floor is net zero loss, with associated gains made where possible, and to some degree, punitive fees for developers (both commercial and residential) that seek to remove trees for the sake of additional housing capacity. I applaud the work the tree commission did – there is no way in the world they are going to be able to present an alternative that makes everyone happy all of the time, and they did present alternatives. Council?